The Supremes

[Nice Guy Eddie 13512]

What a horrible quote from Thomas:

Quote

While I am painfully aware of the social and economic ravages which have befallen my race and all who suffer discrimination, I hold out enduring hope that this country will live up to its principles so clearly enunciated in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the United States

The non-legal document, Declaration of Independence" says that we're all equal, so let's not worry about protections.

[gernblansten 3197]

Today, Ponyboy can stay golden and be admitted to Harvard. 

[Js1 85341]

9 minutes ago, YGIFS said:

After about 10 years, UT realized a large portion of those students were from underperforming high schools and were not ready for UT.

That’s why Tech and aggy exists 

1 minute ago, Nice Guy Eddie said:

What a horrible quote from Thomas:

The non-legal document, Declaration of Independence" says that we're all equal, so let's not worry about protections.

What a fucking dumbass. Uncle Ruckus indeed. Selling out his race and acting like he’s doing them a favor 

['stache 21816]

14 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

Yep.  Go with "attended a high school in a zip code where over X% of the population is below 150% of the federal poverty rate" or somesuch as getting a plus mark.  It's race-neutral (just like the top 10% rule (now top 5%, I think?)), but it will capture most of the effects of historical and systemic racism that persist in our society.

Kids in a shitload of the high schools in the Valley will get that checkmark.  Kids at Westlake will not.  The effect will be functionally the same as Harvard's current matrix: white and asian kids won't get the plus, minority kids will.

 

 

7 minutes ago, South Austin said:

Great plan, until the U.S. Supreme Court says that's a form of de facto discrimination because the practical effect is admitting more minority applicants. 

Yup. "Disparate impact" is the key term, and "conservatives" hate it, but will embrace it when it fits their narrative. If too many minorities get in under this criteria, it'll get struck down. Remember Robert's mantra: "The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race."

The Chief Justice of the United State Supreme Court wrote that just a few years ago, and carried it into today. The fallacies are too many to discuss here, I have real work to do today, but lets just say reconstruction wouldn't have been possible under this regime. 

[Brisketexan 105143]

12 minutes ago, FartingDreamer said:

I grew up in Quinlan, (southern Hunt County) and if you had based admissions on local zip codes, and the general lack of wealth and poverty in the area, you wouldn't know that students from that area would be mostly white youth, growing up in the cycle of poverty, some in abject poverty, but would be giving them an opportunity to pull themselves up through educational opportunities.  

Sure, it wouldn't end up having a 1-1 result like having straight-up race-based admissions would....but it's still  going to end up in the ballpark.  See what Lobo said about Texas's top 5% rule and how that's worked.  And if the bonus is that it ALSO benefits poor white kids who grew up in a cycle of poverty and are behind the 8-ball...that's sure not a bad thing.

10 minutes ago, tchookem said:

Channeling my inner Brisket: But wouldn't that just be challenged as de facto AA? And with this court, wouldn't that logic be correct?

Well, they've pretty much written themselves into a corner with their plain reliance on "race" being the factor.  Not the effect, but the factor.  Because if they go with "income-based admission is de facto AA," then they ALSO have to go with "and legacy admissions are de facto racial discrimination."  

And yes, I get the fantasy world I'm talking about, whether this SCOTUS applies sound logic and reasoning instead of just reaching the outcome it wants.

[Brisketexan 105143]

3 minutes ago, 'stache said:

Yup. "Disparate impact" is the key term, and "conservatives" hate it, but will embrace it when it fits their narrative.

The courts have shied away from overly tying "disparate impact" - when the impact is solely economic - to race.  That is, saying that policy X is discriminatory because it hits poor folks the hardest, and in this region, that means that minorities (who are disproportionately members of the poorer classes) are disparately impacted, is a bridge the courts haven't fully crossed.  And they wouldn't want to, because that would open the door to all KINDS of attacks on policies -- attacks that, if successful, would help poor people and restrict the people/businesses/governments that are intent on fucking over poor people.

And if there's one right we know that this SCOTUS will hold inviolate, it is the right of the powerful to fuck over poor people.  That may as well be written in stone at the entrance to the SCOTUS.

[SimonBolivar 10958]

21 minutes ago, Pancho said:

This isn’t just all they could do. It would help.

