• Affirmative Action and Title VI

    From Arthur Rubin@21:1/5 to All on Tue Jul 18 17:53:21 2023
    This should be obvious, but I can't find it. I can't find a reference to why "Equal Protection" applies to prevent "Affirmative Action" at Harvard, as Harvard is not a government.

    I thought I read, somewhere, that "Equal Protection" informs the Title VI non-discrimination regulations for universities that accept government funding, but I can't find it in the decision.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Rick@21:1/5 to All on Tue Jul 18 21:47:02 2023
    "Arthur Rubin" wrote in message news:6f64282b-aa46-4e92-aab4-90983d2b1e07n@googlegroups.com...

    This should be obvious, but I can't find it. I can't find a reference to
    why "Equal Protection" applies to prevent "Affirmative Action" at Harvard,
    as Harvard is not a government.

    I thought I read, somewhere, that "Equal Protection" informs the Title VI >non-discrimination regulations for universities that accept government >funding, but I can't find it in the decision.

    In the footnote at the bottom of page 6 of the decision is this:

    2Title VI provides that “[n]o person in the United States shall, on the ground of race, color, or national origin, be excluded from participation
    in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance.” 42 U. S. C. §2000d. “We have explained that discrimination that violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment committed by an institution
    that accepts federal funds also constitutes a violation of Title VI.”
    Gratz v. Bollinger, 539 U. S. 244, 276, n. 23 (2003). Although JUSTICE
    GORSUCH questions that proposition, no party asks us to reconsider it.
    We accordingly evaluate Harvard’s admissions program under the standards of the Equal Protection Clause itself.

    --

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Stuart O. Bronstein@21:1/5 to Arthur Rubin on Tue Jul 18 21:46:09 2023
    Arthur Rubin <ronnirubin@sprintmail.com> wrote:

    This should be obvious, but I can't find it. I can't find a reference
    to why "Equal Protection" applies to prevent "Affirmative Action" at
    Harvard, as Harvard is not a government.

    I thought I read, somewhere, that "Equal Protection" informs the Title
    VI non-discrimination regulations for universities that accept
    government funding, but I can't find it in the decision.

    They likely get government money either in the way of grants or from
    student loans. That's enough.


    --
    Stu
    http://DownToEarthLawyer.com

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From micky@21:1/5 to Arthur Rubin on Tue Jul 18 21:47:19 2023
    In misc.legal.moderated, on Tue, 18 Jul 2023 17:53:21 -0700 (PDT),
    Arthur Rubin <ronnirubin@sprintmail.com> wrote:

    This should be obvious, but I can't find it. I can't find a reference to why "Equal Protection" applies to prevent "Affirmative Action" at Harvard, as Harvard is not a government.

    AIUI, it's ironic, or catch 22, or something.

    They tax us, for worthwhile purposes that neither the states nor private parties adequately pursue. Then they give grants to or fund programs at
    almost every college and university in the country. Then they enact a
    law that says that any institution that gets federal funds cannot
    discriminate on a list of characteristics.

    If they didn't tax us so much, maybe Harvard could raise the money on
    its own. Or through the state of Massechusettes,

    Of course Massachusettes might have an equal protection caluse of its
    own. Well, might not because afaik it wasn't a popular clause when
    states wrote their constitutions. AFaik it wasn't even thought of until
    the 1860's. But Mass. is only one state, and we can be sure southern
    and other Republican states would, if they haad such a clause, use it to
    ban affirmative action.

    You can probably find Associate Justice Jackson's arguments that the
    14th Amendment was passed to redress the wrongs done to black people,
    and not to perpetuate them by baqnning race-based legislation. Part of
    that is that the same Congress that passed the 14th Amendment also
    passed some/much legislation that did indeed favor Negro people, so
    apparently they weren't against it. (My perhaps very poor paraphrasing
    of what she and others say.)

    I thought I read, somewhere, that "Equal Protection" informs the Title VI non-discrimination regulations for universities that accept government funding, but I can't find it in the decision.

    Can't prove it by me.

    --
    I think you can tell, but just to be sure:
    I am not a lawyer.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Barry Gold@21:1/5 to Arthur Rubin on Wed Jul 19 07:49:16 2023
    On 7/18/2023 5:53 PM, Arthur Rubin wrote:
    This should be obvious, but I can't find it. I can't find a reference to why "Equal Protection" applies to prevent "Affirmative Action" at Harvard, as Harvard is not a government.

