The Supremes

[Anastasis 23,479]

 

 

8 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

I wonder if there is any other party that should embrace some self reflection?

Nah.

it’s not really realistic to expect these political institutions to embrace critical self reflection. I think that the best we can hope for is some lulz as they fly themselves into their respective mountains. 
 

it’s ok guys. We’ll come out the other side of this. Unless y’all trigger a nuclear war in the process. 

[The Original Greaser Bob 2,842]

P.S.  HRC was argualby the most qualified person to ever run for President. 

Democracy sucks sometimes.

[Anastasis 23,479]

Just now, The Original Greaser Bob said:

P.S.  HRC was argualby the most qualified person to ever run for President. 

Democracy sucks sometimes.

And an absolutely terrible candidate. Take from that what you will. 

[Satchel 6,938]

2 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

And an absolutely terrible candidate. Take from that what you will. 

I will. Close your eyes. Whatcha see?

[Anastasis 23,479]

1 minute ago, Satchel said:

I will. Close your eyes. Whatcha see?

Sparkles and floaters. 

[Satchel 6,938]

Just now, Anastasis said:

Sparkles and floaters. 

I guess.

[Anastasis 23,479]

I love the fact that you guys still love you some Hillary. I’ll come back after futsal this evening and post some of the ocean theme song videos. Appreciate that you guys loved that shit in 2016. Probably had it on your playlists. 

Edited June 29, 2023 by Anastasis

[Satchel 6,938]

2 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

I love the fact that you guys still love Hillary. I’ll come back after futsal season his evening and post some of the ocean theme song videos. Nuts you guys loved that shit in 2016. Probably had it on your playlists. 

I view politicians much like I view athletes. Don’t have a need to fall in love with them or know them personally. I prefer to support them from afar so long as they can come close to satisfying my expectations of them. Because they are like me, they always have the potential to disappoint. No need to get emotionally invested. Hillary was the best qualified and prepared to be POTUS. That will remain an eternal verity.

[Michael Knight 12,989]

1 hour ago, Anastasis said:

HRC was a terrible candidate and got beat by a terrible human being. Look within. Or just blame Russia. Whatever is lower effort I suppose.  

She was a terrible candidate because the American public doesn't like her, but the reason the American public doesn't like isn't because shes a terrible candidate

[tx 3 putt 77,212]

2 hours ago, pacman said:

 

She’s easily the smartest justice 

[Foosters 17,858]

So Ani is just like TTom with a better vocabulary?

[Sawbonz 27,580]

1 hour ago, Satchel said:

In what way was she terrible?

The running for president part?

also y’all need to take the Hillary posts to the “45 indicted” thread

[HenryJames 66,134]

 

[CTC2 2,798]

1 hour ago, Anastasis said:

I love the fact that you guys still love you some Hillary. I’ll come back after futsal this evening and post some of the ocean theme song videos. Appreciate that you guys loved that shit in 2016. Probably had it on your playlists. 

I did not have to love her to vote for her. It was pretty obvious what a piece of shit Trump was and that whether you liked her or not, most sane people would acknowledge that she was much more capable and qualified than Orange Jesus. 
I don’t and didn’t particularly like her but she would have been a much better president in general than Trump was. 
I have a pretty dim view of people who weren’t smart enough to understand that. 

Edited June 29, 2023 by CTC2

[David Dennison 18,939]

1 hour ago, Anastasis said:

I love the fact that you guys still love you some Hillary. I’ll come back after futsal this evening and post some of the ocean theme song videos. Appreciate that you guys loved that shit in 2016. Probably had it on your playlists. 

Is this where you pretend we wouldn't have been better off with Hillary Clinton instead of Donald Trump?

[chainsaw 9,872]

I've got three rules on this topic.

Rule 1: If you aren't Asian, don't use them as props or proxies for your grievances with affirmative action. They are more than capable of speaking for themselves on this issue and, as should come as no surprise from anyone who knows Asians, they express a broad range of opinions about affirmative action and (just like Latinos) they are far from a monolith.

Rule 2: If you aren't Black, Hispanic, or Indigenous, don't even attempt to profess any understanding of what it's like to grow up in or navigate a society whose rules for centuries were expressly designed to create and reinforce a strict racial hierarchy, for about a century thereafter were expressly designed to circumvent and frustrate efforts of the federal government to do the bare fucking minimum to atone for those systemic transgressions, and for about six decades have been making a feeble effort at a snail's pace to rectify these grotesque historical wrongs all the while having to contend with the beneficiaries of those hierarchies doing everything in their power to impede the letter and the spirit of those new rules. As with the Asians in Rule 1, they are more than capable of speaking for themselves on this issue.

Rule 3: Do not conflate admission to the school with having access to the full benefits of an education at that school. Social hierarchies have a way of persisting in spite of sincere attempts to level the playing field. You might be on the team, but you aren't guaranteed playing time. You might get playing time, but you aren't guaranteed touches. Funny how job and networking opportunities can be easy to come by for mediocre white dudes from Texas State and harder for a black UT honor student or the Asian MIT grad. Maybe they just didn't have upper management written all over them.