Colleges should 100% get rid of legacy admissions. If I’m a Black, Latino, Asian, or socioeconomic minority, I’m finding a way to bring this case to the court.

SCOTUS:

 

[C-Man 27229]

What a fucking dumbass. Uncle Ruckus indeed. Selling out his race and acting like he’s doing them a favor 

He got his. Fuck everyone else. Gotsta serve Massuh Harlan.

[Dahobbs 17534]

36 minutes ago, gmr548 said:

I think that will ultimately be the workaround. Underrepresented ZIP codes, household income, and parents’ education level are all ostensibly race-blind and yet a pretty good proxy on the whole.

Ah yes, the Court has invited pretext as justification for admission, and notably, that pretext can go both ways. The law, above all else, must be color blind. So, a university giving preference to certain individuals from a predominantly black zip code would be fulfilling this Court's legacy. Of course, so too would a university giving preference to individuals from a predominantly white zip code. Critically, under this precedent,  the law (and the judge), color blind as it must be, cannot peer behind the curtain to see the racial results of such a policy. To do so would invite the same sort of behavior that the Court just told Harvard that it cannot do. 

[Brisketexan 105143]

26 minutes ago, Nice Guy Eddie said:

I hold out enduring hope that this country will live up to its principles so clearly enunciated in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the United States

Groovy, Clarence.  I hold out enduring hope that Susanna Hoffs will someday realize that her mere hug of me back in 1986 was a missed opportunity for an incredible sexual experience, and she'll come calling on me to make it right.

I like the chances of my hope coming true a shitload more than yours.

I mean, by his rationale (let's base our system on the hope that racial discrimination is done-zo), we should repeal the 14th Amendment.  Which, I am confident he would 100% support.

['stache 21816]

Just now, Brisketexan said:

Groovy, Clarence.  I hold out enduring hope that Susanna Hoffs will someday realize that her mere hug of me back in 1986 was a missed opportunity for an incredible sexual experience, and she'll come calling on me to make it right.

I like the chances of my hope coming true a shitload more than yours.

I mean, by his rationale (let's base our system on the hope that racial discrimination is done-zo), we should repeal the 14th Amendment.  Which, I am confident he would 100% support.

They've turned the 14th on its head, and they're fine with it now. Jackson pointed out in oral argument that the "original intent" was to rectify the remnants of slavery. It now means that any attempt to rectify a past of racial disparity violates the 14th. They love it now. 

[BamaATL 16593]

26 minutes ago, Nice Guy Eddie said:

What a horrible quote from Thomas:

The non-legal document, Declaration of Independence" says that we're all equal, so let's not worry about protections.

Also, it was written by white guys, who ultimately wanted the only people allowed to vote to be white and property owners.  

So according to Thomas, if you aren't white, you are out.  If you have a mortgage or don't own your property, you are out.  If you are a woman, forget about it.  If you are a minority, why are you even asking?

So yeah, let's go back to originalism ideas because that is just the guiding light of the fucking earth.  The mere notion that we should somehow consider Thomas Jefferson or any other founder's intentions on something done 250 years ago is absurd I don't know where to even begin.  

[elfenix 34243]

1 hour ago, Js1 said:

Like the coach who got “fired” for praying. Built on a lie 

i wonder if a trial court judge would rely on later reporting showing that the whole thing was a lie to write that the case or controversy before the supreme court was a lie therefore nothing was actually decided and thereby decline to follow the case?

Edited June 29, 2023 by elfenix

[Captainant 27671]

16 minutes ago, elfenix said:

i wonder if a trial court judge would rely on later reporting showing that the whole thing was a lie to write that the case or controversy before the supreme court was a lie therefore nothing was actually decided and thereby decline to follow the case?

What so it's just Calvin ball?

🌕👨‍🚀🔫👨‍🚀

Always has been

[Pancho 44804]

24 minutes ago, C-Man said:

He got his. Fuck everyone else. Gotsta serve Massuh Harlan.

Blacks have long known Thomas hates the fact that god made him a Black man. The trauma he still holds from whenever in his life still influences his choices to let Black people know that he still hates being Black and the history of Blacks in America has never been bad nor have Blacks ever been discriminated against because the constitution told him so.

