Zone1 When SCOTUS Rules Against Favoritism Based on Race, the Impact will Go Beyond College Admissions

[Lisa558]

When I earlier implied that you were acting obtuse? Here you seem to be doing it again. I dunno.

Just because something is "legal," does not necessarily mean, that it is ethical, or even just, you do know this, correct? OR? Maybe not?

I'm guessing, you would be the type of person, to tell me, that "separate but equal," would actually work, right? Or that businesses should have the right to discriminate based on ethnicity or color, if they want. As long as they provide equal access to services and product?

If this was still that law? Well, then, I guess that would make it correct, yes? IT was, after all, LAW? Your deflection to, "just going by the law," IS NOT AN ARGUMENT. It is a defense of systemic racism.

Plessy v. Ferguson - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Or literacy tests? They wouldn't be racist or discriminatory at all, is that it? Because it does not explicitly address race or ethnicity?

Literacy test - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Keep dodging.

Just because it is law? Does not make it ethical or just.



Isn't that what this case is about? THE LAW? You seem to think that law should only favor your interests, and you should not have to see anyone else's POV? Why is that?

No I would NOT go for “.separate but equal”! There you go, basically calling me a racist. Saying I’m “dodging.” Attack, attack, attack. It’s such a Democrat tactic and I thought you were a Republican. (I might getting you mixed up with someone else.)

I was brought up to judge people as INDIVIDUALS, not as part of whatever race they belong to - because THAT is racist. That is why people should not be admitted to Harvard with their race being a factor.

 

[Lisa558]

When I earlier implied that you were acting obtuse? Here you seem to be doing it again. I dunno.

Just because something is "legal," does not necessarily mean, that it is ethical, or even just, you do know this, correct? OR? Maybe not?

I'm guessing, you would be the type of person, to tell me, that "separate but equal," would actually work, right? Or that businesses should have the right to discriminate based on ethnicity or color, if they want. As long as they provide equal access to services and product?

If this was still that law? Well, then, I guess that would make it correct, yes? IT was, after all, LAW? Your deflection to, "just going by the law," IS NOT AN ARGUMENT. It is a defense of systemic racism.

Plessy v. Ferguson - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Or literacy tests? They wouldn't be racist or discriminatory at all, is that it? Because it does not explicitly address race or ethnicity?

Literacy test - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Keep dodging.

Just because it is law? Does not make it ethical or just.



Isn't that what this case is about? THE LAW? You seem to think that law should only favor your interests, and you should not have to see anyone else's POV? Why is that?

P.S. and how about answering my question above. The black gets in because black, the legacy gets in because legacy, and the girl with much better grades and scores gets rejected because she isn’t black or a legacy.

 

[MisterBeale]

No I would NOT go for “.separate but equal”! There you go, basically calling me a racist. Saying I’m “dodging.” Attack, attack, attack. It’s such a Democrat tactic and I thought you were a Republican. (I might getting you mixed up with someone else.)

I was brought up to judge people as INDIVIDUALS, not as part of whatever race they belong to - because THAT is racist. That is why people should not be admitted to Harvard with their race being a factor.

THANK YOU!

Well? That is the same thing that you are advocating. You don't want to look at something, just because it is tradition. You don't want to look at them as individuals, you just wrote, that because it is allowed, "by law," then it is O.K., and we need not look into the history of it.

And I am not calling you a racist, I am only pointing out, what you are acting like, by deflecting to the argument of, "well, that's the law."



If you feel attacked by the facts and history? That is not my fault.

Most folks on this forum know I am non-partisan, my only ally are facts, and the truth.

 

[MisterBeale]

P.S. and how about answering my question above. The black gets in because black, the legacy gets in because legacy, and the girl with much better grades and scores gets rejected because she isn’t black or a legacy.

The reason I did not answer it, is because you had no link to it, I believe it is a made up scenario. And even if it is real?

Fallacy of composition - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Faulty generalization - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Cherry Picking

When only select evidence is presented in order to persuade the audience to accept a position, and evidence that would go against the position is withheld. The stronger the withheld evidence, the more fallacious the argument. Logical Form:

www.logicallyfallacious.com

Confirmation bias - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

The data is something that supports you sharpening your own axe. It is a specific data point, that you want to grind, which I really do not think represents the picture in totality.

