Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Except blacks are not failing. Ivy league schools are not the only universities. Nor are whites getting cheated out of spots.
And you still don't show us any supporting evidence of this 230 points. Nor do you mention the legacy admissions whites get.
You have no argument to make based on fact or reality.
Blacks are 13% of the us population and despite the 230 point discrimination in their favor, average about 7% of Ivy League admissions.
They thus fail to get admitted proportionately to their population.
The 230 point bonus blacks get mean that whites ARE getting cheated. That is what that means.
Here is the link to the pdf of the actual study. Read it and knock of your crazy ass denial of reality.
https://www.princeton.edu/~tje/files/Admission Preferences Espenshade Chung Walling Dec 2004.pdf
"To examine these questions, we use data from the National Study of College Experience (NSCE), a project whose purpose is to understand the paths different students follow through higher education. Ten academically selective colleges and universities participated in the NSCE and supplied individual-level data on all persons who applied for admission in the fall of 1983 (or a nearby year), 1993, and 1997.2 These data include whether an applicant was accepted, together with a string of variables on applicant characteristics from the application form and, if the student subsequently enrolled at that institution, additional information on financial aid and academic performance in college. The information for this analysis comes from three private research universities that represent the top tier of American higher education. These are not the only NSCE schools that give admission preferences to underrepresented minority students, athletes, or legacies, but they were able to provide complete information for all three entering cohorts in our data on whether an applicant fell into any of these groups. Legacies are children or other close relatives of alumni. Athletes are defined as individuals who are recruited by athletic programs, typically meaning that they appear on coaches’ recruiting lists or are otherwise of Olympic or star athletic caliber. Table 1 contains a brief overview of the data. Altogether there are 124,374 applicant records, slightly more than half of which came from men. Approximately 80 percent of applicants had ‘‘recentered’’ SAT scores of 1200 or better, and the mean score for all applicants was 1332.3"
There are thousands of Universities besides Ivy league ones. This is not 1997. Apparently those in the Ivy League admissions figured that being white was a 230 point advantage. You seem unable to understand who makes these determinations and why things are determined as such. Therefore your arguments is weak and without merit.
This again is part of the amazing amnesia of whites.
That was fast reading on your part. You read the whole 25 pages of the study? WOW.
NO, they did not "figure" that white skin in worth 230 points.
The study documents that those who make the admissions determinations discriminate in favor of blacks to the tune of 230 points.
Stating that my argument is without merit while ignoring a peer reviewed academic study that proves massive and widespread discrimination in favor of black applicants is an act of pure dishonesty.
Your ignore hard data that is right in front of your face, in favor of your emotional need to justify your hatred of whites and to justify your side's discrimination against them.
You argument is without merit because it's been shown that SAT scores don't indicate anything.
I don't hate whites. I don't like racist whites like you.
Look dumb ass if blacks got 230 points it means that white skin was worth 230 more points than black skin. You want to keep whining about how unfair things are for whites and that why you refuse to see this simple fact that YOU bought up. There is no discrimination against whites. .Discrimination is not that you get the majority of all jobs and admissions. And that's what you are trying to call discrimination against whites.
No, your argument is without merit.
What are you talking about White skin is worth 230 more points?
No, it's really not.
The colleges are so desperate to fill in Blacks in their ranks, that they'll undercut higher performing Whites, and Asians just to fill Black quotas.
That's most certainly reverse discrimination, it's institutional racism.
I will ask you one more timeBlacks are 13% of the us population and despite the 230 point discrimination in their favor, average about 7% of Ivy League admissions.
They thus fail to get admitted proportionately to their population.
The 230 point bonus blacks get mean that whites ARE getting cheated. That is what that means.
Here is the link to the pdf of the actual study. Read it and knock of your crazy ass denial of reality.
https://www.princeton.edu/~tje/files/Admission Preferences Espenshade Chung Walling Dec 2004.pdf
"To examine these questions, we use data from the National Study of College Experience (NSCE), a project whose purpose is to understand the paths different students follow through higher education. Ten academically selective colleges and universities participated in the NSCE and supplied individual-level data on all persons who applied for admission in the fall of 1983 (or a nearby year), 1993, and 1997.2 These data include whether an applicant was accepted, together with a string of variables on applicant characteristics from the application form and, if the student subsequently enrolled at that institution, additional information on financial aid and academic performance in college. The information for this analysis comes from three private research universities that represent the top tier of American higher education. These are not the only NSCE schools that give admission preferences to underrepresented minority students, athletes, or legacies, but they were able to provide complete information for all three entering cohorts in our data on whether an applicant fell into any of these groups. Legacies are children or other close relatives of alumni. Athletes are defined as individuals who are recruited by athletic programs, typically meaning that they appear on coaches’ recruiting lists or are otherwise of Olympic or star athletic caliber. Table 1 contains a brief overview of the data. Altogether there are 124,374 applicant records, slightly more than half of which came from men. Approximately 80 percent of applicants had ‘‘recentered’’ SAT scores of 1200 or better, and the mean score for all applicants was 1332.3"
There are thousands of Universities besides Ivy league ones. This is not 1997. Apparently those in the Ivy League admissions figured that being white was a 230 point advantage. You seem unable to understand who makes these determinations and why things are determined as such. Therefore your arguments is weak and without merit.
This again is part of the amazing amnesia of whites.
That was fast reading on your part. You read the whole 25 pages of the study? WOW.
NO, they did not "figure" that white skin in worth 230 points.
The study documents that those who make the admissions determinations discriminate in favor of blacks to the tune of 230 points.
Stating that my argument is without merit while ignoring a peer reviewed academic study that proves massive and widespread discrimination in favor of black applicants is an act of pure dishonesty.
Your ignore hard data that is right in front of your face, in favor of your emotional need to justify your hatred of whites and to justify your side's discrimination against them.
You argument is without merit because it's been shown that SAT scores don't indicate anything.
I don't hate whites. I don't like racist whites like you.
Look dumb ass if blacks got 230 points it means that white skin was worth 230 more points than black skin. You want to keep whining about how unfair things are for whites and that why you refuse to see this simple fact that YOU bought up. There is no discrimination against whites. .Discrimination is not that you get the majority of all jobs and admissions. And that's what you are trying to call discrimination against whites.
No, your argument is without merit.
What are you talking about White skin is worth 230 more points?
No, it's really not.
The colleges are so desperate to fill in Blacks in their ranks, that they'll undercut higher performing Whites, and Asians just to fill Black quotas.
That's most certainly reverse discrimination, it's institutional racism.