Maybe Thomas is the actual “soft serve nigga” 

[naija 2854]

The funniest part of reading all these articles, is when one looks at the numbers. With all the furor, you'd think AA was putting 20-30% of the student body as Black students. Instead, I'd read that the expectation is that it would go from high of 7% to 3-4%. 7% is the invasion that had people lashing out. What an exhausting place.

[tx 3 putt 76958]

1 hour ago, CooterBrown said:

I wonder if giving extra points to a kid that attends a majority minority high school would even break the law.  You're not considering the race of the applicant, you're just giving a kid extra credit for attending a majority minority high school.

they don’t even have to do that. They know the demographics of hs’s. 

Edited June 29, 2023 by tx 3 putt

[tx 3 putt 76958]

Just now, naija said:

The funniest part of reading all these articles, is when one looks at the numbers. With all the furor, you'd think AA was putting 20-30% of the student body as Black students. Instead, I'd read that the expectation is that it would go from high of 7% to 3-4%. 7% is the invasion that had people lashing out. What an exhausting place.

look back at the ut case with the special needs looking white girl, the people behind her were arguing over 8 minorities getting in over her. (I think it was 8, but no mention of the 100’s or so whites that got in over her)

this ruling isn’t the huge win that the maga right will be celebrating 

[elfenix 34243]

"they should just choose the best people"

this is a really dumb argument when you've got 10,000 people with functionally identical resumes and only 500 openings.  it's a really dumb argument when you've got 20 functionally identical resumes and 1 opening. 

[tx 3 putt 76958]

1 hour ago, Pancho said:

This isn’t just all they could do. It would help.

Colleges should 100% get rid of legacy admissions. If I’m a Black, Latino, Asian, or socioeconomic minority, I’m finding a way to bring this case to the court.

harvard would never kill off alumni donations like that 

[Gengs1 2583]

Thanks RBG…

[Michael Knight 12980]

 

[tx 3 putt 76958]

1 hour ago, Brisketexan said:

Yep.  Go with "attended a high school in a zip code where over X% of the population is below 150% of the federal poverty rate" or somesuch as getting a plus mark.  It's race-neutral (just like the top 10% rule (now top 5%, I think?)), but it will capture most of the effects of historical and systemic racism that persist in our society.

Kids in a shitload of the high schools in the Valley will get that checkmark.  Kids at Westlake will not.  The effect will be functionally the same as Harvard's current matrix: white and asian kids won't get the plus, minority kids will.

 

Single parent homes 

In a home that receives snap benefits 

two working parents

First generation hs grad 

first generation to attend college

lot of other and viable options 

[tx 3 putt 76958]

1 minute ago, Gengs1 said:

Thanks RBG…

1000000% this. Extremely selfish person 

Amy the cult member is going to lay out many of years of pain against this country. She wants this nation to be a handmaids tale 

[DaysOff 7951]

look back at the ut case with the special needs looking white girl, the people behind her were arguing over 8 minorities getting in over her. (I think it was 8, but no mention of the 100’s or so whites that got in over her)
this ruling isn’t the huge win that the maga right will be celebrating 

Was that the one who cared so much about academics that she spent the next four years at LSU?

[naija 2854]

12 minutes ago, Gengs1 said:

Thanks RBG…

biggest blame lies on Obama, to me. 

[tx 3 putt 76958]

Just now, DaysOff said:

Was that the one who cared so much about academics that she spent the next four years at LSU?

she was the mascot and didn’t need to wear a mask 

[Pancho 44804]

1 hour ago, FartingDreamer said:

I see both sides of the coin on this issue.  On one hand, I want and believe in equality of opportunity for all students regardless of what race or ethnicity they are, on the other hand, being at a disadvantage because one happens to be in the majority, isn't right or fair for those individuals either.  Taking race out of the equation makes sense, that said how do we ensure opportunity and realized potential for those who are disadvantaged and underprivileged?   This is such a complex issue.  And I say that as someone who grew up around poor, disadvantaged peers and people (most of whom were also white).

 

1 hour ago, FartingDreamer said:

This!  I think finding a way to rate applicants based on socio-economic status/background would go a long way towards solving the paradox. 

 

You are looking at this through a semi incorrect lens. This case was brought by Asian students who thought dumbass Black students were taking their spots when I’m reality it was legacy White students. So this will continue. 
 

 

[tx 3 putt 76958]

Just now, naija said:

biggest blame lies on Obama, to me. 

