The Supremes Have Spoken

[RankStranger]

So our dignified political appointees in robes have handed down their decrees for this year.  I'm pleasantly surprised- I'm more or less good with all of their decisions so far, unlike last year.  

 

I don't recall the rules about posting articles, so here's a link with a quick summary:

 

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2023/06/07/us/major-supreme-court-cases-2023.html

 

Religion, Free Speech and Gay Rights.  Affirmative Action.  Student Loans.  Race & Voting Maps.  Environmental Protection and Regulatory Authority.

 

Our new Christian Majority ain't holdin' back.  They intend to re-make this country in their image.

 

What do ya'll think?

[mwc]

     I think they pretty much shit the bed but does it matter?  It's not like they're going to read this and change their minds.

 

     The Affirmative Action one is kind of stupid.  It applies to colleges and CA did that back in 1996 (I don't remember but I can imagine myself voting for such a thing at the time).  Here. 

 

     Here's a snippet from Forbes (4 free articles) as well (it's older but covers 4 states, including CA):

Quote

 

TOPLINE

The effects of the Supreme Court’s decision to strike down affirmative action will take time to materialize—but a 2013 Harvard study found that after affirmative action ended in key states “sharp declines” in the workplace followed for Asian women, Black women and Hispanic men.

 

KEY FACTS

The study, which ranged from 1990 to 2009, examined California, Michigan, Nebraska and Washington after those states banned affirmative action.

 

Once affirmative action was repealed in the states, workforce participation from Latino men decreased by 7%, Black women’s participation decreased 4% and Asian women’s participation decreased 37%—the study notes that the last figure was particularly large because few Asian women were in the workforce.

 

Black women’s decrease in participation continued to drop up until five years after the ban, while Hispanic men’s decline continued through the third year and Asian women’s decline was limited to the first year after the ban.

 

The study’s 19 year duration allowed the author to examine the share of minorities and women that worked in state and local government before and after affirmative action bans went into effect.

 

 

     So we have a good idea what the results are going to be, that is, unless all the schools everywhere somehow have learned from this and are willing to implement a lot of changes that even schools in CA haven't entirely sorted out.  I have my doubts on that and figure they'll just let it be.

 

          mwc

 

[RankStranger]

Quote

Once affirmative action was repealed in the states, workforce participation from Latino men decreased by 7%, Black women’s participation decreased 4% and Asian women’s participation decreased 37%—the study notes that the last figure was particularly large because few Asian women were in the workforce.

I'm not clear on how Asians will be helped by discriminating against Asians.

[mwc]

15 hours ago, RankStranger said:

I'm not clear on how Asians will be helped by discriminating against Asians.

     I don't follow.  I just copy/pasted that from Forbes.  According to them (and I'm assuming they were summarizing the original study) this was the after-effects of dropping the requirements.  I guess I don't see what you're referring to.

 

          mwc

 

[RankStranger]

The crux of this case is the fact that top-tier schools have been deliberately discriminating against Asians.  Using methods that are very similar to methods they used to discriminate against Jews, decades ago.  I'm not too sure that this practice will do anything to help the workforce participation rate of Asian women.

[mwc]

On 7/8/2023 at 7:24 AM, RankStranger said:

The crux of this case is the fact that top-tier schools have been deliberately discriminating against Asians.  Using methods that are very similar to methods they used to discriminate against Jews, decades ago.  I'm not too sure that this practice will do anything to help the workforce participation rate of Asian women.

     Given the results of that I posted I imagine removing them may not be too good across the board.

 

     However, I went to Harvard and looked at their 2026 admissions and they have them broken down:

Quote

 

Ethnicity

African American 15.2%

Asian American 27.9%

Hispanic or Latino 12.6%

Native American 2.9%

Native Hawaiian 0.8%

 

     That leaves 40.6% for white/other.

 

     I did a quick search and found the self-reported census info from 2020:

Quote

 

(Non-Hispanic) White 58.2%

Black or African American 11.6%

Hispanic 19.0%

Asian 5.7%

American Indian and Alaska Native 0.5%

Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander 0.2%

Two or more Races, percent 4.9%

 

 

     I'm not seeing Asians being discriminated against compared to the national composition.  The numbers for the upcoming class aren't perfectly in-line with what was self-reported but not too bad considering there were less than 2000 openings.

Quote

 

Applicants

61,221

Admitted

1,984

Admitted from the waiting list

36

 

 

     However, let's look at Stanford since that's in CA for comparison and see if it reflects the nation any better:

Quote

 

Undergraduate Ethnic Diversity  Percentage

American Indian or Alaska Native    1%

Asian    26%

Black or African American   7%

Hispanic or Latino*    18%

International    11%

Native Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander    <1%

White    26%

Two or more races    10%

Unknown    <1%

 

     Well, I guess if we're looking to really represent the Asian population, disproportionately to the population, then it does work.

 

     Oddly enough we still have to live with the statistics that were gathered showing how all this fell-out across the states that implemented it years ago.  Those just don't go away nor do their effects.  So now we're just in the "wait and see" phase of this decision so we can post some more statistics in another 25 years.

 

          mwc

 

[RankStranger]

This isn't about representation.  It's about active discrimination against Asians, which is made explicitly illegal by the 14th Amendment.  Please read up on the case and understand the case that these fine Asians are making.

 

That'd be great.  Thanks.

[RankStranger]

Here's the cliffs notes version:

 

Jews are on average very smart people.  This presented a problem for Harvard in the previous century, because they didn't want Jews to be overrepresented in their student body.  So they rigged the admissions process and discriminated against them, because Harvard preferred students of other ethnicities.  Turns out that that's illegal.

 

Now replace "Jew" with "Asian" and you'll understand.

[RankStranger]

It looks like nobody but MWC is interested in the AA case anyway.  Or at least nobody else is willing to offer an opinion in today's climate of open free speech and dialogue that we cherish almost as much as our god named Diversity.

 

So how about that Christian website designer?  I'm happy to see it, because government-compelled speech is stupid and illegal.  Not sure how this will affect the wedding cake industry, but I'm keeping a close eye on it 

[mwc]

10 hours ago, RankStranger said:

This isn't about representation.  It's about active discrimination against Asians, which is made explicitly illegal by the 14th Amendment.  Please read up on the case and understand the case that these fine Asians are making.

 

That'd be great.  Thanks.

 

10 hours ago, RankStranger said:

Here's the cliffs notes version:

 

Jews are on average very smart people.  This presented a problem for Harvard in the previous century, because they didn't want Jews to be overrepresented in their student body.  So they rigged the admissions process and discriminated against them, because Harvard preferred students of other ethnicities.  Turns out that that's illegal.

 

Now replace "Jew" with "Asian" and you'll understand.

     Funny.

