A little more than half of Americans – 52% — approve of the U.S. Supreme Court decision on restricting the use of race as a factor in college admissions, while 32% disapprove and 16% saying they don’t know.
A majority of Republicans (75%) and independents (58%) approve of the ruling, while a distinct minority of Democrats approve (26%).
Dems started as the party of racism and ends as the last party of racism.
ScottW
On Monday, July 3, 2023 at 12:13:39 AM UTC-4, ScottW wrote:
A little more than half of Americans – 52% — approve of the U.S.
Supreme Court decision on restricting the use of race as a factor
in college admissions, while 32% disapprove and 16% saying they
don’t know.
A majority of Republicans (75%) and independents (58%) approve of
the ruling, while a distinct minority of Democrats approve (26%).
Dems started as the party of racism and ends as the last party of
racism.
AOC claims SCOTUS is legislating laws, not interpreting them, and in
her next breath demands that they abolish legacy admissions .
On 7/2/23 11:27 PM, Art Sackman wrote:
On Monday, July 3, 2023 at 12:13:39 AM UTC-4, ScottW wrote:Here's the full quote: “If SCOTUS was serious about their ludicrous ‘colorblindness’ claims, they would have abolished legacy admissions, aka affirmative action for the privileged,”
A little more than half of Americans – 52% — approve of the U.S.AOC claims SCOTUS is legislating laws, not interpreting them, and in
Supreme Court decision on restricting the use of race as a factor
in college admissions, while 32% disapprove and 16% saying they
don’t know.
A majority of Republicans (75%) and independents (58%) approve of
the ruling, while a distinct minority of Democrats approve (26%).
Dems started as the party of racism and ends as the last party of
racism.
her next breath demands that they abolish legacy admissions .
The careful reader will note she didn't demand SCOTUS do anything, but posited a hypothetical situation based on the ruling's reasoning.
Should she have said "If SCOTUS *were* serious" so more would clue in on
the subjunctive?
On Monday, July 3, 2023 at 12:13:39 AM UTC-4, ScottW wrote:
A little more than half of Americans – 52% — approve of the U.S. Supreme Court decision on restricting the use of race as a factor in college admissions, while 32% disapprove and 16% saying they don’t know.
A majority of Republicans (75%) and independents (58%) approve of the ruling, while a distinct minority of Democrats approve (26%).
Dems started as the party of racism and ends as the last party of racism.
ScottWAOC claims SCOTUS is legislating laws, not interpreting them, and in her next breath demands that they
abolish legacy admissions .
Because that's what we need: a Supreme Court that follows polls and
minority problems decided by a majority.
On 7/2/23 11:27 PM, Art Sackman wrote:
On Monday, July 3, 2023 at 12:13:39 AM UTC-4, ScottW wrote:Here's the full quote: “If SCOTUS was serious about their ludicrous ‘colorblindness’ claims, they would have abolished legacy admissions, aka affirmative action for the privileged,”
A little more than half of Americans – 52% — approve of the U.S.AOC claims SCOTUS is legislating laws, not interpreting them, and in
Supreme Court decision on restricting the use of race as a factor
in college admissions, while 32% disapprove and 16% saying they
don’t know.
A majority of Republicans (75%) and independents (58%) approve of
the ruling, while a distinct minority of Democrats approve (26%).
Dems started as the party of racism and ends as the last party of
racism.
her next breath demands that they abolish legacy admissions .
The careful reader will note she didn't demand SCOTUS do anything, but posited a hypothetical situation based on the ruling's reasoning.
Should she have said "If SCOTUS *were* serious" so more would clue in on
the subjunctive?
On Sunday, July 2, 2023 at 9:27:14 PM UTC-7, Art Sackman wrote:
On Monday, July 3, 2023 at 12:13:39 AM UTC-4, ScottW wrote:
A little more than half of Americans – 52% — approve of the U.S. Supreme Court decision on restricting the use of race as a factor in college admissions, while 32% disapprove and 16% saying they don’t know.
