Go | New | Find | Notify | Tools | Reply | |
Get Off My Lawn |
...Affirmative Action  "The U.S. Supreme Court announced it would hear one of two cases on Oct. 31 that could dismantle the 40-year precedent of race-based affirmative action in university admissions, with universities now urging the court to preserve the decision despite some expert opinion to the contrary. Students for Fair Admissions Inc. (SFFA) v. President & Fellows of Harvard College is one of two cases to come before the Supreme Court urging it to eliminate race as an admissions factor and, as a result, overturn the precedent case, Grutter v. Bollinger. The case also seeks to answer whether Harvard College violated Title VI of the Civil Rights Act through its alleged discrimination against Asian American students, stemming from the initial lawsuit. " https://www.foxnews.com/politi...niversity-admissions "I’m not going to read Time Magazine, I’m not going to read Newsweek, I’m not going to read any of these magazines; I mean, because they have too much to lose by printing the truth"- Bob Dylan, 1965 | ||
|
| Internet Guru |
Long term, this court very well may make America great again. A 40 year precedent of legal discrimination is nothing to be proud about. | |||
|
Drill Here, Drill Now |
I hope SCOTUS fixes this wrong. I always think of MLK when the pendulum has swung too far past equalibrium on something race related. It's equal period - not less equal, not more equal, not equal plus punitive damages for past generations. ~MLK Ego is the anesthesia that deadens the pain of stupidity DISCLAIMER: These are the author's own personal views and do not represent the views of the author's employer. | |||
|
| Member |
This should not be a surprise. The majority opinion in Grutter (the SCOTUS case that approved this practice) went to great lengths to explain that the core purpose of the 14th Amendment is to end all governmentally imposed racial discrimination so any race-conscious policy can only last for a limited time. This was summed up by Justice O'Connor in a quote that you'll hear repeated a lot as this debate continues: "We expect that 25 years from now [2003], the use of racial preferences will no longer be necessary to further the interest approved today." It will be interesting to watch this case unfold. I'll offer a prediction just to make things interesting: The court will declare this policy unconstitutional, saying essentially what Justice Thomas said so well in his dissent in Grutter: "The Constitution abhors classifications based on race, not only because those classifications can harm favored races or are based on illegitimate motives, but also because every time the government places citizens on racial registers and makes race relevant to the provision of burdens or benefits, it demeans us all." | |||
|
| Thank you Very little  |
Whenever someone says Trump and the R senate didn't get things done, look at SCOTUS's recent rulings. The Harvard admissions situation is clearly bias, restrictive, hurts those who should attend, it's used to discriminate at all universities. The simple fact is race, sex, height, weight, hair color, sexual preference, none of this should be legal to use as a determining factor. Applications for admission, jobs all should be void of any personal information, nothing more than name, phone, address, and your accomplishments/transcript, and your scores. | |||
|
Ammoholic |
It never made sense to me that Asian (or anyone else) should be discriminated against to correct previous racism. The math just doesn't add up. Jesse Sic Semper Tyrannis | |||
|
| I Am The Walrus |
Asians are supposed to be good at math. Maybe that's why it adds up?  _____________ | |||
|
Member |
I can't wait to hear what all the main stream media is going to say about this, I can only imagine. "Just think being looked at not by color,race,gender,ethnicity any more is good. Giving people who work hard and succeed the credit they deserve to get to where they want to be, this is going to be a good thing." Yea Right  The Second Amendment to the United States Constitution. A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. As ratified by the States and authenticated by Thomas Jefferson, Secretary of State NRA Life Member | |||
|
Political Cynic |
The media will get it wrong You can count on that | |||
|
delicately calloused |
Discrimination based on immutable characteristics to compensate for discrimination based on immutable characteristics would be a comedic irony if it weren’t so destructive. Seems politicians and governments simply can’t bring themselves to employ equality. You’re a lying dog-faced pony soldier | |||
|
His Royal Hiney |
I love the statement I came across: “Trump is having a great second term and he’s not even President!” It also presents a paradox for me. Trump made great picks for his SCOTUS nominees for which I am grateful. Given that he had the same advisors who had his ears, he doesn’t have a good track record for the rest of the people he picked or could have fired - Comey, both of his AGs, etc. "It did not really matter what we expected from life, but rather what life expected from us. We needed to stop asking about the meaning of life, and instead to think of ourselves as those who were being questioned by life – daily and hourly. Our answer must consist not in talk and meditation, but in right action and in right conduct. Life ultimately means taking the responsibility to find the right answer to its problems and to fulfill the tasks which it constantly sets for each individual." Viktor Frankl, Man's Search for Meaning, 1946. | |||
|
| Member |
Well, it’s probably ok to use height if you’re hiring for a basketball team. | |||
|
| Little ray of sunshine  |
However, only the protected classes (age, race, religion, for example) are protected. You could discriminate on the basis of height, weight, and hair color, your favorite football team, and a million other things. All in all, I'd rather have less regulation, so I wouldn't want the government to add to the list of protections. The fish is mute, expressionless. The fish doesn't think because the fish knows everything. | |||
|
| You have cow? I lift cow! |
I don't want to get too excited and jinx it. | |||
|
| Thank you Very little |
Even better, name only, however that could be a give away, Houz Bin Phartin - Muslim, Tashiqua Jackson - Black, Billy Jo Smith - White, maybe we all should have numbers, bar coded like 47. | |||
|
| Member |
...and, if you're Asian, its perfectly ok to discriminate because they're over-represented like Whites ergo, a thumb needs to be pressed onto the scale of fairness.  The amount of overt bigotry when it comes to school admissions, has reached stupid-levels. Affirmative Action’s Future
| |||
|
| Member |
I wonder if they will decide this on a narrow basis or broad. By this i mean, admissions only, or any other legalized descrimination, such as whats found in government contracts about "Women and minority owned" businesses.This message has been edited. Last edited by: PeteF, | |||
|
| Member |
It will be very narrow I think. Hard to imagine the can of worms a broad based de-discrimination decision would be. Discriminatory preference is a government staple. | |||
|
Don't Panic |
MLK had it right here - judging by the color of the skin is wrong. It will be noted he didn't add any qualifiers. When history looks back, they will discover that the policies of reverse-discrimination and 'protected classes' harmed the people they were supposedly trying to benefit far more than they helped. | |||
|
| Political Cynic |
Let’s end discrimination by discriminating against those that had nothing to do with discrimination | |||
|
| Powered by Social Strata |
 | Please Wait. Your request is being processed... |
|
© SIGforum 2024