 

     Anywho, strange use of words aside, I'm just going to drop this here (Harvard Crimson) since it's a nice and quick summary:

Quote

 

Retrospection: President Lowell's Quotas

A history of discriminatory quotas and policies.

 

By Charles B. Hyman and Monika K. Piascik

March 26, 2015

 

Before spring break, representatives from the 12 houses excitedly raced through Harvard Yard to inform their future housemates of their fates. Over 100 freshmen were soon regaled with chants of “Lowell! Lowell!” Most were pleasantly surprised. But the former Harvard president’s name was not always synonymous with welcoming.

 

When Abbott Lawrence Lowell assumed the Harvard presidency in 1909, Boston Brahmins and alumni of elite boarding schools made up most of the College’s student body. In an attempt to diversify, the admissions committee of the day created the “Top Seventh Rule,” which required Harvard to reach out to boys who finished in the top seventh of their class, regardless of school or location.

 

The committee issued a report in April of 1923 suggesting that the rule would benefit applicants from underrepresented areas: “While no geographic restriction is contemplated, it is thought that the new opportunity would appeal particularly to rural schools and to those situated outside the regular Harvard recruiting ground.”

 

Lowell himself, however, attempted to restore Harvard’s traditional demographics by requiring applicants to demonstrate “character” as well as good academic standing through recommendation letters and interviews. An appointed committee stated that these new requirements would help “eliminate the intellectually unfit” and ensure that “the student body will be properly representative of all groups in our national life.” However, Lowell used these requirements to ensure a lack of diversity.

 

Lowell even attempted to establish a direct quota on Jewish students, who comprised more than 20 percent of the total undergraduate population in 1922. Lowell justified his quota by suggesting that limiting the Jewish population would help eliminate anti-Semitism. “The antiSemitic feeling among students is increasing, and it grows in proportion to the increase in the number of Jews,” Lowell wrote in a 1922 letter to the Class of 1900’s Alfred A. Benesch. “If [the] number [of Jews] should become 40 percent of the student body, the race feeling would become intense. If every college in the country would take a limited proportion of Jews, I suspect we should go a long way toward eliminating race feeling among students.”

 

The Committee of Thirteen, assigned to rule on Lowell’s proposed 15 percent quota, rejected Lowell’s proposal in the 1923 report on the grounds that “Harvard College [must] maintain its traditional policy of freedom from discrimination on grounds of race or religion.”

 

Lowell’s prejudices did not stop at Jews. In 1922, Lowell expelled all black students from Harvard Yard. “We have not thought it possible to compel men of different races to reside together,” Lowell wrote in a letter to the Class of 1902’s Roscoe C. Bruce. “We owe to the colored man the same opportunities for education that we do to the white man; but we do not owe it to him to force him and the white into social relations that are not, or may not be, mutually congenial.” Lowell’s reasoning in this case was “the colored man [claiming] that he is entitled to have the white man compelled to live with him is a very unfortunate innovation which...would increase a prejudice that...is most unfortunate and probably growing,” echoing what he used to justify his quota.

 

Lowell also formed the “Secret Court of 1920” to purge gay students from Harvard. The Secret Court, which went unreported until 2002, expelled eight students and fired two teachers as a result of uncovering homosexual activities on campus.

 

     

     Also ("The Chosen: The Hidden History of Admission and Exclusion at Harvard, Yale, and Princeton" p.87, Jerome Karabel) :

Quote

By 1914, the "Jewish problem" was so great at Columbia that its dean, Frederick Keppel, openly acknowledged the widespread perception that the large number of immigrants had made it "socially uninviting to students who come from homes of refinement." While publicly insisting that "Columbia isnot Overrun' with Jews any more than it is with Roman Catholics or Episcopalians," Keppel privately admitted that "boys whose families are in New York society" had a strong tendency to go out of town for college and that no conceivable plans that Columbia could devise would attract them.65

 

     I suppose this is why we may not be seeing things in the same way.  I understand how people might try to equivocate these things but their motivations don't appear to be the same.  Removing the Jews was to essentially to maintain a status quo to avoid a "white flight" (I didn't show all the other anti-Semitic reasons).  I didn't see that with the affirmative action situation.  They weren't keeping Asian numbers low for these reasons but, from what it looked like, to keep more in-line with the national make-up.  Being a zero sum game some groups (in this case it looks like whites and Asians) were artificially limited to allow room for other groups.  Again, similar, but not to keep anyone out strictly because they're really not wanted.

 

     I'll also just tack this on with regard to the idea that "Jews are on average very smart people" ("The Chosen: The Hidden History of Admission and Exclusion at Harvard, Yale, and Princeton" p.75, Jerome Karabel) :

Quote

This growing Jewish presence profoundly discomfited the men who ran the Big Three. Though a high proportion of these young men were competent or better academically, few of them were "gentlemen" by birth and only a handful had much likelihood of attaining that status (should they even desire to do so). Moreover, their numbers were increasing — a product both of the growth of the nation's Jewish population and of the rapid increase in the number of public schools that prepared students to meet the stiff entrance requirements. From the perspective of the Anglo-Saxon men who ran Harvard, Yale, Princeton, and like institutions, something had to be done soon or their schools would be overrun by culturally alien students.

     You have a combination of more people in this group (the number actually triples as I recall) and lower schools start to prep students for entrance exams where they hadn't been do so before (you'd need a special prep school).  Innate ability here is a stereotype.

 

          mwc

 

[mwc]

13 hours ago, RankStranger said:

It looks like nobody but MWC is interested in the AA case anyway.  Or at least nobody else is willing to offer an opinion in today's climate of open free speech and dialogue that we cherish almost as much as our god named Diversity.

 

So how about that Christian website designer?  I'm happy to see it, because government-compelled speech is stupid and illegal.  Not sure how this will affect the wedding cake industry, but I'm keeping a close eye on it 

     I'd respect it more if it weren't pretty much hypothetical since a lawsuit is supposed to be based on an actual injury.  The lawsuit was about being able to make sites for straight couples only but not actually having made any websites for anyone.  Then the complaint is amended with a request to make a gay website.  Then we find out the guy who supposedly made the request isn't gay, has been married for years and is an actual web designer and wouldn't require her services.  More verbose here.

 

     At this point I guess I should be able to "What If?" any scenario and head off to court?  Even if it's legit that's not acceptable and the underlying basis of this one.  But, as I said, no one is going to read anything I write and change their minds, especially in the courts, so who cares?

 

          mwc

 

[RankStranger]

That's a good point about the website case.  You would think there would be questions about 'standing' here.  But there's no appeal, so this is the law of the land until some justices get swapped out.

 

But putting aside questions about standing- what about the case itself?  You can't have waiters refusing to serve gay people due to religious objections.  Christians could definitely put together a biblical case that gay people don't deserve coffee and breakfast.  But to me, forced speech is a different thing.  It's specifically protected by the constitution.  That Trumps everything else in our legal system.  Like the equal protection clause.

