Zone1 A big step in eradicating systemic racism, and 2/3rds of Americans approve

[Lisa558]

Sometime next month, the SCOTUS will announce that undergrad universities and grad programs can no longer consider an applicant’s skin color when determining whether to accept or reject him. This will extend to prohibiting policies and practices devised to advantage a specific race and disadvantage other races.

Two-thirds of Americans agree that racism should have no part in the admissions office and will be happy to see it eradicated.

Majority of Americans support banning the consideration of race during college admissions: Poll

A majority of American adults polled in a recent survey support banning colleges and universities from considering race during the admissions process.

www.foxnews.com

 

[EvilCat Breath]

It won't work. California did that. The universities figured out new criteria based on lived experiences that had the same result.

 

[EMH]

It is who is in control of the university.

Vanderbilt was a great libertarian university in the 1980s. It is not anymore. It is UTS, the University of Trans Surgery. Left wing homos have total control.

 

[Coyote]

Interestingly…there are other ways of increasing diversity in admissions and that is with the designation of descendents of former slaves”.

 

[Lisa558]

It won't work. California did that. The universities figured out new criteria based on lived experiences that had the same result.

I know, but the students rejected under the new criteria, designed to admit more of one specific race, will have grounds to sue.

Let’s say, as a roundabout way to reject more Asians and get in more blacks (which is what is happening), they come up with a blatant “holistic” measure with a predetermined outcome. Let’s say they determine that “stamina” is needed to be a successful student (hey, we all remember those all-nighters during finals week!), and say it can be measured by who can complete a running event.

Blacks, on average, do better in running (why….I don’t know), and Asians tend to be smaller and less athletic. Blacks will thus score higher, and rate high on the stamina scale. Result: justification to admit blacks with worse academics.

It will be in violation of the SCOTUS’s ruling, which I expect will be broad as they anticipate this type of thing.

 

[Lisa558]

Interestingly…there are other ways of increasing diversity in admissions and that is with the designation of descendents of former slaves”.

Nope, as just stated: that would be a policy designed to advantage one specific race. It will violate the SCOTUS ruling.

 

[Coyote]

Nope, as just stated: that would be a policy designed to advantage one specific race. It will violate the SCOTUS ruling.

Actually, that was a question brought up…

The Hard Question of Affirmative Action and Slavery (Published 2023)

If there were an affirmative action program for the descendants of enslaved people, would you consider that to be race-based?

www.nytimes.com

During oral arguments for the biggest Supreme Court cases, the justices’ questions are often pointed, meant to advance their own view of the case. Conservative justices ask friendly questions of lawyers on the conservative side and burrow into the logical weaknesses of the liberal side. Liberal justices do the opposite.

The five hours of oral arguments on two affirmative action cases in October mostly fit this pattern. But, about three hours into the session, Justice Brett Kavanaugh asked a less typical question. It involved slavery, and it raised an inconvenient issue for Kavanaugh’s fellow conservatives.

“So today, a benefit to descendants of slaves would not be race-based, correct?” Kavanaugh said to Cameron Norris, a lawyer arguing for the end of race-based affirmative action.

Norris seemed caught off guard. “I — I think that’s incorrect, Justice Kavanaugh,” he said.

Kavanaugh then noted that Norris had already acknowledged that the post-Civil War benefits that formerly enslaved people received from the federal government were not race-based. Those benefits were based on their status as having been enslaved, not their skin color.

“If that’s correct, then the benefit for descendants of former slaves is also not race-based,” Kavanaugh said. “You can make other arguments if you want about that, but it does not seem to be race-based.”

 

[Lisa558]

Actually, that was a question brought up…

The Hard Question of Affirmative Action and Slavery (Published 2023)

If there were an affirmative action program for the descendants of enslaved people, would you consider that to be race-based?

www.nytimes.com

During oral arguments for the biggest Supreme Court cases, the justices’ questions are often pointed, meant to advance their own view of the case. Conservative justices ask friendly questions of lawyers on the conservative side and burrow into the logical weaknesses of the liberal side. Liberal justices do the opposite.

The five hours of oral arguments on two affirmative action cases in October mostly fit this pattern. But, about three hours into the session, Justice Brett Kavanaugh asked a less typical question. It involved slavery, and it raised an inconvenient issue for Kavanaugh’s fellow conservatives.