    I thought I read, somewhere, that "Equal Protection" informs the Title VI non-discrimination regulations for universities that accept government funding, but I can't find it in the decision.

    The principle text of Title IX reads:
    No person in the United States shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded
    from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any education program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance.

    At one time this was interpreted to apply to (1) the school's financial assistance programs (which are partly funded by the Federal Government)
    and (2) athletics (which also seems to get some federal money somehow).

    But I think this has been broadened on the basis that federal funding
    benefits the whole school. Even then, I think that if a college or other
    school refuses all federal funding they should be exempt. Whether
    Harvard is willing to do that is another question.

    And I'll note that there are other means of "correcting" the current
    admissions imbalance without using race/religion/etc. as a criterion.

    One (which was used by the U. of California after an initiative banned
    racial preferences) would be to give preference to those who do well
    (e.g., grades and/or standardized tests) even though the high school
    they attended had an overall record that is worse than the median.
    Another is to give preference to those with identifiable ancestors who
    were enslaved. (Compensating for the effects of slavery rather than
    explicitly for race.) A third is to eliminate the "legacy" admissions,
    which overwhelmingly favor white students.

    --
    I do so have a memory. It's backed up on DVD... somewhere...

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Rick@21:1/5 to Barry Gold on Wed Jul 19 11:35:26 2023
    "Barry Gold" wrote in message news:u981fh$1lu3u$1@dont-email.me...

    On 7/18/2023 5:53 PM, Arthur Rubin wrote:
    This should be obvious, but I can't find it. I can't find a reference to
    why "Equal Protection" applies to prevent "Affirmative Action" at
    Harvard, as Harvard is not a government.

    I thought I read, somewhere, that "Equal Protection" informs the Title VI
    non-discrimination regulations for universities that accept government
    funding, but I can't find it in the decision.

    The principle text of Title IX reads:
    No person in the United States shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded from >participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to >discrimination under any education program or activity receiving Federal >financial assistance.

    At one time this was interpreted to apply to (1) the school's financial >assistance programs (which are partly funded by the Federal Government) and >(2) athletics (which also seems to get some federal money somehow).

    But I think this has been broadened on the basis that federal funding >benefits the whole school. Even then, I think that if a college or other >school refuses all federal funding they should be exempt. Whether Harvard
    is willing to do that is another question.

    And I'll note that there are other means of "correcting" the current >admissions imbalance without using race/religion/etc. as a criterion.

    One (which was used by the U. of California after an initiative banned
    racial preferences) would be to give preference to those who do well (e.g., >grades and/or standardized tests) even though the high school they attended >had an overall record that is worse than the median. Another is to give >preference to those with identifiable ancestors who were enslaved. >(Compensating for the effects of slavery rather than explicitly for race.)
    A third is to eliminate the "legacy" admissions, which overwhelmingly favor >white students.


    Roberts also gave them another option by saying you can't use race per se as
    an admissions criterion, but it would be okay to give points for a
    well-written essay which describes the student's experience as a minority student battling discrimination in their prior schooling. As an example, if
    a student has less than stellar grades but can explain that by discussing
    the discrimination they may have encountered from teachers and other
    students in their admission essay, Roberts seemed to hint that was a way to give minority candidates an edge. Given Roberts history, I wonder in the
    event there had been four minority votes rather than three, if he would have switched sides on this decision.

    --

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From John Levine@21:1/5 to All on Wed Jul 19 23:55:59 2023
    According to micky <misc07@fmguy.com>:
    If they didn't tax us so much, maybe Harvard could raise the money on
    its own. Or through the state of Massechusettes,

    Harvard has a endowment worth over $50,000,000,000. They're not hurting.

    They could probably get by without Federal grant money but the optics
    of turning it down so they can continue admission practices that are
    widely (if not totally accurately) seen as discriminatory would be
    dreadful.

    As someone else noted, Roberts said it's OK to take into account
    applicants statements about their experience as members of various
    racial groups. On the one hand, sheesh, on the other hand, if this
    means fewer children of diplomats who went to finishing school but
    happen to be black, and more smart poor kids, that wouldn't be bad.

