We are all equal again, right?

[Luvnit2]

A WAPO article posted poll results for Affirmation Action being used in college admissions. Black people overall agreed with the Supreme Court ruling. I tried to post the article, but I am not a subscriber.

[Lucidus]

(07-07-2023, 06:49 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: The military is separate and apart from everyday America.  They have studied and learned what works best to comprise the force for protecting the US and enforcing freedom all over the world. Standards are a bit different for fighting forces compared to regular citizens.  Not sure why you would make an apples to oranges comparison like that, quite frankly.

Universities produce countless members of the national security apparatus. 

[SunsetBengal]

(07-07-2023, 07:10 PM)Lucidus Wrote: Universities produce countless members of the national security apparatus. 

Ok, so what is your point?  Do a great percentage of those personnel come from a military background compared to civilian?  Again, not sure why you want to bring niche groups into a comparison with higher education intended for the masses, as I believe that the SCOTUS omitted the military academies because they are  specialized institutions as opposed to ones aiming toward the general public.

[Lucidus]

(07-07-2023, 07:19 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: Ok, so what is your point?  Do a great percentage of those personnel come from a military background compared to civilian?  Again, not sure why you want to bring niche groups into a comparison with higher education intended for the masses, as I believe that the SCOTUS omitted the military academies because they are  specialized institutions as opposed to ones aiming toward the general public.

As pointed out by a group of 35 former military leaders in a friend-of-the-court brief --

"Diversity in the halls of academia directly affects performance in the theaters of war. In Grutter v. Bollinger (“Grutter”), 539 U.S. 306 (2003), Fisher v. Univ. of Tex. at Austin (“Fisher I”), 570 U.S. 297 (2013), and Fisher v. Univ. of Tex. at Austin (“Fisher II”), 579 U.S. 365 (2016), this Court adjudicated the constitutionality of colleges and universities considering racial diversity as one of many factors in admissions practices. These cases remain of great interest to Amici because of their potential impact on the military’s ability to cultivate a diverse, highly qualified officer corps. That ability hinges, in turn, on the military’s continuing admission of diverse student bodies into its service academies and continuing recruitment of diverse students into Reserve Officer Training Corps (“ROTC”) programs at civilian universities nationwide, such as Harvard College (“Harvard”) and the University of North Carolina (“UNC”). "

"Prohibiting educational institutions from using modest, race-conscious admissions policies would impair the military’s ability to maintain diverse leadership, and thereby seriously undermine its institutional legitimacy and operational effectiveness. Amici respectfully request that, in considering whether to reverse decades of precedent affirming the constitutionality of such admissions policies, the Court will continue to consider how such policies enable the military to serve our Nation’s security interests."

One of the co-signers and former undersecretary of the Army, Joe Reeder stated --

"No one asked for a military academy carveout," said Reeder, who now practices private law at Greenberg Traurig. "We didn't ask for that. No one has asked for that. Only about 25% of the military's officer corps attended military academies." Reeder said. 

These former military leaders argued that the importance of racially diverse admission practices should apply to all academia, and also explained how the military is impacted and made stronger by such inclusionary methods. 

[SunsetBengal]

(07-07-2023, 07:41 PM)Lucidus Wrote: As pointed out by a group of 35 former military leaders in a friend-of-the-court brief --

"Diversity in the halls of academia directly affects performance in the theaters of war. In Grutter v. Bollinger (“Grutter”), 539 U.S. 306 (2003), Fisher v. Univ. of Tex. at Austin (“Fisher I”), 570 U.S. 297 (2013), and Fisher v. Univ. of Tex. at Austin (“Fisher II”), 579 U.S. 365 (2016), this Court adjudicated the constitutionality of colleges and universities considering racial diversity as one of many factors in admissions practices. These cases remain of great interest to Amici because of their potential impact on the military’s ability to cultivate a diverse, highly qualified officer corps. That ability hinges, in turn, on the military’s continuing admission of diverse student bodies into its service academies and continuing recruitment of diverse students into Reserve Officer Training Corps (“ROTC”) programs at civilian universities nationwide, such as Harvard College (“Harvard”) and the University of North Carolina (“UNC”). "

"Prohibiting educational institutions from using modest, race-conscious admissions policies would impair the military’s ability to maintain diverse leadership, and thereby seriously undermine its institutional legitimacy and operational effectiveness. Amici respectfully request that, in considering whether to reverse decades of precedent affirming the constitutionality of such admissions policies, the Court will continue to consider how such policies enable the military to serve our Nation’s security interests."