“So today, a benefit to descendants of slaves would not be race-based, correct?” Kavanaugh said to Cameron Norris, a lawyer arguing for the end of race-based affirmative action.

Norris seemed caught off guard. “I — I think that’s incorrect, Justice Kavanaugh,” he said.

Kavanaugh then noted that Norris had already acknowledged that the post-Civil War benefits that formerly enslaved people received from the federal government were not race-based. Those benefits were based on their status as having been enslaved, not their skin color.

“If that’s correct, then the benefit for descendants of former slaves is also not race-based,” Kavanaugh said. “You can make other arguments if you want about that, but it does not seem to be race-based.”

Wow. You’re right. The leftists might use the excuse of “descendants of slaves” to continue to get less qualified blacks in over whites, knowing that the vast majority of American slaves were black.

Of course, it WILL limit the degree to which the liberal colleges can be racist against Asians and whites. They won’t be able to just point-black say, “he’s black, so in he goes.” There would have to be a requirement that the person using this excuse proves his ancestry.

 

[Coyote]

Wow. You’re right. The leftists might use the excuse of “descendants of slaves” to continue to get less qualified blacks in over whites, knowing that the vast majority of American slaves were black.

Of course, it WILL limit the degree to which the liberal colleges can be racist against Asians and whites. They won’t be able to just point-black say, “he’s black, so in he goes.” There would have to be a requirement that the person using this excuse proves his ancestry.

It is no more racist then a variety of other categories they use: first gen, indiginous, females, legacy, etc.

 

[bodecea]

Sometime next month, the SCOTUS will announce that undergrad universities and grad programs can no longer consider an applicant’s skin color when determining whether to accept or reject him. This will extend to prohibiting policies and practices devised to advantage a specific race and disadvantage other races.

Two-thirds of Americans agree that racism should have no part in the admissions office and will be happy to see it eradicated.

Majority of Americans support banning the consideration of race during college admissions: Poll

A majority of American adults polled in a recent survey support banning colleges and universities from considering race during the admissions process.

www.foxnews.com

What about all the black people in commercials now? Will SCOTUS do something about that?

 

[Lisa558]

It is no more racist then a variety of other categories they use: first gen, indiginous, females, legacy, etc.

Those other categories aren’t racist. Unrelated.

 

[Coyote]

Those other categories aren’t racist. Unrelated.

Descendents of slaves isn’t either.

 

[Lisa558]

Descendents of slaves isn’t either.

Yeah, right.

 

[IM2]

I think people like Lisa could very well end up disappointed.

Under SAT-Only Admissions, Asian American Applicants to Selective Colleges Would Gain Fewer than 3,000 Seats Out of 120,000, Georgetown University Report Find
21% of Asian American students at the most selective colleges would not have been admitted
under a test-only admissions policy

Critics of affirmative action point to the stable enrollment share of Asian American students at the most selective colleges for the past two decades as evidence that these institutions maintain a predetermined racial balance of students. However, CEW researchers found that the enrollment share of Asian American and Pacific Islander students at Harvard and at the 90 other most selective colleges in the US has kept pace with their growing share of the four-year college-going population. In fact, the Asian American and Pacific Islander share of enrollments at the most selective colleges grew by 4 percentage points even while their enrollment share at all four-year colleges grew by just 2 percentage points between 1999 and 2018.

http://cew.georgetown.edu/wp-content/uploads/GeorgetownCEW_SelectiveBias_PressRelease_7-15-21.pdf#:~:text=%28Washington%2C%20DC%2C%20July%2015%2C%202021%29%20A%20new%20report

AA was created to combat systemic racism. In this case we see whites like Lisa crying about systemic racism against whites in a majority white university.

So let me make it real simple for Lisa.

When blacks and non whites complain about racism it's because there are either no people of color there or a very small number that doesn't reflect our population. Not because the majority of people there are of color and they hired someone white before the next person of color. I am quite sure there are white students at Howard admitted while black students who are more qualified are denied entry. And I am quite sure if that a black student tried taking Howard to court for racial discrimination, that case would be laughed out of court.

I am sure that if a company that was majority black hired a white person, that no court would hear a racial discrimination case by a black person who didn't get a job. Whites are admitted into HBCU's. Whites are hired at majority non white companies. But white privilege allows whites with an entitlement mentality shaped by white victimhood to whine about being racially discriminated against when a University or company is majority white.