 

RBG, like too many justices, was in that chair until death 

[Gengs1 2583]

4 minutes ago, naija said:

biggest blame lies on Obama, to me. 

What should have he done? 
 

[Bateshorn 9927]

2 hours ago, Brisketexan said:

Yes.  Until they nix legacy admissions, yes, he's wrong.  The math is fucking glaring.

Legacy admissions favor applicants whose family have a history of attending an institution.  Until approximately 50 years ago (and less, with respect to many institutions), those institutions actually or functionally discriminated against minority students.  And shit, until present day (but at least well into the 70s and 80s), the lower level education apparatus available to minority students was generally inferior to that available to white students.  But let's just go with the fact that there was open discrimination 50 years ago.  That means that when you're looking back in time for a family history.....a white applicant might have such history.  A minority candidate will have a much, much, MUCH lower chance of such history.

Because of our long history of discrimination -- which is not disputed, even by the SCOTUS in this decision -- legacy admissions are a mechanism that guarantee a discriminatory outcome in favor of white applicants.

A policy of "we don't consider race anymore....we just consider whether your granddad went here [back when we were racist and didn't let black folks in, so we know your granddad was white]" is indisputably racist.  Yet it remains intact.

And by the way....I actually don't have a problem with "legacy" being a FACTOR in admissions decisions, especially for private institutions - it's a pathway to greater donations and revenue, which is a material consideration for a university.  However, to balance that, other factors need to come into play, including the race of applicants who are of races who were historically discriminated against and thus are much less likely to have legacy status.

As is the case with this court with some frequency, it sees only what it wants to see, and turns a blind eye to the rest.

I mean, your points are valid, but the Asian Tax is real. And to my mind, no different than discrimination against Jewish students 100 years ago.  
 

That doesn’t mean this decision is correct, but to be clear: admissions offices are terrified that if they don’t trim Asian acceptance rates, they’ll dominate an incoming class after you reserve sits for legacies, athletes, donor kids, etc. 

[naija 2854]

Just now, tx 3 putt said:

 

RBG, like too many justices, was in that chair until death 

The man taught constitutional law at one of the premier schools in America. Nobody had a better understanding of the importance of the SC. It wasn't just RBG. It was Merrick Garland. The pushback I get is "what else could he have done." Well, I don't know specifically, but I'll forever believe what transpired doesn't happen if a Republican was president. Everything at his disposal, from promises to threats, overt and implied, should have been done to prevent this outcome. For me, the change in guard of the SC is one thing, a major one at that, that is part of the Obama legacy. Sometimes, one gets the feeling that he is true believer in "the process," and that it might take a while, but it will work out in the end.

[Js1 85341]

Okay, let's not rehash the RBG/Obama "whose fault this is?" bullshit

[Brisketexan 105143]

12 minutes ago, Bateshorn said:

I mean, your points are valid, but the Asian Tax is real. And to my mind, no different than discrimination against Jewish students 100 years ago.  
 

That doesn’t mean this decision is correct, but to be clear: admissions offices are terrified that if they don’t trim Asian acceptance rates, they’ll dominate an incoming class after you reserve sits for legacies, athletes, donor kids, etc. 

Not incorrect.  But understand that the underlying motive is that we don't take any slots away from white folks.  If you're gonna let in more minorities (say you use the "you're from a xzip code with X% below the poverty rate" mechanism), then that necessarily means fewer incoming students from OTHER categories.  And the truth is "we can't do something that would reduce our white population -- legacies, donor kids, etc. -- so, I guess we need to find a way to reduce the pool of asians/south asians."

There's a balance to be struck that satisfies a broad spectrum of interests: making sure that a top university education is available to people from families that never had such opportunity (disproportionally going to be minority), legacy/donor applicants who are good for lots of cash (disproportionally going to be white), and superstar students (based on modern performance, disproportionally asian/south asian).  Nothing is going to be perfect, but you can build an admission system that comes close on those interests.

[wildcat09 29354]

1 hour ago, Brisketexan said:

Sure, it wouldn't end up having a 1-1 result like having straight-up race-based admissions would....but it's still  going to end up in the ballpark.  See what Lobo said about Texas's top 5% rule and how that's worked.  And if the bonus is that it ALSO benefits poor white kids who grew up in a cycle of poverty and are behind the 8-ball...that's sure not a bad thing.