One of the co-signers and former undersecretary of the Army, Joe Reeder stated --

"No one asked for a military academy carveout," said Reeder, who now practices private law at Greenberg Traurig. "We didn't ask for that. No one has asked for that. Only about 25% of the military's officer corps attended military academies." Reeder said. 

These former military leaders argued that the importance of racially diverse admission practices should apply to all academia, and also explained how the military is impacted and made stronger by such inclusionary methods. 

Not sure if factual, but the vast majority of ROTC students only go that route with no intention of ever going full time military service.  It is just a vessel to escape the strangle of student loan debt. (and it adds a nice little second income for civilian life while being reserve)

[GMDino]

WATCH: “He came to blame affirmative action for the rejection he felt.”

Before he helped kill it, a PBS doc on Clarence Thomas described how he blamed AA for not getting law firm offers he thought he deserved out of Yale.

Benefitted from it, then killed it. (H/T @kharyp) FULL… pic.twitter.com/xx9wSnZtzw

— The Tennessee Holler (@TheTNHoller) July 9, 2023

 

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(07-09-2023, 11:38 AM)GMDino Wrote:

WATCH: “He came to blame affirmative action for the rejection he felt.”

Before he helped kill it, a PBS doc on Clarence Thomas described how he blamed AA for not getting law firm offers he thought he deserved out of Yale.

Benefitted from it, then killed it. (H/T @kharyp) FULL… pic.twitter.com/xx9wSnZtzw

— The Tennessee Holler (@TheTNHoller) July 9, 2023

 

Did he benefit from it?  The PBS special cited in the tweet doesn't express that, and, in fact, it grated on Thomas that people assumed he was there because of affirmative action and not based on merit and ability.





Seems rather logical that a man or woman who earned their way into a prestigious school through hard work and ability would resent being associated with people who would not have gotten in without being allowed lower qualifications by dint of their ethnicity.  Citing a source and not even understanding it isn't a good look for the original tweeter.

[GMDino]

(07-09-2023, 11:55 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Did he benefit from it?  The PBS special cited in the tweet doesn't express that, and, in fact, it grated on Thomas that people assumed he was there because of affirmative action and not based on merit and ability.





Seems rather logical that a man or woman who earned their way into a prestigious school through hard work and ability would resent being associated with people who would not have gotten in without being allowed lower qualifications by dint of their ethnicity.  Citing a source and not even understanding it isn't a good look for the original tweeter.

https://www.newsweek.com/fact-check-did-clarence-thomas-go-yale-under-affirmative-action-policy-1810180

Quote:Several reports from Yale officials and representatives confirmed that the university followed an affirmative action policy at the time Thomas attended its law school.



A 1991 New York Times article about Thomas reported how Yale University officials said Thomas was admitted to its law school "under an explicit affirmative action plan with the goal of having blacks and other minority members make up about 10 percent of the entering class."


Professor Abraham S. Goldstein, dean of the law school, from 1970 to 1975, was quoted by the Times as saying: "We did adopt an affirmative action program and it was pretty clearly stated."


A 1994 Yale Alumni Magazine article underlines this, stating: "Like most American universities, Yale in the 1960s and '70s embarked on an aggressive policy of affirmative action in admitting and hiring minorities and women."

Thomas has strongly supported the notion that his admission was under an affirmative action plan.

During a 1980 Washington Post interview, Thomas said: "You had to prove yourself every day because the presumption was that you were dumb and didn't deserve to be there on merit."


"Every time you walked into a law class at Yale it was like having a monkey jump down on your back from the Gothic arches....The professors and the students resented your very presence."

His feelings were more explicit in the 2007 memoir My Grandfather's Son, in which Thomas wrote: "As much as it stung to be told that I'd done well in the seminary despite my race, it was far worse to feel that I was now at Yale because of it."
Although there isn't documentary evidence (such as admission papers or other paperwork that would settle the question entirely), it appears clear from the testimony of Yale officials and Thomas that his admission to the Yale School of Law was made at the time of affirmative action policies and was almost certainly was influenced by it.