 

 

 

And one more thing I'd like to add about the AA case.  Harvard alumni are among the most powerful and privileged people in the world.  These are people who have benefitted the most from our system, including the built-in systemic racism.  If Harvard actually cared about Diversity! (rather than just virtue-signaling about diversity), they could've easily diversified the school by eliminating their mostly white-ish legacy admissions. 

 

But they didn't want the cost of this virtue-signaling to fall onto their kids.  Instead they chose to take opportunities away from far less privileged students.  This way, leaders of our world -the most wealthy and powerful among us (Harvard Alumnai)- get to assuage their own white-guilt at the expense of others.  Often at the expense of lower class people.  AA is an inherently classist concept where our Betters get to decide which peasants deserve opportunity and which don't.  Rarely at any cost to themselves and their class.

[mwc]

1 hour ago, RankStranger said:

That's a good point about the website case.  You would think there would be questions about 'standing' here.  But there's no appeal, so this is the law of the land until some justices get swapped out.

 

But putting aside questions about standing- what about the case itself?  You can't have waiters refusing to serve gay people due to religious objections.  Christians could definitely put together a biblical case that gay people don't deserve coffee and breakfast.  But to me, forced speech is a different thing.  It's specifically protected by the constitution.  That Trumps everything else in our legal system.  Like the equal protection clause.

     So I'd thought I'd have a look-see at the section of the law they had a problem with and found this:

 

Quote

 

Universal Citation: CO Code § 24-34-601 (2021)

 

 

1. As used in this part 6, "place of public accommodation" means any place of business engaged in any sales to the public and any place offering services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations to the public, including but not limited to any business offering wholesale or retail sales to the public; any place to eat, drink, sleep, or rest, or any combination thereof; any sporting or recreational area and facility; any public transportation facility; a barber shop, bathhouse, swimming pool, bath, steam or massage parlor, gymnasium, or other establishment conducted to serve the health, appearance, or physical condition of a person; a campsite or trailer camp; a dispensary, clinic, hospital, convalescent home, or other institution for the sick, ailing, aged, or infirm; a mortuary, undertaking parlor, or cemetery; an educational institution; or any public building, park, arena, theater, hall, auditorium, museum, library, exhibit, or public facility of any kind whether indoor or outdoor. "Place of public accommodation" shall not include a church, synagogue, mosque, or other place that is principally used for religious purposes.

2.  

    

   1. It is a discriminatory practice and unlawful for a person, directly or indirectly, to refuse, withhold from, or deny to an individual or a group, because of disability, race, creed, color, sex, sexual orientation, marital status, national origin, or ancestry, the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations of a place of public accommodation or, directly or indirectly, to publish, circulate, issue, display, post, or mail any written, electronic, or printed communication, notice, or advertisement that indicates that the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations of a place of public accommodation will be refused, withheld from, or denied an individual or that an individual's patronage or presence at a place of public accommodation is unwelcome, objectionable, unacceptable, or undesirable because of disability, race, creed, color, sex, sexual orientation, marital status, national origin, or ancestry. (2) (a) It is a discriminatory practice and unlawful for a person, directly or indirectly, to refuse, withhold from, or deny to an individual or a group, because of disability, race, creed, color, sex, sexual orientation, marital status, national origin, or ancestry, the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations of a place of public accommodation or, directly or indirectly, to publish, circulate, issue, display, post, or mail any written, electronic, or printed communication, notice, or advertisement that indicates that the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations of a place of public accommodation will be refused, withheld from, or denied an individual or that an individual's patronage or presence at a place of public accommodation is unwelcome, objectionable, unacceptable, or undesirable because of disability, race, creed, color, sex, sexual orientation, marital status, national origin, or ancestry.
   2. A claim brought pursuant to paragraph (a) of this subsection (2) that is based on disability is covered by the provisions of section 24-34-802. (2.5) It is a discriminatory practice and unlawful for any person to discriminate against any individual or group because such person or group has opposed any practice made a discriminatory practice by this part 6 or because such person or group has made a charge, testified, assisted, or participated in any manner in an investigation, proceeding, or hearing conducted pursuant to this part 6.
3. Notwithstanding any other provisions of this section, it is not a discriminatory practice for a person to restrict admission to a place of public accommodation to individuals of one sex if such restriction has a bona fide relationship to the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations of such place of public accommodation.

 

     From what I've read they have the problem with 2(a).

 

     Now, based on how *I* read it this tells me that if I'm one of those who come to a business and they do X then they'll do X for me.  If they paint X then they'll paint X for me.  Likewise write X, print X or whatever X.  Certainly not if they do X then I can make them do Y.  If they take pictures of kittens then then can take pictures of my kitten but I can't make them take pictures of me naked.  It's not a pictures are pictures situation.

 

     I suppose this is where it crosses into ethics.  I've mentioned it here that I used to run an ISP way back.  People could put up their own sites or we could do it (it wasn't our primary business and so generally people did their own in 99% of the cases).  We had a chapter of the KKK on our service.  If they had wanted me to do their work I would have declined the job but I they could host their own (since it was included with the service and I held them to our terms of service as far as hate speech and whatnot).

 

     If there was a law that stated I had to create their website, simply because I created websites, then I likely would have made the website.  Especially, if that was the law prior to my opening the business.

 

     Now, are gays getting married like the KKK?  I don't think so but they were an example I had that was similar in that I dealt with a group that I'd rather not have dealt with simply because I was open for business.

 

     If I had remained a private citizen, as in not a business owner, then my right to not deal with these folks wouldn't have been threatened at all.  It was the sort of risk I had to assume when I opened to the public.  I was still fully xian and I had a rather talkative atheist on-board too.  I'll tell you this, at the time, I almost found him worse than the KKK simply because he said things I didn't like to hear.  I did help make his website though (it wasn't for atheism).

 

     I have some (not my direct) relatives that got gay married.  I also had another one that refused to "support" it by going to their reception.  I hadn't seen them for about a decade but I went.  They were happy.  I was happy they were happy.  I was upset that I used to be like the idiot that would stay away so as to not "support" them like that means anything to anyone but themselves (and myself).  It's stupid.

 

     That's a long walk to say I'm torn.  I am against forced speech.  I'm also against this sort of fear and closed-mindedness which is why these people are afraid to even write "Husband and Husband" or whatever and now they have a ruling they can hide behind.  Maybe they'd get over it if they were forced to say it a few times?  

 

1 hour ago, RankStranger said:

And one more thing I'd like to add about the AA case.  Harvard alumni are among the most powerful and privileged people in the world.  These are people who have benefitted the most from our system, including the built-in systemic racism.  If Harvard actually cared about Diversity! (rather than just virtue-signaling about diversity), they could've easily diversified the school by eliminating their mostly white-ish legacy admissions. 