    --
    Regards,
    John Levine, johnl@taugh.com, Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for Dummies",
    Please consider the environment before reading this e-mail. https://jl.ly

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From micky@21:1/5 to Levine" on Thu Jul 20 07:35:55 2023
    In misc.legal.moderated, on Wed, 19 Jul 2023 23:55:59 -0700 (PDT), "John Levine" <johnl@taugh.com> wrote:

    According to micky <misc07@fmguy.com>:
    If they didn't tax us so much, maybe Harvard could raise the money on
    its own. Or through the state of Massechusettes,

    Harvard has a endowment worth over $50,000,000,000. They're not hurting.

    "Don't touch the principal!" or the income from it goes down.

    They wouldn't take government grants if they could get the money without strings somewhere else.

    And Harvard is, I believe, just one college that the OP Arthur chose as
    an example. The same problems face every school.

    They could probably get by without Federal grant money but the optics
    of turning it down so they can continue admission practices that are
    widely (if not totally accurately) seen as discriminatory would be
    dreadful.

    FWIW I wasn't actually recommending they turn down grants. I was
    describing how independant universites that should be free to run their
    own show were made subject to the rules of the government. First they
    tax, then they give the money back, but with strings. IIRC, this is
    how the feds manipulate the states too. Now most** of that
    manipulation is for good purposes, but if the government changes
    dramatically and the goals change, that might not be true anymore.

    **Not all, even now, by some reasonable standards.

    As someone else noted, Roberts said it's OK to take into account
    applicants statements about their experience as members of various
    racial groups. On the one hand, sheesh, on the other hand, if this
    means fewer children of diplomats who went to finishing school but
    happen to be black, and more smart poor kids, that wouldn't be bad.

    True.

    --
    I think you can tell, but just to be sure:
    I am not a lawyer.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Rick@21:1/5 to micky on Thu Jul 20 12:11:07 2023
    "micky" wrote in message news:u3gibihdqb6ajca5u48c9rkce0kqp3j4hf@4ax.com...



    FWIW I wasn't actually recommending they turn down grants. I was
    describing how independant universites that should be free to run their
    own show were made subject to the rules of the government.

    They ARE free to run their own show, but if they choose to accept money from the government, then it makes sense they must abide by the government's
    rules.

    First they tax, then they give the money back, but with strings. IIRC,
    this is
    how the feds manipulate the states too.

    I'm not sure I would call this manipulation. Remember that the federal government is ultimately elected by the people. In theory, the government
    is doing what the people who elected it want it to do. If people aren't satisfied with their government, they can always elect a new one.

    Now most** of that
    manipulation is for good purposes, but if the government changes
    dramatically and the goals change, that might not be true anymore.


    Well what you call "good purposes" would be in the eye of the beholder. Obviously, if the government changes, that means the people decided to put a new government in place, which suggests that people collectively endorse whatever those new goals might be


    --

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Barry Gold@21:1/5 to Rick on Thu Jul 20 17:45:28 2023
    On 7/20/2023 12:11 PM, Rick wrote:
    "micky"  wrote in message
    news:u3gibihdqb6ajca5u48c9rkce0kqp3j4hf@4ax.com...



    FWIW I wasn't actually recommending they turn down grants.  I was
    describing how independant universites that should be free to run their
    own show were made subject to the rules of the government.

    They ARE free to run their own show, but if they choose to accept money
    from the government, then it makes sense they must abide by the
    government's rules.

    First they tax, then they give the money back, but with strings.
    IIRC, this is
    how the feds manipulate the states too.

    I'm not sure I would call this manipulation.  Remember that the federal government is ultimately elected by the people.  In theory, the
    government is doing what the people who elected it want it to do.  If
    people aren't satisfied with their government, they can always elect a
    new one.

    Now most** of that
    manipulation is for good purposes, but if the government changes
    dramatically and the goals change, that might not be true anymore.


    Well what you call  "good purposes" would be in the eye of the beholder. Obviously, if the government changes, that means the people decided to
    put a new government in place, which suggests that people collectively endorse whatever those new goals might be

    Well, this is getting a bit more into political philosophy than law, but
    one of the problems I see with our (USA) system is that when you elect
    someone, you get EVERYTHING about them.

    I read a novel set in an alternate world, where there are no "elections"
    as we think of them. A voter gives a congressperson their proxy. And
    can withdraw that proxy at any time. So the number of votes a
    congressperson can cast can change. If they take a stand that is popular
    with half their constituents, they will suddenly find that (for that
    particular bill/amendment/motion) they only have half as many votes as
    they did on some other bill that all their constituents liked.