Name me the colleges and uni's where black people are let in with lower scores.
YOu asked me a stupid question about a respond I made to paul's post.
I clarified it for you, and instead of having something to say about Paul's post or my response, you simply call me racist, with more words.
I want to be clear about this.
I have seen that lefties like yourself have misused the term racism to the point that you don't have clue what it really means and you almost exclusively use it to deflect from your own failures.
AND thus when you use it to insult someone, ie "racist" you are in effect just calling them a slur with no deeper meaning.
Thus in that case, I like to respond in kind.
Such as
FUCK YOU YOU ASSHOLE.
You are a racist. That's not a slur.It's an accurate description of a white man who claims that blacks should be grateful to whites for some imagined sacrifices he thinks whites have made for blacks.
You see loon, those whites you described are not being called racists just for being white. They are not called racists at all. For they are not the ones who tell us we should be glad for a half done job and how happy we should be that racism isn't done like it used to be. They are not the ones telling us even as we were born here and that most of our families have been in America far longer that most of you right wing racists, that we need to go back to Arica if we don't like how we are treated here.
You see stupid as fuck white boy, we do not call all whites racist. We call whites like YOU that because that is what you are.
Essien posted that he suspects Jolie of adopting and raising her black daughter to be a sex slave.
You attacked me for calling him racist, and let that raving lunacy pass unchallenged.YOu asked me a stupid question about a respond I made to paul's post.
I clarified it for you, and instead of having something to say about Paul's post or my response, you simply call me racist, with more words.
I want to be clear about this.
I have seen that lefties like yourself have misused the term racism to the point that you don't have clue what it really means and you almost exclusively use it to deflect from your own failures.
AND thus when you use it to insult someone, ie "racist" you are in effect just calling them a slur with no deeper meaning.
Thus in that case, I like to respond in kind.
Such as
FUCK YOU YOU ASSHOLE.
You are a racist. That's not a slur.It's an accurate description of a white man who claims that blacks should be grateful to whites for some imagined sacrifices he thinks whites have made for blacks.
You see loon, those whites you described are not being called racists just for being white. They are not called racists at all. For they are not the ones who tell us we should be glad for a half done job and how happy we should be that racism isn't done like it used to be. They are not the ones telling us even as we were born here and that most of our families have been in America far longer that most of you right wing racists, that we need to go back to Arica if we don't like how we are treated here.
You see stupid as fuck white boy, we do not call all whites racist. We call whites like YOU that because that is what you are.
Essien posted that he suspects Jolie of adopting and raising her black daughter to be a sex slave.
You attacked me for calling him racist, and let that raving lunacy pass unchallenged.
So while you say the exact same crazy shit as every other white racist here, you want me to denounce Essen because he doesn't trust white people. You can't understand why someone black might not trust whites. Such is the nature of the white psychosis.
I've challenged you to back up your bullshit accusation of "racism" and you have been unable to do so, yet you keep calling me slurs.
In order to maintain my policy of treating people with the same respect they show me,
FUCK YOU YOU ASSHOLE LIAR.
I've proven it plenty.
Blacks are 13% of the us population and despite the 230 point discrimination in their favor, average about 7% of Ivy League admissions.
They thus fail to get admitted proportionately to their population.
The 230 point bonus blacks get mean that whites ARE getting cheated. That is what that means.
Here is the link to the pdf of the actual study. Read it and knock of your crazy ass denial of reality.
https://www.princeton.edu/~tje/files/Admission Preferences Espenshade Chung Walling Dec 2004.pdf
"To examine these questions, we use data from the National Study of College Experience (NSCE), a project whose purpose is to understand the paths different students follow through higher education. Ten academically selective colleges and universities participated in the NSCE and supplied individual-level data on all persons who applied for admission in the fall of 1983 (or a nearby year), 1993, and 1997.2 These data include whether an applicant was accepted, together with a string of variables on applicant characteristics from the application form and, if the student subsequently enrolled at that institution, additional information on financial aid and academic performance in college. The information for this analysis comes from three private research universities that represent the top tier of American higher education. These are not the only NSCE schools that give admission preferences to underrepresented minority students, athletes, or legacies, but they were able to provide complete information for all three entering cohorts in our data on whether an applicant fell into any of these groups. Legacies are children or other close relatives of alumni. Athletes are defined as individuals who are recruited by athletic programs, typically meaning that they appear on coaches’ recruiting lists or are otherwise of Olympic or star athletic caliber. Table 1 contains a brief overview of the data. Altogether there are 124,374 applicant records, slightly more than half of which came from men. Approximately 80 percent of applicants had ‘‘recentered’’ SAT scores of 1200 or better, and the mean score for all applicants was 1332.3"
There are thousands of Universities besides Ivy league ones. This is not 1997. Apparently those in the Ivy League admissions figured that being white was a 230 point advantage. You seem unable to understand who makes these determinations and why things are determined as such. Therefore your arguments is weak and without merit.
This again is part of the amazing amnesia of whites.
That was fast reading on your part. You read the whole 25 pages of the study? WOW.
NO, they did not "figure" that white skin in worth 230 points.
The study documents that those who make the admissions determinations discriminate in favor of blacks to the tune of 230 points.
Stating that my argument is without merit while ignoring a peer reviewed academic study that proves massive and widespread discrimination in favor of black applicants is an act of pure dishonesty.
Your ignore hard data that is right in front of your face, in favor of your emotional need to justify your hatred of whites and to justify your side's discrimination against them.
You argument is without merit because it's been shown that SAT scores don't indicate anything.
I don't hate whites. I don't like racist whites like you.
Look dumb ass if blacks got 230 points it means that white skin was worth 230 more points than black skin. You want to keep whining about how unfair things are for whites and that why you refuse to see this simple fact that YOU bought up. There is no discrimination against whites. .Discrimination is not that you get the majority of all jobs and admissions. And that's what you are trying to call discrimination against whites.
No, your argument is without merit.
What are you talking about White skin is worth 230 more points?
No, it's really not.
The colleges are so desperate to fill in Blacks in their ranks, that they'll undercut higher performing Whites, and Asians just to fill Black quotas.
That's most certainly reverse discrimination, it's institutional racism.
My argument has 240 years of history that gives it the utmost merit.
If blacks are getting 230 points it means whites have a 230 point advantage because of their race so then blacks are given 230 points to even the score.
...k
I will ask you one more timeThere are thousands of Universities besides Ivy league ones. This is not 1997. Apparently those in the Ivy League admissions figured that being white was a 230 point advantage. You seem unable to understand who makes these determinations and why things are determined as such. Therefore your arguments is weak and without merit.
