Affirmative Action is systematic institutionalized racism and sexism

Legacy admissions are not what this threads vote is about. Ironic enough...that the only actual systemic racism in america was currently against whites and Asian Americans.

All for the sake of diversity.

Some black kid stringing the n word at the end of a sentence is such an enriching experience for students that they hold back the Asian kids who but their asses trying to get somewhere in life...

 

I think it's also important to note that due to these court cases both Harvard and UNC were forced to provide their admissions processes with the courts so we got to see how the sausage is made at these universities.

The assumption people make is that legacy admissions tend to be white and therefore they are taking seats away from more deserving minorities. This is not the case. Legacy, athletic, donor, etc admissions are not based on a protected status and they do not take away from minority admissions. Harvard, for example since UNC is similar, has a screener review the applications and assigns a numerical score. Being a minority other than Asian gives you extra points. All of the applicants that make it past the first cutoff are then part of the "tentative" pool. A committee then reviews the tentative pool and they evaluate the applicants based on many factors while dismissing applicants. During this process they look at things like race and they are very conscious of not letting go of too many non-Asian minority applicants because they do not want to have fewer minority admissions than they had in the previous class year. They have no fixed quota per se, but they do have a soft quota which they are conscious of and that is to at least hit the prior year's minority enrollments.

Therefore, if a white legacy student is admitted, it takes a spot or another white kid. College admissions is a zero sum game. They have a finite number of students they can admit and minority metrics that they aim to keep... regardless of merit. Also, in order to minimize Asians, they have a "personality" metric and Harvard routinely says Asians have worse personalities than any other race. This in turn requires Asians to score higher on scholastic requirements than any other race who do not get this across the board personality demerit. Can you imagine the outcry it Harvard routinely ranked Black applicants far worse on a "personality" metric to make it harder for them to be admitted? I'm pretty sure the campus would have been burned to the ground by now. It's 100% racist. People who support this process are supporting systemic racism.

 

It seems the only crime the people in the college admissions case committed is they were rich and powerful, but not quite rich and powerful enough.

In 2019, a scandal arose over a criminal conspiracy to influence undergraduate admissions decisions at several top American universities.


Thirty-three parents of college applicants were accused of paying more than $25 million between 2011 and 2018 to William Rick Singer, organizer of the scheme, who used part of the money to fraudulently inflate entrance exam test scores and bribe college officials.


Singer faced up to 65 years in prison, and a fine of $1.25 million. In January 2023, he was sentenced to three and a half years in prison plus forfeiture of over $10 million

 

Or kids who couldn't tell an oar from a fencing foil, were listed as athletic preference recipients especially rowing
https://www.latimes.com/local/calif...n-olivia-jade-crew-rowing-20190412-story.html

 

Harvard University's "systemic nepotism" has been an open secret for a very long time.....43% of white Harvard students admitted were legacy students, children of staff, on the dean's interest list—meaning their parents or relatives have donated to Harvard—or were recruited athletes. Aside from admits in the four categories, only 57% of white student admits were meritocratic-based decisions.

 

and yet those white kids, in the average-had much stronger scores than the black affirmative racism admissions. 57% of the white kids were meritorious-how about the blacks?

 

Yeah? So when, precisely, did YOU personally start your crusade against the practice? I'm sure you can find me some examples in posts on this forum from YOU personally from before the USSC decision ending racial preferences in college admissions, right? It should be easy for you if it's been a real, ongoing concern, right?

Oh, wait.

You never spoke about the topic before? Why, exactly, is it that something you and all the others just on this one single forum find sooooo very repulsive is something that y'all have never brought up prior to this event causing a need for a scapegoat? Could it be just flat out desperation at trying to find an excuse for your racist attitudes?

Yes, people look at diversity admits with skepticism, because they are diversity admits, or hires as the case may be!

Just as history will always put an asterisk beside Justice Jackson's name in the history books because she got the job solely based upon the fact that she had a vagina, and her body is coated with skin that is darker than who she replaced. Perhaps unfairly, I don't pretend to know if she would have been at the top of the list had it not been for those factors because the person who appointed her committed to appoint someone with those attributes no matter who else might have been qualified and willing to take the job, perhaps even more qualified, eh? But, he didn't consider anyone who didn't have those attributes, so we don't know, do we?

The person you described here, but for the fact they got a higher SAT score than is even possible, would and should be admitted to just about any college in the country, but since it's a well known fact that certain categories of individuals do not have to meet such a rigorous standard, it will stain those who are in those categories even when they do, because it's a well known and documented fact that others in that category have not met that same standard. Which ones may be left to the imagination of any concerned interests, because that information isn't made public, but maybe it should be, if for no other reason than to insure people do know, eh?

 

Supposition

I don't know, but I know 43% of the white kids weren't.

Ah, there's that righty conspiracy theory again mixed with condensation. Now where have I experienced that before? Y'all ought to look up collective narcissism it's an interesting read.
Anywho, you should check out the thread Should the US Supreme Court end race-based affirmative action in university admissions? Where I have already discussed this topic some time ago.

Yes, people look at diversity admits with skepticism, and those people largely skew racist, who then have hissy fits when the subject is brought up.