With those three rules in mind, based on what little I have read about the remnants of affirmative action that can be gleaned from Justice Roberts's opinion, it will be interesting to see how many admissions policies would pass muster under the new race-blind but conscious of individualized race-related experiences standard.

From a malicious compliance standpoint, I don't see any reason why an admissions office cannot elicit and consider information and narratives from applicants that bear on or relate to their subjective opinions of those "individualized experiences." The application can have a big bold notice This is the only portion of the application in which a discussion of your immutable characteristics, such as race, are permitted under the Supreme Court's June 29 2023 decision in Harvard v. Dipshit per the judicial fiat of Justice John Roberts. We will not take your race into consideration; we may only weigh your individualized experience.

A better idea might be sections of the application that call for race-blind information, which the admissions office may weigh, that relates to the applicant's access to generational wealth.

https://www.americanprogress.org/article/eliminating-black-white-wealth-gap-generational-challenge/

The generational wealth threshold should probably vary from zip code to zip code, and an applicant who might have comparatively less generational wealth than others in their community could receive more points as a way to level the playing field against other applicants from the same zip code who unduly benefitted from unearned financial resources.

One interesting question is whether an applicant's location/threshold score would pass muster if there is any evidence that the history of race relations and their effect on that location (for example, redlining policies or the homestead act) was taken into consideration when determining how to score that location or how to determine the generational wealth threshold. I could see Clarence Thomas objecting to that as being race-conscious, but on the other hand it may be sufficiently individualized and race-neutral in application because a white applicant from the same zip code is receiving precisely the same score as the black applicant, and if they receive different scores, it is only because they are on opposite sides of the generational wealth threshold (and not because of their races).

In other words, it's not the applicant's race that is being taken into consideration, but the location's racist (or lack of a racist) history and that history's lingering effects on those applicants that are being taken into consideration.

[TwiceHorn 31,511]

Compensatory discrimination was always problematic.  It was going to have to end sometime, because at some point, there'd be no need for further compensation, and without the need for further compensation, the discrimination becomes as invidious as that for which it compensates..  Discerning that point in time would always be a bitch.  

For the record, I used to think that maybe that time had come, now I think it clearly has not.

Nevertheless, there are good and possibly better schemes for compensation than raw race-based discrimination, as outlined in this thread and implemented by UT and others.

I don't like the easy conclusion that the time for compensation is through.

Apart from that, we're gonna be ok on this one, I think.

[Gengs1 2,583]

46 minutes ago, chainsaw said:

I've got three rules on this topic.

Rule 1: If you aren't Asian, don't use them as props or proxies for your grievances with affirmative action. They are more than capable of speaking for themselves on this issue and, as should come as no surprise from anyone who knows Asians, they express a broad range of opinions about affirmative action and (just like Latinos) they are far from a monolith.

Rule 2: If you aren't Black, Hispanic, or Indigenous, don't even attempt to profess any understanding of what it's like to grow up in or navigate a society whose rules for centuries were expressly designed to create and reinforce a strict racial hierarchy, for about a century thereafter were expressly designed to circumvent and frustrate efforts of the federal government to do the bare fucking minimum to atone for those systemic transgressions, and for about six decades have been making a feeble effort at a snail's pace to rectify these grotesque historical wrongs all the while having to contend with the beneficiaries of those hierarchies doing everything in their power to impede the letter and the spirit of those new rules. As with the Asians in Rule 1, they are more than capable of speaking for themselves on this issue.

Rule 3: Do not conflate admission to the school with having access to the full benefits of an education at that school. Social hierarchies have a way of persisting in spite of sincere attempts to level the playing field. You might be on the team, but you aren't guaranteed playing time. You might get playing time, but you aren't guaranteed touches. Funny how job and networking opportunities can be easy to come by for mediocre white dudes from Texas State and harder for a black UT honor student or the Asian MIT grad. Maybe they just didn't have upper management written all over them.

With those three rules in mind, based on what little I have read about the remnants of affirmative action that can be gleaned from Justice Roberts's opinion, it will be interesting to see how many admissions policies would pass muster under the new race-blind but conscious of individualized race-related experiences standard.

From a malicious compliance standpoint, I don't see any reason why an admissions office cannot elicit and consider information and narratives from applicants that bear on or relate to their subjective opinions of those "individualized experiences." The application can have a big bold notice This is the only portion of the application in which a discussion of your immutable characteristics, such as race, are permitted under the Supreme Court's June 29 2023 decision in Harvard v. Dipshit per the judicial fiat of Justice John Roberts. We will not take your race into consideration; we may only weigh your individualized experience.

A better idea might be sections of the application that call for race-blind information, which the admissions office may weigh, that relates to the applicant's access to generational wealth.

https://www.americanprogress.org/article/eliminating-black-white-wealth-gap-generational-challenge/

The generational wealth threshold should probably vary from zip code to zip code, and an applicant who might have comparatively less generational wealth than others in their community could receive more points as a way to level the playing field against other applicants from the same zip code who unduly benefitted from unearned financial resources.