It doesn't prove anything at all, I think we both know that, right?

 

[Lisa558]

THANK YOU!

Well? That is the same thing that you are advocating. You don't want to look at something, just because it is tradition. You don't want to look at them as individuals, you just wrote, that because it is allowed, "by law," then it is O.K., and we need not look into the history of it.

And I am not calling you a racist, I am only pointing out, what you are acting like, by deflecting to the argument of, "well, that's the law."



If you feel attacked by the facts and history? That is not my fault.

Most folks on this forum know I am non-partisan, my only ally are facts, and the truth.

What you don’t understand is that we (companies, schools, etc.) are not allowed to discriminate by race because, obviously, it’s racist.

But we ARE allowed to make decisions for financial advantage, as long as race doesn’t enter into it. Thus, schools can admit athletes and legacies because it’s good business. Period. As long as race isn’t factored in, it’s legal.

 

[Lisa558]

The reason I did not answer it, is because you had no link to it, I believe it is a made up scenario. And even if it is real?

Fallacy of composition - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Faulty generalization - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Cherry Picking

When only select evidence is presented in order to persuade the audience to accept a position, and evidence that would go against the position is withheld. The stronger the withheld evidence, the more fallacious the argument. Logical Form:

www.logicallyfallacious.com

Confirmation bias - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

The data is something that supports you sharpening your own axe. It is a specific data point, that you want to grind, which I really do not think represents the picture in totality.

It doesn't prove anything at all, I think we both know that, right?

Yes, of course the characters were made up (other than one, whose last name was changed) but it was in response to your confusion over why the applicants to Harvard who have the biggest disadvantage are those who are neither black nor legacy. Both blacks and legacies would get admitted ahead of a higher-scoring white with no family advantage.

 

[MisterBeale]

What you don’t understand is that we (companies, schools, etc.) are not allowed to discriminate by race because, obviously, it’s racist.

But we ARE allowed to make decisions for financial advantage, as long as race doesn’t enter into it. Thus, schools can admit athletes and legacies because it’s good business. Period. As long as race isn’t factored in, it’s legal.

Aight, I'm out.

The Tulsa Race massacre was, "good business," as well. That didn't make it any less racist.

Tulsa race massacre - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

I can't open the eyes of those who refuse to see.

YES, the financial prospects of the Out-Group do figure into this, and there are many ways to hold a person, or groups of people back, without explicitly referring to their race, religion, or other identities.

 

[Lisa558]

Aight, I'm out.

The Tulsa Race massacre was, "good business," as well. That didn't make it any less racist.

Tulsa race massacre - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

I can't open the eyes of those who refuse to see.

YES, the financial prospects of the Out-Group do figure into this, and there are many ways to hold a person, or groups of people back, without explicitly referring to their race, religion, or other identities.

Yeah, you are playing all sorts of games to attribute racism to legacy selects.. I’m out as well.

 

[Coyote]

Of course. Consider three applicants for two remaining seats at Harvard:

1) Lisa Goldstein, a white 2nd generation American, has a 3.93 GPA and a 1550 SAT.
2) Charles Whitworth, III, whose father was Harvard ‘92 and whose grandfather was Harvard ‘68, with a GPA of 3.55 and SAT score of 1380.
3) LaShika Jackson, whose parents went to UMass via Affirmative Action 30 years ago, and has a GPA of 3.5 and an SAT score of 1400.

Which person gets rejected?

Harvard does not make admissions decisions based only on GPA or test scores.

 

[Coyote]

First, stop yelling. Second, the stats show that the average scores and grades of accepted blacks are well below the average scores and grades of accepted whites.

So?

To repeat, schools do not admit bases on GPA and test scores alone.

Look at U of MD’s requirements and the review process.

Freshman Applicant Requirements | UMD Undergraduate Admissions

www.admissions.umd.edu

The reason they graduate is because the school, knowing how bad it would look is the Affirmative Action admits were to flunk are babied and tutored along to get them through.

This just your opinion, and a nasty one at that. They can’t possibly have graduated due to hard work and merit. So what if they get tutoring to help them succeed? That is available to all students. Students from poor backgrounds, often first gen, don’t have advantage of coming out of well funded schools offering advanced placement classes etc. so they typically struggle at the beginning. So what?

