Zone1 USSC to hear racial discrimination in education case today

[martybegan]

Stop talking about 200 years ago and face the reality that white males get more preferences or one ups because of their race right now than anyone else. Then learn that Asians are included in Affirmative Action and are getting accepted way above their population so they aren't getting screwed.

You are the one who brought up 200 years of stuff. Again, why should I be punished for the sins of my fathers?

 

[IM2]

You are the one who brought up 200 years of stuff. Again, why should I be punished for the sins of my fathers?

Yeah I posted that to give you a frame of reference because AA has been in effect less than 60 years and whites have benefitted the most from it. Stop using that silly line when you practice the same sins.

 

[JoeB131]

Can you imagine the howls from the left?

First the SC throws out Roe vs Wade, then they shitcan Affirmative Action!

That would be so much winning I could hardly stand it.

Trump was right: We're going to say "Please stop, Mr. Trump. I can't stand all this winning!!!"

How does this constitute "winning"? It seems to me that you just want the people you don't like to suffer, but you don't benefit in any way from this ruling. It's not like you are going to get into Harvard.

At the 2003 ruling, the SCOTUS took a wishy-washy approach by kicking it down the road, to abolish it in about 20 years. We are now at that point.

And the group bringing the case is brilliant. They know they can’t argue that Asians are being rejected to make room for blacks with scores and grades waaaaaay below them, since blacks are a protected minority and the leftists would be screaming, so they are saying that Asians are being rejected to make room for whites with grades and scores somewhat below them, since the leftists are OK with the “white privilege” approach.

Asians are 3% of the population and make up 26% of the Harvard Student Body. They are not being discriminated against.

The problem is, as others have pointed out, is that 42% of the admissions to Harvard are Athletics, Dean's Interest, Legacies and Children of Staff (ADLC). These people are also being admitted despite lower tests scores, and you are fine with that.

At the end of the day, Harvard, being a progressive institution, will just find another way to admit more blacks...

 

[JoeB131]

I agree that the time to end ALL affirmative action has long come and gone. It was okay initially to break down the cultural barriers left over after segregation ended. But once accomplished, it should have ended long ago. Instead it became a kind of reverse discrimination with privilege given and standards lowered to meet some kind of quota that would 'prove' diversity and that resulted in a kind of cultural entitlement that I believe has been detrimental to many minorities.

The problem is other groups that benefited from AA in the past (White Women, Asians), never had to deal with 400 years of institutionalized racism like blacks have.

I've lost out on jobs to Affirmative Action hires (One a white woman, one a black woman). And I've lost out on jobs due to the hiring of the Boss's drinking buddy or the owner's idiot nephew.

When you are talking about Harvard, anyone who is being considered is usually pretty exceptional. But yet there is plenty of "Affirmative Action" for white people in the 42% of admissions that are Athletics, Dean's Interest, Legacies and Children of Staff. (ADLC).

So you could get a system of just taking the high test scorers and the highest GPA's. But all that will do is just take the people who are good at taking tests. Frankly, making an 17 year old stake his entire future on a flawed test is kind of a crazy system.

Oh, did you know that the SAT was devised in the 1920's by a Eugenicist named Carl Brigham? Learn something new every day. Yet the tyranny of this scam continues.

And it created a new kind of prejudice in which the minority was assumed to have gotten his/her job because of affirmative action or to create some sort of diversity instead of having to compete like everybody else. Minorities and women were resented when standards were lowered for them.

Here's the thing. The only person who would have those kinds of questions asked about them is someone who sucks at his job. Like, "How did this person ever get hired?"

And the reality is, they often get hired because our hiring process is often more flawed than the SAT. You submit a resume, usually written by someone else which is then sorted by a machine. Then you get hired on the basis of maybe two interviews by a small committee, because no one relies on just one person to make a hiring decision anymore.

So, yeah, when someone is a screwup, your first inclination is to think, "That person got hired because of affirmative action", or "that person got hired because he's the boss's nephew."

 

[JoeB131]

Again, that black kid faced the white racism you didn't. The finger was on the scale against them.

But how much of that is self-inflicted.

The argument the plaintiffs are making is brilliant, really. If the purpose of AA is to offset racism, and we are now discriminating AGAINST Asians to make room for blacks, then the whole thing looks a little silly.

 

[JoeB131]

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.