One interesting question is whether an applicant's location/threshold score would pass muster if there is any evidence that the history of race relations and their effect on that location (for example, redlining policies or the homestead act) was taken into consideration when determining how to score that location or how to determine the generational wealth threshold. I could see Clarence Thomas objecting to that as being race-conscious, but on the other hand it may be sufficiently individualized and race-neutral in application because a white applicant from the same zip code is receiving precisely the same score as the black applicant, and if they receive different scores, it is only because they are on opposite sides of the generational wealth threshold (and not because of their races).

In other words, it's not the applicant's race that is being taken into consideration, but the location's racist (or lack of a racist) history and that history's lingering effects on those applicants that are being taken into consideration.

 

[gmr548 16,589]

How do you annex something that's already a part of our country?  Do you mean 'Grant Statehood.'  There's a very historical and proven method for how that works, unfortunately most opponents of it don't understand it.  Puerto Rico's referendums usually fall short by a decent margin..  The D.C. one I'm torn on, they have no House Rep or Senators, so that must stink.  I'm sure their EC votes are of cold comfort.  But it's been historically clear, there weren't supposed to be nearly a million people living there when they carved it out of Maryland.  And half the households there have a household in another state as well.  Makes from some confusing residency/voting issues.  I've never really read a compelling argument one way or the other on D.C. as state.  
sidenote-have you ever noticed when you see the silouhette of Maryland like in a game or kids flash cards or info-graphic or whatever, DC is never carved out of it?  The continuity of Potomac runs uninterrupted on either side of DC.  Only with print on the maps, do they bother to put the dotted lines around it.  It's just as easy to produce the image correctly with DC taken out, why don't they?  And yes, this is the plot of the next "National Treasure" starring Nick Cage & Frank Stallone. 

The compelling argument for DC, PR, and every other non-state US jurisdiction is that there are American citizens residing there who are disenfranchised at the federal level.

PR’s referendums have gone both ways and are usually dealing with super low turnout or some other electoral issue. Congress would need to prescribe a binding vote for that to get some teeth.

[gmr548 16,589]

If Manchin loses, which state flips to replace him?

Democrats’ most realistic pickup in 2024 is Texas.

Which is to say there isn’t going to be a R -> D flip

[Celery Man 20,980]

4 hours ago, YGIFS said:

How do you annex something that's already a part of our country?  

[YGIFS 19,452]

Whuh?  I don't think that second pic means what you think it means.  

As TwiceHorn points out, the cold comfort from this is that there are already admissions vetting that can get racial information within 90%+ accuracy without directly asking for it.  And i suspect it will get even more accurate in the wake of this decision.  There've been some applications I've read where you couldn't really discern the ethnicity if you were looking to do that for diversity or scholarship purposes.  Generic sounding name, diverse high school in big suburb with all kinds of races represented, no mention of anything like "Asian Coding Club" or "Blacks in STEM" or anything like that.  But one of the cliche essay questions on every college application nationwide, "Describe a challenge you've had growing up and how you are working to overcome it."  Boom, that's the big reveal.  Parents immigrating from other country, being discriminated against based on skin color, language barriers, etc.  It's all there.  

I've had white parents complain to me about certain alumni scholarships going to Female from the RGV or Black Male from Metroplex who pledge to major in Education or social work or whatever for $10k a year.  Same canned response, "It's a named scholarship awarded by a 501c3, not UT.  If they want to fund a left-handed chess grandmaster to major in clarinet while playing club tennis...it's their money.  We just steward it for them and interview the kids.  That's it."  But I bet this decision will be used to further erode efforts to give ethnically or geographically specific scholarships down the road.  

This isn't like the Roe decision, where a lot of women in a lot of states are literally shit out of luck based on time, geography, and money.  There is a proven system for working around this kinda stuff.  The applicants and admissions committees just have to work a bit harder is all.  Good news is if they're smart, determined, and well intended...they'll get their shot.  There are rooms all over this country filled with people who will figure out how to work around this.     

[Satchel 6,938]

1 hour ago, chainsaw said:

I've got three rules on this topic.

Rule 1: If you aren't Asian, don't use them as props or proxies for your grievances with affirmative action. They are more than capable of speaking for themselves on this issue and, as should come as no surprise from anyone who knows Asians, they express a broad range of opinions about affirmative action and (just like Latinos) they are far from a monolith.

Rule 2: If you aren't Black, Hispanic, or Indigenous, don't even attempt to profess any understanding of what it's like to grow up in or navigate a society whose rules for centuries were expressly designed to create and reinforce a strict racial hierarchy, for about a century thereafter were expressly designed to circumvent and frustrate efforts of the federal government to do the bare fucking minimum to atone for those systemic transgressions, and for about six decades have been making a feeble effort at a snail's pace to rectify these grotesque historical wrongs all the while having to contend with the beneficiaries of those hierarchies doing everything in their power to impede the letter and the spirit of those new rules. As with the Asians in Rule 1, they are more than capable of speaking for themselves on this issue.