The Supreme Court's other Black justice, Ketanji Brown Jackson, sparred with Thomas this week over the decision to overturn affirmative action in U.S. colleges.


Responding to Thomas' 58-page concurring opinion on the ruling, Jackson said: "The takeaway is that those who demand that no one think about race [a classic pink-elephant paradox] refuse to see, much less solve for, the elephant in the room—the race-linked disparities that continue to impede achievement of our great Nation's full potential."

Newsweek has reached out to Yale and a representative for Clarence Thomas via email for comment.
The Ruling

True.
Thomas has repeatedly claimed that affirmative action initiatives or similar policies were responsible for his admission and his sense of discrimination therein. This appears to have been a formative part of Thomas' opposition to the social policy. Testimony from others, including Yale officials, supports this claim.


As noted by Yale, the university embarked on an "aggressive" campaign during the 1960s and 1970s, when Thomas applied. Even without written documentary evidence that separately confirms the decision-making behind Thomas' admission, we can be confident that affirmative action was in place and is likely to have had an influence on his placement.

In the video in the tweet Thomas seemed to think he didn't get a job because he was accepted into college under affirmative action.  Others disagreed with that take.

So, yes.  He did benefit from it.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(07-09-2023, 01:15 PM)GMDino Wrote: https://www.newsweek.com/fact-check-did-clarence-thomas-go-yale-under-affirmative-action-policy-1810180



In the video in the tweet Thomas seemed to think he didn't get a job because he was accepted into college under affirmative action.  Others disagreed with that take.

So, yes.  He did benefit from it.

No, you cannot say that he did without showing that his application would not have gotten him accepted if he wasn't black.  Can you show that?  Them simply having an affirmative action program does not equal Thomas only got in because they had an affirmative action program.  You're actually backing Thomas's issue with the program and the stigma he felt because of it.  Unwittingly making his point for him, you assumed he got into Yale only because of AA just like everyone else who belittled him because of it.  The more things change.

Even your own source backs my position;

Even without written documentary evidence that separately confirms the decision-making behind Thomas' admission, we can be confident that affirmative action was in place and is likely to have had an influence on his placement.


I.E. they can't prove he only got in because of AA, but that "it was likely".  Like I said, the more things change.

[GMDino]

(07-09-2023, 02:25 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: No, you cannot say that he did without showing that his application would not have gotten him accepted if he wasn't black.  Can you show that?  Them simply having an affirmative action program does not equal Thomas only got in because they had an affirmative action program.  You're actually backing Thomas's issue with the program and the stigma he felt because of it.  Unwittingly making his point for him, you assumed he got into Yale only because of AA just like everyone else who belittled him because of it.  The more things change.

Even your own source backs my position;

Even without written documentary evidence that separately confirms the decision-making behind Thomas' admission, we can be confident that affirmative action was in place and is likely to have had an influence on his placement.


I.E. they can't prove he only got in because of AA, but that "it was likely".  Like I said, the more things change.

I can say whatever I want to say when Thomas himself believed it...as I noted.

Quote:Although there isn't documentary evidence (such as admission papers or other paperwork that would settle the question entirely), it appears clear from the testimony of Yale officials and Thomas that his admission to the Yale School of Law was made at the time of affirmative action policies and was almost certainly was influenced by it.

Now you can argue with him if you like.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(07-09-2023, 02:49 PM)GMDino Wrote: I can say whatever I want to say when Thomas himself believed it...as I noted.



Now you can argue with him if you like.

Yes, we know he felt he got in that way.  It's partly why the condescending liberals at Yale assuming the same stung so badly for him.  Or, at least it appears that way based on his statements.  But his beliefs don't change the fact that there is no proof available, per you own source, that this was the case.  Your argument fails on its face based on your own source.

