Zone1 What is race realism?

[Lisa558]

The New Yorker, January 27, 2022

The Supreme Court Appears Ready, Finally, to Defeat Affirmative Action​

Opponents of affirmative action in university admissions couldn’t possibly have had better news than the Supreme Court’s announcement, on Monday, that it will hear two cases organized by Edward Blum, the anti-affirmative-action crusader. The first, a lawsuit against Harvard alleging that it discriminates against Asian American applicants, was unsuccessful in federal district court in Boston, and unsuccessful again in the First Circuit Court of Appeals. It’s hard to imagine that the Supreme Court took the case because it wanted to affirm the lower courts’ rulings. The second case, a suit against the University of North Carolina, was similarly unsuccessful in federal district court. The Supreme Court took the highly unusual measure of short-circuiting the next step, an appeal to the Fourth Circuit—instead bringing it directly to Washington and pairing it with the Harvard case.

The message is clear: the Supreme Court wants to consider decisively departing from a long string of decisions that have permitted the use of race as a plus factor in admissions. These have been close decisions, made on narrow grounds, usually with a moderate conservative Justice holding the balance of power. Now there are no moderate conservatives on the Supreme Court. Assuming that President Biden will have succeeded in getting a successor to Justice Stephen Breyer seated before the Court hears the case, we can expect a strongly worded 6–3 decision insisting on “color blindness” in admissions, full stop. That would surely invite further legal challenges to diversity programs in every other area of American life: hiring, contracting, grant-making, and on and on. And if the Biden Administration can’t get a new Justice in place before the November midterm elections, it could be an even more lopsided decision.

The Supreme Court Appears Ready, Finally, to Defeat Affirmative Action

Moderate conservative Justices voted with liberals to protect the program in the past, but there are no such Justices now.

www.newyorker.com

-----------------


View attachment 684939

Also, this could have been predicted. About 20 years ago, the SCOTUS ruled in the Grutter case that favoritism toward blacks could continue for another generation or so (it was a compromise ruling) but in another 20 or 25 years, it would be time to stop discriminating by race.

That ruling, together with the analysis in your post, and added to the fact that the SCOTUS is not ruled by social justice warriors, makes it a given that the days of lowering standards until enough blacks “make the cut” while whites and Asians with better metrics are rejected….are OVER.

 

[Friends]

Once affirmative action is ended in university admissions it will be easy to end it in hiring. Employers and bosses know that if they do not hire the most capable candidates, their rivals will hire them. Most of these people resent pressure from the government to hire more blacks.

Those who advocate affirmative action clandestinely acknowledge racial inequality. If blacks were intrinsically equal to whites, racial preferences in university admissions and hiring would not be necessary to achieve equality in results.

 

[Lisa558]

They have been denounced and debunked. Since race is a construct there are not racial genetic differences.

If race is a construct, why are universities delineating by race to give an advantage to blacks?

There should be no consideration of race at all.

 

[Lisa558]

Once affirmative action is ended in university admissions it will be easy to end it in hiring. Employers and bosses know that if they do not hire the most capable candidates, their rivals will hire them. Most of these people resent pressure from the government to hire more blacks.

Those who advocate affirmative action clandestinely acknowledge racial inequality. If blacks were intrinsically equal to whites, racial preferences in university admissions and hiring would not be necessary to achieve equality in results.

Too bad I’m so old. If I were in the workforce now, I would have risen higher rather than lose out to blacks who got promotions over me, despite the fact they were obviously less qualified.

I mentioned in another thread how two of my friends were passed over for blacks, and in each case, the friend brought a suit - and won. They were each rewarded the higher position, and the back pay differential.

In my most recent case, I didn’t want to exert the time and energy, and money, even though a lawyer I consulted with said I had a definite claim. I simply left that leftist company and got a job elsewhere.

 

[Coyote]

No, it wasn’t - and that is at the crux of the case. They designed the personality test as a way to give more points to blacks and fewer points to whites and Asians. The SCOTUS will rule on whether one can develop admissions tests and criteria designed to meet a pre-determined racial outcome.

You do know, I hope, that the SCOTUS will rule against Harvard. There are only three leftists in the Court, and one of them will recuse herself due to her conflict-of-interest. That means six justices who follow the Constitution, and two who don’t.

No. The case is about discrimination by race.

I am well aware that there are 4 justices on the court who are rightist extremists and don't follow the the Constitution. You want it to be just about about race but it won't be, it will be about any preferential system, such as gender.

 

[Coyote]

Also, this could have been predicted. About 20 years ago, the SCOTUS ruled in the Grutter case that favoritism toward blacks could continue for another generation or so (it was a compromise ruling) but in another 20 or 25 years, it would be time to stop discriminating by race.

That ruling, together with the analysis in your post, and added to the fact that the SCOTUS is not ruled by social justice warriors, makes it a given that the days of lowering standards until enough blacks “make the cut” while whites and Asians with better metrics are rejected….are OVER.

Standards have not been lowered, the same standards of admission apply regardless of race.

 

[Coyote]

If race is a construct, why are universities delineating by race to give an advantage to blacks?

There should be no consideration of race at all.

...or gender, or social class, or monetary contributions, or athletic ability, but no one bothered about that.

 

[Friends]

I am well aware that there are 4 justices on the court who are rightist extremists and don't follow the the Constitution. You want it to be just about about race but it won't be, it will be about any preferential system, such as gender.

Affirmative action violates the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which outlawed discrimination on the basis of race.