Rule 3: Do not conflate admission to the school with having access to the full benefits of an education at that school. Social hierarchies have a way of persisting in spite of sincere attempts to level the playing field. You might be on the team, but you aren't guaranteed playing time. You might get playing time, but you aren't guaranteed touches. Funny how job and networking opportunities can be easy to come by for mediocre white dudes from Texas State and harder for a black UT honor student or the Asian MIT grad. Maybe they just didn't have upper management written all over them.

With those three rules in mind, based on what little I have read about the remnants of affirmative action that can be gleaned from Justice Roberts's opinion, it will be interesting to see how many admissions policies would pass muster under the new race-blind but conscious of individualized race-related experiences standard.

From a malicious compliance standpoint, I don't see any reason why an admissions office cannot elicit and consider information and narratives from applicants that bear on or relate to their subjective opinions of those "individualized experiences." The application can have a big bold notice This is the only portion of the application in which a discussion of your immutable characteristics, such as race, are permitted under the Supreme Court's June 29 2023 decision in Harvard v. Dipshit per the judicial fiat of Justice John Roberts. We will not take your race into consideration; we may only weigh your individualized experience.

A better idea might be sections of the application that call for race-blind information, which the admissions office may weigh, that relates to the applicant's access to generational wealth.

https://www.americanprogress.org/article/eliminating-black-white-wealth-gap-generational-challenge/

The generational wealth threshold should probably vary from zip code to zip code, and an applicant who might have comparatively less generational wealth than others in their community could receive more points as a way to level the playing field against other applicants from the same zip code who unduly benefitted from unearned financial resources.

One interesting question is whether an applicant's location/threshold score would pass muster if there is any evidence that the history of race relations and their effect on that location (for example, redlining policies or the homestead act) was taken into consideration when determining how to score that location or how to determine the generational wealth threshold. I could see Clarence Thomas objecting to that as being race-conscious, but on the other hand it may be sufficiently individualized and race-neutral in application because a white applicant from the same zip code is receiving precisely the same score as the black applicant, and if they receive different scores, it is only because they are on opposite sides of the generational wealth threshold (and not because of their races).

In other words, it's not the applicant's race that is being taken into consideration, but the location's racist (or lack of a racist) history and that history's lingering effects on those applicants that are being taken into consideration.

I’m not a lawyer nor am I trained to think like one, but I find Robert’s logic absurd. What if a candidates individualized experience is shaped in some  significant way by race? Did the majority call itself outlawing us from seeing race? Such rank silliness.

[CTC2 2,798]

I heard someone say today that for example Harvard is majority minority students. However if you look at economics of those students they come from wealth strata’s significantly greater than the national average.  The point of the commentator was that all schools have to do is focus preference on students with low economic backgrounds and problem solved. I’m not so sure about that but it was something I hadn’t thought of. 
UT does some version of this with its preference for first generation college students. 

[tx 3 putt 77,212]

 

west wing had this covered 

[Huckleberry 33,039]

47 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Compensatory discrimination was always problematic.  It was going to have to end sometime, because at some point, there'd be no need for further compensation, and without the need for further compensation, the discrimination becomes as invidious as that for which it compensates..  Discerning that point in time would always be a bitch.  

For the record, I used to think that maybe that time had come, now I think it clearly has not.

Nevertheless, there are good and possibly better schemes for compensation than raw race-based discrimination, as outlined in this thread and implemented by UT and others.

I don't like the easy conclusion that the time for compensation is through.

Apart from that, we're gonna be ok on this one, I think.

That's kind of the point of the socioeconomic, generational higher education history, zip code approach.

There is no need for such considerations to ever end. As long as society is imbalanced (which it always will be) then it will always be fully just for institutions of higher education to consider such advantages and disadvantages during the admissions process.

[Bozo_Casanova 26,509]

45 minutes ago, CTC2 said:

I heard someone say today that for example Harvard is majority minority students. However if you look at economics of those students they come from wealth strata’s significantly greater than the national average.  The point of the commentator was that all schools have to do is focus preference on students with low economic backgrounds and problem solved. I’m not so sure about that but it was something I hadn’t thought of. 
UT does some version of this with its preference for first generation college students. 

Maybe elite colleges are the worst possible focal point for discussions of affirmative action and if it is to be the focus maybe we shouldn't be giving the children of decamillionaires admission preference over the children of plumbers because of their race.  Also maybe the Supreme court should find bigger fish to fry than made up web design customers, football coaches who didn't get fired, deeply closeted cake bakers and the most privileged teens in America.