 

But they didn't want the cost of this virtue-signaling to fall onto their kids.  Instead they chose to take opportunities away from far less privileged students.  This way, leaders of our world -the most wealthy and powerful among us (Harvard Alumnai)- get to assuage their own white-guilt at the expense of others.  Often at the expense of lower class people.  AA is an inherently classist concept where our Betters get to decide which peasants deserve opportunity and which don't.  Rarely at any cost to themselves and their class.

 

     I don't disagree on your main point here.  Just remember this ruling isn't just about Harvard and (I can't recall the other school-off hand).  It's now about all schools.  Which is why I disagree with the ruling.  If they just made the ones involved fix their shit then it wouldn't be that bad, especially if it were to come from legacies, but it's all these schools which is why I pointed to the fall-out from what happened in CA which is all our schools (not one or two).  Seriously, if it were entirely about Harvard I really could give two shits about who goes there or what dumb shit they do.

 

     I don't tend to worry about our "betters" under any given system because if we're heading down that road it doesn't matter the system they will always decide.

 

          mwc

 

[RankStranger]

AA is just a toxic policy idea.  And it works so well that I can't help but suspect Intelligent Design 

 

First of all it's opposed by a large majority of Americans.  it's kindof a political deal-breaker for millions of people, in that they'll never vote for a party that supports AA.  And why would they?  Who are these (often) Ivy League moneyed elites to decide which color of peasant deserves a little help?  Help at the expense of some unfortunate fellow peasant that is- and rarely at the expense of the class making this high moral judgment (The educated elite who have benefitted the most from structural racism and all the evils of Capitalism, that is).

 

The message being sent by the Democratic Party is loud and clear:  Every demographic except less than fortunate EurAsian people... deserves help.  Help at the expense of the very people excluded by this policy, that is.  Socialists want to rob the rich and give to the poor.  Democrats want to rob the peasant to give to more deserving peasants.  Signaling their high-minded virtue at others' expense.

 

IMO, AA is deliberate class war.  Deliberately pitting different ethnicities against each other so our Moral Betters' wealth and privilege remains unquestioned by us squabbling peasants, busy fighting over scraps.

 

This is one of several reasons why I don't consider the Democrats to any longer be "Left" in any traditional sense.  Maybe that was the case sometime last century before the labor movement was gutted in the private sector.  But Democrats by and large no longer see things in terms of class.  They pretend to use race as a proxy for class, because that's what hits people in the feels.  In reality they never gave a rat's ass about any of us, but they sure do get tingly feelings when they're seen 'fighting for Social Just Us!'

 

There has never been a reason why people couldn't be helped on the basis of income, wealth, etc.  I mean, if helping was the actual goal of said policy.  But that wouldn't be divisive enough to be politically useful.  It wouldn't quite scratch their moral itch and hit'em in the feels. 

 

And the worst part about it is that AA has always been plainly illegal.  But our Moral Betters think they should be allowed to illegally fuck with people's lives because they're such good people and they really, really really really want to help those unfortunate souls!  At someone else's expense.

 

And up until recently they've been able to force this policy onto a largely unwilling population.  Hell, AA and de-facto AA are for the most part still the policy where employment is concerned.  Despite widespread opposition.  Because Democracy I guess.

[mwc]

6 hours ago, RankStranger said:

AA is just a toxic policy idea.  And it works so well that I can't help but suspect Intelligent Design 

 

First of all it's opposed by a large majority of Americans.  it's kindof a political deal-breaker for millions of people, in that they'll never vote for a party that supports AA.  And why would they?  Who are these (often) Ivy League moneyed elites to decide which color of peasant deserves a little help?  Help at the expense of some unfortunate fellow peasant that is- and rarely at the expense of the class making this high moral judgment (The educated elite who have benefitted the most from structural racism and all the evils of Capitalism, that is).

     Pew Research.  People are more split on AA overall, except in college admissions, where the majority do not support it.

 

6 hours ago, RankStranger said:

The message being sent by the Democratic Party is loud and clear:  Every demographic except less than fortunate EurAsian people... deserves help.  Help at the expense of the very people excluded by this policy, that is.  Socialists want to rob the rich and give to the poor.  Democrats want to rob the peasant to give to more deserving peasants.  Signaling their high-minded virtue at others' expense.

     NPR.  Not a single Asian testified they were discriminated against in court but only appeared in the media.  This is very similar to the website case.

 

     These seem like rulings in search of cases instead of cases in search of rulings.

 

6 hours ago, RankStranger said:

And the worst part about it is that AA has always been plainly illegal.  But our Moral Betters think they should be allowed to illegally fuck with people's lives because they're such good people and they really, really really really want to help those unfortunate souls!  At someone else's expense.

 

And up until recently they've been able to force this policy onto a largely unwilling population.  Hell, AA and de-facto AA are for the most part still the policy where employment is concerned.  Despite widespread opposition.  Because Democracy I guess.

     Well, I'm glad you got that out.  I hope you feel better.

 

         mwc

 

[RankStranger]

Thanks buddy, I always feel better after a good rant

 

I did some googling, and apparently I'm operating on some decades-old data where it comes to public opinion of AA.  Apparently Americans are fairly evenly split these days over AA.  Of course this is a poll by and for an organization that itself supports "equity", and therefore presumably AA (see their religious confession statement: https://www.pewtrusts.org/en/about/mission-and-values).  And following a years long click/view-driven racial moral panic.  And greatly dependent upon how the questions are phrased.  So point taken, but with several grains of salt.

 

The important thing here is that the Supreme Court has for once confirmed the obvious:  That all Americans deserve equal protection under the law.  Even when our Virtuous Moral Betters prefer to engage in social engineering.

 

These colleges are already promising to continue breaking the law.  By making their selection process even more opaque and subjective, with the expressed purpose of keeping AA effectively in place... without admitting to it in writing.  Their brilliant idea is that if the student's personal essay says that they're (insert preferred skin color), they get bonus points on their 'personal scores'.  This will buy our self-appointed social engineers some time, but it will ultimately fail.

 

Those 'personal scores' are interesting, and unfortunately for our Moral Betters, they have to be documented.  IMO, this practice won't withstand a court challenge either.  Not with this Supreme Court, nor most Republican-stacked federal courts.  I think it's worth looking at these personal scores and discussing their implications.  According to Harvard, their personal score measures things like “positive personality,” likability, courage, kindness and being “widely respected".  Note that this doesn't include race, even though they are promising to include race.  According to Harvard's 'personal score', Asians rate lower than white people and FAR lower than black people in terms of 'positive personality', 'likability', 'courage', 'kindness', and 'being widely respected'.  Do you think that's accurate?  Are Asians unkind, unlikable, cowardly, and not respected... compared to humans of other colors?  I think this will be picked apart in court and their deliberate covert discrimination laid bare... in time.