Did he possibly get in because of AA, sure.  Did he definitely get in because of AA as he did/does, you, and many other leftists believe?  No, that cannot be proven.  You said he benefited, this cannot be stated definitively.  Again, it is interesting that your assumption of this only proves his point, and his issue with AA, for him.  I guess according to condescending leftists there's no way a qualified black man could get in without AA.  Just like Asians can't agree with the "white majority" without having been manipulated by it.  What a low opinion of ethnic minorities many leftists possess.

Like I said, the more things change.

[Dill]

(07-09-2023, 02:58 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Did he possibly get in because of AA, sure.  Did he definitely get in because of AA as he did/does, you, and many other leftists believe?  No, that cannot be proven.  You said he benefited, this cannot be stated definitively.  Again, it is interesting that your assumption of this only proves his point, and his issue with AA, for him.  I guess according to condescending leftists there's no way a qualified black man could get in without AA.  Just like Asians can't agree with the "white majority" without having been manipulated by it.  What a low opinion of ethnic minorities many leftists possess.

Like I said, the more things change.

So were qualified black candidates getting into Yale law just fine BEFORE “condescending leftists” with “low opinions” of minorities created AA policies?

Why would people with a “low opinion” of minorities want to bring them into a top law school?

Wonder if any of the hundreds of white legacy admissions who could not otherwise have qualified for yale admission felt people judging them as Thomas did? Still a valid question since qualified minorities are still bumped for hundreds of unqualified whites every year—as minority advocates who opposed Students for Fair admissions (and the white majority) well knew.

14 black students were admitted to Yale in 1964–the largest group in its history till then. People who didn’t have a low opinion of minorities had been keeping the numbers to single digits before that?

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(07-10-2023, 02:15 AM)Dill Wrote: So were qualified black candidates getting into Yale law just fine BEFORE “condescending leftists” with “low opinions” of minorities created AA policies?

I don't know, where they?  I'm wouldn't be surprised if you already have the numbers are are waiting for a good "gotcha" post.  Maybe just post them upfront so it can actually be discussed?

Quote:Why would people with a “low opinion” of minorities want to bring them into a top law school?

To assuage their "white guilt" and make them feel better about themselves.  I see this behavior all the time.

Quote:Wonder if any of the hundreds of white legacy admissions who could not otherwise have qualified for yale admission felt people judging them as Thomas did? Still a valid question since qualified minorities are still bumped for hundreds of unqualified whites every year—as minority advocates who opposed Students for Fair admissions (and the white majority) well knew.

You and your ilk keep bringing up legacy admissions like I've been defending them. I've literally stated, point blank, that legacy admissions are unfair and I'd be in favor of eliminating them.  Maybe actually read people's posts instead of just thinking about your next response?

Quote:14 black students were admitted to Yale in 1964–the largest group in its history till then. People who didn’t have a low opinion of minorities had been keeping the numbers to single digits before that?

Oh, you can have a low opinion of people in different ways.  Some are overt, like a klansman or black Israelite.  Some are more subtle, like leftists who think they have to save minorities because they lack natural ability or think ethnic minorities lack any agency.

[Mickeypoo]

(07-04-2023, 09:42 AM)Matt_Crimson Wrote: Sure.

So the percentage you cited refers to those who identify as white but also includes Hispanics or Latinos who identify as white.

If you take those who identify as white only (not Hispanic or Latino) that percentage is lower (59%). In 2010 this number was 72%.  So that means in 13 years, those who identify as "white only" has dropped 13% (roughly 1% per year). 

If the white only population continues on this trajectory for the next 25 years, that would put their percentage at 34%. But most estimates are being more generous than that and it's believed that the percentage will fall roughly to around 45% which is still less than half. That would make whites only a minority in the US in comparison to the rest of the population. 

That does not mean however that another race is becoming the majority. It just simply means that all other races combined will out populate whites.

Theres a few reasons why this is happening.

1. Immigration.

As more minorities immigrate to the US, their share of the population increases and the whites only population decreases.

2. Whites have the oldest population.

The baby boomer generation is primarily white. What this means is that the white population is older than the population of minorities. As the older generation. of whites die off, the younger generation of minorities will begin to fill the void, causing a shift in population percentages.

3. The acceptance of interracial relationships

Pretty self explanatory. Less white people having less relationships with their own race means less "white" people being born.


