Zone1 USSC to hear racial discrimination in education case today

[Ms. Turquoise]

I just did. College admission standards have to be held to the same standard as other procedures and laws.

No. You are WRONG. Please don't use 14th Amendment to try and justify your ignorance of Affirmative Action.

 

[AZrailwhale]

LOL! That is complete, utter hogwash.
The 14th Amendment has nothing to do with college admissions.
Try again. And learn the meanings of the Civil War amendments (13th, 14th and 15th Amendments) while you're at it

No. You are WRONG. Please don't use 14th Amendment to try and justify your ignorance of Affirmative Action.

Read the words, EQUAL PROTECTION UNDER THE LAW. no racial preference is legal.

 

[protectionist]

They have no choice but to strike it down. To do otherwise would be racist toward Asian Americans.

But why is it taking court actions on behalf of Asians, to get rid of abomination of Affirmative Action, when whites also have been discriminated against (for 58 yrs) ?

 

[protectionist]

Especially those white womenz AA has helped that were once held down and back from education and work opprotunities by white men.

For every one white women helped by AA, there must be hundreds or thousands who are victimized by it, and in TWO WAYS.

1. They are excluded from AA programs that cater only to blacks.
2. Being daughters and wives dependents of white men being discriminated against.

 

[protectionist]

So if Affirmative Action benefits white women the most, then it's time to strike it down, right?

Affirmative Action Has Helped White Women More Than Anyone

Now change my mind.

DONE - see Post # 64.

 

[protectionist]

If had lived in the US fifty years ago you would know why Affirmative Action was passed.

And if you lived between 1964 and 2022, you would know why it needs to be abolished.

 

[protectionist]

The way to end racial discrimination is to end racial discrimination.

That is normal logic. Democrats are not normal.

 

[JGalt]

But why is it taking court actions on behalf of Asians, to get rid of abomination of Affirmative Action, when whites also have been discriminated against (for 58 yrs) ?

Because the general consensus among the left is that it's ok to discriminate against whites. We "deserve it", as they believe, and that's why we've been discriminated against for 58 years. According to the left, whites have never been discriminated against. But discrimination against Asians crosses a line, probably due to the belief that whites have discriminated against Asians, particularly in the Japanese internment of WW2 and the Vietnam War.

Granted, the SC is in no ways liberal, but being primarily conservative, has to consider all races when making their judgements. To do otherwise would make them appear discriminatory. Therefore they will judge in favor of the Asians.

Just a guess here. I could be wrong or right.

 

[protectionist]

Because the general consensus among the left is that it's ok to discriminate against whites. We "deserve it", as they believe, and that's why we've been discriminated against for 58 years. According to the left, whites have never been discriminated against. But discrimination against Asians crosses a line, probably due to the belief that whites have discriminated against Asians, particularly in the Japanese internment of WW2 and the Vietnam War.

Granted, the SC is in no ways liberal, but being primarily conservative, has to consider all races when making their judgements. To do otherwise would make them appear discriminatory. Therefore they will judge in favor of the Asians.

Just a guess here. I could be wrong or right.

You are right about the left's disregard (if not disdain) for whites. They believe that racial discrimination is OK, as long as blacks are the beneficiaries, and whites are the victims.

 

[Lisa558]

But why is it taking court actions on behalf of Asians, to get rid of abomination of Affirmative Action, when whites also have been discriminated against (for 58 yrs) ?

I have the answer to that.

About a month ago, I read an analysis of the strategy the lawyer for the Asians was taking. (I looked for it again to link it, but couldn’t find it. Google probably hid it.) He is taking two factors into consideration in bringing his suit:

1) In a political environment where everything is pro-black, with the liberal narrative that blacks are all oppressed victims, he knew it would be hard for the SCOTUS to take action that would be interpreted as being against blacks - even if all they did was say you can’t specifically advantage blacks for no other reason than skin color.

2) Similarly, in a political environment that reeks of anti-white racism (just look at the nasty remarks about whites that people can get away with) and this notion of “White Privilege,” he knew that the SCOTUS would be more willing to take action that would be interpreted as not giving special privilege to whites - as in, rejecting Asians to let the privileged whites in (and avoiding the much bigger achievement gap between the rejected Asians and admitted blacks.)

So that was the lawyer’s play: it’s unfair to reject Asians when they have better grades and scores than whites who are accepted. But the impact will be the same: colleges will be told they cannot use race as a factor in determining who is admitted. That means the admittrd blacks with far lower scores than either rejected whites OR Asians will no longer get special privilege.