 

And I'm going to re-state the obvious, because it's important.  If the goal here is to help disadvantaged students, there never has been any barrier to helping students based on income/wealth, personal experience, the quality (of lack thereof) of their school system... or any of a number of factors that don't involve racial discrimination.  

[RankStranger]

And honestly MWC, you are an absolute BEAST when it comes to debate.  You always have been.  I appreciate the challenge 

[mwc]

19 hours ago, RankStranger said:

Thanks buddy, I always feel better after a good rant

     Don't we all.  

 

19 hours ago, RankStranger said:

I did some googling, and apparently I'm operating on some decades-old data where it comes to public opinion of AA.  Apparently Americans are fairly evenly split these days over AA.  Of course this is a poll by and for an organization that itself supports "equity", and therefore presumably AA (see their religious confession statement: https://www.pewtrusts.org/en/about/mission-and-values).  And following a years long click/view-driven racial moral panic.  And greatly dependent upon how the questions are phrased.  So point taken, but with several grains of salt.

     They had a recent poll on the topic at hand that was laid out well and didn't seem out of line (as it appears you discovered for yourself).  I see no point in attacking the source if they don't hide their bias and their findings don't appear to be highly influenced by that bias.  This is one reason I didn't directly quote the numbers and simply stated that people are more split since I can't say for certain that the numbers are spot on.  I figure they're in the ballpark or at least good enough for us to use right now.  I imagine social media polls will skew more heavily one way or the other since they tend to do just that and aren't really that useful.

 

19 hours ago, RankStranger said:

The important thing here is that the Supreme Court has for once confirmed the obvious:  That all Americans deserve equal protection under the law.  Even when our Virtuous Moral Betters prefer to engage in social engineering.

     The Civil Rights Act is that law although people tend to overlook it and point directly to the 14th amendment.

 

19 hours ago, RankStranger said:

These colleges are already promising to continue breaking the law.  By making their selection process even more opaque and subjective, with the expressed purpose of keeping AA effectively in place... without admitting to it in writing.  Their brilliant idea is that if the student's personal essay says that they're (insert preferred skin color), they get bonus points on their 'personal scores'.  This will buy our self-appointed social engineers some time, but it will ultimately fail.

 

Those 'personal scores' are interesting, and unfortunately for our Moral Betters, they have to be documented.  IMO, this practice won't withstand a court challenge either.  Not with this Supreme Court, nor most Republican-stacked federal courts.  I think it's worth looking at these personal scores and discussing their implications.  According to Harvard, their personal score measures things like “positive personality,” likability, courage, kindness and being “widely respected".  Note that this doesn't include race, even though they are promising to include race.  According to Harvard's 'personal score', Asians rate lower than white people and FAR lower than black people in terms of 'positive personality', 'likability', 'courage', 'kindness', and 'being widely respected'.  Do you think that's accurate?  Are Asians unkind, unlikable, cowardly, and not respected... compared to humans of other colors?  I think this will be picked apart in court and their deliberate covert discrimination laid bare... in time.

     I hate to tell you but they've been doing such things in CA for years.  I could have told you that this was going to happen if this decision was made before the decision was made.

 

     The interviewers think they're less likable and that was addressed in the NPR article I linked.  I'll just put it here:

Quote

Sally Chen says that a pattern of lower personality ratings for Asian American applicants indicates pervasive racism and implicit bias. "There is a need for anti-bias training for specifically admissions readers that read Asian American student files," she says.

     This happens in all industries and is a pervasive problem.  HR departments, for hiring, suffer from it.  It gets into the machine learning algorithms designed to removed all these biases because we think computers can't have biases but forget if we train them in a biased fashion then they will become biased and even learn ways to bias results if rules are flawed.

 

     In the specific case of Harvard one solution may be to hire some diverse Asian admissions staff who can better process these applicants.  But, odds are, there are only so many staff positions so someone else would have to go.  Hiring to help diversity?  Would that be fair?  I personally don't think it's fair but it may be necessary to solve the problem at hand.  That's the overall problem with affirmative action in a nutshell.

 

19 hours ago, RankStranger said:

And I'm going to re-state the obvious, because it's important.  If the goal here is to help disadvantaged students, there never has been any barrier to helping students based on income/wealth, personal experience, the quality (of lack thereof) of their school system... or any of a number of factors that don't involve racial discrimination.  

     I think this is just something we tell ourselves.  There are always barriers.  Those barriers are almost always other people.

 

     I'm willing to have our taxes go for universal higher education like it does in many other first world countries.  This would help everyone regardless.  A lighter version of this was in the American Families Plan but was totally gutted.  Loan relief?  Nope.  Shot down.  Not even reform of these rotten loans.  Nothing.

 

     There are barriers.  Affirmative action is the good to the perfect.  It sucks but there's nothing else there except an unachievable ideal people hold.  Voltaire quotes an Italian proverb "Il meglio è l'inimico del bene" which is "the best is the enemy of the good."  I showed you numbers that showed that people were being helped with it in place and people were harmed without.  It's good not the best (or perfect).  The previous system is even less good according to all of this which would be a move in the wrong direction.

 

          mwc

 

[mwc]

20 hours ago, RankStranger said:

And honestly MWC, you are an absolute BEAST when it comes to debate.  You always have been.  I appreciate the challenge 

    Can you get emphysema from getting smoke blown up your ass? 

 

    You've been speaking so passionately I've almost been convinced...almost.  

 

          mwc

 

[RankStranger]

On 7/13/2023 at 5:58 AM, mwc said:

    Can you get emphysema from getting smoke blown up your ass? 

 

    You've been speaking so passionately I've almost been convinced...almost.  

 

          mwc

 

 

I like this post 

[RankStranger]

On 7/13/2023 at 5:30 AM, mwc said:

     Don't we all.  

 

     They had a recent poll on the topic at hand that was laid out well and didn't seem out of line (as it appears you discovered for yourself).  I see no point in attacking the source if they don't hide their bias and their findings don't appear to be highly influenced by that bias.  This is one reason I didn't directly quote the numbers and simply stated that people are more split since I can't say for certain that the numbers are spot on.  I figure they're in the ballpark or at least good enough for us to use right now.  I imagine social media polls will skew more heavily one way or the other since they tend to do just that and aren't really that useful.

 

 

It was just a casual little jab at the source, as I don't share their same Confessed Faith in the god of Robin DiAngelo.  But since you cited the poll, it was worth pointing out that this organization has publicly confessed their faith in Diversity Equity and Inclusion.  Those specific words signifying a particular ideology with AA being among its prescribed solutions.  And ideology pieced together and widely disseminated via entire academic departments of basically every college in the U.S.  Led by Harvard itself, the Affirmative Action pioneers in question.

 

Can you find a similar poll from any organization without a DEI statement?  I haven't dug into that, but I'd take the poll more seriously if it wasn't taken by an organization that is publicly committed to Affirmative Action and its ideological underpinnings.