Some people don't see diversity as a good thing, you know who you are, but it brings new perspectives when looking at problems, brings representation to the unrepresented and better reflects society as a whole. Elite schools are making leaders of tomorrow, even when their product is "subpar" (i.e. W and Clarence), that is a good reason to include a reflection of society, for it to be successful, because society hasn't and won't tolerate just having old white guys in charge.

BTW if you missed it, 43% of white Harvard admits "do not have to meet such a rigorous standard". Will it stain those who are in those categories even when they do, because it's a well known and documented fact that others in that category have not met that same standard.? Or will it just stain the Blacks in your opinion?

 

Lots of errors in your opinion. The first is that Harvard and other schools that use affirmative racism, have admitted that most of the blacks admitted have lower scores than the rest of the student body and lower scores than many whites and Asians who were rejected. Secondly, many legacy students and athletic recruits have as good or better grades than other applicants. I was a legacy-my SAT score was (before it was inflated) was almost 200 points higher than the average Admitted student. The top scholar in my class as well as the two classes ahead of me were legacies.

Tell me why rich black kids who attended wealthy private schools, should benefit from lowered standards compared to white and Asian kids

 

BULLSHIT!! Try listening to THIS statement of dissent. Then let’s see you refute anything it says with FACTS.

 

You seem to not want legacy admissions discussed.........why?

 

I don’t suppose you’re open to the possibility that you’re wrong. But just incase you’re objective, here is an excellent dissent by Jackson. It proves you and all the anti-affirmative action crowd are completely wrong.

https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podca...firmative-action/id1364113251?i=1000619399367

 

Wow. A rude person might find that to be racist. Of course an open-minded person like me might not.

 

Good luck getting a reply.

 

Dead end conversation as I don't believe legacy admissions should be a thing either.

You can't buy your seat. You have to earn it.

 

Diversity for the sake of diversity holds no real value.

None.

A smart kid holds value. Black or white.

 

I'm not going to listen to an hour long podcast, but I am familiar enough with her "dissent" to comment on it, and from a legal perspective, it's crap. It was written like someone might write a rant right here, mostly devoid of legal references, relied on a concept called the "Second Founding", which originated in a book, not any sort of legal concept. She also complained ad nauseum about past grievances, which at one point in time was relevant, but they all, without exception, ended well before I was born, and I'm not exactly a spring chicken anymore. She then posited a scenario of a 7th generation UNC white student-to-be, as if 7th generation admission candidates are the norm.

What she did not even make an effort to do was to justify her desire for special treatment for her own tribe against the requirements contained in the 14th Amendment that all individuals must, repeat must be treated equally under the law, something AA violates prima facia. It's that simple.

On top of that, it has long been known and agreed that the whole AA thing was to be temporary, and several decades ago, legally speaking, it was posited that it would have been concluded long before now, but that has not happened, but it is time. All in all, her dissent, which is of course legally irrelevant- It means no more than a randomly selected message on this forum- was written by someone who knows she got her job, indeed her entire career simply because she is a black woman, and does not want that favoritism to cease for the members of her own tribe who are coming behind her.

But, the majority rightly found that to be nonsensical, and decided it was time to put this blatantly illegal per the 14A system to an end, once and for all. Sadly, these liberal institutions will naturally find ways to still impose their own 'quotas', that they all but admitted to having in their zeal to insure that from year to year, admissions to blacks do not fall from the year prior, a trend that, if allowed to go to it's ultimate conclusion will eventually mean that nothing but "underprivileged" racial minorities would be the only ones even considered for admission, a situation that is untenable and improper.

Which is a long, fancy, drawn out way to say that she's full of it. And that is not at all surprising, for without it, she may not even be a lawyer, much less a USSC Justice.

 

This is such a silly argument. The only people who support legacy admissions are legacy students. The reason people are focusing on racial discrimination is because that is the topic of discussion. And, it's a false equivalence considering one is an illegal discrimination outlawed by the Constitution and the other is not.

 

What does that have to do with affirmative action, Or the constitution?

 

Like most sane people, I agree. Hence, it isn’t a policy or principle for anyone.

huh? Are you trying to say something?

 

Then you will remain ignorant of her insight and the viewpoint of blacks.

You’re right, you didn’t listen to it nor do you know anything about the subject. That is clear.

 

I'll spell it out for you since you are not getting it.

Affirmative action dumping in black kids over asian kids or white kids with higher test scores whom are more deserving of those seats in prestigious schools, hold NO VALUE. Being dumber, but black isn't good for anyone. Not good for the black student and certainly not good for those passed over so we can get the diversity numbers up. Those with the strongest test scores should absolutely be prioritized.



That work? Or should I use sock puppets next?

 

I read enough of it. It's a rant, and does not even remotely read like a judicial opinion. She gave no discussion to the law or Constitution, provided no excuse, even a weak one, for prima facia violations of the 14A, and is legally meaningless, as all dissents are. She is reacting with emotion and a sense of entitlement, not a legal analysis, and it's a complete joke. Fortunately, most of her colleagues agree with me, so...

 

Most blacks have lower scores than some whites and Asians, is not really saying anything. I can say most athletic or legacy admits have lower scores than “many” whites and Asians. What does that mean? It means you don’t like Black admissions through AA and “many” is whatever you want it to be.

Tell me why rich white kids who attended wealthy private schools, should benefit from lowered standards compared to other white and Asian kids because they are a legacy.

 

You didn't answer the question.