The case, as I said, leaves blacks out of it as a STRATEGY. They know that bringing up anything that would throw into question the favoritism shown blacks is not politically acceptable in the CRT “poor blacks are so oppressed” and “whites get all the advantages” environment, so they are developing their case to make it against whites. In the current political climate, a case against whitey can win.

How about favoritism shown to women?

But the end result will be the same: it is unconstitutional to lower admission standards in order to get more blacks into the program. One is not allowed to discriminate by race.

They can make admission standards whatever they like, the Constitution has nothing to say on it.

 

[Coyote]

That’s the past. No need to be racist against whites now. Your father was favored, and you were favored. Time for your kids to compete on their own and stop supporting racism.

That Harvard is a private school is immaterial. They are still not allowed to violate the Constitution.

You were favored as well.

 

[Coyote]

P.S. and how about answering my question above. The black gets in because black, the legacy gets in because legacy, and the girl with much better grades and scores gets rejected because she isn’t black or a legacy.

No. She gets in because she is a woman.

 

[DGS49]

When I was a boy, I spent a considerable amount of time in the homes of my "colored" friends. We as a country were slowly growing out of the era when better qualified Negroes were passed over for jobs, promotions, etc. because of the color of their skin. There were Black college grads who went to work every day wearing a suit, then changed into their janitor uniforms when they got there. But optimism was in the air. In THOSE households there was confidence that if their children - my friends - came into the work world with qualities that were as good as a "white" person, they would get a fair shake - and they not only accepted that, they welcomed it. Being evaluated without regard to their race.

This is the ONLY solution. As far as possible assessments must be gender, race, and ethnicity blind, so that those who are chosen will be presumed to have earned it. Unlike what we have now, and what the DEI folks are demanding.

Thank Mr Trump for doing the right thing w/r/t his USSC nominations.

 

[Correll]

I think it depends on the student. They aren’t admitting unqualified students, the students still have to have the minimum GPA’s right? The more important metric should be the graduation rate, as a mark of succeeding. For Harvard, it is 96% for Blacks.

Harvard Has the Highest Black Student Graduation Rate in the Ivy League | The Journal of Blacks in Higher Education

All eight Ivy League colleges have an African-American student graduation rate of 85 percent or better.

www.jbhe.com

Tell that to the porr WHITE kids that didn't get to go to HAVARD, because of their skin color.

That's racist discrimination, no matter how you dance and razzaldazzal about.

 

[Lisa558]

They are batshit crazy. Utterly delusional.

Thanks. And what about Jews? I couldn’t be a legacy because up until the 1960s, they had a strict quota on the Jew-boys.

Plus, they act like every white person has been building wealth for generations. Probably 100 million are only 2nd or 3rd generation, with the immigrant generation arriving poor and uneducated.

 

[Coyote]

Tell that to the porr WHITE kids that didn't get to go to HAVARD, because of their skin color.

That's racist discrimination, no matter how you dance and razzaldazzal about.

How come you never complain about preferences for women? Legacy? Athletes?

 

[Correll]

How come you never complain about preferences for women? Legacy? Athletes?

1. I do complain about preferences for women.

2. The legacy system has real benefits to the education system by encouraging donations.

3. I do complain about Athletes.

4. And the white kids not getting in, is still racist discrimination. That you supporrt. Allowed, hell STRONGLY ENCOURAGED BY LAW.

 

[Lisa558]

Yes, I have run into those delusions too.

It is most hilarious when you know some white person, who has struggled greatly, and THEY have been so brainwashed that they parrot that shit.

Yup. I know someone (I steer clear of her for the most part) whose mother was a waitress and father a cashier at the Grand Union - and she says whites have all been here for generations building wealth. All four of her grandparents were immigrants.

 

[Lisa558]

1. I do complain about preferences for women.

2. The legacy system has real benefits to the education system by encouraging donations.

3. I do complain about Athletes.

4. And the white kids not getting in, is still racist discrimination. That you supporrt. Allowed, hell STRONGLY ENCOURAGED BY LAW.

Liberals support racist practices if they help blacks and hurt whites.

 

[Unkotare]

...

3. I do complain about Athletes.
...

Why?