    Currently a lot of people vote based on a single issue, e.g., abortion.
    So they elect somebody who will consistently vote to ban abortion or to
    protect abortion rights, as the case may be. But that congressperson may
    be a self-aggrandizing liar (cf. George Santos) or vote to favor
    corporations that pollute the air and his/her constituents tolerate that because of his position on that single issue.

    In the system I described, he might be able to cast 500,000 votes on
    abortion, but on pollution bills he might have only 20,000 votes.

    I think I would like that system a lot more, and we would get a lot less extremism in our legislatures. [It also eliminates gerrymandering, as
    there are no more districts -- you can choose anybody who is willing to
    spend a lot of time evaluating and voting on various issues.]

    --
    I do so have a memory. It's backed up on DVD... somewhere...

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Arthur Rubin@21:1/5 to Barry Gold on Fri Jul 21 07:54:26 2023
    On Thursday, July 20, 2023 at 5:45:33 PM UTC-7, Barry Gold wrote:

    I read a novel set in an alternate world, where there are no "elections"
    as we think of them. A voter gives a congressperson their proxy. And
    can withdraw that proxy at any time. So the number of votes a
    congressperson can cast can change. If they take a stand that is popular
    with half their constituents, they will suddenly find that (for that particular bill/amendment/motion) they only have half as many votes as
    they did on some other bill that all their constituents liked.

    L Neil Smith's "Probability Broach" novels had that, but not on a per-issue basis.
    I don't recall any which had proxies on a per-issue basis. It would certainly make
    for confusion if a piece of legislation covered more than one issue.

    On Quatloos.com , I've read that there is a Canadian who says the Canadian government is invalid because it DOESN'T allow voters to change their allegiance
    at any time.

    (My apologies if my ".signature" doesn't appear. I hadn't used Google Groups for a few
    years before my last post, and I'm not sure how the configuration works any more.)

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Jethro_uk@21:1/5 to Barry Gold on Fri Jul 21 07:40:38 2023
    On Thu, 20 Jul 2023 17:45:28 -0700, Barry Gold wrote:

    On 7/20/2023 12:11 PM, Rick wrote:
    "micky"  wrote in message
    news:u3gibihdqb6ajca5u48c9rkce0kqp3j4hf@4ax.com...



    FWIW I wasn't actually recommending they turn down grants.  I was
    describing how independant universites that should be free to run
    their own show were made subject to the rules of the government.

    They ARE free to run their own show, but if they choose to accept money
    from the government, then it makes sense they must abide by the
    government's rules.

    First they tax, then they give the money back, but with strings.
    IIRC, this is how the feds manipulate the states too.

    I'm not sure I would call this manipulation.  Remember that the federal
    government is ultimately elected by the people.  In theory, the
    government is doing what the people who elected it want it to do.  If
    people aren't satisfied with their government, they can always elect a
    new one.

    Now most** of that manipulation is for good purposes, but if the
    government changes dramatically and the goals change, that might not
    be true anymore.


    Well what you call  "good purposes" would be in the eye of the
    beholder.
    Obviously, if the government changes, that means the people decided to
    put a new government in place, which suggests that people collectively
    endorse whatever those new goals might be

    Well, this is getting a bit more into political philosophy than law, but
    one of the problems I see with our (USA) system is that when you elect someone, you get EVERYTHING about them.

    I read a novel set in an alternate world, where there are no "elections"
    as we think of them. A voter gives a congressperson their proxy. And can withdraw that proxy at any time. So the number of votes a congressperson
    can cast can change. If they take a stand that is popular with half
    their constituents, they will suddenly find that (for that particular bill/amendment/motion) they only have half as many votes as they did on
    some other bill that all their constituents liked.

    Currently a lot of people vote based on a single issue, e.g., abortion.
    So they elect somebody who will consistently vote to ban abortion or to protect abortion rights, as the case may be. But that congressperson may
    be a self-aggrandizing liar (cf. George Santos) or vote to favor
    corporations that pollute the air and his/her constituents tolerate that because of his position on that single issue.

    In the system I described, he might be able to cast 500,000 votes on abortion, but on pollution bills he might have only 20,000 votes.