But here's the problem, you can't have both liberty and equality.

You can maybe have a balance, but the more "equality" you have, the less "liberty" you have.

Everything in life is a tradeoff.

 

[JoeB131]

The unfortunate thing is that when Amy Coney Barrett was asked if it is valid to consider the impact of a decision along with whether or not it is Constitutional, she answered yes.

It is also unfortunate that we live in a country where a ruling is made with consideration as to whether it will upset blacks, even when the ruling upholds the Constitution, but this is where we find ourselves. Perhaps once the country speaks up on Tuesday and lets the Democrats know their identity politics has been rejected, we can stop making decisions based on how specific identity groups will react Instead of what is best for Americans as a whole.

The constitution isn't a suicide pact.

Nope, your sub-standard shift on Tuesday will not eliminate the very valid complaints blacks have... and I have no desire to live like a Zionist.

 

[JoeB131]

You are absolutely correct. The racists on the left want to teach anti-white racism while, of course, denying that they’re doing so.

No fewer than 30 public schools across 15 states taught a book, “Not My Idea,” that claims white people make deals with the devil. Fortunately, anti-white racism will be dealt a one-two punch: first, when we kick out the worst of the leftists; and second, when the SCOTUS issues its ruling that admissions officers cannot bestow or withhold favor on individual applicants based on race.

Um,okay. Here's the thing, more people agree with the leftists than the rightists. YOu guys haven't won a national election since 2004, and then you had to scare the hell out of the country to do it.

No amount of court rulings is going to solve your issues, where you freak out when you see pictures of black models at the mall.

 

[JoeB131]

Why do you guys tell people to read these losers? We aren't talking about the past racism exists NOW and that along with the fact that damage created by that racism has not been fixed is the problem. Nobody is teaching anybody to be angry and defensive, and there is no such thing as black victimhood. Nobody is demanding or encouraging people to do what you claim. You are exhibiting the same white pathology of denial that made Samuel Cartwright devise a medical condition called drapetomania. Go read about it then recognize how silly your opinion is in regard to blacks.

But is the problem today REALLY because of racism, or are they because of bad life choices, like a 72% illegitimacy rate, government dependence, toleration of crime, and the general notion that the world "owes" you.

I've never owned a slave, never denied a black person a job, (in fact, I've even fought to get black people hired), never made anyone sit at the back of the bus, etc. Yet why should I get passed over for a job where I was the most qualified to make up for some past injustice?

We'll just have to agree to disagree on that. Because Foxfyre is repeating way too many comments about blacks that she doesn't have the life experience of being black to be saying.

By the same logic, you don't have the experience of being white in this country. Or Asian, for that matter.

 

[JoeB131]

Yeah I posted that to give you a frame of reference because AA has been in effect less than 60 years and whites have benefitted the most from it. Stop using that silly line when you practice the same sins.

Okay, let's look at that. Let's admit that white women and Asians have benefited from AA in the past. I read an article in Slate the other day bemoaning the fact that Asians were originally partners in establishing AA after WWII, but today have decided that it works against them. The same can be said of white women.

They have concluded despite the system being rigged for white men, with enough hard work and perseverance, they can still do well without it on their own merits.

 

[Lisa558]

Yeah I posted that to give you a frame of reference because AA has been in effect less than 60 years and whites have benefitted the most from it. Stop using that silly line when you practice the same sins.

So if whites have benefitted the most from AA, I say let’s get rid of it and give the blacks a chance to get admitted with lower scores!

 

[LibertyKid]

But is the problem today REALLY because of racism, or are they because of bad life choices, like a 72% illegitimacy rate, government dependence, toleration of crime, and the general notion that the world "owes" you.

I've never owned a slave, never denied a black person a job, (in fact, I've even fought to get black people hired), never made anyone sit at the back of the bus, etc. Yet why should I get passed over for a job where I was the most qualified to make up for some past injustice?



By the same logic, you don't have the experience of being white in this country. Or Asian, for that matter.

You can't bring in personal culpability into the conversation. What is happening to people of color today is the direct result of actions 200 years ago.

 

[martybegan]

Yeah I posted that to give you a frame of reference because AA has been in effect less than 60 years and whites have benefitted the most from it. Stop using that silly line when you practice the same sins.

You keep ignoring the damage done to people like me by it. It exists.