This again is part of the amazing amnesia of whites.
That was fast reading on your part. You read the whole 25 pages of the study? WOW.
NO, they did not "figure" that white skin in worth 230 points.
The study documents that those who make the admissions determinations discriminate in favor of blacks to the tune of 230 points.
Stating that my argument is without merit while ignoring a peer reviewed academic study that proves massive and widespread discrimination in favor of black applicants is an act of pure dishonesty.
Your ignore hard data that is right in front of your face, in favor of your emotional need to justify your hatred of whites and to justify your side's discrimination against them.
You argument is without merit because it's been shown that SAT scores don't indicate anything.
I don't hate whites. I don't like racist whites like you.
Look dumb ass if blacks got 230 points it means that white skin was worth 230 more points than black skin. You want to keep whining about how unfair things are for whites and that why you refuse to see this simple fact that YOU bought up. There is no discrimination against whites. .Discrimination is not that you get the majority of all jobs and admissions. And that's what you are trying to call discrimination against whites.
No, your argument is without merit.
What are you talking about White skin is worth 230 more points?
No, it's really not.
The colleges are so desperate to fill in Blacks in their ranks, that they'll undercut higher performing Whites, and Asians just to fill Black quotas.
That's most certainly reverse discrimination, it's institutional racism.
Name me the colleges and uni's where black people are let in with lower scores.
He can't.
I think he answered your question long ago.You are a racist. That's not a slur.It's an accurate description of a white man who claims that blacks should be grateful to whites for some imagined sacrifices he thinks whites have made for blacks.
You see loon, those whites you described are not being called racists just for being white. They are not called racists at all. For they are not the ones who tell us we should be glad for a half done job and how happy we should be that racism isn't done like it used to be. They are not the ones telling us even as we were born here and that most of our families have been in America far longer that most of you right wing racists, that we need to go back to Arica if we don't like how we are treated here.
You see stupid as fuck white boy, we do not call all whites racist. We call whites like YOU that because that is what you are.
Essien posted that he suspects Jolie of adopting and raising her black daughter to be a sex slave.
You attacked me for calling him racist, and let that raving lunacy pass unchallenged.You are a racist. That's not a slur.It's an accurate description of a white man who claims that blacks should be grateful to whites for some imagined sacrifices he thinks whites have made for blacks.
You see loon, those whites you described are not being called racists just for being white. They are not called racists at all. For they are not the ones who tell us we should be glad for a half done job and how happy we should be that racism isn't done like it used to be. They are not the ones telling us even as we were born here and that most of our families have been in America far longer that most of you right wing racists, that we need to go back to Arica if we don't like how we are treated here.
You see stupid as fuck white boy, we do not call all whites racist. We call whites like YOU that because that is what you are.
Essien posted that he suspects Jolie of adopting and raising her black daughter to be a sex slave.
You attacked me for calling him racist, and let that raving lunacy pass unchallenged.
So while you say the exact same crazy shit as every other white racist here, you want me to denounce Essen because he doesn't trust white people. You can't understand why someone black might not trust whites. Such is the nature of the white psychosis.
I've challenged you to back up your bullshit accusation of "racism" and you have been unable to do so, yet you keep calling me slurs.
In order to maintain my policy of treating people with the same respect they show me,
FUCK YOU YOU ASSHOLE LIAR.
I've proven it plenty.
You've done nothing to back prove your vile, bullshit accusation.
Repeatedly stating it is not proving it.
You CAN'T back it up, because it is complete bullshit.
Being against the anti-white discrimination, which I have actually supported with links to peer reviewed academic studies,
is not being racist.
I've now demonstrated that you are unable to support your vile smears of me.
This is where you have a either or choice.
Knock off your bullshit name calling and admit you were wrong,
Or keep smearing me with false accusations in a cowardly attempt to hide the fact that you are the one actually supporting racist policies.
Before you act, consider that by actively and knowing choosing to continue on in your current path, now that I have rubbed your face in the Truth, is to knowingly choosing to be that which you claim to hate, ie a racist.
So, what are you? A good and honest man, or a lying racist?
[/QUOTE][... it's been shown that SAT scores don't indicate anything.
....
Where has that been shown?
This evidence has existed for a few years outside of the racist white victimization community.
Do ACT and SAT scores really matter? New study says they shouldn’t
According to the data, if high school grades are not high, good testing does not promise college success. Students with good grades and modest testing did better in college than students with higher testing and lower high school grades.
Do ACT and SAT scores really matter? New study says they shouldn't
New Study: SAT Scores Not the Only Indicator of College Success
“Human intelligence is so multifaceted, so complex, so varied, that no standardized testing system can be expected to capture it,” says William Hiss, the study’s main author. Hiss is the former dean of admissions at Bates College in Lewiston, Maine — one of the nation’s first test-optional schools — and has been conducting similar research for a number of years.
New Study: SAT Scores Not the Only Indicator of College Success
Standardized tests not always best indicator of success
Standardized tests such as the SAT and ACT have long been used in college admissions to sort through thousands of applications. Whether or not such tests accurately assess a student’s ability to succeed in higher education is up for debate, but a Penn State expert says that, ultimately, current classroom performance is what prepares a student for admission -- and test day -- better than cramming or retesting to boost scores.
Standardized tests not always best indicator of success | Penn State University
To predict a student’s future success, look at their grades, not their IQ or SAT score
Colleges and employers interested in predicting the success of applicants would do better to look at a student’s grades, which measure personality traits, like grit and attention to detail, more effectively than IQ and SAT tests, according to a recent study from a team led by James Heckman, the Nobel Prize-winning economist from the University of Chicago. The research was released as a discussion paper by the IZA Institute of Labour Economics.
To predict a student's future success, look at their grades, not their IQ or SAT score
I can show many more studies that show SATS scores really are not a predictor of anything but what you remembered on the morning you took the test..
SAT Scores not an indicaroe of sucess - Yahoo Search Results
Give us your input on this guy IM2..
Do you agree or not ?
Essien posted that he suspects Jolie of adopting and raising her black daughter to be a sex slave.
You attacked me for calling him racist, and let that raving lunacy pass unchallenged.Essien posted that he suspects Jolie of adopting and raising her black daughter to be a sex slave.
You attacked me for calling him racist, and let that raving lunacy pass unchallenged.
So while you say the exact same crazy shit as every other white racist here, you want me to denounce Essen because he doesn't trust white people. You can't understand why someone black might not trust whites. Such is the nature of the white psychosis.