    I think I would like that system a lot more, and we would get a lot less extremism in our legislatures. [It also eliminates gerrymandering, as
    there are no more districts -- you can choose anybody who is willing to
    spend a lot of time evaluating and voting on various issues.]

    Sortition should be more widely considered ...

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Stuart O. Bronstein@21:1/5 to Barry Gold on Fri Jul 21 08:08:32 2023
    Barry Gold <bgold@labcats.org> wrote:

    On 7/20/2023 12:11 PM, Rick wrote:
    "micky"  wrote in message
    news:u3gibihdqb6ajca5u48c9rkce0kqp3j4hf@4ax.com...



    FWIW I wasn't actually recommending they turn down grants.  I
    was describing how independant universites that should be free
    to run their own show were made subject to the rules of the
    government.

    They ARE free to run their own show, but if they choose to accept
    money from the government, then it makes sense they must abide by
    the government's rules.

    First they tax, then they give the money back, but with strings.
    IIRC, this is
    how the feds manipulate the states too.

    I'm not sure I would call this manipulation.  Remember that the
    federal government is ultimately elected by the people.  In
    theory, the government is doing what the people who elected it
    want it to do.  If people aren't satisfied with their
    government, they can always elect a new one.

    Now most** of that
    manipulation is for good purposes, but if the government changes
    dramatically and the goals change, that might not be true
    anymore.


    Well what you call  "good purposes" would be in the eye of the
    beholder. Obviously, if the government changes, that means the
    people decided to put a new government in place, which suggests
    that people collectively endorse whatever those new goals might
    be

    Well, this is getting a bit more into political philosophy than
    law, but one of the problems I see with our (USA) system is that
    when you elect someone, you get EVERYTHING about them.

    I read a novel set in an alternate world, where there are no
    "elections" as we think of them. A voter gives a congressperson
    their proxy. And can withdraw that proxy at any time. So the
    number of votes a congressperson can cast can change. If they take
    a stand that is popular with half their constituents, they will
    suddenly find that (for that particular bill/amendment/motion)
    they only have half as many votes as they did on some other bill
    that all their constituents liked.

    Currently a lot of people vote based on a single issue, e.g.,
    abortion. So they elect somebody who will consistently vote to ban
    abortion or to protect abortion rights, as the case may be. But
    that congressperson may be a self-aggrandizing liar (cf. George
    Santos) or vote to favor corporations that pollute the air and
    his/her constituents tolerate that because of his position on that
    single issue.

    In the system I described, he might be able to cast 500,000 votes
    on abortion, but on pollution bills he might have only 20,000
    votes.

    I think I would like that system a lot more, and we would get a
    lot less extremism in our legislatures. [It also eliminates
    gerrymandering, as there are no more districts -- you can choose
    anybody who is willing to spend a lot of time evaluating and
    voting on various issues.]

    Cumulative voting can work similar to that. For example, everyone in
    a state can vote for all candidates for Representative in their
    state, have as many votes as there are Representatives, but can cast
    as many of their votes for one candidate as they wish. That would
    allow small parties to band together and get some representation.


    --
    Stu
    http://DownToEarthLawyer.com


    --
    This email has been checked for viruses by AVG antivirus software.
    www.avg.com

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From John Levine@21:1/5 to All on Sat Jul 22 07:15:28 2023
    According to Barry Gold <bgold@labcats.org>:
    Well, this is getting a bit more into political philosophy than law, but
    one of the problems I see with our (USA) system is that when you elect >someone, you get EVERYTHING about them.

    I read a novel set in an alternate world, where there are no "elections"
    as we think of them. A voter gives a congressperson their proxy. And
    can withdraw that proxy at any time. So the number of votes a
    congressperson can cast can change. If they take a stand that is popular
    with half their constituents, they will suddenly find that (for that >particular bill/amendment/motion) they only have half as many votes as
    they did on some other bill that all their constituents liked.

    Many states, notably California, approximate this with initiative and referendum. If enough people sign a petition, it's put to a popular
    vote and if approved, it becomes law.

    While this may sound like a good idea, if you look at the results in California, the results have been decidedly mixed. About 50 years ago
    people realized that with sufficiently vigorous and disingenuous
    advertising you can get voters to vote for all sorts of stuff.

    The state has a crazy quilt of laws, some quite pernicious like the
    one that says they can't raise the property tax on a house more than a
    nominal amount except when it's sold, a huge subsidy to old house
    owners at the expense of younger people and tenants.