It’s a very smart strategy.

 

[Coyote]

Well said. I had a bestie friend who happened to be black and we were close enough we could say anything to each other. She was an extremely competent successful professional and one of the most empathetic, insightful, intelligent people I've known. She told me the hardest thing she ever had to endure because of race was the attitude of white and black people who assumed she achieved her position via affirmative action and not due to merit. That and when she was reminded that she must think this or that about whatever because she was black. And she bristled every time she was asked to give the 'black perspective' about something.

All that goes away when people are allowed to just be people and not divided into groups with different standards or pigeon-holed into some PC structured category.

I agree with some of this, but also think that to some degree these attitudes are driven by a lack of understanding on how AA works since the SCOTUS struck down quotas (and I agree with that ruling).

Elite schools like UNC and Harvard get thousands of highly qualified applicants, many more than they can accept. So how do they make a decision? Per prior rulings, it’s been legal to consider race as one of multiple factors in a tie breaking decision. Also, admission decisions have never been about just test scores and gpa, but a wide array of factors that are supposed to give a well rounded picture of the applicant.

One of the main goals of a university is to educate and prepare a person to go out into the world and work. To that end, they provide a variety of tangible and less tangible experiences. That includes a strong emphasis on diversity across racial, ethnic, cultural and economic lines. A diverse campus exposes students to a broad array of ideas and people. As an example, maybe you have a Black person who has never been around many White people in a positive way or White students who have never experienced American Black culture beyond stereotypes. Same applies other groups.

Employers also want to have diverse array of qualified to choose from, it is considered so important a number of them went together on an Amicus Brief to the Supreme Court.

Depending on how broad or narrow this ruling is, we could see the effects rippling out into a whole lot more than just education.

Are schools going to be allowed to consider
athletic ability
income
first generation status
ethnicity
indiginous people
underserved communities
disability
legacy/doner
Gender

A broad ruling could trickle down into employment and efforts to create a diverse workplaces. Or efforts to train and recruit more minorities to work among underserved populations because they understand that population and are more likely to be trusted.

The end result could be the increasing stratification of groups, particularly on economic lines, but also in terms of collaboration and the sharing of ideas Rather than a “color blind society”.

How broad do you want the ruling to be and how would you address the negative factors?

 

[Moonglow]

And if you lived between 1964 and 2022, you would know why it needs to be abolished.

I did and yet I still see discrimination.

 

[Foxfyre]

I agree with some of this, but also think that to some degree these attitudes are driven by a lack of understanding on how AA works since the SCOTUS struck down quotas (and I agree with that ruling).

Elite schools like UNC and Harvard get thousands of highly qualified applicants, many more than they can accept. So how do they make a decision? Per prior rulings, it’s been legal to consider race as one of multiple factors in a tie breaking decision. Also, admission decisions have never been about just test scores and gpa, but a wide array of factors that are supposed to give a well rounded picture of the applicant.

One of the main goals of a university is to educate and prepare a person to go out into the world and work. To that end, they provide a variety of tangible and less tangible experiences. That includes a strong emphasis on diversity across racial, ethnic, cultural and economic lines. A diverse campus exposes students to a broad array of ideas and people. As an example, maybe you have a Black person who has never been around many White people in a positive way or White students who have never experienced American Black culture beyond stereotypes. Same applies other groups.

Employers also want to have diverse array of qualified to choose from, it is considered so important a number of them went together on an Amicus Brief to the Supreme Court.

Depending on how broad or narrow this ruling is, we could see the effects rippling out into a whole lot more than just education.

Are schools going to be allowed to consider
athletic ability
income
first generation status
ethnicity
indiginous people
underserved communities
disability
legacy/doner
Gender

A broad ruling could trickle down into employment and efforts to create a diverse workplaces. Or efforts to train and recruit more minorities to work among underserved populations because they understand that population and are more likely to be trusted.

The end result could be the increasing stratification of groups, particularly on economic lines, but also in terms of collaboration and the sharing of ideas Rather than a “color blind society”.

How broad do you want the ruling to be and how would you address the negative factors?

I am one who believes millions bled and died and/or risked their reputations, fortunes, community standing all to grant liberty and eventually equality to all Americans. Those battles have been fought and won and are now in distant history. It's now time for America to become a country that reflects that.