I've challenged you to back up your bullshit accusation of "racism" and you have been unable to do so, yet you keep calling me slurs.
In order to maintain my policy of treating people with the same respect they show me,
FUCK YOU YOU ASSHOLE LIAR.
I've proven it plenty.
Stating something over and over again is not proving it.
Quote me saying something "severely racist" or fucking apologize for insulting me unjustly.
You will get no apology. You have been consistently quoted.
Blacks are 13% of the us population and despite the 230 point discrimination in their favor, average about 7% of Ivy League admissions.
They thus fail to get admitted proportionately to their population.
The 230 point bonus blacks get mean that whites ARE getting cheated. That is what that means.
Here is the link to the pdf of the actual study. Read it and knock of your crazy ass denial of reality.
https://www.princeton.edu/~tje/files/Admission Preferences Espenshade Chung Walling Dec 2004.pdf
"To examine these questions, we use data from the National Study of College Experience (NSCE), a project whose purpose is to understand the paths different students follow through higher education. Ten academically selective colleges and universities participated in the NSCE and supplied individual-level data on all persons who applied for admission in the fall of 1983 (or a nearby year), 1993, and 1997.2 These data include whether an applicant was accepted, together with a string of variables on applicant characteristics from the application form and, if the student subsequently enrolled at that institution, additional information on financial aid and academic performance in college. The information for this analysis comes from three private research universities that represent the top tier of American higher education. These are not the only NSCE schools that give admission preferences to underrepresented minority students, athletes, or legacies, but they were able to provide complete information for all three entering cohorts in our data on whether an applicant fell into any of these groups. Legacies are children or other close relatives of alumni. Athletes are defined as individuals who are recruited by athletic programs, typically meaning that they appear on coaches’ recruiting lists or are otherwise of Olympic or star athletic caliber. Table 1 contains a brief overview of the data. Altogether there are 124,374 applicant records, slightly more than half of which came from men. Approximately 80 percent of applicants had ‘‘recentered’’ SAT scores of 1200 or better, and the mean score for all applicants was 1332.3"
There are thousands of Universities besides Ivy league ones. This is not 1997. Apparently those in the Ivy League admissions figured that being white was a 230 point advantage. You seem unable to understand who makes these determinations and why things are determined as such. Therefore your arguments is weak and without merit.
This again is part of the amazing amnesia of whites.
That was fast reading on your part. You read the whole 25 pages of the study? WOW.
NO, they did not "figure" that white skin in worth 230 points.
The study documents that those who make the admissions determinations discriminate in favor of blacks to the tune of 230 points.
Stating that my argument is without merit while ignoring a peer reviewed academic study that proves massive and widespread discrimination in favor of black applicants is an act of pure dishonesty.
Your ignore hard data that is right in front of your face, in favor of your emotional need to justify your hatred of whites and to justify your side's discrimination against them.
You argument is without merit because it's been shown that SAT scores don't indicate anything.
I don't hate whites. I don't like racist whites like you.
Look dumb ass if blacks got 230 points it means that white skin was worth 230 more points than black skin. You want to keep whining about how unfair things are for whites and that why you refuse to see this simple fact that YOU bought up. There is no discrimination against whites. .Discrimination is not that you get the majority of all jobs and admissions. And that's what you are trying to call discrimination against whites.
No, your argument is without merit.
What are you talking about White skin is worth 230 more points?
No, it's really not.
The colleges are so desperate to fill in Blacks in their ranks, that they'll undercut higher performing Whites, and Asians just to fill Black quotas.
That's most certainly reverse discrimination, it's institutional racism.
...
If blacks are getting 230 points it means whites have a 230 point advantage because of their race so then blacks are given 230 points to even the score.
...
He proved himself entirely ILLOGICAL long ago.There are thousands of Universities besides Ivy league ones. This is not 1997. Apparently those in the Ivy League admissions figured that being white was a 230 point advantage. You seem unable to understand who makes these determinations and why things are determined as such. Therefore your arguments is weak and without merit.
This again is part of the amazing amnesia of whites.
That was fast reading on your part. You read the whole 25 pages of the study? WOW.
NO, they did not "figure" that white skin in worth 230 points.
The study documents that those who make the admissions determinations discriminate in favor of blacks to the tune of 230 points.
Stating that my argument is without merit while ignoring a peer reviewed academic study that proves massive and widespread discrimination in favor of black applicants is an act of pure dishonesty.
Your ignore hard data that is right in front of your face, in favor of your emotional need to justify your hatred of whites and to justify your side's discrimination against them.
You argument is without merit because it's been shown that SAT scores don't indicate anything.
I don't hate whites. I don't like racist whites like you.
Look dumb ass if blacks got 230 points it means that white skin was worth 230 more points than black skin. You want to keep whining about how unfair things are for whites and that why you refuse to see this simple fact that YOU bought up. There is no discrimination against whites. .Discrimination is not that you get the majority of all jobs and admissions. And that's what you are trying to call discrimination against whites.
No, your argument is without merit.
What are you talking about White skin is worth 230 more points?
No, it's really not.
The colleges are so desperate to fill in Blacks in their ranks, that they'll undercut higher performing Whites, and Asians just to fill Black quotas.
That's most certainly reverse discrimination, it's institutional racism.
...
If blacks are getting 230 points it means whites have a 230 point advantage because of their race so then blacks are given 230 points to even the score.
...
That is not a logical conclusion.
We want the same things whites do.. I shouldn't have to show it idiot... All you have to do is look into your cultural changes over time by your own account, and look at how you have moved from slavery to mainstream culture over time, and this by your own desires to be free, and with the help of your white allies throughout time. Now it's just a question as to whether or not you are satisfied or whether you want to be a dominant or domineering culture that wants to rule instead of blend ?? Would have to study African tribal culture in order to find these answers out about your race. In many ways the answers are being read through your actions and culture's of today.. Trying to sum up your idiocy in a few pictures eh ??? If you really showed the history of it all, then you would have to admit finally that you are the racist wanting handouts by way of the long time settled issues now, but in the mean time let those poor whites give up their hardworking tax money to get you a living going like your black Hollywood rap stars eh ?? What's wrong, you can't rap ?? Just add a beat to your mouth running, and you got it.... How much suffering will you be expecting from the poor whites to satisfy your wishful needs or how much wealth do you want transferred from Bill Gates, Warren Buffet, Modonna, Ashely Judd, Steve Jobs family, and on and on it all goes ????? When will you be calling for blacks to stop engaging in institutionalized racism by holding on to (all black college's) that are probably indoctronation centers or to end anything that promotes all black membership or participation ?? When will you end your usery of the white useful idiot's that don't have a clue as to what is really going on in the minds of people like you ?? Name the unsettled programs or issues that target blacks in a racist way in America ? Why are you not getting a fair shake in America ? Tell us exactly where you are running into the roadblocks you feel that you can't seem to get beyond, and name the names of the white people now holding you back.Because nothing has been done. The civil war was not done for us. There are no such thing as quotas, and;
Where are all those white people correll?