I think it's important to note that that last point is a "consequence" for every race. When people say that whites will become a "minority" that doesn't mean that another race will necessarily take their place (although it is possible). It's to point out that the US has become more diverse and mixed race people will only continue to contribute to a decrease in the whites only population, as well as the population of all other races. At some point we will basically reach an area where the majority of the population is primarily made from parents of two differing races.

Thank you very much for that explanation.  Makes sense.

[Dill]

(07-10-2023, 11:40 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Dill Wrote: ... were qualified black candidates getting into Yale law just fine BEFORE “condescending leftists” with “low opinions” of minorities created AA policies?

I don't know, where they?  I'm wouldn't be surprised if you already have the numbers are are waiting for a good "gotcha" post.  Maybe just post them upfront so it can actually be discussed?

Pretty hard to judge AA as "unfair" if you have no knowledge of before and after. 

I don't have law school numbers for the 60s-70s. Yale began AA as a formal policy in 1972. But in 1971, the law school had already set a goal of 10% acceptance for blacks. 12 were accepted in Thomas' class. It is not clear that ANY would have been accepted were there not "condescending leftist" students pushing for change from within. At least one law professor at that time was not guilty of "the soft bigotry of low expectations"--he told any who would listen (including black students) that NONE of the 12 Blacks admitted was qualified.

AA had, in a sense, begun informally when Yale accepted 14 black students to its undergraduate program in 1964,  the year the Civil Rights Act passed. In the class of 1970, 32 Black Americans graduated from a class of about 1,000 undergraduates.

Before that, it appears blacks were in single digits in medicine and law during the 50s--among thousands of white admissions. It appears some years NONE were admitted. Those who were apparently had connections to faculty. 

Chances Thomas could have gotten in without AA help are slimmest possible to none. Yet he could have been more qualified than many legacy white admissions. He also had financial help set aside for minorities. 

Creating greater minority access to higher ed =/= proof AA advocates think minorities lack natural ability or "agency"--especially when minorities have done the directing and heavy lifting. It's proof AA advocates then and now think the system unfairly discriminates against minorities who DO have natural ability and agency. And now we are headed back to pre-AA numbers.

(07-10-2023, 11:40 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Quote:Why would people with a “low opinion” of minorities want to bring them into a top law school?

To assuage their "white guilt" and make them feel better about themselves.  I see this behavior all the time.

No "behavior" is described here.  So how are you "seeing" an internal mental state?  

You can't get there just by watching some people you don't like ("LEFTISTS!") help others.

Do you have testimony or confession from someone claiming to suffer from "white guilt" who "feels better" about it when helping minorities?  A large enough sample to generalize to a large group? Or perhaps you have no evidence of that sort, and your special sight has had some guidance from equally unfounded RW opinion about "the soft bigotry of low expectations"?  

Guilt often manifests itself in denial, as in the case of gay men who not only deny their sexuality, but make a show of persecuting gay men. If "white guilt" exists, why wouldn't it just as easily manifest itself as loud proclamations one is "not racist" and/or denial that racism is still a problem, and a defensive insistence that "Blacks can be racist too!"? At least that's a possibility considered by people who can actually define and measure the phenomenon. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/0011000019878808

In any case, all people--whites and minorities--who help minorities gain access to higher ed, which they had never had before, should "feel better about themselves," shouldn't they? They are doing good. So why are they the villains in your personal civil rights history? Why do you impute to them the belief in minority inferiority traditionally held by those who oppose minority admissions and AA?

It's the people who block that access and badmouth people who do help who should not "feel better" about themselves. 

(07-10-2023, 11:40 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: You and your ilk keep bringing up legacy admissions like I've been defending them. I've literally stated, point blank, that legacy admissions are unfair and I'd be in favor of eliminating them.  Maybe actually read people's posts instead of just thinking about your next response?

Oh, you can have a low opinion of people in different ways.  Some are overt, like a klansman or black Israelite.  Some are more subtle, like leftists who think they have to save minorities because they lack natural ability or think ethnic minorities lack any agency.

Jeezus. Everyone knows you are for colorblind "fairness." It's where you pick your battles and the sides you choose that are the issue--how your actions define "fairness" to support actual inequality. 