Edited June 30, 2023 by Bozo_Casanova

[Pig Bellmont 8,719]

I really appreciate Chris Grinder’s initial breakdown- for those interested, his sub stack Law Dork is great. (Apologies if already posted, I haven’t read the last few pages)

edit: I’m also apparently shitty at copy/pasting 

https://www.lawdork.com/p/scotus-majority-ends-affirmative-action?utm_source=substack&publication_id=899862&post_id=131940496&utm_medium=email&utm_content=share&action=share&triggerShare=true&isFreemail=true&token=eyJ1c2VyX2lkIjo5NzUyODM4NywicG9zdF9pZCI6MTMxOTQwNDk2LCJpYXQiOjE2ODgwNjY0NjYsImV4cCI6MTY5MDY1ODQ2NiwiaXNzIjoicHViLTg5OTg2MiIsInN1YiI6InBvc3QtcmVhY3Rpb24ifQ.LlF48oNfcBZNfAVVF-54SBBeicLeASZMMCeGHDy7McQ
 

Quote

The U.S. Supreme Court on Thursday ruled on ideological lines that Harvard and UNC’s race-conscious admissions policies are unconstitutional, effectively ending the use of affirmative action in higher education.

Chief Justice John Roberts — while succeeding in reaching a long-sought goal, personally and for the conservative movement, that was clear since oral argument — did not formally, officially “end” affirmative action. That was, however, the effect of the ruling he wrote. He did not explicitly overturn the prior precedents allowing for race-conscious admissions policies within that ruling. He did, however, make them a nullity. 

That tells us a lot.

Roberts was unwilling to say what the court was actually doing on Thursday, sending a secondary message beyond the decision itself: He knows the Supreme Court and its reactionary majority, beyond its numerical force, has weaknesses right now.

Those weaknesses will occasionally, if rarely, change outcomes. They will narrow some results or leave issues unresolved for potential future expansion. But, as with the Harvard and UNC cases, the weaknesses will sometimes lead the majority to obscure the blunt force — and extremism — of their decisions.
 

Quote

In his opinion for the 6-3 court

1

, Roberts detailed four aspects of the admissions programs at issue that the court held rendered the admissions programs unconstitutional under the Equal Protection Clause.

 

 

 

At least one, if not multiple, of those factors would almost certainly be found to apply to any race-conscious admissions policy, and always would have. And so, while the majority never uses the word “overrule” — leaving that discussion to Justice Clarence Thomas’s solo concurrence and to the dissents of Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson, for the two of them and Justice Elena Kagan — that is what Roberts’s opinion did in fact.

Throughout Roberts’s opinion for the court, he cites to 1978’s Bakke decision and 2003’s Grutter decision — the two earlier key cases establishing and refining the modern standards for the use of race in admissions policies — and then explains how the Harvard and UNC programs fail on each of these four tests that he has decided are what those tests meant.

By the end of Roberts’s decision, and while Roberts fastidiously avoids writing it, it is unmistakably clear that the Supreme Court has hollowed out the possibilities for universities to use race as a factor in their admissions process to create a diverse student body to the point that affirmative action is unquestionably gone. 

The revisionist history at play throughout goes deep, and others with far more expertise than I have are writing up their pieces about that now. I just want to highlight one section of his opinion that shows how empty this reasoning is.

Race-conscious admissions policies must pass strict scrutiny — advancing a compelling state interest with a program narrowly tailored to that interest — and Roberts concluded that the schools “have fallen short of satisfying that burden.” Not only did Thursday’s majority conclude that the programs were not tailored closely enough to the schools’ stated interests, but Roberts also wrote that “the interests they view as compelling cannot be subjected to meaningful judicial review.”

This is nothing less than a statement, albeit indirect, that the entire line of cases and policies to follow since Bakke are — and always have been — invalid.

Quote

 

Of those, Roberts wrote, “Although these are commendable goals, they are not sufficiently coherent for purposes of strict scrutiny.”

In a paragraph that, in practice, overrules Bakke and Grutter, Roberts stated, “[T]he question whether a particular mix of minority students produces ‘engaged and productive citizens,’ sufficiently ‘enhance appreciation, respect, and empathy,’ or effectively ‘train future leaders’ is standardless. … The interests that respondents seek, though plainly worthy, are inescapably imponderable.”

Seeking a diverse student body is “inescapably imponderable,” according to Roberts, Thomas and the other Republican appointees who joined them: Justices Sam Alito, Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh, and Amy Coney Barrett.

Under Roberts’s reasoning, then, race-conscious admissions policies have always been unconstitutional. Which, of course, is what he thinks, so this decision ultimately isn’t surprising. The only real surprising thing is that he was unwilling to say so.

The decision — as weakly as it was presented to the nation — will nonetheless have immediate and potentially dramatic effects.

As Harvard’s Maya Sen tweeted in the immediate aftermath of the decision, “Very little surprising here -- a policy decision made by 6 Republicans[.] I’m more interested in how colleges and universities (and eventually all sorts of employers) will respond[.]”

Those responses will inevitably lead to more litigation in the higher education context. As Moira Donegan noted, there is already a case pending challenging race-neutral policies. 

What’s more, there are no immediate limits on the scope of Roberts’s decision. As The Washington Post reported, it also will inevitably lead to challenges of other policies outside of education and within the private sector.

Thursday, in other words, was just the beginning of a new era in how America addresses — or fails to address — race and the racial discrimination that has been ever-present throughout our history.

Despite Chief Justice John Roberts, despite the reactionary majority, and despite Thursday’s decision, the court and America will eventually, once again, be faced with the nation in which they are operating. 