 

[Foxfyre]

The problem is other groups that benefited from AA in the past (White Women, Asians), never had to deal with 400 years of institutionalized racism like blacks have.

I've lost out on jobs to Affirmative Action hires (One a white woman, one a black woman). And I've lost out on jobs due to the hiring of the Boss's drinking buddy or the owner's idiot nephew.

When you are talking about Harvard, anyone who is being considered is usually pretty exceptional. But yet there is plenty of "Affirmative Action" for white people in the 42% of admissions that are Athletics, Dean's Interest, Legacies and Children of Staff. (ADLC).

So you could get a system of just taking the high test scorers and the highest GPA's. But all that will do is just take the people who are good at taking tests. Frankly, making an 17 year old stake his entire future on a flawed test is kind of a crazy system.

Oh, did you know that the SAT was devised in the 1920's by a Eugenicist named Carl Brigham? Learn something new every day. Yet the tyranny of this scam continues.




Here's the thing. The only person who would have those kinds of questions asked about them is someone who sucks at his job. Like, "How did this person ever get hired?"

And the reality is, they often get hired because our hiring process is often more flawed than the SAT. You submit a resume, usually written by someone else which is then sorted by a machine. Then you get hired on the basis of maybe two interviews by a small committee, because no one relies on just one person to make a hiring decision anymore.

So, yeah, when someone is a screwup, your first inclination is to think, "That person got hired because of affirmative action", or "that person got hired because he's the boss's nephew."

I am one who thinks Affirmative Action was necessary for a time after segregation ended because the old cultural taboos and attitudes were deeply entrenched. And yes, it did give women and other discriminated groups more opportunities.

But once those barriers came down, history teaches us they are not put back up. And forced integration via Affirmative Action outlived its purpose and produced far more negative consequences than positive ones. It should have ended within 10 or 20 years.

 

[Foxfyre]

But here's the problem, you can't have both liberty and equality.

You can maybe have a balance, but the more "equality" you have, the less "liberty" you have.

Everything in life is a tradeoff.

Liberty won't produce equality of outcome. Nothing will unless extremely low common denominators are used. Some will have a better starting position than others because good parents will see that they do. But having to go further than the other person does not have to keep us from getting there. Many many millionaires started from very disadvantaged positions. My husband and I were way below the poverty line when we married. We aren't anymore.

But liberty allows each person to become the best he/she can be if he/she is willing to shoot for his/her full potential. The government does not put up artificial barriers for anybody or advantage anybody. That's as it should be.

 

[JoeB131]

You keep ignoring the damage done to people like me by it. It exists.

Boo-hoo... Come on, what Damage, Marty.

Hey, I admit, I've lost out on two opportunities I know of because of AA hires (One female, one black)... probably a lot more I'll never know about. At the end of the day, though, I'm white, straight and male, and I will always have more opportunities.

I am one who thinks Affirmative Action was necessary for a time after segregation ended because the old cultural taboos and attitudes were deeply entrenched. And yes, it did give women and other discriminated groups more opportunities.

But once those barriers came down, history teaches us they are not put back up. And forced integration via Affirmative Action outlived its purpose and produced far more negative consequences than positive ones. It should have ended within 10 or 20 years.

Not really. The thing is, just because the colored drinking fountains disappeared didn't mean racism went away with it. ..

The reason why there wasn't a long need for affirmative action based on gender is that simply put, once the gender dynamic changed in the 1970's, people had to deal. You can keep your misogyny quiet in the office, but not at home.

Liberty won't produce equality of outcome. Nothing will unless extremely low common denominators are used. Some will have a better starting position than others because good parents will see that they do. But having to go further than the other person does not have to keep us from getting there. Many many millionaires started from very disadvantaged positions. My husband and I were way below the poverty line when we married. We aren't anymore.

Ah, the American Myth... and it is a myth. The reality Americans are LESS upwardly mobile today than people in other countries, AND less free.

Global Social Mobility Index - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

We rank 27th in Social Mobility... below all the other members of the G-7 except Italy.

We come in #15 in the Human Freedom Index.

Freedom Index by Country 2024

But liberty allows each person to become the best he/she can be if he/she is willing to shoot for his/her full potential. The government does not put up artificial barriers for anybody or advantage anybody. That's as it should be.

Uh, let's get real... in the last 40 years, the rich have gotten richer and the poor have gotten poorer. We've become a scared country, clinging to our guns and our bibles.