 

Quote

     The Civil Rights Act is that law although people tend to overlook it and point directly to the 14th amendment.

 

 

This court has more or less rules that the Civil Rights Act can't supersede the 14th Amendment.  Can you make a case as to why they're wrong about that?

 

 

Quote

   I hate to tell you but they've been doing such things in CA for years.  I could have told you that this was going to happen if this decision was made before the decision was made.

 

Sure, lying liars lie it's to be expected.

 

Harvard Liars essentially claim (via their documented admissions process) that Asian kids are relatively unkind, unlikable, cowardly, and not respected.  Because said Harvard Liars want to take a life-changing opportunity away from some apparently well-qualified Asian kid, and give it a (presumably less academically qualified) kid whose color matches their ideologically-driven preferences a little better.  And these Liars (Harvard and otherwise) are promising more of this.

 

It makes me wonder- if these Harvard Liars were deliberately lying about these Asian kids- were they lying about other kids of a more preferred color?  The ones they conversely rated as 'positive personality', 'likable', 'courage', 'kind', and 'widely respected'?  The way I see it, one of two things is true here about these lying liars:  (1) they have been deliberately lying on their evaluations, solely based on ethnic preferences or (2) they really do believe that Asians unkind, unlikable, cowardly, and not respected.  Liars, racists, or both.  IMO 

 

 

Quote

 

 

     The interviewers think they're less likable and that was addressed in the NPR article I linked.  I'll just put it here:

Quote

Sally Chen says that a pattern of lower personality ratings for Asian American applicants indicates pervasive racism and implicit bias. "There is a need for anti-bias training for specifically admissions readers that read Asian American student files," she says.

 

     This happens in all industries and is a pervasive problem.  HR departments, for hiring, suffer from it.  It gets into the machine learning algorithms designed to removed all these biases because we think computers can't have biases but forget if we train them in a biased fashion then they will become biased and even learn ways to bias results if rules are flawed.

 

     In the specific case of Harvard one solution may be to hire some diverse Asian admissions staff who can better process these applicants.  But, odds are, there are only so many staff positions so someone else would have to go.  Hiring to help diversity?  Would that be fair?  I personally don't think it's fair but it may be necessary to solve the problem at hand.  That's the overall problem with affirmative action in a nutshell.

 

I think first we need to establish whether or not said AA-promoting interviewers are in fact biased against Asians, or if this documented bias is a result of their expressed and demonstrated desire to promote AA regardless of legality.  In other words, are these interviewers racists?  Or are they liars?

 

Case 1 (these interviewers are racist against Asians):  If said interviewers are in fact biased against Asians, do you really think that sending AA-promoting Harvard interviewers to even more DEI training is the solution here?  Remember, these interviewers are already working for Harvard, with posted Diversity Confessions for the school and every single department in the school.  A school that already requires Diversity Training in one form or another for all faculty and most if not all students.  Harvard, who encourages faculty to publish their own Diversity Confessions.  And these allegedly racist personal scores are being used specifically to promote Affirmative Action.  Are you sure that even more Affirmative Action and even more Diversity Training is the fix here?

 

Case 2 (these interviewers are liars merely claiming on paper to be racist against Asians):  If said interviewers are not in fact biased against Asians, but are in fact lying liars merely taking opportunities from Asians and giving them to applicants of a Preferred Color... then I don't see how Diversity Training would even be relevant.

 

Is there a Case 3 that I'm missing?  Because it looks to me like these 'interviewers' are either liars, racists, or both.

 

This bit has been a rather convoluted discussion.  It kinda reminds me of certain Christian Apologetics.  I guess that shouldn't be surprising considering the tearful conference-room conversions occasionally extracted by Robin DiAngelo's corporate consulting work.  How familiar are you with White Fragility?  There is some seriously cultish behavior going on with these corporate consultants.  The whole DEI movement is cultish, IMO.

 

 

Quote

 

     I think this is just something we tell ourselves.  There are always barriers.  Those barriers are almost always other people.

 

     I'm willing to have our taxes go for universal higher education like it does in many other first world countries.  This would help everyone regardless.  A lighter version of this was in the American Families Plan but was totally gutted.  Loan relief?  Nope.  Shot down.  Not even reform of these rotten loans.  Nothing.

 

     There are barriers.  Affirmative action is the good to the perfect.  It sucks but there's nothing else there except an unachievable ideal people hold.  Voltaire quotes an Italian proverb "Il meglio è l'inimico del bene" which is "the best is the enemy of the good."  I showed you numbers that showed that people were being helped with it in place and people were harmed without.  It's good not the best (or perfect).  The previous system is even less good according to all of this which would be a move in the wrong direction.

 

          mwc

 

None of this changes the fact that Affirmative Action discriminates based on race, and that's illegal.  It has never been necessary to discriminate in order to help students in need.  Doing so is deliberate class warfare IMO.  Taking from one peasant to give to another... in lieu of any real change to the peasants' material conditions.  Signaling virtue at the expense of others, never at their own expense. 

 

IMO policies like Affirmative Action are a big part of why we can't have nice things like Universal Healthcare and Education.  Hillary Clinton had a great line that demonstrates the political tactic pretty well:  "If we broke up the big banks tomorrow….would that end racism? Would that end sexism?"

 

 

 

 

 

 

[mwc]

9 hours ago, RankStranger said:

 

It was just a casual little jab at the source, as I don't share their same Confessed Faith in the god of Robin DiAngelo.  But since you cited the poll, it was worth pointing out that this organization has publicly confessed their faith in Diversity Equity and Inclusion.  Those specific words signifying a particular ideology with AA being among its prescribed solutions.  And ideology pieced together and widely disseminated via entire academic departments of basically every college in the U.S.  Led by Harvard itself, the Affirmative Action pioneers in question.

 

Can you find a similar poll from any organization without a DEI statement?  I haven't dug into that, but I'd take the poll more seriously if it wasn't taken by an organization that is publicly committed to Affirmative Action and its ideological underpinnings.

     I don't have time to dig into everything but if you would have read the Pew article you would have noticed they also linked to a 2021 Gallup poll (which was their most recent poll on this subject).  Not everyone is asking this question all of the time.  As I believe I said I used this one because it was more recent than the others but 2021 isn't too bad if you prefer to look there instead.  I'll leave it to you to decide if Gallup is acceptable.

 

9 hours ago, RankStranger said:

 

This court has more or less rules that the Civil Rights Act can't supersede the 14th Amendment.  Can you make a case as to why they're wrong about that?

     As I said, I don't have time right now.  Maybe start here for an idea.

 

9 hours ago, RankStranger said:

Harvard Liars essentially claim (via their documented admissions process) that Asian kids are relatively unkind, unlikable, cowardly, and not respected.  Because said Harvard Liars want to take a life-changing opportunity away from some apparently well-qualified Asian kid, and give it a (presumably less academically qualified) kid whose color matches their ideologically-driven preferences a little better.  And these Liars (Harvard and otherwise) are promising more of this.

