• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

the official new supreme court thread - Very political

If only we had some evidence as to actual results when AA efforts are disallowed…
 
WokeandBroke said:
Because we don't want to discriminate based upon race as a matter of public policy in 2022.
Click to expand...

Of course there's a policy component with your ilk (anti voting measures, gerrymandering etc). But I'd be willing to stipulate most of y'all are would probably just be happy with the officially unofficial system status quo. Maybe some occasional cops murdering unarmed civilians and school shootings to go along with a little light treason.
 
Wow - Let's play the "overheard at a klan rally or the UNC admissions office" game:

WokeandBroke said:
• “I just opened a brown girl who’s an 810
[SAT].”
• “If its brown and above a 1300 [SAT] put them
in for [the] merit/Excel [scholarship].”
• “Still yes, give these brown babies a shot at
these merit $$.”
• “I don’t think I can admit or defer this brown
girl.”
• “perfect 2400 SAT All 5 on AP one B in 11th”
“Brown?!”
“Heck no. Asian.”
“Of course. Still impressive.”
• “I just read a blk girl who is an MC and Park
nominee.”
Click to expand...

Just amazing to watch the left lose their shit over the Supreme Court prohibiting racial discrimination
 
WokeandBroke said:
Let's apply this sweeping, unsupported conclusion to the facts of the Gratz v. Bollinger case. Majority opinion quoted here:

However, the Court finds that the University’s current policy, which automatically distributes 20 points, or one-fifth of the points needed to guarantee admission, to every single “underrepresented minority” applicant solely because of race, is not narrowly tailored to achieve educational diversity. In Bakke, Justice Powell explained his view that it would be permissible for a university to employ an admissions program in which “race or ethnic background may be deemed a ‘plus’ in a particular applicant’s file.” 438 U.S., at 317. He emphasized, however, the importance of considering each particular applicant as an individual, assessing all of the qualities that individual possesses, and in turn, evaluating that individual’s ability to contribute to the unique setting of higher education. The admissions program Justice Powell described did not contemplate that any single characteristic automatically ensured a specific and identifiable contribution to a university’s diversity. See id., at 315. The current LSA policy does not provide the individualized consideration Justice Powell contemplated. The only consideration that accompanies the 20-point automatic distribution to all applicants from underrepresented minorities is a factual review to determine whether an individual is a member of one of these minority groups. Moreover, unlike Justice Powell’s example, where the race of a “particular black applicant” could be considered without being decisive, see id., at 317, the LSA’s 20-point distribution has the effect of making “the factor of race … decisive” for virtually every minimally qualified underrepresented minority applicant, ibid. The fact that the LSA has created the possibility of an applicant’s file being flagged for individualized consideration only emphasizes the flaws of the University’s system as a whole when compared to that described by Justice Powell. The record does not reveal precisely how many applications are flagged, but it is undisputed that such consideration is the exception and not the rule in the LSA’s program. Also, this individualized review is only provided after admissions counselors automatically distribute the University’s version of a “plus” that makes race a decisive factor for virtually every minimally qualified underrepresented minority applicant. The Court rejects respondents’ contention that the volume of applications and the presentation of applicant information make it impractical for the LSA to use the admissions system upheld today in Grutter. The fact that the implementation of a program capable of providing individualized consideration might present administrative challenges does not render constitutional an otherwise problematic system. See, e.g., Richmond v. J. A. Croson Co., 488 U.S. 469, 508. Nothing in Justice Powell’s Bakke opinion signaled that a university may employ whatever means it desires to achieve diversity without regard to the limits imposed by strict scrutiny. Pp. 20—27.


---

That was the policy at the University of Michigan in the late 1990s. Does anyone know how much weight UNC put solely on an applicant's race? That's the case being taken up. Which of its most vocal defenders can tell us? (Spoiler: Not a one of you, because UNC refuses to say). But on faith alone, you all indignantly defend.
Click to expand...

Blah blah blah. My statement was not a legal system statement it was about the intent of the law. The purpose is not to “end racism.” How can a law do that? We can’t legislate what people think or how they feel. The law is intended to undo centuries of exclusion of other races from white society institutions. Saying that democrats want to “end racism with more racism” in a discussion about affirmative action is a dumb and emotionally targeted argument.
 
JH pretends that his skewed POV simply aligns with good jurisprudence, when the truth is that he is just a typical conservative and now the conservative political bias of the Supreme Court matches his conservative bias. He can jerk his dick completely off talking about legal precedents but the fact is that legal precedent is very often wrong. If the conservative courts interpretation of strict constitutionality does not allow for racially based affirmative action, that doesn’t mean that racially based affirmative action is “wrong” or “racist”, it simply means the constitution won’t allow our nation to recompense the opportunities it once denied to Black Americans. There is no such thing as “equal protection” without structural recompense.
 