 

[AZrailwhale]

I am well aware that there are 4 justices on the court who are rightist extremists and don't follow the the Constitution. You want it to be just about about race but it won't be, it will be about any preferential system, such as gender.

They aren't "rightist extremists" they are constitutionalists who follow the constitution instead of making up law by fiat and legislating from the bench like the liberal majority has done for fifty years.

 

[Coyote]

Admissions should never be engineered by racial quotas. Whites and Asians are not admitted by race. Their race is just incidental. They are admitted primarily on merit.

Quotas are illegal but striving for a diverse campus is not. MERIT alone has never been the determiner.

Social engineering by bias for someone will always result in discrimination against someone else. Ideally, merit is the priority, but certainly not race.

Social engineering via bias towards wealthy donors and alumni (who represent a much larger proportion of "special" admissions") means others will be discriminated against as well.

As expected in a majority white nation with admissions primarily based on academic merit. It's fair.

"Equity" is incompatible with American society. It's a term used by those who divide society into groups they pit against each other. Race groups are a particularly destructive form of disunity.

Equity as opposed to what alternative?

 

[Friends]

They aren't "rightist extremists" they are constitutionalists who follow the constitution instead of making up law by fiat and legislating from the bench like the liberal majority has done for fifty years.

Liberals invent Constitutional rights, such as the right to an abortion. Reactionaries claim that what is not specifically authorized by the Constitution, such as much of the economic and environmental legislation passed during the twentieth century is un Constitutional.

This is my philosophy about the Constitution: if the Constitution does not clearly say something, we should assume that it is silent on the matter, and leave it up to the voters.

 

[Coyote]

Affirmative action violates the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which outlawed discrimination on the basis of race.

If race was the only or primary factor you would have a point, but it isn't.

Once affirmative action is ended in university admissions it will be easy to end it in hiring. Employers and bosses know that if they do not hire the most capable candidates, their rivals will hire them. Most of these people resent pressure from the government to hire more blacks.

Those who advocate affirmative action clandestinely acknowledge racial inequality. If blacks were intrinsically equal to whites, racial preferences in university admissions and hiring would not be necessary to achieve equality in results.

Intrinsically: in an essential or natural way.

Academic success is not anything intrinsic, it is influenced by many social, economic and cultural factors that affect equality at the starting line.

Defining it as intrinsic, taken along with with your other posts on racial genetics and racial IQ, make it sound as if you think that academic differences are related to genetic difference.

 

[Friends]

...or gender, or social class, or monetary contributions, or athletic ability, but no one bothered about that.

It makes sense for a university to admit the marginally qualified children of rich alumnae because their families are likely to contribute financially to the university. This is unlikely with the marginally qualified black beneficiaries of affirmative action, because their parents are likely to be poor.

Also, I suspect that the number of legacy admissions is smaller than the number of unqualified black beneficiaries of affirmative action, but I will respect data that shows differently.

 

[Friends]

If race was the only or primary factor you would have a point, but it isn't.


Intrinsically: in an essential or natural way.

Academic success is not anything intrinsic, it is influenced by many social, economic and cultural factors that affect equality at the starting line.

Defining it as intrinsic, taken along with with your other posts on racial genetics and racial IQ, make it sound as if you think that academic differences are related to genetic difference.

Academic differences certainly are related to genetic differences. As more is learned about human genetics this will become increasingly obvious.

 

[Coyote]

It makes sense for a university to admit the marginally qualified children of rich alumnae because their families are likely to contribute financially to the university. This is unlikely with the marginally qualified black beneficiaries of affirmative action, because their parents are likely to be poor.

Also, I suspect that the number of legacy admissions is smaller than the number of unqualified black beneficiaries of affirmative action, but I will respect data that shows differently.

So it is ok to discriminate and admit "unqualified" students if it is for the purpose of financial gain, but not ok for racial gain? Why? It's no different to those rejected despite having superior test scores. And yes, schools like Harvard admit more legacy/doner students than Black. I already posted a link.

 

[BothWings]

If racial differences are due to differences in opportunity, Head Start and No Child Left Behind would have shortened the race gap. They did not.

Indeed. And Ive never seen any kids sent home on their first day of Kindergarten due to their race. Not in my 51 year life. So there's no lack of opportunity there.and since public schools are paid for with taxes, poverty is not much of an excuse

 

[Coyote]

Indeed. And Ive never seen any kids sent home on their first day of Kindergarten due to their race. Not in my 51 year life. So there's no lack of opportunity there.and since public schools are paid for with taxes, poverty is not much of an excuse

They are paid for with propery taxes, which can vary hugely.

 

[Friends]

So it is ok to discriminate and admit "unqualified" students if it is for the purpose of financial gain, but not ok for racial gain? Why? It's no different to those rejected despite having superior test scores. And yes, schools like Harvard admit more legacy/doner students than Black. I already posted a link.

Because financial gain benefits the university, but racial gain does not. I am not protective toward legacy admissions.

 

[BothWings]

They are paid for with propery taxes, which can vary hugely.

Doesn't really matter. School is paid for. Even if you're dirt poor and have a family of 6 squeezed into a tiny apartment youre likely not paying much in property taxes if at all. It's extremely unlikely to affect whether your kids get an education or not. They are still entitled to the same education. Kids don't get sent home early from school because their parents don't pay as much in property taxes as another family.

 

[Friends]

You've affirmed your vile racism over 11 pages now and you're still not finished.

I find that which is most troublesome is your pride in your position.

But I also would maintain that your position is consistent with most Americans. Most keep it private on going all the way with your ideology, but will be quite willing to quietly accept your racism.

What did I say that is not true?