As Jackson wrote in dissent, “Our country has never been colorblind.“

 

Edited June 30, 2023 by Pig Bellmont
Formatting is fucky

[Paul Wesley 3,287]

I just think it's weird how hypersensitive Clarence Thomas is to the *possibility* that people will discount his Yale education, thinking that he only got in because he's black.  

And I wonder if it's crossed George W Bush's mind a single time that maybe his own Yale credentials are tainted by the fact that he was a legacy admission. 

Edited June 30, 2023 by Paul Wesley

[Satchel 6,938]

2 minutes ago, Paul Wesley said:

I just think it's weird how hypersensitive Clarence Thomas is to the *possibility* that people will discount his Yale education, thinking that he only got in because he's black.  

And yet it's never crossed George W Bush's mind a single time that maybe his own Yale credentials are tainted by the fact that he was a legacy admission. 

He also checked the conservative black jurist AA box with which he didn’t seem to have a problem. He’s a noxious, self loathing grifter.

[TwiceHorn 31,511]

45 minutes ago, Huckleberry said:

That's kind of the point of the socioeconomic, generational higher education history, zip code approach.

There is no need for such considerations to ever end. As long as society is imbalanced (which it always will be) then it will always be fully just for institutions of higher education to consider such advantages and disadvantages during the admissions process.

Well, right, exactly.

If there is one flaw in it all is is that affirmative action was conceived to compensate African Americans, specifically, and these other plans are not that specific.  Then again, affirmative action had morphed into something that was no longer compensating just African Americans, either.

That's not to say that other minority or oppressed groups aren't worthy of consideration, or the more generally economically disadvantaged.

But if the original goal was to compensate African Americans, which it was, then that is diluted.

[TwiceHorn 31,511]

3 minutes ago, Satchel said:

He also checked the conservative black jurist AA box with which he didn’t seem to have a problem. He’s a noxious, self loathing grifter.

To experience the discrimination that Thomas experienced, and to benefit from affirmative action, and then to deny it all, bespeaks an incredible arrogance:  I'm bigger than all of this and don't need any help and didn't benefit from any help.  And, of course, with incredible arrogance you usually get incredible insecurity.

A case study for the ages.

I grew up among athletic arrogance, physical attractiveness arrogance, and wealth arrogance.  It wasn't really until I got to UT Law that I experienced hard core intellectual arrogance.  It is by far the worst.

Edited June 30, 2023 by TwiceHorn

[Satchel 6,938]

9 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Well, right, exactly.

If there is one flaw in it all is is that affirmative action was conceived to compensate African Americans, specifically, and these other plans are not that specific.  Then again, affirmative action had morphed into something that was no longer compensating just African Americans, either.

That's not to say that other minority or oppressed groups aren't worthy of consideration, or the more generally economically disadvantaged.

But if the original goal was to compensate African Americans, which it was, then that is diluted.

Correct:  https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/2023/06/29/affirmative-action-who-benefits-white-women/70371219007/

[chainsaw 9,872]

Just now, TwiceHorn said:

Well, right, exactly.

If there is one flaw in it all is is that affirmative action was conceived to compensate African Americans, specifically, and these other plans are not that specific.  Then again, affirmative action had morphed into something that was no longer compensating just African Americans, either.

That's not to say that other minority or oppressed groups aren't worthy of consideration, or the more generally economically disadvantaged.

But if the original goal was to compensate African Americans, which it was, then that is diluted.

It's not just compensatory for past harms though, although in my view that's a sufficient justification. It's also a necessary prophylactic measure to address existing and future schemes for denying equal access and equal opportunities to members of historically disadvantaged racial groups. People forgot how creative they were in the Jim Crow south when it came to preserving white supremacy.

The only surefire way to prevent the disparate outcomes they desired was basically with racial quotas.

I know that seems anathema to a 21st Century reader and I share that initial impression. However I can't think of any less explicit way to achieve the same result. I think Justice Roberts' suggestion, while perhaps well-intentioned (that's being charitable) is naive and either inadequate or more complicated than necessary. We're driving ourselves up the wall in the name of a superficial race-blindness, and if I'm being less charitable, it looks an awful lot like the real objective is to make the process so burdensome that they give up entirely on trying to do the necessary work of providing equal access and equal opportunity to those who have historically faced disproportionately greater obstacles in higher education.

[TwiceHorn 31,511]

1 minute ago, chainsaw said:

It's not just compensatory for past harms though, although in my view that's a sufficient justification. It's also a necessary prophylactic measure to address existing and future schemes for denying equal access and equal opportunities to members of historically disadvantaged racial groups. People forgot how creative they were in the Jim Crow south when it came to preserving white supremacy.

The only surefire way to prevent the disparate outcomes they desired was basically with racial quotas.

I know that seems anathema to a 21st Century reader and I share that initial impression. However I can't think of any less explicit way to achieve the same result. I think Justice Roberts' suggestion, while perhaps well-intentioned (that's being charitable) is naive and either inadequate or more complicated than necessary. We're driving ourselves up the wall in the name of a superficial race-blindness, and if I'm being less charitable, it looks an awful lot like the real objective is to make the process so burdensome that they give up entirely on trying to do the necessary work of providing equal access and equal opportunity to those who have historically faced disproportionately greater obstacles in higher education.