 

It makes me wonder- if these Harvard Liars were deliberately lying about these Asian kids- were they lying about other kids of a more preferred color?  The ones they conversely rated as 'positive personality', 'likable', 'courage', 'kind', and 'widely respected'?  The way I see it, one of two things is true here about these lying liars:  (1) they have been deliberately lying on their evaluations, solely based on ethnic preferences or (2) they really do believe that Asians unkind, unlikable, cowardly, and not respected.  Liars, racists, or both.  IMO 

9 hours ago, RankStranger said:

 

 

I think first we need to establish whether or not said AA-promoting interviewers are in fact biased against Asians, or if this documented bias is a result of their expressed and demonstrated desire to promote AA regardless of legality.  In other words, are these interviewers racists?  Or are they liars?

 

Case 1 (these interviewers are racist against Asians):  If said interviewers are in fact biased against Asians, do you really think that sending AA-promoting Harvard interviewers to even more DEI training is the solution here?  Remember, these interviewers are already working for Harvard, with posted Diversity Confessions for the school and every single department in the school.  A school that already requires Diversity Training in one form or another for all faculty and most if not all students.  Harvard, who encourages faculty to publish their own Diversity Confessions.  And these allegedly racist personal scores are being used specifically to promote Affirmative Action.  Are you sure that even more Affirmative Action and even more Diversity Training is the fix here?

 

Case 2 (these interviewers are liars merely claiming on paper to be racist against Asians):  If said interviewers are not in fact biased against Asians, but are in fact lying liars merely taking opportunities from Asians and giving them to applicants of a Preferred Color... then I don't see how Diversity Training would even be relevant.

 

Is there a Case 3 that I'm missing?  Because it looks to me like these 'interviewers' are either liars, racists, or both.

 

This bit has been a rather convoluted discussion.  It kinda reminds me of certain Christian Apologetics.  I guess that shouldn't be surprising considering the tearful conference-room conversions occasionally extracted by Robin DiAngelo's corporate consulting work.  How familiar are you with White Fragility?  There is some seriously cultish behavior going on with these corporate consultants.  The whole DEI movement is cultish, IMO.

     Your mind seems to be made up so there's nothing to say on this.  I guess you might want to look into how HR is biased even when using automation.  One example.  It might help as an analog.  This is why better training can help overcome these biases.  Here's a second article for non-automation bias.

 

9 hours ago, RankStranger said:

None of this changes the fact that Affirmative Action discriminates based on race, and that's illegal.  It has never been necessary to discriminate in order to help students in need.  Doing so is deliberate class warfare IMO.  Taking from one peasant to give to another... in lieu of any real change to the peasants' material conditions.  Signaling virtue at the expense of others, never at their own expense. 

     Yeah, except that wasn't the reason.  Maybe start with that Smithsonian article. 

 

9 hours ago, RankStranger said:

IMO policies like Affirmative Action are a big part of why we can't have nice things like Universal Healthcare and Education.  Hillary Clinton had a great line that demonstrates the political tactic pretty well:  "If we broke up the big banks tomorrow….would that end racism? Would that end sexism?"

 

     Dwight D. Eisenhower (Chance for Peace, 1953):

“Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed. This world in arms is not spending money alone. It is spending the sweat of its laborers, the genius of its scientists, the hopes of its children. The cost of one modern heavy bomber is this: a modern brick school in more than 30 cities. It is two electric power plants, each serving a town of 60,000 population. It is two fine, fully equipped hospitals. It is some fifty miles of concrete pavement. We pay for a single fighter with a half-million bushels of wheat. We pay for a single destroyer with new homes that could have housed more than 8,000 people. . . . This is not a way of life at all, in any true sense. Under the cloud of threatening war, it is humanity hanging from a cross of iron.”

 

 

          mwc

 

 

[RankStranger]

1 hour ago, mwc said:

     I don't have time to dig into everything but if you would have read the Pew article you would have noticed they also linked to a 2021 Gallup poll (which was their most recent poll on this subject).  Not everyone is asking this question all of the time.  As I believe I said I used this one because it was more recent than the others but 2021 isn't too bad if you prefer to look there instead.  I'll leave it to you to decide if Gallup is acceptable.

 

 

 

 

I don't see any reference to Gallup in the Pew article you linked to.  Regardless, Gallup not only pledges support for DEI, they offer DEI consulting services: https://www.gallup.com/topic/inclusiveness.aspx

 

Again, do you have any polls supporting your claim, from sources who aren't publicly committed (typically in exchange for investment $$) to promoting Affirmative Action?

 

It's ok if you don't have time.  But since you made the claim that AA is popular, I think you might want to support it with a source or two that isn't trumpeting their own bias on the very issue in question.

 

 

Quote

 As I said, I don't have time right now.  Maybe start here for an idea.

 

Thanks.  We're just going to have to let our disagreement stand unless you want to go into specifics.

 

 

Quote

     Your mind seems to be made up so there's nothing to say on this.  I guess you might want to look into how HR is biased even when using automation.  One example.  It might help as an analog.  This is why better training can help overcome these biases.  Here's a second article for non-automation bias.

 

 Both of our minds appear to be made up.  I would like to know how even more Diversity Training and Affirmative Action is going to resolve the clear racism and lying in the Harvard admissions process though.  Since you made that claim.

 

 

Quote

Yeah, except that wasn't the reason.  Maybe start with that Smithsonian article. 

 

I'm not sure exactly what you're saying here.  Maybe you could clarify if you have the time and interest.

 

Also it's worth noting that Smithsonian Magazine has publically confessed their faith in Holy Diversity.  Sure is convenient how nearly every powerful institution in the country is on your side of this issue.  Well... except for the Supreme Court 

 

 

Quote

 

     Dwight D. Eisenhower (Chance for Peace, 1953):

“Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed. This world in arms is not spending money alone. It is spending the sweat of its laborers, the genius of its scientists, the hopes of its children. The cost of one modern heavy bomber is this: a modern brick school in more than 30 cities. It is two electric power plants, each serving a town of 60,000 population. It is two fine, fully equipped hospitals. It is some fifty miles of concrete pavement. We pay for a single fighter with a half-million bushels of wheat. We pay for a single destroyer with new homes that could have housed more than 8,000 people. . . . This is not a way of life at all, in any true sense. Under the cloud of threatening war, it is humanity hanging from a cross of iron.”

 

 

Eisenhower was a wise man, flaws and all.  I'm not clear on how this fits into the discussion at hand though.

 

I would love to see Universal Healthcare in this country.  Based on pretty much every other industrialized country, it's simpler to administrate, less expensive, more effective, and far more humane than our Byzantine for-profit system.  I'd also love to see well-funded and accessible college for any U.S. citizen who can meet the requirements of the institution of their choice.  I see no down-side to an educated population, and we should be funding that.