A majority of Republicans (75%) and independents (58%) approve of the ruling, while a distinct minority of Democrats approve (26%).
Dems started as the party of racism and ends as the last party of racism.
Well, the legacy and donor admissions exceptions are f'd up.ScottWAOC claims SCOTUS is legislating laws, not interpreting them, and in her next breath demands that they
abolish legacy admissions .
But don't expect AOC to have the smarts to avoid being a hypocrite.
Anyway, merit systems with "exceptions" aren't really merit systems. Congress should attach a full merit based admission system to any public $$ going to schools.
If Harvard wants to be completely private....then they can do what they want within existing law like
any private club.
ScottW
On Monday, July 3, 2023 at 12:01:28 PM UTC-4, ScottW wrote:
On Sunday, July 2, 2023 at 9:27:14 PM UTC-7, Art Sackman wrote:
On Monday, July 3, 2023 at 12:13:39 AM UTC-4, ScottW wrote:
A little more than half of Americans – 52% — approve of the U.S. Supreme Court decision on restricting the use of race as a factor in college admissions, while 32% disapprove and 16% saying they don’t know.
A majority of Republicans (75%) and independents (58%) approve of the ruling, while a distinct minority of Democrats approve (26%).
Dems started as the party of racism and ends as the last party of racism.
Well, the legacy and donor admissions exceptions are f'd up.ScottWAOC claims SCOTUS is legislating laws, not interpreting them, and in her next breath demands that they
abolish legacy admissions .
But don't expect AOC to have the smarts to avoid being a hypocrite. Anyway, merit systems with "exceptions" aren't really merit systems. Congress should attach a full merit based admission system to any public $$ going to schools.
If Harvard wants to be completely private....then they can do what they want within existing law like
any private club.
ScottWI'm not exactly sure about that. Would it be a private club or a public accommodation, like a business?
On Monday, July 3, 2023 at 5:03:57 AM UTC-7, mINE109 wrote:
On 7/2/23 11:27 PM, Art Sackman wrote:
On Monday, July 3, 2023 at 12:13:39 AM UTC-4, ScottW wrote:
AOC claims SCOTUS is legislating laws, not interpreting them,Here's the full quote: “If SCOTUS was serious about their ludicrous
and in her next breath demands that they abolish legacy
admissions .
‘colorblindness’ claims, they would have abolished legacy
admissions, aka affirmative action for the privileged,”
The careful reader will note she didn't demand SCOTUS do anything,
but posited a hypothetical situation based on the ruling's
reasoning.
Should she have said "If SCOTUS *were* serious" so more would clue
in on the subjunctive?
If she were serious she'd realize SCOTUS is limited by existing law
and the constitution.
On Monday, July 3, 2023 at 8:03:57 AM UTC-4, mINE109 wrote:
On 7/2/23 11:27 PM, Art Sackman wrote:
On Monday, July 3, 2023 at 12:13:39 AM UTC-4, ScottW wrote:Here's the full quote: “If SCOTUS was serious about their ludicrous
A little more than half of Americans – 52% — approve of the U.S.AOC claims SCOTUS is legislating laws, not interpreting them, and in
Supreme Court decision on restricting the use of race as a factor
in college admissions, while 32% disapprove and 16% saying they
don’t know.
A majority of Republicans (75%) and independents (58%) approve of
the ruling, while a distinct minority of Democrats approve (26%).
Dems started as the party of racism and ends as the last party of
racism.
her next breath demands that they abolish legacy admissions .
‘colorblindness’ claims, they would have abolished legacy admissions,
aka affirmative action for the privileged,”
The careful reader will note she didn't demand SCOTUS do anything, but
posited a hypothetical situation based on the ruling's reasoning.
Should she have said "If SCOTUS *were* serious" so more would clue in on
the subjunctive?
NO!!!!! She , said they SHOULD HAVE, that is definitive, not hypothetical.