Well, they've pretty much written themselves into a corner with their plain reliance on "race" being the factor.  Not the effect, but the factor.  Because if they go with "income-based admission is de facto AA," then they ALSO have to go with "and legacy admissions are de facto racial discrimination."  

And yes, I get the fantasy world I'm talking about, whether this SCOTUS applies sound logic and reasoning instead of just reaching the outcome it wants.

I always find it funny when ledge-Brisket takes a back seat to lawyer-Brisket. I totally understand thinking this should be the case, but ledge-Brisket damned well knows that actually they could absolutely decide that income-based admission is de-facto illegal AA while also finding some bullshit reason that legacy admissions aren't. Because law is Calvinball.

[Poe It Up 126]

Trump’ presidency shaped the country for the foreseeable future. Wild. 

[CooterBrown 18013]

The chef's kiss will be a reduction in white admissions as universities start using socio-economic and other non-race based criteria to assure a well rounded incoming class. I'd bet the GQP starts screaming for race based admissions within a decade.

 

[Js1 85341]

As I recall, black and Hispanic admissions in California basically cratered after the UC system banned affirmative action in the 90s and hasn’t recovered. Compared to the demographics, both are disproportionately underrepresented 

[Gengs1 2583]

44 minutes ago, Pancho said:

 

 

You are looking at this through a semi incorrect lens. This case was brought by Asian students who thought dumbass Black students were taking their spots when I’m reality it was legacy White students. So this will continue. 
 

 

Well not quite, don’t blame all Whitey here

• Approximately 18.8 percent of surveyed white students reported legacy status, compared to 6.1 percent among African American or Black freshmen, 9.1 percent among Hispanic or Latinx students, and 15.1 percent among Asian students.

when looking at population distribution of USA, this isn’t on whitey. This is all rich vs poor 

You can make a case that rural ppl are screwed here as 9.4 % share rural origins.

56.7% form suburbs and 33.9 % from urban areas 

 

https://features.thecrimson.com/2021/freshman-survey/makeup-narrative/

Edited June 29, 2023 by Gengs1

[elfenix 34243]

5 minutes ago, CooterBrown said:

The chef's kiss will be a reduction in white admissions as universities start using socio-economic and other non-race based criteria to assure a well rounded incoming class. I'd bet the GQP starts screaming for race based admissions within a decade.

 

so long as it isn't black people getting into harvard the GOP will probably be cool with it. 

[Brisketexan 105143]

10 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

I always find it funny when ledge-Brisket takes a back seat to lawyer-Brisket. I totally understand thinking this should be the case, but ledge-Brisket damned well knows that actually they could absolutely decide that income-based admission is de-facto illegal AA while also finding some bullshit reason that legacy admissions aren't. Because law is Calvinball.

I know.  Force of habit.  Seriously, I've been a lawyer for a long time, and got used to courts generally following court-like processes and reasoning.  While I KNOW we're in the Calvinball Court era, my brain has a hard time catching up.

2 minutes ago, Js1 said:

As I recall, black and Hispanic admissions in California basically cratered after the UC system banned affirmative action in the 90s and hasn’t recovered. Compared to the demographics, both are disproportionately underrepresented 

I heard an interesting bit on NPR about how that both is, and is not, the case.  California has become the laboratory for eliminating all consideration of race -- over 25 years of that has happened.  What it found is that OVERALL, minority admissions to state universities didn't materially decline.  What DID decline, precipitously, was minority admission to the two most prestigious and selective state universities, Berkely and UCLA.  And that means something.  Because a degree isn't just a degree -- it's a ticket into a network of elites.  Being a graduate of Chico State means your network is other Chico State grads (better than not getting a degree, for sure).  Being a Berkely grad means your network is other Berkely grads -- a much better connected group.

The result is perpetuating the "separate but equal" model, in real-world effects.  Minority students still get a high school education, a college diploma, etc.  They just get it from Shitty Hood High, or Dingleberry State, instead of Westlake, or Berkely.

[Bateshorn 9927]

15 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

Not incorrect.  But understand that the underlying motive is that we don't take any slots away from white folks.  If you're gonna let in more minorities (say you use the "you're from a xzip code with X% below the poverty rate" mechanism), then that necessarily means fewer incoming students from OTHER categories.  And the truth is "we can't do something that would reduce our white population -- legacies, donor kids, etc. -- so, I guess we need to find a way to reduce the pool of asians/south asians."