Well, I think one factor is that there's really only so much laws can do; it really boils down to hearts and minds.  Laws can go a ways toward establishing norms that can drag hearts and minds kicking and screaming along with them.

In doing a little historical digging, I was reminded that in 1996 California banned all racial preferences in state government.  And, in the intervening quarter century, it hasn't turned into a racist hellhole.  At least outside the Central Valley.

[Satchel 6,938]

There’s no way today’s ruling should be viewed as an effort to remedy discrimination in higher Ed when it allowed AA to remain in academic institutions that exist to train military officers. What kind of shit is that?

[We’reTexas 1,473]

 

[TwiceHorn 31,511]

16 minutes ago, Satchel said:

There’s no way today’s ruling should be viewed as an effort to remedy discrimination in higher Ed when it allowed AA to remain in academic institutions that exist to train military officers. What kind of shit is that?

Well, the legal explanation is that the courts have always been extra-deferential to military decision and policy making.  If "the state" has to show a compelling interest justifying a policy, when the military is the state actor in question, it only has to be "sorta compelling."

[Nivek 16,946]

 

7 hours ago, Pancho said:

 

Once again, a shitty ass take. It’s not that men aren’t being admitted in the same as women. The research shows men AREN’T GOING TO COLLEGE THE SAME RATE AS WOMEN. Essentially, nearly every college/university (2 year or 4 year) in America has more women than men admitted because more women are going to college and see higher education as a value. The research shows and has been telling us for years that men just aren’t going to college as much. This has been a known to us for over a decade. It’s not new.

I was in school when the flip happened and it was very obvious.   Being a parent allowed me to see some anecdotal evidence about how my daughter is naturally more predisposed to do well relative to her brothers.  

 

[Cacti 191]

3 hours ago, David Dennison said:

Is this where you pretend we wouldn't have been better off with Hillary Clinton instead of Donald Trump?

Depends on one's point of view. If Hillary would have defeated Trump in 2016, she in all likelihood would have been elected again in 2020. While that would have eventually bent SOTUS to the left (a positive from the perspective of liberals), it would also mean that she would have had to deal with the Russian aggression toward Ukraine.

Hillary was no friend of Russia, and undoubtedly would have supported Ukraine, but I have doubts if anyone could have handled the situation as skillfully as has Biden. Joe is the right person, at the right place and at the right time.

So, in that sense, I feel that we are better off --- as opposed to the uncertainty of 'what if'.

[Texas Jeff 1,945]

Some stats about our Great State of Texas:

Public K-12 enrollment, 2021-22, sorted from largest percent to smallest:

* Hispanic: 52.7%
* White: 26.2%
* Black: 12.8%
* Asian: 4.8%
* Native American: 0.3%
* Pacific Islander: 0.2%
* Multiracial: 2.9%

Total enrollment was 3,224,916 in 1987-88, and increased to 5,427,370 in 2021-22, which is about 417,000 students per grade

UT Austin student profile, fall 2022, sorted in the same order as the top table, adding International and Unknown:

* Hispanic: 24.8%
* White: 34.6%
* Black: 5.3%
* Asian: 21.1%
* Native American: 0.1%
* Pacific Islander: 0.1%
* Multiracial: 2.7%
* International: 9.8%
* Unknown or Blank: 1.6%

Total undergrad population 41,000 ... about 9,000 freshman enrolled per year.  Your odds of attending UT coming out of K-12 are about 2 in 100.
About a fourth of students are first generation.  UT is about the same size it was in 1980, so obviously it's harder to get in.

Are we OK with these numbers?  If not, what do we want to do about it?

[Catdaddyhorn 3,447]

1 hour ago, Paul Wesley said:

I just think it's weird how hypersensitive Clarence Thomas is to the *possibility* that people will discount his Yale education, thinking that he only got in because he's black.  

And I wonder if it's crossed George W Bush's mind a single time that maybe his own Yale credentials are tainted by the fact that he was a legacy admission. 

If you read any book or article, or listen to any podcast on Thomas' life you'd know it was a huge deal to him. The way he was treated by white people at seminary, Holy Cross, and then at Yale law was a central driving force to his psyche, and in particular his view of affirmative action. He famously stamped a 15 cent sticker on his law school diploma as he couldn't find a job after graduating and felt it was worth less than shit. The irony of it all is, as a supposed strict constructionist, no other justice allows their personal history to affect his/her judgment on cases more than Justice Clarence Thomas.   