On 7/3/23 11:03 AM, ScottW wrote:
On Monday, July 3, 2023 at 5:03:57 AM UTC-7, mINE109 wrote:
On 7/2/23 11:27 PM, Art Sackman wrote:
On Monday, July 3, 2023 at 12:13:39 AM UTC-4, ScottW wrote:
AOC claims SCOTUS is legislating laws, not interpreting them,Here's the full quote: “If SCOTUS was serious about their ludicrous
and in her next breath demands that they abolish legacy
admissions .
‘colorblindness’ claims, they would have abolished legacy
admissions, aka affirmative action for the privileged,”
The careful reader will note she didn't demand SCOTUS do anything,
but posited a hypothetical situation based on the ruling's
reasoning.
Should she have said "If SCOTUS *were* serious" so more would clue
in on the subjunctive?
If she were serious she'd realize SCOTUS is limited by existing lawNot anymore. They're acting like a super-legislature abandoning stare decisis.
and the constitution.
Continuing to prefer legacy admissions preserves the advantages given
those admitted when racial minorities suffered discrimination.
And second, legacy admissions not being race based is back on the equitable outcome BS
that led to their racist admissions policy in the first place.
On Monday, July 3, 2023 at 9:09:24 AM UTC-7, Art Sackman wrote:
On Monday, July 3, 2023 at 12:01:28 PM UTC-4, ScottW wrote:
On Sunday, July 2, 2023 at 9:27:14 PM UTC-7, Art Sackman wrote:
On Monday, July 3, 2023 at 12:13:39 AM UTC-4, ScottW wrote:
A little more than half of Americans – 52% — approve of the U.S. Supreme Court decision on restricting the use of race as a factor in college admissions, while 32% disapprove and 16% saying they don’t know.
A majority of Republicans (75%) and independents (58%) approve of the ruling, while a distinct minority of Democrats approve (26%).
Dems started as the party of racism and ends as the last party of racism.
Well, the legacy and donor admissions exceptions are f'd up.ScottWAOC claims SCOTUS is legislating laws, not interpreting them, and in her next breath demands that they
abolish legacy admissions .
But don't expect AOC to have the smarts to avoid being a hypocrite. Anyway, merit systems with "exceptions" aren't really merit systems. Congress should attach a full merit based admission system to any public $$ going to schools.
If Harvard wants to be completely private....then they can do what they want within existing law like
any private club.
Private Club.ScottWI'm not exactly sure about that. Would it be a private club or a public accommodation, like a business?
On 7/3/23 11:07 AM, Art Sackman wrote:
On Monday, July 3, 2023 at 8:03:57 AM UTC-4, mINE109 wrote:
On 7/2/23 11:27 PM, Art Sackman wrote:
On Monday, July 3, 2023 at 12:13:39 AM UTC-4, ScottW wrote:Here's the full quote: “If SCOTUS was serious about their ludicrous
A little more than half of Americans – 52% — approve of the U.S. >>>> Supreme Court decision on restricting the use of race as a factorAOC claims SCOTUS is legislating laws, not interpreting them, and in
in college admissions, while 32% disapprove and 16% saying they
don’t know.
A majority of Republicans (75%) and independents (58%) approve of
the ruling, while a distinct minority of Democrats approve (26%).
Dems started as the party of racism and ends as the last party of
racism.
her next breath demands that they abolish legacy admissions .
‘colorblindness’ claims, they would have abolished legacy admissions, >> aka affirmative action for the privileged,”
The careful reader will note she didn't demand SCOTUS do anything, but
posited a hypothetical situation based on the ruling's reasoning.
Should she have said "If SCOTUS *were* serious" so more would clue in on >> the subjunctive?
NO!!!!! She , said they SHOULD HAVE, that is definitive, not hypothetical.The quote says "would have," which is subjunctive, following a clause beginning with 'if,' indicating the hypothetical.