    --
    Regards,
    John Levine, johnl@taugh.com, Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for Dummies",
    Please consider the environment before reading this e-mail. https://jl.ly

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Barry Gold@21:1/5 to John Levine on Sat Jul 22 10:15:29 2023
    On 7/22/2023 7:15 AM, John Levine wrote:
    While this may sound like a good idea, if you look at the results in California, the results have been decidedly mixed. About 50 years ago
    people realized that with sufficiently vigorous and disingenuous
    advertising you can get voters to vote for all sorts of stuff.

    The state has a crazy quilt of laws, some quite pernicious like the
    one that says they can't raise the property tax on a house more than a nominal amount except when it's sold, a huge subsidy to old house
    owners at the expense of younger people and tenants.

    Yes. I remember back in the 60s or 70s there was an initiative
    restricting new cable TV installations, effectively protecting the
    existing cable companies from competition. It passed, but the courts
    ruled it unconstitutional for reasons I don't remember.

    Prop 13 is almost as sacrosanct as Social Security. In fact, we keep
    expanding it. In 1986, Prop. 58 allowed homeowners to transfer their
    property to their children without triggering a reassessment, and prop.
    60 allowed homeowners to transfer their assessed value to a replacement
    home if the new home has equal or lesser value and is in the same county.

    And in 1988, Prop. 90 expanded Prop. 58 to people moving to another
    county *if* the incoming county allows it. 1996 Prop. 193 allows people
    to transfer property to their _grand_children, including both their
    primary residence and up to $1million of other property.

    And then there was Proposition 8, which amended the CA Constitution to
    define marriage as only between a man and a woman. That was eventually overturned by Obergefell v. Hodges.

    --
    I do so have a memory. It's backed up on DVD... somewhere...

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From RichD@21:1/5 to Rick on Thu Jul 27 15:55:26 2023
    On July 19, Rick wrote:
    Roberts also gave them another option by saying you can't use race per se as an admissions criterion, but it would be okay to give points for a well-written essay which describes the student's experience as a minority student battling discrimination in their prior schooling. As an example, if
    a student has less than stellar grades but can explain that by discussing
    the discrimination they may have encountered from teachers and other
    students in their admission essay, Roberts seemed to hint that was a way to give minority candidates an edge.

    That's a gaping hole, is it not?

    For the leftists at Harvard, every brown or black in USA is the victim
    of discrimination, utterly without personal agency. (every penitentiary inmate is a political prisoner, etc.)

    "Dear ChatGP, please write an essay on my suffering due to a
    legacy of racial discrimination"

    --
    Rich

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Rick@21:1/5 to All on Fri Jul 28 09:15:52 2023
    "RichD" wrote in message news:be56b8cb-2b33-4d1d-aa54-3c1a76673d3cn@googlegroups.com...

    On July 19, Rick wrote:
    Roberts also gave them another option by saying you can't use race per se
    as
    an admissions criterion, but it would be okay to give points for a
    well-written essay which describes the student's experience as a minority
    student battling discrimination in their prior schooling. As an example,
    if
    a student has less than stellar grades but can explain that by discussing
    the discrimination they may have encountered from teachers and other
    students in their admission essay, Roberts seemed to hint that was a way
    to
    give minority candidates an edge.

    That's a gaping hole, is it not?


    Yes, it is, which is why I think Roberts actually may have wanted to side
    with the minority on this. But even with his vote, it still would have been 5-4, so I think he switched to the majority (making it 6-3) so he could
    write the majority opinion and put that little workaround in there.

    --

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Elle N@21:1/5 to micky on Thu Aug 10 16:53:18 2023
    On Tuesday, July 18, 2023 at 11:47:22 PM UTC-5, micky wrote:
    You can probably find Associate Justice Jackson's arguments that the
    14th Amendment was passed to redress the wrongs done to black people,
    and not to perpetuate them by baqnning race-based legislation. Part of
    that is that the same Congress that passed the 14th Amendment also
    passed some/much legislation that did indeed favor Negro people, so apparently they weren't against it. (My perhaps very poor paraphrasing
    of what she and others say.)

