Supreme Court kills affirmative action in university admissions

#428
#428
ClearwaterVol said:
That’s not the argument. The argument is essentially that minorities have historically had less access to a good education from jump because of economic disadvantages. By accepting a greater number of minorities into higher education then the argument is that more minorities will succeed and their offspring will have a level playing field and there will be no need for affirmative action in the future
Click to expand...


And yet in these districts with "historically less access to a good education from jump because of economic disadvantage" democrats run unopposed or in the case of Chicago against a further left and more decisive candidate and get elected by large majorities of the vote. Are you suggesting that 30 plus years was not long enough?

Clearly what needs to happen is there needs to be less of the government substituting as fathers. There needs to be assistance for a period of time not generation after generation of dangling the government teat carrot only to take all assistance away when someone tries to get a job and make their situations better than government housing in 💩holes ran by democrats.
 
#433
#433
ClearwaterVol said:
That’s not the argument. The argument is essentially that minorities have historically had less access to a good education from jump because of economic disadvantages. By accepting a greater number of minorities into higher education then the argument is that more minorities will succeed and their offspring will have a level playing field and there will be no need for affirmative action in the future
Click to expand...
Well said.
 
#434
#434
RikidyBones said:
If you can't understand how it's systemic racism by now, there's no reason to even engage in discussion with you. We get it, you think minorities can't have a chance based on their own merits because they are lesser than you. We get it, you think Asians deserve to be discriminated against and to a degree white people.

It's been explained and like anything else, you refuse to look at this through the lens free of simpleton partisanship.

The dem lords told you to be mad and daggumit you'll come on VN calling Clarence Thomas an Uncle Tom and accuse him of not being qualified for Yale without any proof (so it's only because he's black) all for the party.

Your wife beating comment doesn't make sense and is irrelevant to the conversation.
Click to expand...
The "wife beater" reference concerns the way you posed the question in a manner that inserted your own opinion as established fact ... it's the fallacy of the "loaded question" and lazy.
 
#435
#435
85SugarVol said:
Someone is lacking in reverence for stare decisis…

Do you realize that Plessy had been the law of the land for almost 60 years when it was struck? Decades of Supreme Court precedent, wiped away by the Warren Court in the blink of an eye.

Such extremism.
Click to expand...
I think you missed my point. Our government had a hard time forcing schools to integrate minorities. Brown v Board of Education wasn't a magic wand.
 
#440
#440
BowlBrother85 said:
I think you missed my point. Our government had a hard time forcing schools to integrate minorities. Brown v Board of Education wasn't a magic wand.
Click to expand...
I realize what your point was. That AA was a bridge from Brown to Today. I get it.

I used your post to make a different point. A point about Supreme Court precedent, and when it matters. Get it?
 
  • Like
Reactions: vols40
#442
#442
BowlBrother85 said:
.... but your statement wasn't factual. It can be easily debated. Put me on ignore.
Click to expand...
It's factually accurate. Please see the latest SCOTUS decision calling it systemic racism.

The definition of systemic racism is as follows:
Institutional racism, also known as systemic racism, is defined as policies and practices that exist throughout a whole society or organization and that result in and support a continued unfair advantage to some people and unfair or harmful treatment of others based on race.

This is textbook systemic racism. Your disagreement is denial or stupidity. Not sure which but I'd like to lean denial.
 
  • Like
Reactions: vols40
#443
#443
RikidyBones said:
It's factually accurate. Please see the latest SCOTUS decision calling it systemic racism.

The definition of systemic racism is as follows:
Institutional racism, also known as systemic racism, is defined as policies and practices that exist throughout a whole society or organization and that result in and support a continued unfair advantage to some people and unfair or harmful treatment of others based on race.

This is textbook systemic racism. Your disagreement is denial or stupidity. Not sure which but I'd like to lean denial.
Click to expand...
This is where we will have to agree to disagree :

The unfair treatment of black students seeking a quality education still exists. They are in a system which is still tilted against them. They do not have equal opportunity with other races in this country. They never have. AA was an attempt to level the field.

If you don't agree with that? That's fine. You can put me on ignore. It won't hurt my feelings at all. I don't think I have even seen you in this forum before ... until yesterday.
 
#448
#448
GroverCleveland said:
Not sure the Democratic Party is not absolutely loving this decision privately. They will raise hundreds of millions of dollars on this and continue to push blacks into believing they cannot make it without the help of the party.
Click to expand...
Polite racism
 
#449
#449
McDad said:
You are also free to post better, post sober, and contribute content which isn't racist.
Click to expand...
I will stop you there, because although it is a harsh thing to say about a black man, I do not believe it is racist.

Please watch this video from CNN in 2014 below.

Rep. Bennie Thompson has been calling Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas an "Uncle Tom" for many years ... Obviously, Rep. Bennie Thompson is black.


 
Last edited:
#450
#450
ClearwaterVol said:
That’s not the argument. The argument is essentially that minorities have historically had less access to a good education from jump because of economic disadvantages. By accepting a greater number of minorities into higher education then the argument is that more minorities will succeed and their offspring will have a level playing field and there will be no need for affirmative action in the future
Click to expand...
Address the family dynamic at the jump you speak of…correct that and I bet advantages increase.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AM64 and vols40
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top