 

But neither of these (clearly needed) policies have any chance of happening in the current political environment.  By deliberately sabotaging Sanders in 2016, the DNC has demonstrated that they as a party have less than zero interest in Universal Healthcare, and are even willing to lose an election to prevent it.  They're not even attempting to fix obvious problems with ObamaCare (or what's left of it after Republicans gutted it).  And of course Republicans are ideologically opposed to helping anyone outside the donor class and economically irrelevant culture-warriors.

 

There are millions, maybe tens of millions of Americans who perceive policies like Affirmative Action and DEI as deliberate race-baiting.  Deliberate exclusion of non-preferred races, ostensibly to help preferred races.  Dripping with condescension and condemnation based solely on skin color, ignoring vast diversity of cultural history and individual experience within any of these arbitrarily defined racial groups.  And this is being promoted and implemented by the most privileged class among us:  The wealthy and powerful who have benefitted the most from our Vulgar Capitalist system, including the baked-in systemic racism.  This class includes but is in no way limited to Harvard faculty & alumni, private equity pushing DEI bureaucracy into nearly every Fortune 500 company (including the heavy equipment manufacturer I work for), wealthy and powerful politicians like Hillary Clinton implying she can "end racism" and "end sexism" if only we allow our precious banks commit felonies unchecked.  Millions if not tens of millions of Trump Voters will never, ever support these condescending social-engineering schemes based on a half-baked bureaucratic ideology.

 

So-called Liberals (a perversion of what the term has historically meant) are forever whinging about Trumpers voting against their own interests.  As idiotic as many Trumpers can be IMO, so-called Liberal policies like AA and coercive DEI schemes are in direct opposition to the interests of (specifically designed to exclude) working class White and Asian Americans.  This is why we can't have nice things like Universal Healthcare and Education.  

 

 

[RankStranger]

So, for supporters of AA, I have a few questions. 

 

For background, my original home town is a dying coal-mining town in Deepest Darkest Appalachia.  It's been dying since I was a kid- the mines shut down in the early-mid 80's due to environmental regulations (their coal is kinda nasty and high in sulfur).  The local economy was pretty well destroyed as a direct result of environmental regulations on sulfur emissions from coal-fired powerplants.  These are regulations I support- they're needed for obvious reasons (Acid Rain is bad m'kay).   But this policy has also ruined lives by the hundreds if not thousands.  

 

Median Household Income in my home town even today is about $27,000 per year.  That's not per person... that's per household.  All these decades later, they have rampant problems with drug abuse, mental illness, homelessness, prostitution, crime... name the inner-city problem and they have it.  In a town with a population of less than 1800 people these days.  It was higher when I was a kid.  A lot of people like myself who were able to leave... did just that.  And don't get me wrong- there are still good, functional, and even occasionally prosperous people living there.  But a huge swath of the population lives in poverty.  40% don't even have a high school diploma.  Many are developmentally fucked up due to parents/neighbors/authorities with mental illness, chronic unemployment, drug addiction, incarceration... you name the social problem, they have it.  Not to mention heavy metal poisoning from ruined strip-mines.  When I was a kid, the creek through town ran orange a lot of the time due to strip mine runoff.  There were signs along the creek warning you not touch the water.

 

1.  I would like a supporter of AA to explain to me why opportunities should be taken these unfortunate people (with no compensation) based on their lily-white skin color.  And given to another person of a preferred skin color who may suffer none of these disadvantages.

 

2.  While you're at it, please explain why the most wealthy and powerful beneficiaries of Vulgar Capitalism should be empowered to illegally implement this policy of deliberate exclusion, in clear violation of the 14th Amendment.  Note that wealthy white people are essentially unaffected by this policy- they have no shortage of opportunity.  Affirmative Action effectively targets only the disadvantaged white people for opportunity-redistribution.

 

I could make a similar case for unfortunate Asians in my current city of residence (often descended of Vietnamese refugees).  But that isn't my Lived Experience (TM), so I can't go into as much detail.  But while we're at it, I'd like to know:

 

3.  Why should (often fucked up) children of Vietnam War refugees have opportunities taken away from them (with no compensation) and handed to people of a Preferred Color who may share none of the same disadvantages?  Is it because Asians are unkind, unlikable, cowardly, and not respected... compared to humans of other colors?  Or is your reasoning different from that of the racists/liars at Harvard?

 

That'd be great.  Thanks 

[mwc]

35 minutes ago, RankStranger said:

 

I don't see any reference to Gallup in the Pew article you linked to.  Regardless, Gallup not only pledges support for DEI, they offer DEI consulting services: https://www.gallup.com/topic/inclusiveness.aspx

 

Again, do you have any polls supporting your claim, from sources who aren't publicly committed (typically in exchange for investment $$) to promoting Affirmative Action?

     I see.  All large firms will endorse diversity (I'm pretty sure 50 employees is the requirement for DEI but I could be wrong).  So unless I find one that doesn't then I'm kind of fucked.  Essentially you've ruled out all polls I could ever find.

 

     In this case I guess the burden falls to you to show that the sources I provided were actually biased in their polling and their results as you've asserted.  Both Pew and Gallup are respected sources and have a long track record that you're free to research in order to demonstrate that they're incorrect on this issue.  You're also free to include your own sources.

 

35 minutes ago, RankStranger said:

It's ok if you don't have time.  But since you made the claim that AA is popular, I think you might want to support it with a source or two that isn't trumpeting their own bias on the very issue in question.

     I made the claim (without looking back in the thread) that it was essentially equally divided (not speaking to college admissions).

 

35 minutes ago, RankStranger said:

 Both of our minds appear to be made up.  I would like to know how even more Diversity Training and Affirmative Action is going to resolve the clear racism and lying in the Harvard admissions process though.  Since you made that claim.

     I gave you some links to help you understand.  I am imagining that you did not look at them.

 

35 minutes ago, RankStranger said:

Also it's worth noting that Smithsonian Magazine has publically confessed their faith in Holy Diversity.  Sure is convenient how nearly every powerful institution in the country is on your side of this issue.  Well... except for the Supreme Court 

     Funny how suddenly that changed.  Maybe go read how they sided with this issue in the past.  Maybe look at those articles I linked to.

 

35 minutes ago, RankStranger said:

Eisenhower was a wise man, flaws and all.  I'm not clear on how this fits into the discussion at hand though.

     The military industrial complex takes the lions share.  This problem existed before anything you go on about.  The Civil Rights Act.  Affirmative Action.  All of it.  He saw that the money funneled down this pipe and prevented us from having nice things.  It still does today.  Just watch as Congress makes all sorts of cuts to social programs while increasing military spending even when those in the military say they do not need it.

 

          mwc