There's a balance to be struck that satisfies a broad spectrum of interests: making sure that a top university education is available to people from families that never had such opportunity (disproportionally going to be minority), legacy/donor applicants who are good for lots of cash (disproportionally going to be white), and superstar students (based on modern performance, disproportionally asian/south asian).  Nothing is going to be perfect, but you can build an admission system that comes close on those interests.

As a related aside, a group, which does not need a hand up, but is also discriminated against, is high achieving women in higher education.  When my boys were applying for school, one of the jokes is the worst demographic to be in if you wanted to go to an elite school is "East Coast Becky"  ECB is vice president of student council, captain of the field hockey squad, first chair of the clarinets, and lead in the high school play. Becky is from an East Coast state with garbage public higher ed, like Maryland or New Jersey, and desperately wants to go to Stanford or Michigan, but she definitely doesn't want to go to Smith or Bryn Mawr.

Her opposite, who does get a hand up, so the class isn't 75% women, is literally any chump with a Y chromosome. 

[Js1 85341]

3 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

They just get it from Dingleberry State

Nah I’m pretty sure aggy is going to be all white within a decade except for student athletes 

[NAVY 6740]

Market justice bought judges kill social justice program. Stinks like trump 

[naija 2854]

23 minutes ago, CooterBrown said:

The chef's kiss will be a reduction in white admissions as universities start using socio-economic and other non-race based criteria to assure a well rounded incoming class. I'd bet the GQP starts screaming for race based admissions within a decade.

 

there are states where AA was banned and this option was available and deployed, and the results aren't what's written above

[Gengs1 2583]

before everyone gets their pitchforks out 

Here is their report on class of 25

https://features.thecrimson.com/2021/freshman-survey/makeup-narrative/
 

• Of participants who answered a question about ethnicity,
• 53.1 percent identified as white,
• 23.6 percent as Asian,
• 15.7 percent as Black or African American,
• 13.4 percent as Hispanic or Latinx,
• 8.3 percent as South Asian,
• 0.9 percent as American Indian or Alaska Native, and 0.6 percent as Pacific Islander.

2022 census data

-58.9% white alone

-13.6% black

-Hispanic 19.1%

-Asian 6.3%
-native Americans 1.3%

so is the Harvard admission that bad when compared to general population? The only issue I see is that asians are over represented…

Edited June 29, 2023 by Gengs1

[tx 3 putt 76958]

😂😂😂

[hpslugga 4060]

39 minutes ago, CooterBrown said:

The chef's kiss will be a reduction in white admissions as universities start using socio-economic and other non-race based criteria to assure a well rounded incoming class. I'd bet the GQP starts screaming for race based admissions within a decade.

 

And make no mistake, those new measures to which you refer will cause the cost of college to go up. They’ll essentially create new de facto “departments” that bridge diversity with admissions and they’ll employ people to work on exactly what you’re referring to. 

Colleges and universities are the social capitals of DEI. They’re not going just turn their backs on that because the SCOTUS rendered a ridiculous decision today. All they’re going to do is, as you say, find a workaround. What happens when institutions get more clandestine with their practices? It gets more expensive for them to execute their goals, and that expense is passed onto the consumer. Great. College was so affordable until today…

Edited June 29, 2023 by hpslugga

[horn4life 3760]

Honestly I don't like race based admissions, but only because I view poverty to be the criteria that is a better gauge of need.  

This does not mean there is not institutional racism, and that this is not perhaps most evident in the public school systems of our nation.  It is silly to believe that kids from wealthy families do not have a clear advantage over their less wealthy peers.  So the playing field is tilted in favor of the wealthy to start with. And in the U.S. wealthy more often than not means white, so there's that.

What I am most interested to see if the Supreme court in the future decides that "Legacy admissions" are not a clear violation of the equal protection clause they use to justify this decision?  Legacy admissions more than any other type of admission tips the scales away from equity.  And you have dumbasses with wealth displacing more meritoriously qualified applicants, because mommy or daddy's parents were legacies of legacies...

[C-Man 27229]

32 minutes ago, Js1 said:

Nah I’m pretty sure aggy is going to be all white within a decade except for student athletes 

It's not already? 🤣