The Bakke Decision

nycflasher

Active Member
Apr 15, 2004
3,078
13
36
CT
Bakke decision
_
(BAK-ee) An important ruling on affirmative action given by the Supreme Court in 1978. Allan Bakke, a white man, was denied admission to a medical school that had admitted black candidates with weaker academic credentials. Bakke contended that he was a victim of racial discrimination. The Court ruled that Bakke had been illegally denied admission to the medical school, but also that medical schools were entitled to consider race as a factor in admissions. The Court thus upheld the general principle of affirmative action. __1
source

Worth discussing I think...
Thoughts?
 
Listen carefully... I think I just heard a can of worms being POPPED open.

Seriously, though, this has the potential of turning into an OCA/RWA/NewGuy bashfest. There have been several threads on AA, with many people arguing for/against it, for various reasons.
 
Originally posted by nycflasher
Bakke decision
_
(BAK-ee) An important ruling on affirmative action given by the Supreme Court in 1978. Allan Bakke, a white man, was denied admission to a medical school that had admitted black candidates with weaker academic credentials. Bakke contended that he was a victim of racial discrimination. The Court ruled that Bakke had been illegally denied admission to the medical school, but also that medical schools were entitled to consider race as a factor in admissions. The Court thus upheld the general principle of affirmative action. __1
source

Worth discussing I think...
Thoughts?

What an inconsistent decision. They recognized that it was a violation of that man's rights, but ALSO decided to leave the policy in place. Totally logically inconsistent, in my opinion.

I know you probably think this is a win win. I don't see it that way. Never will. I'm closed minded on this issue. Your free to have your opinion as well.
 
Originally posted by gop_jeff
Listen carefully... I think I just heard a can of worms being POPPED open.

Seriously, though, this has the potential of turning into an OCA/RWA/NewGuy bashfest. There have been several threads on AA, with many people arguing for/against it, for various reasons.

Nah Jeff my non racist position has been thoroughly and articulately explained by me several times, i'm done with this issue here.
 
Originally posted by Big D
Good, I am tired of hearing your belly aching, and now that I know why.

And now that you no why....what? Don't leave us hanging, I'm sure there is something real clever coming next.

Have another Natty Light :rolleyes:
 
Originally posted by nycflasher
Have another Natty Light :rolleyes:

Gotta know how awful that stuff is to appreciate that. That's just laugh out loud funny right there.
 
Originally posted by OCA
Big D go fuck yourself! You want to handle this mano a mano? Come to Chevy Chase, Md, we'll meet up and i'll send your kids dad back to them a quadraplegic. You are an un-American, worthless piece of trash, or is half the board that has you on ignore wrong? Go cry to your Hispanic, transgendered lover now!

you= :crutch:
 
Originally posted by OCA
I guess you missed the deleted post from night before last where he said my gut was filled with ****** cum. Now go back up a couple of posts in this thread and tell me what you see from Big D.
Or do you think that thats not over the line and are going to defend BLATANT racists now?

Nothing worse than things you say. And you're a racial discriminator too. against white people. I don't care if you're in denial about it.
 
Originally posted by rtwngAvngr
Nothing worse than things you say. And you're a racial discriminator too. against white people. I don't care if you're in denial about it.

Get a room, funboy.
 
It's an inconsistent decision by the Supreme Court, just like the Michigan decisions, the racial districting positions, etc. The Court is caught between the clear mandate of the 14th Amendment and the incredible pressure to make minority groups "equal," despite every biological, social and psychological factor to the contrary.

Hear me, and hear me good: The Supreme Court will ALLOW discrimination against whites (NEVER anyone else) so long as you're subtle about it.
 
Originally posted by nycflasher
Many are succeeding just fine, just look at the makeup of our supreme court.
Plus, Bush is hispanic isn't he?:D
New York City's welfare rolls are now 5 percent white, 33 percent black and 59 percent Hispanic -- with more Hispanic parents receiving public assistance there than in Miami, Los Angeles or the entire state of Texas.
http://www.ncpa.org/pi/welfare/pdwel/pdwel75b.html
 
Originally posted by Big D
New York City's welfare rolls are now 5 percent white, 33 percent black and 59 percent Hispanic -- with more Hispanic parents receiving public assistance there than in Miami, Los Angeles or the entire state of Texas.
http://www.ncpa.org/pi/welfare/pdwel/pdwel75b.html

And your statistics on welfare are related in whate way to the Bakke decision?

The Bakke decision was in response to a case brought before the Supreme Court involving a student who applied to a Michigan school.

You're still way out in leftfield like Hideki Matsui, except he only struck out twice today. :dunno:
 
Originally posted by nycflasher
And your statistics on welfare are related in whate way to the Bakke decision?
Standards for blacks and hispanics must be lowered if blacks and hispanics are going to even have a chance to succeed in a civil socity.

I guess the standards are not low enough yet because blacks and hispanics dominate the welfare abuse.
 

Forum List

Back
Top