[chainsaw 9,872]

7 minutes ago, Texas Jeff said:

Some stats about our Great State of Texas:

Public K-12 enrollment, 2021-22, sorted from largest percent to smallest:

* Hispanic: 52.7%
* White: 26.2%
* Black: 12.8%
* Asian: 4.8%
* Native American: 0.3%
* Pacific Islander: 0.2%
* Multiracial: 2.9%

Total enrollment was 3,224,916 in 1987-88, and increased to 5,427,370 in 2021-22, which is about 417,000 students per grade

UT Austin student profile, fall 2022, sorted in the same order as the top table, adding International and Unknown:

* Hispanic: 24.8%
* White: 34.6%
* Black: 5.3%
* Asian: 21.1%
* Native American: 0.1%
* Pacific Islander: 0.1%
* Multiracial: 2.7%
* International: 9.8%
* Unknown or Blank: 1.6%

Total undergrad population 41,000 ... about 9,000 freshman enrolled per year.  Your odds of attending UT coming out of K-12 are about 2 in 100.
About a fourth of students are first generation.  UT is about the same size it was in 1980, so obviously it's harder to get in.

Are we OK with these numbers?  If not, what do we want to do about it?

No. What to do about it is reform the supreme court.

[bolverk 29,694]

1 hour ago, Pig Bellmont said:

I really appreciate Chris Grinder’s initial breakdown- for those interested, his sub stack Law Dork is great. (Apologies if already posted, I haven’t read the last few pages)

edit: I’m also apparently shitty at copy/pasting 

Friendly reminder that when pasting: 1) right-click 2) paste as plain text. It's the way to avoid any formatting weirdness but many absolutely refuse to take into account that fucked up formatting means others are less likely to read their post. That's not a commentary on you as it is on some others. 

[Satchel 6,938]

15 minutes ago, Catdaddyhorn said:

If you read any book or article, or listen to any podcast on Thomas' life you'd know it was a huge deal to him. The way he was treated by white people at seminary, Holy Cross, and then at Yale law was a central driving force to his psyche, and in particular his view of affirmative action. He famously stamped a 15 cent sticker on his law school diploma as he couldn't find a job after graduating and felt it was worth less than shit. The irony of it all is, as a supposed strict constructionist, no other justice allows their personal history to affect his/her judgment on cases more than Justice Clarence Thomas.   

What is often forgotten is that 7 in 10 black citizens supported Ruckus’ elevation to the Court, and applied political pressure on Democrats to stop opposing him. How does he repay us? By shitting on us every opportunity he gets. Old scrub board faced, mildewed   Imp.

[tx 3 putt 77,212]

13 minutes ago, Satchel said:

What is often forgotten is that 7 in 10 black citizens supported Ruckus’ elevation to the Court, and applied political pressure on Democrats to stop opposing him. How does he repay us? By shitting on us every opportunity he gets. Old scrub board faced, mildewed   Imp.

[Satchel 6,938]

1 hour ago, TwiceHorn said:

Well, the legal explanation is that the courts have always been extra-deferential to military decision and policy making.  If "the state" has to show a compelling interest justifying a policy, when the military is the state actor in question, it only has to be "sorta compelling."

The Court is still co-signing race deference. Isn’t that what has everybody in a uproar?

[Pancho 44,876]

1 hour ago, Nivek said:

 

I was in school when the flip happened and it was very obvious.   Being a parent allowed me to see some anecdotal evidence about how my daughter is naturally more predisposed to do well relative to her brothers.  

 

I’d also argue that males are being exposed to various things that causing them to believe they don’t need to go to college on the YouTubes and whatnot. 

Black males have the lowest completion and success rates at pretty much every PWI and HSI (2-year and 4-year) and have for forever. I would often try to take the Black males under my wings in my classes (and they often sought my classes because I was the only Black male prof in my discipline), and I had to have the talk to 99% of them that went something like this—“No, you’re not going to be a rapper. What else do you have an interest in?” Probably 50% of them got it. One of my success stories was a student who gave me his mixtape after class. He fucked around all semester and made a D in my class. He told me on the way out after turning in the Final Exam that it didn’t matter because he was going to be bigger than Drake. 2 years later, I get a message from him on LinkedIn that he realized I was right and he was just accepted into the Crim J program at Sam Houston. 

Latino males were/are a little better but they have the machismo thing going on at times. However, I can see that group progressing into the certificate routes as what they want out of higher ed. One of the smartest Latino males i had in my class wanted to own his own tire shop on the East Side of Houston. Bro was fucking bright as hell. I tried to get him to go the 4-year route but I also told him if he knows his passion this early, stick with it and he will make a lot of money. 

White males are interesting. They fall/fell into 3 categories for me—1.) transfer to UT/aggy/Rice/UH or the occasional LSU/Arkansas/Mississippi, 2.) Only in my class because their certificate required it, or 3.) In college because their parents said they had to be and they had no desire to be there at all. 

All the females—Black, White, Latina—all wanted to be there or told me they didnt’ want to but after my class, they felt they could be successful. I can’t recall a female that just said “fuck it” and dipped. 

Asian/Souf Asian males and females were all successful but several of them were demanding meaning emailing me on weekends/after hours asking if they do extra credit, wondering why they got a 91 and not a 100, etc. This falls in line with the research.

 

—-

 

Sidenote: the Asian bro who spoke out today about the SC overturning AA is an Asian CANADIAN. 

[tx 3 putt 77,212]

 

[Bullneck 19,185]