Last edited:
myDeaconmyhand said:
JH pretends that his skewed POV simply aligns with good jurisprudence, when the truth is that he is just a typical conservative and now the conservative political bias of the Supreme Court matches his conservative bias. He can jerk his dick completely off talking about legal precedents but the fact is that legal precedent is very often wrong. If the conservative courts interpretation of strict constitutionality does not allow for racially based affirmative action, that doesn’t mean that racially based affirmative action is “wrong” or “racist”, it simply means the constitution won’t allow our nation to recompense the opportunities it once denied to Black Americans.
Click to expand...

Go read those quotes again from the admissions officers and tell me that's not racism. Helluva time for the self-anointed anti-racism crowd to run out of things to say.
 
You don’t have to convince us that Chapel Hill is a disgusting cesspool of toxicity. Look what it gave this board.
 
BeachBumDeac said:
You don’t have to convince us that Chapel Hill is a disgusting cesspool of toxicity. Look what it gave this board.
Click to expand...

Sick burn. So awesome. Anywho, when do you want to talk about how racist your anti-racism policies are in practice? Never? Cool. Sounds about right.
 
wakephan09 said:
I feel like the Supreme Court just got finished telling Texas they were cool to use race as one of many factors in a holistic admissions process. I guess Kennedy is not around anymore
Click to expand...

They did, and they've done it many times (including conservative justices). Problem is, we now have an extreme right activist majority filled with fanatics who don't care about precedent (unless it fits their political agenda).

JH and Junebug JCD everything they do, however, because they are also extreme right wing fanatics and yuge racists and are scared about losing their white supremacist status. They are also bad lawyers, so I would recommend not listening to them spout off case law as if they have any idea what they are talking about or are just parroting their extremist masters.
 
WokeandBroke said:
Oh that sounds like a great idea. Why don't we? To be "clear", THIS is what you all are defending:

UNC considers an applicant’s race at “‘every
stage’” of the review process. App.51. In reviewing applications, admissions officers focus intently (and
sometimes crudely) on an applicant’s race, as revealed
by online chats among admissions officers.
• “I just opened a brown girl who’s an 810
[SAT].”
• “If its brown and above a 1300 [SAT] put them
in for [the] merit/Excel [scholarship].”
• “Still yes, give these brown babies a shot at
these merit $$.”
• “I am reading an Am. Ind.”
• “[W]ith these [URM] kids, I’m trying to at least
give them the chance to compete even if the
[extracurriculars] and essays are just average.”
• “I don’t think I can admit or defer this brown
girl.”
• “perfect 2400 SAT All 5 on AP one B in 11th”
“Brown?!”
“Heck no. Asian.”
“Of course. Still impressive.”
• “I just read a blk girl who is an MC and Park
nominee.”

Pl’s Ex. 84 (D.C.Dkt.163-16); see also Pl’s Ex. 74
(D.C.Dkt.166-6) (“Stellar academics for a Native
Amer/African Amer kid.”); Pl’s Ex. 75 (D.C.Dkt.163-
27) (“I’m going through this trouble because this is a
bi-racial (black/white) male.”).

In the ultimate decision, a student’s race is often the “determinative” factor in whether the student is admitted or denied.
App.112-13.

---

That quoted passage is directly from the Petition for the Writ of Cert in this case. Those are chats between the admissions officers at UNC when they thought no one was looking. These are the facts of the case you all are defending, and it's disgusting.
Click to expand...

The takeaway from the collective yawn to these statements on this thread is that "progressives" think it's cool for the government to demean people based on their race, so long as those demeaned are getting a handout. But these statements highlight the fact that, just as separate can never be equal, racial preferences necessarily breed assumptions of inferiority, even in the most noble-minded of preferrers, not to mention in those who are putatively preferred. It's a sordid business, after all, this divvying us up by race.
 
Racist like JH don't want teachers to teach actual facts about our racist history and how it still impacts black people today because it triggers him and makes him uncomfortable, and he also wants to end any attempt to try to reach an equilibrium. Then he wants to call people who are trying to fix the historical iniquities the racists. It's fuckin' rich. Gollum was too kind for him -- agree that Wormtongue is better.
 
WakeBored said:
It's a sordid business, after all, this divvying us up by race.
Click to expand...

A lesson learned about 300 years too late, now we have to deal with the consequences, no matter how you and your ilk might run from them
 
birdman said:
The law is intended to undo centuries of exclusion of other races from white society institutions. Saying that democrats want to “end racism with more racism” in a discussion about affirmative action is a dumb and emotionally targeted argument.
Click to expand...

Just so we are clear, UNC has not attempted to justify its policy on the ground that it is intended to "undo centuries of exclusion of other races from white society institutions." Instead, UNC's sole justification are the alleged “educational benefits of diversity.” In other words, they are justifying the policy on the ground that it is good for the education of both White and non-White people for them to be in class together and, to accomplish that goal, they have to have a sufficient critical mass of non-White people.

That's it. That's the justification. Lessons we learned in Kindergarten.
 
Notice how Junebug and jhmd think encouraging desegregation is "divvying us up by race."

But they're cool with redlining, neighborhood segregation, school segregation due to charters and privates, etc.
 
The product of a university are its graduates, and a college degree from a flagship state university is a very valuable social and economic credit, so it’s very logical that “diversity” is an aim of affirmative action.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top