I think the goal should be encouragement of ALL Americans, opportunity afforded ALL Americans, and ALL should compete equally for jobs, college, everything else and let the best man or woman win. A society will continue to be racist when it considers skin color, ethnicity, or anything other than qualifications and excellence as a criteria for anything except maybe a role in a movie. (It would be ridiculous for a white person to be cast as Nelson Mandela or Bishop Tutu or Medgar Evers.)

I'm with Morgan Freeman that the best way for racism to fade away is to stop talking about it. He is proud that the ONLY role he has ever played cast in the role of black man was in "Driving Miss Daisy." Every other role could have been played by anybody. He told Mike Wallace: "I'm going to stop calling you a white man. And I'm going to ask you to stop calling me a black man." His view was the same as mine on that. It is only when we see skin color as no different than hair color or eye color that racism ceases to exist and the only racists are a very few powerless and unimportant stupids.

And people like my friend will never again be accused of getting her position due to affirmative action and/or she is promoted or rewarded only because she is black.

 

[Coyote]

I am one who believes millions bled and died and/or risked their reputations, fortunes, community standing all to grant liberty and eventually equality to all Americans. Those battles have been fought and won and are now in distant history. It's now time for America to become a country that reflect that.

I think the goal should be encouragement of ALL Americans, opportunity afforded ALL Americans, and ALL should compete equally for jobs, college, everything else and let the best man or woman win. A society will continue to be racist when it considers skin color, ethnicity, or anything other than qualifications and excellence as a criteria for anything except maybe a role in a movie. (It would be ridiculous for a white person to be cast as Nelson Mandela or Bishop Tutu or Medgar Evers.)

I'm with Morgan Freeman that the best way for racism to fade away is to stop talking about it. He is proud that the ONLY role he has ever played cast in the role of black man was in "Driving Miss Daisy." Every other role could have been played by anybody. He told Mike Wallace: "I'm going to stop calling you a white man. And I'm going to ask you to stop calling me a black man." His view was the same as mine on that. It is only when we see skin color as no different than hair color or eye color that racism ceases to exist and the only racists are a very few powerless and unimportant stupids.

And people like my friend will never again be accused of getting her position due to affirmative action and/or she is promoted or rewarded only because she is black.

Fair enough. How does eliminating efforts to increase diversity lead to a race blind society?

 

[Foxfyre]

Fair enough. How does eliminating efforts to increase diversity lead to a race blind society?

The point is a race blind society isn't concerned about so-called diversity. It is concerned about making sure everybody has opportunity to compete whether or not they take advantage of that opportunity. And it puts emphasis on quality, excellence, competence with assurance that if you do the necessary work and prove you deserve the reward, you get it. Every child should be told that it's up to him/her what success he/she will have and he/she should strive to be the best he/she can be.

 

[Coyote]

The point is a race blind society isn't concerned about so-called diversity. It is concerned about making sure everybody has opportunity to compete whether or not they take advantage of that opportunity. And it puts emphasis on quality, excellence, competence with assurance that if you do the necessary work and prove you deserve the reward, you get it. Every child should be told that it's up to him/her what success he/she will have and he/she should strive to be the best he/she can be.

I think we have different views on how to achieve "a race blind" society.

It is a reality that people of different racial, ethnic and religious backgrounds experience America in different ways. IMO, you discount those differences by insisting they no longer when they actually do in our culture though not in the law. A big part of closing these gaps is understanding them and breaking stereotyoes, including stereotypes about whites. If you eliminate efforts to eliminate diversity, how will enogh people meet outside their comfort zones to achieve a color blind outlook?

 

[AMart]

I agree with some of this, but also think that to some degree these attitudes are driven by a lack of understanding on how AA works since the SCOTUS struck down quotas (and I agree with that ruling).

Elite schools like UNC and Harvard get thousands of highly qualified applicants, many more than they can accept. So how do they make a decision? Per prior rulings, it’s been legal to consider race as one of multiple factors in a tie breaking decision. Also, admission decisions have never been about just test scores and gpa, but a wide array of factors that are supposed to give a well rounded picture of the applicant.

One of the main goals of a university is to educate and prepare a person to go out into the world and work. To that end, they provide a variety of tangible and less tangible experiences. That includes a strong emphasis on diversity across racial, ethnic, cultural and economic lines. A diverse campus exposes students to a broad array of ideas and people. As an example, maybe you have a Black person who has never been around many White people in a positive way or White students who have never experienced American Black culture beyond stereotypes. Same applies other groups.