I and my ilk keep bringing up legacy admissions because a majority of the population, white and minority, think of AA as qualified whites being bumped by unqualified Blacks and Latinos. The real bumping goes the other way though, as unqualified whites bump qualified minorities in hundreds of U.S. universities, and especially the top tier ones which produce government and corporate leadership. 

The concern of minority groups still actually fighting for equal access is that the rollback of AA means even MORE admissions for whites, while leaving untouched the mechanism which admits more "unqualified" whites to Harvard and UNC than total number of Black and Hispanic students.  

The people who created and directed Students for Fairness in Admissions were well aware of AA history and legacy admissions. Their own research revealed very precise numbers of hundreds of unqualified whites accepted to Harvard--yet that is not the focus of their suit. Why, if this was ever really about "fairness" and not protecting white privilege? Oh wait . . . how can they be protecting whites if they shifted tactics from Fisher and got an Asian plaintiff . . . ? How can a Muslim ban be a Muslim ban if it doesn't mention "Muslims"?  

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(07-11-2023, 11:50 AM)Dill Wrote: Pretty hard to judge AA as "unfair" if you have no knowledge of before and after.

Actually, no it's not.  Replacing an unfair system with another unfair system isn't ideal.  Or fair.  

Quote:I don't have law school numbers for the 60s-70s. Yale began AA as a formal policy in 1972. But in 1971, the law school had already set a goal of 10% acceptance for blacks. 12 were accepted in Thomas' class. It is not clear that ANY would have been accepted were there not "condescending leftist" students pushing for change from within. At least one law professor at that time was not guilty of "the soft bigotry of low expectations"--he told any who would listen (including black students) that NONE of the 12 Blacks admitted was qualified.

Yeah, you're misusing the term, "soft bigotry of low expectations".  That term is used to describe people who hold minorities to lower standards than whites because they're minorities.  You should be familiar with this.  What you just described is a guy who is either an outright bigot, or was not and this was his personal opinion. But you're assumption that he said that due to racism is interesting. Could he have no other basis for coming to this conclusion than bigotry?

Quote:AA had, in a sense, begun informally when Yale accepted 14 black students to its undergraduate program in 1964,  the year the Civil Rights Act passed. In the class of 1970, 32 Black Americans graduated from a class of about 1,000 undergraduates.

Before that, it appears blacks were in single digits in medicine and law during the 50s--among thousands of white admissions. It appears some years NONE were admitted. Those who were apparently had connections to faculty. 

For this point to fit in with the discussion you'd have to be able to judge whether any of the applicants wouldn't have qualified if they were white.  Can you?

Quote:Chances Thomas could have gotten in without AA help are slimmest possible to none. Yet he could have been more qualified than many legacy white admissions. He also had financial help set aside for minorities. 

So, you admit it's not provable, just probable.  Exactly what I already said.

Quote:Creating greater minority access to higher ed =/= proof AA advocates think minorities lack natural ability or "agency"--especially when minorities have done the directing and heavy lifting. It's proof AA advocates then and now think the system unfairly discriminates against minorities who DO have natural ability and agency. And now we are headed back to pre-AA numbers.

How does it not?  if a black applicant has the same, or better, qualifications as a white or Asian applicant and fails to get in, that would be discrimination.  If said applicant had significantly less qualifications than said white or Asian applicant and got in instead of them, that would be discrimination.

Quote:No "behavior" is described here.  So how are you "seeing" an internal mental state?  

You can't get there just by watching some people you don't like ("LEFTISTS!") help others.

A behavior is absolutely described, when taken in context with what is was responding to.  Also, who said I didn't like those people?  Some of them are well meaning, but they're blind to their prejudices.  Most are not cognizant that what they are doing is as much, if not more, to make themselves feel better about their "privilege", as to help disadvantaged people.  Also, I encounter many "leftists" who are very genuine in their desire and motives in this regard.  They are, unfortunately, a minority, but they certainly exist.

Quote:Do you have testimony or confession from someone claiming to suffer from "white guilt" who "feels better" about it when helping minorities?  A large enough sample to generalize to a large group? Or perhaps you have no evidence of that sort, and your special sight has had some guidance from equally unfounded RW opinion about "the soft bigotry of low expectations"?  