For a better-worded objection, see Justice Sotomayor's dissent:
“The Court cements a superficial rule of colorblindness as a constitutional principle in an endemically segregated society where race
has always mattered and continues to matter. The Court subverts the constitutional guarantee of equal protection by further entrenching
racial inequality in education, the very foundation of our democratic government and pluralistic society.”
On Monday, July 3, 2023 at 12:23:42 PM UTC-4, ScottW wrote:retail stores, museums, libraries, amusement parks, private schools, and day care centers. Private clubs and religious organizations are exempt from the ADA's title III requirements for public accommodations."
On Monday, July 3, 2023 at 9:09:24 AM UTC-7, Art Sackman wrote:
On Monday, July 3, 2023 at 12:01:28 PM UTC-4, ScottW wrote:
On Sunday, July 2, 2023 at 9:27:14 PM UTC-7, Art Sackman wrote:
On Monday, July 3, 2023 at 12:13:39 AM UTC-4, ScottW wrote:
A little more than half of Americans – 52% — approve of the U.S. Supreme Court decision on restricting the use of race as a factor in college admissions, while 32% disapprove and 16% saying they don’t know.
A majority of Republicans (75%) and independents (58%) approve of the ruling, while a distinct minority of Democrats approve (26%).
Dems started as the party of racism and ends as the last party of racism.
Well, the legacy and donor admissions exceptions are f'd up.ScottWAOC claims SCOTUS is legislating laws, not interpreting them, and in her next breath demands that they
abolish legacy admissions .
But don't expect AOC to have the smarts to avoid being a hypocrite. Anyway, merit systems with "exceptions" aren't really merit systems. Congress should attach a full merit based admission system to any public $$ going to schools.
If Harvard wants to be completely private....then they can do what they want within existing law like
any private club.
Private Club.ScottWI'm not exactly sure about that. Would it be a private club or a public accommodation, like a business?
No, not a private club.
Under Title III of the ADA, a private university is a public accommodation
https://www.alrp.org/wp-content/uploads/AIDS-Law-Chapter-5.-Public-Accommodations.pdf
and ADA says this:
"A public accommodation is a private entity that owns, operates, leases, or leases to, a place of public accommodation. Places of public accommodation include a wide range of entities, such as restaurants, hotels, theaters, doctors' offices, pharmacies,
https://adata.org/faq/what-are-public-accommodations
and there is this:
"Under U.S. federal law, public accommodations must be accessible to the disabled and may not discriminate on the basis of "race, color, religion, or national origin."1
On Monday, July 3, 2023 at 5:04:01 PM UTC-7, Art Sackman wrote:pharmacies, retail stores, museums, libraries, amusement parks, private schools, and day care centers. Private clubs and religious organizations are exempt from the ADA's title III requirements for public accommodations."
On Monday, July 3, 2023 at 12:23:42 PM UTC-4, ScottW wrote:
On Monday, July 3, 2023 at 9:09:24 AM UTC-7, Art Sackman wrote:
On Monday, July 3, 2023 at 12:01:28 PM UTC-4, ScottW wrote:
On Sunday, July 2, 2023 at 9:27:14 PM UTC-7, Art Sackman wrote:
On Monday, July 3, 2023 at 12:13:39 AM UTC-4, ScottW wrote:
A little more than half of Americans – 52% — approve of the U.S. Supreme Court decision on restricting the use of race as a factor in college admissions, while 32% disapprove and 16% saying they don’t know.
A majority of Republicans (75%) and independents (58%) approve of the ruling, while a distinct minority of Democrats approve (26%).
Dems started as the party of racism and ends as the last party of racism.
Well, the legacy and donor admissions exceptions are f'd up.ScottWAOC claims SCOTUS is legislating laws, not interpreting them, and in her next breath demands that they
abolish legacy admissions .
But don't expect AOC to have the smarts to avoid being a hypocrite. Anyway, merit systems with "exceptions" aren't really merit systems. Congress should attach a full merit based admission system to any public $$ going to schools.
If Harvard wants to be completely private....then they can do what they want within existing law like
any private club.