    With reference to the 14th amendment and Reconstruction era legislation, Justice Jackson has never used the word "Negro" in this manner. Why?
    Because first, during the Reconstruction era the first letter of the word
    was //not// capitalized. It was decades later that W.E.B. Du Bois began an ultimately successful campaign to capitalize the first letter.

    Second in the Reconstruction era the legislators who were using the word "negro" (not "Negro") were the ones who //opposed// legislation giving
    equal rights to Black people. Except to point out that these legislators' arguments (which from time to time used the word "negro") did not get
    anywhere, Justice Jackson would not be quoting these latter legislators.

    Outside of historical quotations, and first letter capitalized or not, use of the word today is not acceptable. The so-called "paraphrase" above is deplorable.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From RichD@21:1/5 to Rick on Mon Aug 14 15:45:41 2023
    On July 28, Rick wrote:
    Roberts also gave them another option by saying you can't use race per se >> as an admissions criterion, but it would be okay to give points for a
    well-written essay which describes the student's experience as a minority >> student battling discrimination in their prior schooling. As an example, >> if a student has less than stellar grades but can explain that by discussing
    the discrimination they may have encountered from teachers and other
    students in their admission essay, Roberts seemed to hint that was a way >> to give minority candidates an edge.

    That's a gaping hole, is it not?

    Yes, it is, which is why I think Roberts actually may have wanted to side with the minority on this. But even with his vote, it still would have been 5-4, so I think he switched to the majority (making it 6-3) so he could
    write the majority opinion and put that little workaround in there.

    WSJ yesterday notes this has already begun. Stanford and Rice have
    changed their admission essay prompts to "Tell us what adversity you
    have overcome (race/sexuality/immigration discrimination)... "

    The American College of Nurses is defiant: "We won't let this decision interfere with our diversity mission, in order to provide the best health care" Yes folks, the germs care about the nurse's skin color, they retreat faster when race quotas are met -

    Didn't lose much time, did they?


    --
    Rich

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From John Levine@21:1/5 to All on Mon Aug 14 20:42:39 2023
    According to RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com>:
    The American College of Nurses is defiant: "We won't let this decision >interfere with our diversity mission, in order to provide the best health care"
    Yes folks, the germs care about the nurse's skin color, they retreat faster >when race quotas are met -

    I realize this may be hard for us snarky old white guys to imagine,
    but do you suppose there's any possibility that patients (of any
    background) do better when the nurses look and sound like they do?


    --
    Regards,
    John Levine, johnl@taugh.com, Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for Dummies",
    Please consider the environment before reading this e-mail. https://jl.ly

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Elle N@21:1/5 to RichD on Thu Aug 17 06:56:45 2023
    On Monday, August 14, 2023 at 5:45:45 PM UTC-5, RichD wrote:
    On July 28, Rick wrote:
    Roberts also gave them another option by saying you can't use race per se
    as an admissions criterion, but it would be okay to give points for a
    well-written essay which describes the student's experience as a minority
    student battling discrimination in their prior schooling. As an example, >> if a student has less than stellar grades but can explain that by discussing
    the discrimination they may have encountered from teachers and other
    students in their admission essay, Roberts seemed to hint that was a way >> to give minority candidates an edge.

    That's a gaping hole, is it not?

    Yes, it is, which is why I think Roberts actually may have wanted to side with the minority on this. But even with his vote, it still would have been 5-4, so I think he switched to the majority (making it 6-3) so he could write the majority opinion and put that little workaround in there.
    WSJ yesterday notes this has already begun. Stanford and Rice have
    changed their admission essay prompts to "Tell us what adversity you
    have overcome (race/sexuality/immigration discrimination)... "

    The American College of Nurses is defiant: "We won't let this decision interfere with our diversity mission, in order to provide the best health care"
    Yes folks, the germs care about the nurse's skin color, they retreat faster when race quotas are met -

    Didn't lose much time, did they?

    Nursing colleges have been aiming to diversify by gender (in favor of men)
    at least as much as race. Today only around 13% of nurses are male.

    The Supreme Court's 1982 ruling in Mississippi University for Women
    v. Hogan put the issue on the map. Hogan had been denied
    admission to a Mississippi nursing college, because he was male.
    Hogan won in a 5-4 SCOTUS decision. The decision relied on much of the
    work then-attorney Ruth Bader Ginsburg had done in the years immediately preceding the decision, where Ginsburg had used cases where
    institutions discriminated against men (sic) to establish precedent.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)