Where are all those white people correll?
Where are all those white people correll?
Prove when racism ended and its effects were allayed. Show, with data and peer-reviewed studies supporting your argument, when the effects of the hundreds of years of anti-Black racism from chattel slavery through Old Jim Crow leveled off. Show when the wealth expropriated during that oppression was repaid to those it was expropriated from and through.
Then you work hard, save hard, and get an education.
The way you go about things with your hand open demanding Whitey to owe you the loot, is a wonderful way to piss off Whites.
Just sayin'.
So, because you've found some pictures of some whites fighting against equality for blacks in the past, you consider that to be evidence that all whites fought against such equality in the past (and present?)
Are you aware that as recently as 1990 the us was still over 80% white?
How do you think those battles were won? By 10 or 12% overcoming the 80%?
Hint: The answer to that is NO.
American whites have been coming down on the side of ever increasing rights for blacks since before the Civil War.
And now you lefties are gloating over how you will marginalize their descendants once they are a minority.
Indeed, you often conflate not being a majority to being extinct.
A very chilling look into your hate filled hearts.
You people are vile monsters.
.You apparently do no think before you post.
Yes the 12 percent beat the 80.
Because a poll was done during the civil rights era and less than 20 percent of al whites thought there s a problem.
12 doesn't beat 80.
The majority of the 80 has been on the side of increased rights for blacks time and time again, or the issue would have went the other way.
Was Lincoln black? Did he win his elections because of the black vote?
You don't seem to understand how your comments are racist. You also don't seem to understand that your making a clam of how whites have been on the side of increasing rights of blacks is nothing to brag about.
The majority of whites have not been for increasing the rights of blacks and Lincoln believed hat blacks were inferior to whites.
YOu don't seem to know how to explain how my comments are supposedly racist.
You constantly claim it, but can't back up your claim.
Lincoln won an election, in which only white people voted, as a candidate in favor of increasing rights for blacks, specifically ending slavery.
He won REELECTION as a candidate waging a bloody horrific war with the stated intent of ending slavery in the South.
You back my claims each time you respond. You have been explained as to why your comments are racist. This tactic is not going to work.
Lincolns intent was tp save the Union.
I would save the Union. I would save it the shortest way under the Constitution. The sooner the national authority can be restored; the nearer the Union will be "the Union as it was." If there be those who would not save the Union, unless they could at the same time save slavery, I do not agree with them. If there be those who would not save the Union unless they could at the same time destroy slavery, I do not agree with them. My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery.
Abraham Lincoln's Letter to Horace Greeley
And then there is the matter of the election which you say that only whites voted in. Now this illustrates your ability to lie and your refusal to explain the whole story. Lincoln did not run as a candidate in favor of increasing the rights of blacks.
Abraham Lincoln took the oath as President on March 4, 1861. Among the first words of his Inaugural Address was a pledge (repeating words from an August 1858 speech) intended to placate Southern apprehensions: "I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the states where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so." Referring to the proposed Crittenden amendment, which would make explicit constitutional protection of slavery where it already existed, he said, "I have no objection to its being made express, and irrevocable." He also promised to support legislation for the capture and return of runaway slaves.
And then there is the little matter that blacks could not legally vote. But hey why include that when we can lie about how only whites voted and how they were all for "increasing the rights of blacks."
There are thousands of Universities besides Ivy league ones. This is not 1997. Apparently those in the Ivy League admissions figured that being white was a 230 point advantage. You seem unable to understand who makes these determinations and why things are determined as such. Therefore your arguments is weak and without merit.
This again is part of the amazing amnesia of whites.
That was fast reading on your part. You read the whole 25 pages of the study? WOW.
NO, they did not "figure" that white skin in worth 230 points.
The study documents that those who make the admissions determinations discriminate in favor of blacks to the tune of 230 points.
Stating that my argument is without merit while ignoring a peer reviewed academic study that proves massive and widespread discrimination in favor of black applicants is an act of pure dishonesty.
Your ignore hard data that is right in front of your face, in favor of your emotional need to justify your hatred of whites and to justify your side's discrimination against them.
You argument is without merit because it's been shown that SAT scores don't indicate anything.
I don't hate whites. I don't like racist whites like you.
Look dumb ass if blacks got 230 points it means that white skin was worth 230 more points than black skin. You want to keep whining about how unfair things are for whites and that why you refuse to see this simple fact that YOU bought up. There is no discrimination against whites. .Discrimination is not that you get the majority of all jobs and admissions. And that's what you are trying to call discrimination against whites.
No, your argument is without merit.
What are you talking about White skin is worth 230 more points?
No, it's really not.
The colleges are so desperate to fill in Blacks in their ranks, that they'll undercut higher performing Whites, and Asians just to fill Black quotas.
That's most certainly reverse discrimination, it's institutional racism.
...
If blacks are getting 230 points it means whites have a 230 point advantage because of their race so then blacks are given 230 points to even the score.
...
That is not a logical conclusion.
Soooo, since the effective 230 point bonus that blacks get in Ivy League admissions does not result in disproportionate black representation, you are arguing that that means it does not discriminate against whites who don't get the slots they deserve based on their merit?
The fact that blacks still manage to fail to achieve scores good enough to be proportionately represented in Ivy League schools DESPITE the massive discrimination in their favor, ie 230 points,
does not mean that the discrimination does not occur.
or that there are not whites who have been cheated out of the slots they deserved.
It just means that the discrimination is out weighted by the education gap.
Except blacks are not failing. Ivy league schools are not the only universities. Nor are whites getting cheated out of spots.
And you still don't show us any supporting evidence of this 230 points. Nor do you mention the legacy admissions whites get.
You have no argument to make based on fact or reality.
Blacks are 13% of the us population and despite the 230 point discrimination in their favor, average about 7% of Ivy League admissions.
They thus fail to get admitted proportionately to their population.
The 230 point bonus blacks get mean that whites ARE getting cheated. That is what that means.