Private Club.ScottWI'm not exactly sure about that. Would it be a private club or a public accommodation, like a business?
No, not a private club.
Under Title III of the ADA, a private university is a public accommodation
https://www.alrp.org/wp-content/uploads/AIDS-Law-Chapter-5.-Public-Accommodations.pdf
and ADA says this:
"A public accommodation is a private entity that owns, operates, leases, or leases to, a place of public accommodation. Places of public accommodation include a wide range of entities, such as restaurants, hotels, theaters, doctors' offices,
https://adata.org/faq/what-are-public-accommodations
and there is this:
"Under U.S. federal law, public accommodations must be accessible to the disabled and may not discriminate on the basis of "race, color, religion, or national origin."1So legacy admissions cannot be discriminatory on the basis of .....
I'm guessing they probably aren't already since their current and past black student populations will also get legacy considerations.
On Monday, July 3, 2023 at 8:47:44 PM UTC-7, ScottW wrote:pharmacies, retail stores, museums, libraries, amusement parks, private schools, and day care centers. Private clubs and religious organizations are exempt from the ADA's title III requirements for public accommodations."
On Monday, July 3, 2023 at 5:04:01 PM UTC-7, Art Sackman wrote:
On Monday, July 3, 2023 at 12:23:42 PM UTC-4, ScottW wrote:
On Monday, July 3, 2023 at 9:09:24 AM UTC-7, Art Sackman wrote:
On Monday, July 3, 2023 at 12:01:28 PM UTC-4, ScottW wrote:
On Sunday, July 2, 2023 at 9:27:14 PM UTC-7, Art Sackman wrote:
On Monday, July 3, 2023 at 12:13:39 AM UTC-4, ScottW wrote:
A little more than half of Americans – 52% — approve of the U.S. Supreme Court decision on restricting the use of race as a factor in college admissions, while 32% disapprove and 16% saying they don’t know.
A majority of Republicans (75%) and independents (58%) approve of the ruling, while a distinct minority of Democrats approve (26%).
Dems started as the party of racism and ends as the last party of racism.
Well, the legacy and donor admissions exceptions are f'd up.ScottWAOC claims SCOTUS is legislating laws, not interpreting them, and in her next breath demands that they
abolish legacy admissions .
But don't expect AOC to have the smarts to avoid being a hypocrite.
Anyway, merit systems with "exceptions" aren't really merit systems.
Congress should attach a full merit based admission system to any public $$ going to schools.
If Harvard wants to be completely private....then they can do what they want within existing law like
any private club.
Private Club.ScottWI'm not exactly sure about that. Would it be a private club or a public accommodation, like a business?
No, not a private club.
Under Title III of the ADA, a private university is a public accommodation
https://www.alrp.org/wp-content/uploads/AIDS-Law-Chapter-5.-Public-Accommodations.pdf
and ADA says this:
"A public accommodation is a private entity that owns, operates, leases, or leases to, a place of public accommodation. Places of public accommodation include a wide range of entities, such as restaurants, hotels, theaters, doctors' offices,
according to The Hill. "The students who receive this preferential treatment — based solely on familial ties — are overwhelmingly white. Nearly 70% of donor-related applicants are white, and nearly 70% of legacy applicants are also white."https://adata.org/faq/what-are-public-accommodations
and there is this:
"Under U.S. federal law, public accommodations must be accessible to the disabled and may not discriminate on the basis of "race, color, religion, or national origin."1So legacy admissions cannot be discriminatory on the basis of .....
I'm guessing they probably aren't already since their current and past black student populations will also get legacy considerations.And they're already being sued over that.
Now, the school faces a legal complaint from Lawyers for Civil Rights (LCR) over its admission of students based on the past attendance of their family members.
