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

At the risk of being accused of being petty -- Enjoy the rest of your evening.

 

Of course. Who stated otherwise? If you are well versed on the law, you're not capable of saying there is "none," meaning no discrimination.

 

What exactly are you asking? I thought I was clear enough. What don't you understand?

 

Okay one last time, if you don’t feel that non-legacy and non-athletes have been “wronged” by a university prioritizing the athletic and legacy admissions, then why would feel white/Asians are “wronged” by admitting an under served minority, just another category the university feels it needs? Unless, of course, all you can see is race and you don't like what you see.

 

He can probably source it, because it had been cherry-picked. That's why he'd limited his stats, to "Michigan University," even though it is highly unlikely that he could prove that "hundreds of white men with 1400s were turned down," by Michigan University.

Quick question, @Turtledude: if we can assume that Ketanji Brown-Jackson is not as competent as any other Justice, shouldn't that mean that we are dubious of Clarence Thomas's qualifications, as well?

Or is it different, because he's a man?

Just kidding-- I know that sexism is not behind your double standard; partisanship is.

 

are you even remotely aware why Thomas is on the court? well I know the reason. the democrat senate Majority leader, told White House counsel attorneys that if Bush didn't pick a BLACK to fill the THURGOOD MARSHALL SEAT, that candidate would get BORKED. Clarence Thomas was a conservative who had graduated from Yale Law school, with grades as good or better than either Clinton. (Hillary was the recipient of as much affirmative action benefits as CT btw) . So that is why he was picked. BECAUSE OF BUSH had picked a white with top credentials, the racist dems would have blocked the pick

 

Interesting article about Affirmative Action, and it's possible upcoming demise by the Supreme Court.

How White People Stole Affirmative Action — and Ensured Its Demise

The article makes a couple of interesting points. First, that "Diversity" as a reason for affirmative action, is designed to benefit white people.

"Herein lies the essence of the problem with the diversity rationale: It justifies affirmative action in terms of its benefits for white people. “The Clinton era defenses of affirmative action were so much about ‘the corporation loves it, the army loves it,’” says David Roediger, a professor of American Studies and History at the University of Kansas."

"Indeed, no group has benefited more from university admissions preferences than white people. Almost every “elite” college gives significant legs up to athletes and the children of alumni, donors and faculty (known collectively as ALDCs). According to data produced in SFFA’s lawsuit, Harvard admitted 34 percent of legacy applicants and 86 percent of recruited athletes compared to an overall admissions rate of 4.6 percent. About 43 percent of white students at Harvard are an ALDC. And the diversity rationale celebrates their contributions. Under this approach, the white lacrosse player, third generation Harvardian and billionaire’s child each enriches the classroom with their perspective."

Ha ha! Diversity!

It also makes the point that American born blacks are not the beneficiaries of affirmative action for blacks.

"In 2003, Harvard professors Lani Guinier and Henry Louis Gates observed that only about a third of the college’s Black undergraduates came from families in which all four grandparents had been born in the U.S. They estimated that two-thirds were either the children of biracial couples or recent immigrants from Africa or the Caribbean. A subsequent study confirmed their intuition. While nationally about 10 percent of Black Americans are first- or second-generation immigrants, at Ivy League colleges the figure exceeds 40 percent.

More recently, when a group of Harvard students attempted to construct a community of “Generational African Americans” — descendants of slavery — they found few potential members. A teaching fellow in Introduction to African American Studies estimated that GAA students constituted just 10 percent of Harvard’s Black population — about 17 students per graduating class."

 

They should end it in college as well as in the workplace

 

Man, you’ve got to put a right-wing spin on everything. H. W. wanted to put a right-winger on the court, but Bork didn’t pass so he thought a black conservative would be easier get through. All the Black organizations were against him (NAACP, Urban League) and women’s organizations were against him. He made it on the court by 4 votes, the narrowest margin in a century.
At Wellseley Hillary was the first student to give a commencement address which made the papers. She was accepted at Harvard, but because of a professor’s comment that they already had enough women, she decided to go to Yale instead.

 

why don't you call Professor Lee Liberman (Otis) her why Thomas was picked by Bush
You can also ask Professor Steven Calabresi. Both of them were part of Bush's white house counsel office at the time

Hillary didn't even graduate with general honors at Wellesley. Thomas was a better student than she was BTW.


https://www.ali.org/members/member/459812/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steven_Calabresi

 

BTW you have no credibility.....Hillary graduated Yale Law School, from which she graduated first in her class.

 

OMG you claim I HAVE NO CREDIBILITY and you post a whopper like that Hillary was NO WHERE NEAR FIRST IN HER CLASS. I went to Yale. I knew several of her professors. go ahead and find some support for that absolute lie you just told: that bullshit from the Britannica blurb is just that

this is from her official site-no mention of something that if true-would be prominently displayed

https://www.hillaryclinton.com/about/

After college, Hillary enrolled in Yale Law School, where she was one of just 27 women in her graduating class. While attending Yale, Hillary began dating one of her classmates, Bill Clinton.

(No mention of being an editor of the YALE LAW JOURNAL (not called the law review) She was, however, on one of the several secondary and far less prestigious reviews: it lasted about three years
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yale_Review_of_Law_and_Social_Action

 

The Supreme Court should end affirmative action in university admissions and in hiring decisions. University administrators will always find ways to admit unqualified Negroes. Hiring managers resent pressure to hire them.

 

Fighting to end racism is not racist.

 

Here is an excellent, documented, well-presented response to the title question of this thread.

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

 

It is if you are fighting racism with racism.

Then it's simply one tribe against another.

 

The way to fight racism is to tell Negroes to stop reinforcing it with their performance and behavior. Otherwise, you are just suppressing expressions of racism.

 

Do you have any idea how ridiculous that thought is? That would be like “STOP CALLING THEM IGNORANT! DON’T YOU KNOW THEY AREN’T AS INTELLIGENT AS WE ARE??? IT’S GENETIC!!!!”

That would be “fighting racism with racism.” And no one is doing anything like that. Try listening to the podcast I linked to. And then try ABSORBING it.

 

WHOA! Now THAT is racist! Kinda like Trump mimicking a disabled person in a wheelchair that we all saw.

 

It is racist. It is also the truth. Racism consists of telling unflattering facts about Negros. We are not supposed to do that. We are supposed to accept their social pathology.

 

It is not true that all Negroes are less intelligent than all whites. It is certainly true that most Negroes are less intelligent than most whites. It is genetic.

 

It should be ridiculous, but the left on this forum is more and more making the point that racial discrimination is necessary to combat racism.

As far as the podcast goes, if you could summarize Jackson's best legal argument in her dissent I'll give it a read.

 

So when it’s a question of race, you say you’re against racism and you insist affirmative is racist discrimination. But when it’s a question of whether a baker should be required to bake a cake for a gay customer, you’re in favor of discrimination. WTF????

 

For you it's "WTF????" because you absolutely don't understand the issue. It never was about "a baker should be required to bake a cake for a gay customer." So how is Jackson's legal argument coming?

 

You don’t understand that I was comparing your view of the thread subject, -affirmative action, -to your view of services for gays? Too much for you to wrap your head around?