Should the US Supreme Court end race-based affirmative action in university admissions?

smarter whites and asians

 

a crime of violence affects everyone in the area since it causes fear among those who reside there or travel through the area

 

yep, justice shoudl be blind

I agree 100%, but the same is true if anyone does it to any group, hate crimes against the white race is as bad as any other race as an example

 

which is why crimes of violence already are supposed to have long sentences

hate crimes are for things like vandalism, it adds 5 years to the crime

 

which I disagree with-vandalism should be punished by restitution or perhaps a public caning. prison should be reserved for violent criminals

 

paining a swastika on a jews house is worse than just vandalism

 

depends on the nature of the damage.

 

Yale chooses priorities in admissions. One is admissions to legacy candidates. That doesn’t mean they get a free pass. They must meet the university's standards, be of good character, be able to pass course work, etc.. Legacy admissions have a qualification that other applicants don’t have who may have a higher GPA or SAT. Are those higher scoring applicants being discriminated against if discrimination is the systematic negative bias against a group? No, there is no bias against bright students being admitted. The way Yale values specific qualifications may put a legacy student before one with a higher GPA, but that doesn’t mean high GPA students are being discriminated against. It means qualifications are a value judgment.

Now change the word legacy to Black.

You are even making less sense.

 

your arguments are getting even less coherent. You just seem unable to understand that racial discrimination is illegal and should ban affirmative racism.

 

What a well thought out counterargument.

 

I don't hunt mice with a machine gun either

 

Because your gun is empty.

 

that's a really inane comment. Have you figured out that some discrimination does not violate the law and other forms do? when you are able to comprehend that absolute truth, you might understand why affirmative racism is wrong and should be banned by the law

BTW wanna bet how the supreme court rules on the Harvard case?

 

My comment was just another thing you don't get like hate laws or what discrimination is.

 

civil rights litigation was one of my areas of expertise. racial discrimination was a major component of that. racial discrimination is illegal in most environments. You are trying to excuse racial discrimination. Why is that

 

Your attempts to pull rank are pointless. I've made my case and you have not responded in any thoughtful way.

 

you constantly deny the obvious and ignore the fact that racial discrimination is illegal. You pretend that racial discrimination is no different than other forms of discrimination that are not illegal. SO your argument fails. You are justifying racial discrimination

 

He's already responded to your point, but it seems to have missed the mark. Let me try.

Discrimination against non-legacies is legal and nobody is claiming otherwise. There is no civil rights law protecting the non-legacy class. There are laws on the books that strictly forbid discrimination based on race. The question before the Supreme Court is whether or not race can be used as a discriminating factor for university admissions that are public or use public funding. The law is clear that racial discrimination is illegal.

The only reason it is allowed currently is because the Supreme Court made a flawed argument that they would allow universities to ignore the law for a set amount time to correct for historical injustices. There was no legal basis for it other than they wanted to help minorities get into college. The clock is running out on the maximum amount of time the Court allowed for discrimination to take place. Additionally, this ruling has now turned into universities discriminating against minorities due to their race (Asians). Plaintiffs in the case are fighting racist discrimination in college admissions. Race is a protected class. Non-legacy students are not and have nothing to do with this case.

 

Yes, someone missed the mark.
If Yale gives added weight on admission to a star athlete does that mean non-athletes are being targeted with discriminated? If a kid with an 1800 SAT is chosen over one with a 1600, does that mean non-1800s are targets of discrimination? Discrimination is unfair treatment because of who or what you are. The university decides what is fair according to its needs. The 1600 SAT kid can’t call foul because the university prioritizes a higher SAT. It gives added weight to legacy admissions and minority admissions just like it does for star lacrosse players.

It seems some people only have a problem with the system when race is involved.

 

Not being a "star athlete" is not a protected class. There is no law saying a university cannot use someone's athletic or scholarly achievements as a determinative factor in admissions. There is a law saying you cannot use race.

There is no law preventing discrimination based on SAT score.

Every type of imaginable "discrimination" isn't the focus of this case. Discrimination based on the legally protected class, race, is.

People dislike racism. We have civil rights laws. I'm sorry if you disagree with them, but that's what the Supreme Court has to interpret.

 

The point is no non-POC, non-athlete, low SAT scorer, non-legacy, etc. students were being discriminated against i.e. treated unfairly and we'll see how the right-wing court rules, but I'm not holding my breath

 

The point is the Supreme Court has to make a ruling based on the law, not your murky protestations of other forms of legal discrimination. Civil rights laws are clear on this issue. There are two primary opinions in Grutter v Bollinger:

1. Race-based admissions policies are illegal.
2. Race-based admissions policies are illegal, but we think breaking the law will be helpful. So you can break the law for now, but eventually, you have to follow the law again. We don't know how long you should break the law, but you definitely can't do it for 25 years because that would be absurd. (Note, this case was decided in 2003)

Yale and North Carolina are arguing that race-based admissions policies will continue beyond the maximum 25 years, and they believe that was an aspiration rather than a limitation. The law isn't on your side. The only thing that benefits your racist position is that there was a Supreme Court case in 2003 where the majority admit they were ignoring the law for what they considered to be the greater good.

Alternatively, if you want to continue these racist policies because universities can discriminate based on SAT scores during their admissions processes, you should reach out to your Congressional representatives and ask them to overturn Civil Rights laws.

 

It seems you need to reread what I wrote.....The point is no non-POC, non-athlete, low SAT scorer, non-legacy, etc. students were being discriminated against i.e. treated unfairly.

 

This is demonstrably untrue. You also seem caught up on your personal opinion of what is "fair." That's irrelevant to the law that clearly states you cannot use race as a factor for college admissions, employment, etc... this is regardless of whether or not they're a POC or non-POC. Civil Rights laws protect everyone's rights and have nothing to do with your personal morality. The whole point of Civil Rights laws in the first place was to stop such racist ideologies. People who discriminate based on race always believe they are doing it for morally just reasons. It doesn't stop it from being racist when the government is involved. What is occurring at many universities is institutionalized racism.

For example, Harvard wants to limit Asian merit-based admissions, so their admissions department says they have worse personalities than all other races to deduct points from their application. That's blatant racism.

 

If a university feels it needs more talented lacrosse players and prioritizes their admissions are non-lacrosse players being treated unfairly?
If a university feels POC are underrepresented on campus and prioritizes their admission are non-POC being treated unfairly?
The answer should be the same.