Here's the problem with your tortured logic here.  People can't testify to behavior they don't realize they're engaging in.  

Quote:Guilt often manifests itself in denial, as in the case of gay men who not only deny their sexuality, but make a show of persecuting gay men. If "white guilt" exists, why wouldn't it just as easily manifest itself as loud proclamations one is "not racist" and/or denial that racism is still a problem, and a defensive insistence that "Blacks can be racist too!"? At least that's a possibility considered by people who can actually define and measure the phenomenon. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/0011000019878808

It can, and I acknowledge that.  Sadly, you seem incapable of the same degree of self-analysis.  If you're asking me for a scientific study of white guilt liberals, sorry, that's not what I do for a living.  Not that it would matter anyways, as you routinely dismiss the expertise of those you disagree with, all the while expressing a credulity for those that do that borders on the pathological.

Quote:In any case, all people--whites and minorities--who help minorities gain access to higher ed, which they had never had before, should "feel better about themselves," shouldn't they? They are doing good.

Sure, helping people is always a good thing.

Quote:So why are they the villains in your personal civil rights history? Why do you impute to them the belief in minority inferiority traditionally held by those who oppose minority admissions and AA?

Who said they were the villains?  You can do a good thing for a selfish reason and still be doing a good thing.  Of course, selfless motivations are clearly more laudable.  As for your second point, I impute it because I've directly witnessed it, hundreds, if not thousands of times.  Off hand remarks, observations, statements.  I can't tell you how many times I've been at a conference on these types of subjects and heard amazingly racist things come out of leftist's mouths.  It's actually a joke between my best friend in the department (a black woman who went to Howard), and I.  We count how many unintentionally racist things are said by white leftists and then compare our best examples.  We never fail to have numerous ones to choose from.  Sorry though, no scientific study here.  

Quote:It's the people who block that access and badmouth people who do help who should not "feel better" about themselves. 

Blocking access to qualified candidates absolutely would be bad, especially if it was done based on ethnicity or another protected characteristic.  As for bad mouthing people, calling out the less than laudable motivations by those attempting to do good is not engaging in that, anymore than pointing out the poor motivations of anyone else.  

Quote:Jeezus. Everyone knows you are for colorblind "fairness." It's where you pick your battles and the sides you choose that are the issue--how your actions define "fairness" to support actual inequality. 

OK, ball in your court.  Where is an area in which being for colorblind fairness is actually a good thing according to you?

Quote:I and my ilk keep bringing up legacy admissions because a majority of the population, white and minority, think of AA as qualified whites being bumped by unqualified Blacks and Latinos. The real bumping goes the other way though, as unqualified whites bump qualified minorities in hundreds of U.S. universities, and especially the top tier ones which produce government and corporate leadership. 

I agree, hence my stated desire for them to be eliminated.  My question isn't why you object to them, it's why you keep bringing them up to me when I've clearly stated my opposition to them?  Methinks it might be an attempt to paint my argument in different terms than presented in order to win an internet argument.  But you would never distort someone's position in order to score points.  Would you?

Quote:The concern of minority groups still actually fighting for equal access is that the rollback of AA means even MORE admissions for whites, while leaving untouched the mechanism which admits more "unqualified" whites to Harvard and UNC than total number of Black and Hispanic students.  

And once again, then file a lawsuit about legacy admissions.  Instead of complaining that the job is half finished go after the unfinished half.  Your argument is essentially becoming that removing one aspect of unfairness is wrong because it doesn't address all aspects of unfairness.  Unfortunately, legacy admissions was not part of the case brought before SCOTUS.  But that could be easily changed, could it not?

Quote:The people who created and directed Students for Fairness in Admissions were well aware of AA history and legacy admissions. Their own research revealed very precise numbers of hundreds of unqualified whites accepted to Harvard--yet that is not the focus of their suit. Why, if this was ever really about "fairness" and not protecting white privilege? Oh wait . . . how can they be protecting whites if they shifted tactics from Fisher and got an Asian plaintiff . . . ? How can a Muslim ban be a Muslim ban if it doesn't mention "Muslims"?  