Here is the link to the pdf of the actual study. Read it and knock of your crazy ass denial of reality.
https://www.princeton.edu/~tje/files/Admission Preferences Espenshade Chung Walling Dec 2004.pdf
"To examine these questions, we use data from the National Study of College Experience (NSCE), a project whose purpose is to understand the paths different students follow through higher education. Ten academically selective colleges and universities participated in the NSCE and supplied individual-level data on all persons who applied for admission in the fall of 1983 (or a nearby year), 1993, and 1997.2 These data include whether an applicant was accepted, together with a string of variables on applicant characteristics from the application form and, if the student subsequently enrolled at that institution, additional information on financial aid and academic performance in college. The information for this analysis comes from three private research universities that represent the top tier of American higher education. These are not the only NSCE schools that give admission preferences to underrepresented minority students, athletes, or legacies, but they were able to provide complete information for all three entering cohorts in our data on whether an applicant fell into any of these groups. Legacies are children or other close relatives of alumni. Athletes are defined as individuals who are recruited by athletic programs, typically meaning that they appear on coaches’ recruiting lists or are otherwise of Olympic or star athletic caliber. Table 1 contains a brief overview of the data. Altogether there are 124,374 applicant records, slightly more than half of which came from men. Approximately 80 percent of applicants had ‘‘recentered’’ SAT scores of 1200 or better, and the mean score for all applicants was 1332.3"
There are thousands of Universities besides Ivy league ones. This is not 1997. Apparently those in the Ivy League admissions figured that being white was a 230 point advantage. You seem unable to understand who makes these determinations and why things are determined as such. Therefore your arguments is weak and without merit.
This again is part of the amazing amnesia of whites.
That was fast reading on your part. You read the whole 25 pages of the study? WOW.
NO, they did not "figure" that white skin in worth 230 points.
The study documents that those who make the admissions determinations discriminate in favor of blacks to the tune of 230 points.
Stating that my argument is without merit while ignoring a peer reviewed academic study that proves massive and widespread discrimination in favor of black applicants is an act of pure dishonesty.
Your ignore hard data that is right in front of your face, in favor of your emotional need to justify your hatred of whites and to justify your side's discrimination against them.
You argument is without merit because it's been shown that SAT scores don't indicate anything.
I don't hate whites. I don't like racist whites like you.
Look dumb ass if blacks got 230 points it means that white skin was worth 230 more points than black skin. You want to keep whining about how unfair things are for whites and that why you refuse to see this simple fact that YOU bought up. There is no discrimination against whites. .Discrimination is not that you get the majority of all jobs and admissions. And that's what you are trying to call discrimination against whites.
.You apparently do no think before you post.
Yes the 12 percent beat the 80.
Because a poll was done during the civil rights era and less than 20 percent of al whites thought there s a problem.
12 doesn't beat 80.
The majority of the 80 has been on the side of increased rights for blacks time and time again, or the issue would have went the other way.
Was Lincoln black? Did he win his elections because of the black vote?
You don't seem to understand how your comments are racist. You also don't seem to understand that your making a clam of how whites have been on the side of increasing rights of blacks is nothing to brag about.
The majority of whites have not been for increasing the rights of blacks and Lincoln believed hat blacks were inferior to whites.
YOu don't seem to know how to explain how my comments are supposedly racist.
You constantly claim it, but can't back up your claim.
Lincoln won an election, in which only white people voted, as a candidate in favor of increasing rights for blacks, specifically ending slavery.
He won REELECTION as a candidate waging a bloody horrific war with the stated intent of ending slavery in the South.
You back my claims each time you respond. You have been explained as to why your comments are racist. This tactic is not going to work.
Lincolns intent was tp save the Union.
I would save the Union. I would save it the shortest way under the Constitution. The sooner the national authority can be restored; the nearer the Union will be "the Union as it was." If there be those who would not save the Union, unless they could at the same time save slavery, I do not agree with them. If there be those who would not save the Union unless they could at the same time destroy slavery, I do not agree with them. My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery.
Abraham Lincoln's Letter to Horace Greeley
And then there is the matter of the election which you say that only whites voted in. Now this illustrates your ability to lie and your refusal to explain the whole story. Lincoln did not run as a candidate in favor of increasing the rights of blacks.
Abraham Lincoln took the oath as President on March 4, 1861. Among the first words of his Inaugural Address was a pledge (repeating words from an August 1858 speech) intended to placate Southern apprehensions: "I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the states where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so." Referring to the proposed Crittenden amendment, which would make explicit constitutional protection of slavery where it already existed, he said, "I have no objection to its being made express, and irrevocable." He also promised to support legislation for the capture and return of runaway slaves.
And then there is the little matter that blacks could not legally vote. But hey why include that when we can lie about how only whites voted and how they were all for "increasing the rights of blacks."
1. The way to demonstrate that someone is saying racist things, is to QUOTE them saying something racist, and then to explain how that statement meets the definition of racism. You have not done that. You have not even TRIED to do that. YOu just keep claiming over and over again that the things I say are racist, without any examples or explanations.
Also, in keeping with my policy of treating people with the respect they treat me, since you refuse to explain or support your vile accusations, making them nothing but personal smears,
FUck you your vile little piece of shit.
2. Lincoln's stated intent was to save the union. His actions demonstrate that that was a political fiction in an attempt to avoid civil war.
3. And yes, blacks were not allowed to vote. THat was my point. The majority of whites in this country voted for the abolitionist, and even in the midst of the bloodiest war in us history, the whites of the North REELECTED him.
AFTER he had demonstrated beyond doubt that abolition was his goal.
12 doesn't beat 80.
The majority of the 80 has been on the side of increased rights for blacks time and time again, or the issue would have went the other way.
Was Lincoln black? Did he win his elections because of the black vote?
You don't seem to understand how your comments are racist. You also don't seem to understand that your making a clam of how whites have been on the side of increasing rights of blacks is nothing to brag about.
The majority of whites have not been for increasing the rights of blacks and Lincoln believed hat blacks were inferior to whites.
YOu don't seem to know how to explain how my comments are supposedly racist.
You constantly claim it, but can't back up your claim.
Lincoln won an election, in which only white people voted, as a candidate in favor of increasing rights for blacks, specifically ending slavery.
He won REELECTION as a candidate waging a bloody horrific war with the stated intent of ending slavery in the South.
You back my claims each time you respond. You have been explained as to why your comments are racist. This tactic is not going to work.
Lincolns intent was tp save the Union.
I would save the Union. I would save it the shortest way under the Constitution. The sooner the national authority can be restored; the nearer the Union will be "the Union as it was." If there be those who would not save the Union, unless they could at the same time save slavery, I do not agree with them. If there be those who would not save the Union unless they could at the same time destroy slavery, I do not agree with them. My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery.