"Each year, Harvard College grants special preference in its admissions process to hundreds of mostly white students — not because of anything they have accomplished, but rather solely because of who their relatives are," the complaint reads,
https://justthenews.com/politics-policy/education/legacy-admissions-harvard-come-under-fire-after-supreme-court-affirmative
ScottW
On Monday, July 3, 2023 at 9:24:46 AM UTC-7, mINE109 wrote:
On 7/3/23 11:03 AM, ScottW wrote:
On Monday, July 3, 2023 at 5:03:57 AM UTC-7, mINE109 wrote:Not anymore. They're acting like a super-legislature abandoning stare
On 7/2/23 11:27 PM, Art Sackman wrote:
On Monday, July 3, 2023 at 12:13:39 AM UTC-4, ScottW wrote:
AOC claims SCOTUS is legislating laws, not interpreting them,Here's the full quote: “If SCOTUS was serious about their ludicrous
and in her next breath demands that they abolish legacy
admissions .
‘colorblindness’ claims, they would have abolished legacy
admissions, aka affirmative action for the privileged,”
The careful reader will note she didn't demand SCOTUS do anything,
but posited a hypothetical situation based on the ruling's
reasoning.
Should she have said "If SCOTUS *were* serious" so more would clue
in on the subjunctive?
If she were serious she'd realize SCOTUS is limited by existing law
and the constitution.
decisis.
Continuing to prefer legacy admissions preserves the advantages given
those admitted when racial minorities suffered discrimination.
I don't recall legacy admissions being challenged in the case.
And second, legacy admissions not being race based is back on the equitable outcome BS
that led to their racist admissions policy in the first place.
On Monday, July 3, 2023 at 12:30:08 PM UTC-4, mINE109 wrote:
On 7/3/23 11:07 AM, Art Sackman wrote:
On Monday, July 3, 2023 at 8:03:57 AM UTC-4, mINE109 wrote:beginning with 'if,' indicating the hypothetical.
On 7/2/23 11:27 PM, Art Sackman wrote:
On Monday, July 3, 2023 at 12:13:39 AM UTC-4, ScottW wrote:Here's the full quote: “If SCOTUS was serious about their ludicrous
A little more than half of Americans – 52% — approve of the U.S. >>>>>> Supreme Court decision on restricting the use of race as a factorAOC claims SCOTUS is legislating laws, not interpreting them, and in >>>>> her next breath demands that they abolish legacy admissions .
in college admissions, while 32% disapprove and 16% saying they
don’t know.
A majority of Republicans (75%) and independents (58%) approve of
the ruling, while a distinct minority of Democrats approve (26%).
Dems started as the party of racism and ends as the last party of
racism.
‘colorblindness’ claims, they would have abolished legacy admissions, >>>> aka affirmative action for the privileged,”
The careful reader will note she didn't demand SCOTUS do anything, but >>>> posited a hypothetical situation based on the ruling's reasoning.
Should she have said "If SCOTUS *were* serious" so more would clue in on >>>> the subjunctive?
NO!!!!! She , said they SHOULD HAVE, that is definitive, not hypothetical. >> The quote says "would have," which is subjunctive, following a clause
For a better-worded objection, see Justice Sotomayor's dissent:
“The Court cements a superficial rule of colorblindness as a
constitutional principle in an endemically segregated society where race
has always mattered and continues to matter. The Court subverts the
constitutional guarantee of equal protection by further entrenching
racial inequality in education, the very foundation of our democratic
government and pluralistic society.”
the only "if" was "if" SCOTUS were serious.
there were no "ifs" as to whether such a case were before them
Sotomayor quote does not mention legacy admissions at all.
Sotomayor quote does not mention legacy admissions at all.It's a better objection to the ruling. Legacy admission entrenches
racial inequality in education, to paraphrase Sotomayor.
mINE109 wrote:
Don't you just hate those "death taxes"?
Sotomayor quote does not mention legacy admissions at all.It's a better objection to the ruling. Legacy admission entrenches
racial inequality in education, to paraphrase Sotomayor.
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 300 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 26:18:38 |
| Calls: | 6,707 |
| Calls today: | 1 |
| Files: | 12,239 |
| Messages: | 5,352,560 |