Employers also want to have diverse array of qualified to choose from, it is considered so important a number of them went together on an Amicus Brief to the Supreme Court.

Depending on how broad or narrow this ruling is, we could see the effects rippling out into a whole lot more than just education.

Are schools going to be allowed to consider
athletic ability
income
first generation status
ethnicity
indiginous people
underserved communities
disability
legacy/doner
Gender

A broad ruling could trickle down into employment and efforts to create a diverse workplaces. Or efforts to train and recruit more minorities to work among underserved populations because they understand that population and are more likely to be trusted.

The end result could be the increasing stratification of groups, particularly on economic lines, but also in terms of collaboration and the sharing of ideas Rather than a “color blind society”.

How broad do you want the ruling to be and how would you address the negative factors?

All of that is easily accomplished with zero racial discrimination AA ......it's impossible for that not to happen since the USA opened the flood gates with Hart Cellar. Blacks even complain and try to separate Caribbeans and Africans and demand that those blacks should not get special treatment on Ivy League apps.
It's all absurd.

 

[Foxfyre]

I think we have different views on how to achieve "a race blind" society.

It is a reality that people of different racial, ethnic and religious backgrounds experience America in different ways. IMO, you discount those differences by insisting they no longer when they actually do in our culture though not in the law. A big part of closing these gaps is understanding them and breaking stereotyoes, including stereotypes about whites. If you eliminate efforts to eliminate diversity, how will enogh people meet outside their comfort zones to achieve a color blind outlook?

When black children are taught that they don't have the same opportunities as others because they are black, many will believe that. When white children are taught that they are automatically guilty of white supremacy because they are white, many will believe that. I strongly believe that is cruel and unacceptable to teach both concepts and it deliberately and intentionally perpetuates racism.

Nobody will ever become colorblind any more than we don't notice blonds, brunettes, bald, fat, slim, tall, short. I notice when people have certain ethnic features just as the Roman nose or the Asian eyes or the typical middle easterner or those of Hispanic heritage or the unique features of American Indians and India Indians. I notice short, tall, etc. But I don't have to judge or treat people different based on those physical characteristics. I believe I treat everybody just the same. Skin color should be of no more importance than hair color or eye color.

And I believe that will become the norm if we stop forcing people to mentally and systematically divide people into different groups based on gender, race, ethnicity or whatever. Racism will never cease to exist so long as we force people to see it as criteria for anything. Skin color should be no more important to anybody than hair color or eye color.

 

[Foxfyre]

For every one white women helped by AA, there must be hundreds or thousands who are victimized by it, and in TWO WAYS.

1. They are excluded from AA programs that cater only to blacks.
2. Being daughters and wives dependents of white men being discriminated against.

Not to mention that I HATED being thought of as the 'affirmative action' employee by my male coworkers in the jobs I've had that were typically dominated by men. I got those jobs not due to AA but usually because the boss was desperate to fill the position and I was the best qualified to do it. And I worked my ass off proving to him he did the right thing by hiring me. But because of AA, some of my male coworkers never believed I really deserved my job.

 

[protectionist]

I have the answer to that.

About a month ago, I read an analysis of the strategy the lawyer for the Asians was taking. (I looked for it again to link it, but couldn’t find it. Google probably hid it.) He is taking two factors into consideration in bringing his suit:

1) In a political environment where everything is pro-black, with the liberal narrative that blacks are all oppressed victims, he knew it would be hard for the SCOTUS to take action that would be interpreted as being against blacks - even if all they did was say you can’t specifically advantage blacks for no other reason than skin color.

2) Similarly, in a political environment that reeks of anti-white racism (just look at the nasty remarks about whites that people can get away with) and this notion of “White Privilege,” he knew that the SCOTUS would be more willing to take action that would be interpreted as not giving special privilege to whites - as in, rejecting Asians to let the privileged whites in (and avoiding the much bigger achievement gap between the rejected Asians and admitted blacks.)

So that was the lawyer’s play: it’s unfair to reject Asians when they have better grades and scores than whites who are accepted. But the impact will be the same: colleges will be told they cannot use race as a factor in determining who is admitted. That means the admittrd blacks with far lower scores than either rejected whites OR Asians will no longer get special privilege.

It’s a very smart strategy.

I see no reason for it to be hard for the SCOTUS to take action that would be interpreted as being against blacks - How their decisions might be interpreted should be 100% irrelevant.