Abraham Lincoln's Letter to Horace Greeley
And then there is the matter of the election which you say that only whites voted in. Now this illustrates your ability to lie and your refusal to explain the whole story. Lincoln did not run as a candidate in favor of increasing the rights of blacks.
Abraham Lincoln took the oath as President on March 4, 1861. Among the first words of his Inaugural Address was a pledge (repeating words from an August 1858 speech) intended to placate Southern apprehensions: "I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the states where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so." Referring to the proposed Crittenden amendment, which would make explicit constitutional protection of slavery where it already existed, he said, "I have no objection to its being made express, and irrevocable." He also promised to support legislation for the capture and return of runaway slaves.
And then there is the little matter that blacks could not legally vote. But hey why include that when we can lie about how only whites voted and how they were all for "increasing the rights of blacks."
1. The way to demonstrate that someone is saying racist things, is to QUOTE them saying something racist, and then to explain how that statement meets the definition of racism. You have not done that. You have not even TRIED to do that. YOu just keep claiming over and over again that the things I say are racist, without any examples or explanations.
Also, in keeping with my policy of treating people with the respect they treat me, since you refuse to explain or support your vile accusations, making them nothing but personal smears,
FUck you your vile little piece of shit.
2. Lincoln's stated intent was to save the union. His actions demonstrate that that was a political fiction in an attempt to avoid civil war.
3. And yes, blacks were not allowed to vote. THat was my point. The majority of whites in this country voted for the abolitionist, and even in the midst of the bloodiest war in us history, the whites of the North REELECTED him.
AFTER he had demonstrated beyond doubt that abolition was his goal.
Correll you are a racist. I'll make it real simple . Your belief that we as blacks should be grateful to whites for some so called sacrifice they supposedly made for us is a racist belief. Hence your entire last post shows your racism.
You keep talking crazy, but what exactly was abolished Correll? Was the belief that blacls were inferior to whites abolished?
A racist calling someone else a racist, is illogical.12 doesn't beat 80.
The majority of the 80 has been on the side of increased rights for blacks time and time again, or the issue would have went the other way.
Was Lincoln black? Did he win his elections because of the black vote?
You don't seem to understand how your comments are racist. You also don't seem to understand that your making a clam of how whites have been on the side of increasing rights of blacks is nothing to brag about.
The majority of whites have not been for increasing the rights of blacks and Lincoln believed hat blacks were inferior to whites.
YOu don't seem to know how to explain how my comments are supposedly racist.
You constantly claim it, but can't back up your claim.
Lincoln won an election, in which only white people voted, as a candidate in favor of increasing rights for blacks, specifically ending slavery.
He won REELECTION as a candidate waging a bloody horrific war with the stated intent of ending slavery in the South.
You back my claims each time you respond. You have been explained as to why your comments are racist. This tactic is not going to work.
Lincolns intent was tp save the Union.
I would save the Union. I would save it the shortest way under the Constitution. The sooner the national authority can be restored; the nearer the Union will be "the Union as it was." If there be those who would not save the Union, unless they could at the same time save slavery, I do not agree with them. If there be those who would not save the Union unless they could at the same time destroy slavery, I do not agree with them. My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery.
Abraham Lincoln's Letter to Horace Greeley
And then there is the matter of the election which you say that only whites voted in. Now this illustrates your ability to lie and your refusal to explain the whole story. Lincoln did not run as a candidate in favor of increasing the rights of blacks.
Abraham Lincoln took the oath as President on March 4, 1861. Among the first words of his Inaugural Address was a pledge (repeating words from an August 1858 speech) intended to placate Southern apprehensions: "I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the states where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so." Referring to the proposed Crittenden amendment, which would make explicit constitutional protection of slavery where it already existed, he said, "I have no objection to its being made express, and irrevocable." He also promised to support legislation for the capture and return of runaway slaves.
And then there is the little matter that blacks could not legally vote. But hey why include that when we can lie about how only whites voted and how they were all for "increasing the rights of blacks."
1. The way to demonstrate that someone is saying racist things, is to QUOTE them saying something racist, and then to explain how that statement meets the definition of racism. You have not done that. You have not even TRIED to do that. YOu just keep claiming over and over again that the things I say are racist, without any examples or explanations.
Also, in keeping with my policy of treating people with the respect they treat me, since you refuse to explain or support your vile accusations, making them nothing but personal smears,
FUck you your vile little piece of shit.
2. Lincoln's stated intent was to save the union. His actions demonstrate that that was a political fiction in an attempt to avoid civil war.
3. And yes, blacks were not allowed to vote. THat was my point. The majority of whites in this country voted for the abolitionist, and even in the midst of the bloodiest war in us history, the whites of the North REELECTED him.
AFTER he had demonstrated beyond doubt that abolition was his goal.
Correll you are a racist. I'll make it real simple . Your belief that we as blacks should be grateful to whites for some so called sacrifice they supposedly made for us is a racist belief. Hence your entire last post shows your racism.
You keep talking crazy, but what exactly was abolished Correll? Was the belief that blacls were inferior to whites abolished?
Except blacks are not failing. Ivy league schools are not the only universities. Nor are whites getting cheated out of spots.
And you still don't show us any supporting evidence of this 230 points. Nor do you mention the legacy admissions whites get.
You have no argument to make based on fact or reality.
Blacks are 13% of the us population and despite the 230 point discrimination in their favor, average about 7% of Ivy League admissions.
They thus fail to get admitted proportionately to their population.
The 230 point bonus blacks get mean that whites ARE getting cheated. That is what that means.
Here is the link to the pdf of the actual study. Read it and knock of your crazy ass denial of reality.
https://www.princeton.edu/~tje/files/Admission Preferences Espenshade Chung Walling Dec 2004.pdf
"To examine these questions, we use data from the National Study of College Experience (NSCE), a project whose purpose is to understand the paths different students follow through higher education. Ten academically selective colleges and universities participated in the NSCE and supplied individual-level data on all persons who applied for admission in the fall of 1983 (or a nearby year), 1993, and 1997.2 These data include whether an applicant was accepted, together with a string of variables on applicant characteristics from the application form and, if the student subsequently enrolled at that institution, additional information on financial aid and academic performance in college. The information for this analysis comes from three private research universities that represent the top tier of American higher education. These are not the only NSCE schools that give admission preferences to underrepresented minority students, athletes, or legacies, but they were able to provide complete information for all three entering cohorts in our data on whether an applicant fell into any of these groups. Legacies are children or other close relatives of alumni. Athletes are defined as individuals who are recruited by athletic programs, typically meaning that they appear on coaches’ recruiting lists or are otherwise of Olympic or star athletic caliber. Table 1 contains a brief overview of the data. Altogether there are 124,374 applicant records, slightly more than half of which came from men. Approximately 80 percent of applicants had ‘‘recentered’’ SAT scores of 1200 or better, and the mean score for all applicants was 1332.3"
There are thousands of Universities besides Ivy league ones. This is not 1997. Apparently those in the Ivy League admissions figured that being white was a 230 point advantage. You seem unable to understand who makes these determinations and why things are determined as such. Therefore your arguments is weak and without merit.