 

[Unkotare]

....

Blacks, on average, do better in running (why….I don’t know), and Asians tend to be smaller and less athletic. ...

Are you in a competition to see just how stupid a post you can come up with?

 

[EvilCat Breath]

I know, but the students rejected under the new criteria, designed to admit more of one specific race, will have grounds to sue.

Let’s say, as a roundabout way to reject more Asians and get in more blacks (which is what is happening), they come up with a blatant “holistic” measure with a predetermined outcome. Let’s say they determine that “stamina” is needed to be a successful student (hey, we all remember those all-nighters during finals week!), and say it can be measured by who can complete a running event.

Blacks, on average, do better in running (why….I don’t know), and Asians tend to be smaller and less athletic. Blacks will thus score higher, and rate high on the stamina scale. Result: justification to admit blacks with worse academics.

It will be in violation of the SCOTUS’s ruling, which I expect will be broad as they anticipate this type of thing.

That's not the criteria. Were your parents married? Do you know where or who your father is? Family prison history. Family drug use history. Personal or family gang affiliation. Identifiable gang affiliation tattoos. Do you have children. Collect benefits. Live in subsidized housing. How long?

That's what they are looking for.

 

[IM2]

That's not the criteria. Were your parents married? Do you know where or who your father is? Family prison history. Family drug use history. Personal or family gang affiliation. Identifiable gang affiliation tattoos. Do you have children. Collect benefits. Live in subsidized housing. How long?

That's what they are looking for.

I really think whites like you and lisa should be quiet.

“Using publicly released reports, we examine the preferences Harvard gives for recruited athletes, legacies, those on the dean’s interest list, and children of faculty and staff (ALDCs). Among white admits, over 43% are ALDC. Among admits who are African American, Asian American, and Hispanic, the share is less than 16% each. Our model of admissions shows that roughly three quarters of white ALDC admits would have been rejected if they had been treated as white non-ALDCs. Removing preferences for athletes and legacies would significantly alter the racial distribution of admitted students, with the share of white admits falling and all other groups rising or remaining unchanged.
-National Bureau of Economic Research

 

[Lisa558]

That's not the criteria. Were your parents married? Do you know where or who your father is? Family prison history. Family drug use history. Personal or family gang affiliation. Identifiable gang affiliation tattoos. Do you have children. Collect benefits. Live in subsidized housing. How long?

That's what they are looking for.

I know all about it, as I used to work in admissions. One of the criteria they used was “distance traveled” - as in from one’s start in life. If one grew up in a poor, inner-city area, with a single mother, who was addicted to crack, and on welfare, the kid got extra points. They intentionally figured out what is most likely to describe a black kid, and decided to weigh those factors.

The question is….will weighting traits most likely to be a black kid (such as descendant of slaves) considered a backdoor toward violating the SCOTUS ruling?

And remember….2/3rds of Americans are opposed to this racial preference at the admissions office. Are leftists so arrogant that they will continue with policies that the majority of Americans reject as unfair? (Never mind that last question…)

Also remember that what kicked this lawsuit off was that Harvard designed a subjective personality test that they could score Asians low on, and blacks high. Asians were then rejected on the basis they were unlikeable. The test was designed for a specific racial outcome, and that is what is race-based.

 

[Ms. Turquoise]

It won't work. California did that. The universities figured out new criteria based on lived experiences that had the same result.

THANK YOU. You are telling the absolute truth. I know young African-American and Mexican students who still receive special help financially with school. I didn't even know Affirmative Action had been outlawed in California. Anyone who needs and wants help to attend college can easily get it.
But, some folks (like Lisa558) still get a hard-on from thinking there will be no more Affirmative Action.

 

[Lisa558]

THANK YOU. You are telling the absolute truth. I know young African-American and Mexican students who still receive special help financially with school. I didn't even know Affirmative Action had been outlawed in California. Anyone who needs and wants help to attend college can easily get it.
But, some folks (like Lisa558) still get a hard-on from thinking there will be no more Affirmative Action.

I don’t get hard-ons. I’m a woman.

But yes, I am hopeful that the leftists will not be able to make racist policies and procedures.