Immaterial to the point at hand.  Again, what is preventing anyone else, literally any non-legacy applicant who was denied, from filing a similar suit?  You come off as upset that this group didn't do the entire job for you.  Well, they didn't, so either stack up and address it yourself or quit whining about it.  We all agree it's a problem, file a lawsuit to fix it.

[Dill]

(07-11-2023, 02:21 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Dill Wrote:[url=http://thebengalsboard.com/Thread-We-are-all-equal-again-right?pid=1369767#pid1369767][/url]Pretty hard to judge AA as "unfair" if you have no knowledge of before and after.

Actually, no it's not.  Replacing an unfair system with another unfair system isn't ideal.  Or fair.  

Sure. Not hard if you pre-define a "system," then dismiss further investigation/analysis.  Case settled.

Different story though if you withhold judgement till after you've examined 1) how such a "system" actually worked to exclude one race,

and 2) consider what would happen if racial criteria were simply abolished and exclusion continued under "merit," 

and 3) what would happen if the evaluation were reversed, so that race-based criteria created preference to make up past exclusion.

Each of these possibilities could be called "fair," but not according to the same definition.
 
Some would think 1) was fair because it reflected their belief in natural equality.

Those who didn't think race should factor in admissions, but didn't care if past inequality proportionally affected who
meets the merit standard, thus continuing racial exclusion on the merit criterion, would think 2) was fair. 

Those who thought race-based exclusion and merit legacy unfair, might think race-based criteria for inclusion fair,
though it meant some formerly privileged might be excluded on race-based criteria, and opt for 3) as "fair," or at least MORE fair. 

Looks like a completely "fair" choice is not possible. You appear to be defending 2. 

I'm defending 3; That means I reject 1 because I reject the inequality argument, and I reject 2 because its effect has been historically
to reproduce 1 under different criteria.

You choose a different system because you chose a different definition of "fair." 

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(07-12-2023, 11:50 AM)Dill Wrote: Sure. Not hard if you pre-define a "system," then dismiss further investigation/analysis.  Case settled.

Different story though if you withhold judgement till after you've examined 1) how such a "system" actually worked to exclude one race,

and 2) consider what would happen if racial criteria were simply abolished and exclusion continued under "merit," 

and 3) what would happen if the evaluation were reversed, so that race-based criteria created preference to make up past exclusion.

Each of these possibilities could be called "fair," but not according to the same definition.
 
Some would think 1) was fair because it reflected their belief in natural equality.

Those who didn't think race should factor in admissions, but didn't care if past inequality proportionally affected who
meets the merit standard, thus continuing racial exclusion on the merit criterion, would think 2) was fair. 

Those who thought race-based exclusion and merit legacy unfair, might think race-based criteria for inclusion fair,
though it meant some formerly privileged might be excluded on race-based criteria, and opt for 3) as "fair," or at least MORE fair. 

Looks like a completely "fair" choice is not possible. You appear to be defending 2. 

I'm defending 3; That means I reject 1 because I reject the inequality argument, and I reject 2 because its effect has been historically
to reproduce 1 under different criteria.

You choose a different system because you chose a different definition of "fair." 

You literally just responded to a long, and point by point, rebuttal to your post by addressing a single sentence of it.

There are easier ways to wave the white flag, Dill.  

[BengalYankee]

(07-05-2023, 04:38 PM)michaelsean Wrote: It seems with mixed people, they tend to choose to identify as the non-white race.  A lot of it probably has to do with how the public will perceive you, but I don't know a single mixed race person who identifies as white.  Maybe on the census they identify as mixed. Is there a place on the census to choose black/white etc?  I've never really paid attention.

Mixed people had no choice. One-drop rule[one drop of black blood, then you are black] created by the Old Democrats.

[BengalYankee]

(07-05-2023, 04:38 PM)michaelsean Wrote: It seems with mixed people, they tend to choose to identify as the non-white race.  A lot of it probably has to do with how the public will perceive you, but I don't know a single mixed race person who identifies as white.  Maybe on the census they identify as mixed. Is there a place on the census to choose black/white etc?  I've never really paid attention.

Mixed people had no choice. One-drop rule[one drop of black blood, then you are black] created by the Old Democrats.