This again is part of the amazing amnesia of whites.
That was fast reading on your part. You read the whole 25 pages of the study? WOW.
NO, they did not "figure" that white skin in worth 230 points.
The study documents that those who make the admissions determinations discriminate in favor of blacks to the tune of 230 points.
Stating that my argument is without merit while ignoring a peer reviewed academic study that proves massive and widespread discrimination in favor of black applicants is an act of pure dishonesty.
Your ignore hard data that is right in front of your face, in favor of your emotional need to justify your hatred of whites and to justify your side's discrimination against them.
You argument is without merit because it's been shown that SAT scores don't indicate anything.
I don't hate whites. I don't like racist whites like you.
Look dumb ass if blacks got 230 points it means that white skin was worth 230 more points than black skin. You want to keep whining about how unfair things are for whites and that why you refuse to see this simple fact that YOU bought up. There is no discrimination against whites. .Discrimination is not that you get the majority of all jobs and admissions. And that's what you are trying to call discrimination against whites.
Whether or not SAT scores predict academic success is a completely separate matter.
The fact is that during the time frame of this study, that SAT scores were being used to judge applicants.
And that the blacks students were being DISCRIMINATED IN FAVOR OF to the tune of an effective 230 point sat bonus.
Your characterization of the discrimination of 230 points as a handicap to balance out white skin is meaningless words strung together. That's not what happened, that's not the way the system works, and even if it was, it would still be discriminating against the white students.
This is real discrimination here, and you are supporting it, lefty.
Also, since you continue to call me names, without even a good faith attempt to back it up, I will treat you with the same respect,
except my insult will be true as demonstrated by your behavior.
You are a vile asshole and a liar.
Blacks are 13% of the us population and despite the 230 point discrimination in their favor, average about 7% of Ivy League admissions.
They thus fail to get admitted proportionately to their population.
The 230 point bonus blacks get mean that whites ARE getting cheated. That is what that means.
Here is the link to the pdf of the actual study. Read it and knock of your crazy ass denial of reality.
https://www.princeton.edu/~tje/files/Admission Preferences Espenshade Chung Walling Dec 2004.pdf
"To examine these questions, we use data from the National Study of College Experience (NSCE), a project whose purpose is to understand the paths different students follow through higher education. Ten academically selective colleges and universities participated in the NSCE and supplied individual-level data on all persons who applied for admission in the fall of 1983 (or a nearby year), 1993, and 1997.2 These data include whether an applicant was accepted, together with a string of variables on applicant characteristics from the application form and, if the student subsequently enrolled at that institution, additional information on financial aid and academic performance in college. The information for this analysis comes from three private research universities that represent the top tier of American higher education. These are not the only NSCE schools that give admission preferences to underrepresented minority students, athletes, or legacies, but they were able to provide complete information for all three entering cohorts in our data on whether an applicant fell into any of these groups. Legacies are children or other close relatives of alumni. Athletes are defined as individuals who are recruited by athletic programs, typically meaning that they appear on coaches’ recruiting lists or are otherwise of Olympic or star athletic caliber. Table 1 contains a brief overview of the data. Altogether there are 124,374 applicant records, slightly more than half of which came from men. Approximately 80 percent of applicants had ‘‘recentered’’ SAT scores of 1200 or better, and the mean score for all applicants was 1332.3"
There are thousands of Universities besides Ivy league ones. This is not 1997. Apparently those in the Ivy League admissions figured that being white was a 230 point advantage. You seem unable to understand who makes these determinations and why things are determined as such. Therefore your arguments is weak and without merit.
This again is part of the amazing amnesia of whites.
That was fast reading on your part. You read the whole 25 pages of the study? WOW.
NO, they did not "figure" that white skin in worth 230 points.
The study documents that those who make the admissions determinations discriminate in favor of blacks to the tune of 230 points.
Stating that my argument is without merit while ignoring a peer reviewed academic study that proves massive and widespread discrimination in favor of black applicants is an act of pure dishonesty.
Your ignore hard data that is right in front of your face, in favor of your emotional need to justify your hatred of whites and to justify your side's discrimination against them.
You argument is without merit because it's been shown that SAT scores don't indicate anything.
I don't hate whites. I don't like racist whites like you.
Look dumb ass if blacks got 230 points it means that white skin was worth 230 more points than black skin. You want to keep whining about how unfair things are for whites and that why you refuse to see this simple fact that YOU bought up. There is no discrimination against whites. .Discrimination is not that you get the majority of all jobs and admissions. And that's what you are trying to call discrimination against whites.
Whether or not SAT scores predict academic success is a completely separate matter.
The fact is that during the time frame of this study, that SAT scores were being used to judge applicants.
And that the blacks students were being DISCRIMINATED IN FAVOR OF to the tune of an effective 230 point sat bonus.
Your characterization of the discrimination of 230 points as a handicap to balance out white skin is meaningless words strung together. That's not what happened, that's not the way the system works, and even if it was, it would still be discriminating against the white students.
This is real discrimination here, and you are supporting it, lefty.
Also, since you continue to call me names, without even a good faith attempt to back it up, I will treat you with the same respect,
except my insult will be true as demonstrated by your behavior.
You are a vile asshole and a liar.
No, you are a racist. I have backed up what have said multiple times. I don't want or need your respect. You disrespect me each and every time you post up this bullshit lie that whites are discriminated against when its just not the fucking truth. You are a liar and a racist Correll and if you don't' like me saying that, then start telling the truth.
The Demographics of the Ivy League
February 15, 2017
When you look at this information you see that in every Ivy League school, whites are he majority of the students. Second, will see that Asians are at least double he number of black students at almost every Ivy League school. Asians are 5 percent of the overall US population but are generally 15-20 percent of all Ivy League students. They are not being cheated out of anything nor are whites.
The Demographics of the Ivy League