 

[JoeB131]

So if whites have benefitted the most from AA, I say let’s get rid of it and give the blacks a chance to get admitted with lower scores!

I'd have no problem with that, as long as you get rid of legacies, athletic scholarships, family member advantages, people who get in because they bribe their way in.

let's also get rid of preferences for veterans and disabled people. Forget community involvement. Just take the top 8000 scorers on the SAT and call it a day.

If you want to have a system purely based on test scores, then just go with that...

And don't ever look at the flaws in a test devised in 1926 by a known Eugenicist.

The Racist Beginnings of Standardized Testing | NEA

From grade school to college, students of color have suffered from the effects of biased testing.

www.nea.org

"To tell the truth about standardized tests," Kendi said, "is to tell the story of the eugenicists who created and popularized these tests in the United States more than a century ago."

As the U.S. absorbed millions of immigrants from Europe beginning in the 19th century, the day’s leading social scientists, many of them White Anglo-Saxon Protestants, were concerned by the infiltration of non-whites into the nation’s public schools.

In his 1923 book, A Study of American Intelligence, psychologist and eugenicist Carl Brigham wrote that African-Americans were on the low end of the racial, ethnic, and/or cultural spectrum. Testing, he believed, showed the superiority of “the Nordic race group” and warned of the “promiscuous intermingling” of new immigrants in the American gene pool.

 

[Foxfyre]

Boo-hoo... Come on, what Damage, Marty.

Hey, I admit, I've lost out on two opportunities I know of because of AA hires (One female, one black)... probably a lot more I'll never know about. At the end of the day, though, I'm white, straight and male, and I will always have more opportunities.



Not really. The thing is, just because the colored drinking fountains disappeared didn't mean racism went away with it. ..

The reason why there wasn't a long need for affirmative action based on gender is that simply put, once the gender dynamic changed in the 1970's, people had to deal. You can keep your misogyny quiet in the office, but not at home.



Ah, the American Myth... and it is a myth. The reality Americans are LESS upwardly mobile today than people in other countries, AND less free.

Global Social Mobility Index - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

We rank 27th in Social Mobility... below all the other members of the G-7 except Italy.

We come in #15 in the Human Freedom Index.

Freedom Index by Country 2024

Uh, let's get real... in the last 40 years, the rich have gotten richer and the poor have gotten poorer. We've become a scared country, clinging to our guns and our bibles.

The history I read and the data I study tell a very different story than what you seem to want to believe here. As I said, I've been at the bottom, darn near homeless, not sure where my next meal was coming from. I'm not there any more. And there are many many similar stories told by those who have brown and black skin. Most of America's poor would be considered well off by most other country's poor. Our poor by no means have gotten poorer. And nobody has to stay poor in this country if they are willing to do what is needed to do to become unpoor.

 

[martybegan]

Boo-hoo... Come on, what Damage, Marty.

Hey, I admit, I've lost out on two opportunities I know of because of AA hires (One female, one black)... probably a lot more I'll never know about. At the end of the day, though, I'm white, straight and male, and I will always have more opportunities.



Not really. The thing is, just because the colored drinking fountains disappeared didn't mean racism went away with it. ..

The reason why there wasn't a long need for affirmative action based on gender is that simply put, once the gender dynamic changed in the 1970's, people had to deal. You can keep your misogyny quiet in the office, but not at home.



Ah, the American Myth... and it is a myth. The reality Americans are LESS upwardly mobile today than people in other countries, AND less free.

Global Social Mobility Index - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

We rank 27th in Social Mobility... below all the other members of the G-7 except Italy.

We come in #15 in the Human Freedom Index.

Freedom Index by Country 2024

Uh, let's get real... in the last 40 years, the rich have gotten richer and the poor have gotten poorer. We've become a scared country, clinging to our guns and our bibles.

That makes you a chump.

 

[JoeB131]

The history I read and the data I study tell a very different story than what you seem to want to believe here. As I said, I've been at the bottom, darn near homeless, not sure where my next meal was coming from. I'm not there any more. And there are many many similar stories told by those who have brown and black skin. Most of America's poor would be considered well off by most other country's poor. Our poor by no means have gotten poorer. And nobody has to stay poor in this country if they are willing to do what is needed to do to become unpoor.

Uh, yeah, the Poor have gotten poorer.