Thursday, June 29, 2023

scotus “just said no” to a.a. in college admissions—but did the conservative majority arrest systemic racism, or just deliver a pyrrhic victory

By Grand Rapids Anonymous
thursday, june 29, 2023 at 12:03:00 p.m. edt

“(cnn) the supreme court says colleges and universities can no longer take race into consideration as a specific basis in admissions, a landmark decision that overturns long-standing precedent that has benefited black and latino students in higher education.

“the majority conservative opinion claims the court was not expressly overturning prior cases authorizing race-based affirmative action, and suggested that how race has affected an applicant’s life can still be part of how their application is considered.

[N.S.: Then it’s a pyrrhic victory. The unqualified, unfit applicants’ ghost-writers’ will simply make up stories (as had already been doing for a generation or more) about the clients’ “lived experience” as a “victim of racism” in their application essays, and the applicants will be rubber-stamped.]

“three democratic-appointed justices stressed in the dissent that even if the court did not formally end race-based affirmative action in higher education, its analysis will make it practically impossible for colleges and universities to take race into account.

[B.S., for the reasons I already gave. In any event, “making it practically impossible for colleges and universities to take race into account” would have been the ideal outcome.]

“there are several other major opinions left in this term, including on president Joe Biden’s student loan.”

GRA: Biden will speak (or attempt to) at 12:30p.m. about the ruling. He had been opposed to scotus changing the method of admitting minorities.


N.S.: The arresting of systemic racism and sexism in the antiversity would require billion-dollar fines, profs, administrators, and staffers being perp-walked and imprisoned for their crimes against normal, patriotic, White men, and all sorts of racist, sexist antiversity centers—black cultural centers, women’s centers, queer and sexual psychopath/opportunist centers, departments of black, women’s, reconquista, middle eastern, Jewish and queer/sexual psycho studies being permanently shut down, and all sorts of political positions (vps for the aforementioned groups) permanently eliminated.

If America had a patriotic party, it would have seen to all of the above generations ago.


Anonymous said...

Any chance at a patriotic party went out the window as White demographics shrank from 90 to 60 something--and commies took advantage of the divided White voters to push their agenda through--with some White support!

Look at any site covering this and you see Whites upset about the decision.Totally brainwashed,are they.


Anonymous said...

"The unqualified, unfit applicants"

I don't think too many, if any, are "unqualified" or "unfit", however you want to define that.

What does it mean to "unqualified" or "unfit" to attend a university? They obviously meet whatever minimum qualifications have been set by the school. As long as some minimum standard is met, everyone admitted is "qualified" to be there, in that sense.

It's similar with holding political office. You just have to get elected. George Santos proved that.

Many Blacks and Hispanics admitted to these very selective schools have lower scores on standard tests than Asians and Whites who are not admitted. Often clearly lower, not marginally lower. So regarding these objective measures, the admissions policies are unfair. That's the issue.

If you met the Blacks and Hispanics in person you would probably find them to be reasonably intelligent. Just not as intelligent and academically accomplished as many Whites and Asians who were not admitted.

Anonymous said...

jerry pdx
Scot Peterson, the White Parkland security guard who was accused of running when hispanic Nikolas Cruz started shooting up a school full of hispanic kids has been found not guilty of "child neglect":

Watching Court TV right now and his primary defense seemed to be that he didn't know where the shots were coming from, so maybe he didn't really run from the school so much as he was looking for the shooter away from the school. Wouldn't his primary responsibility be to guard the kids in the school if a shooter is roaming around outside somewhere? I'd have to do a deeper dive into the fact to know for sure but the jury found it to be a credible argument so maybe there's more than what we see on the surface.

Watching his lawyer, Mark Eiglarsh, right now pronounce: "This is a victory for all law enforcement officers who do the best they can in these situations"

Peterson was a lightly armed security guard, he wasn't a cop and dealing with a set of circumstances that might not align with other shootings, so why does this apply for "all law enforcement officers"? Ok, he's a lawyer and they deal in hyperbole and rhetoric but why does this verdict apply to fully trained better armed cops who hesitate to enter a school while kids are being killed? Peterson was outgunned by Cruz so very possibly (assuming he did run for fear of his life), if not likely, would have been killed by Cruz so maybe it's different, but when you sign up for the job, don't you understand the risk you are assuming?

Also, as I'm watching they are interviewing some angry looking negro sarcastically saying things like "This verdict was to be expected because there's a pattern of selective justice in this country yada yada...", his name is Lateef Gray and he looks like an afroracist upset about a White guy getting off because "He's White". It's kind of weird, where did this guy come from and why is CourtTV interviewing him? Guess it's just typical, "try to find some racial bias angle" and putting it out there for the public to lap up.

Anonymous said...

jerry pdx
Right after sending previous comment, CourtTV ran an interview with Tony Montalto, father of a girl shot by Cruz, he offers his own opinion on the verdict:
Looking at the names it appears there were more non hispanic victims than I thought, if it had been all hispanics or a lot of black victims, would there have been a different narrative crafted around this? I don't know but you can really see the pain on Mr. Montalto's face, just a tragedy all around.

Anonymous said...

jerry pdx
Our local "news"paper is treating us to a recurring White guilt front page series called Publishing Prejudice. It's nothing we don't already know about but our local media wants to drill it into our heads to keep Whites in a state of perpetual guilt:
Funny thing is, Albina, the area they are talking about, is the neighborhood my father's relatives moved to when they came from North Dakota, along with many other Scots, Irish, French, Native American mixed people. My mother grew up in a farm household in the Albina area, which was demolished during the reconstruction period they are talking about. The article suggests that only black people lost their homes but that's ludicrous, Albina was not "all black", not even close and plenty of Whites lost their homes also, including other relatives and friends we knew. This article also leaves out how the I5 freeway also cut through SE Portland which was composed of mostly German, Russian and Polish immigrant communities which were forever changed. You don't see those people claiming that losing their homes 70-80 yrs. ago has caused "generational trauma" that has caused them to be poor forever. Article is skimpy on statistics on how many blacks actually lost homes but I can't imagine looking at the information presented that more than a few hundred actually lost their homes, many more Whites likely lost homes than blacks but the article ignores that. There is an anecdotal story about a black business owner claiming he got less for his property than a White one but that's not evidence, just a story. If they had numbers backing up the notion that blacks all got a raw deal and Whites didn't, I think they'd put them right out there. But that wouldn't support the guilt trip they're trying to lay on Whites. I'm not saying there wasn't bias or some black people could have gotten a raw deal but a lot of Whites could have also.

Anonymous said...

I have always said to myself that the most important thing Don did as President was those three appointments to the Supreme Court.

Anonymous said...

." The article suggests that only black people lost their homes but that's ludicrous, Albina was not 'all black;, not even close and plenty of Whites lost their homes also, including other relatives and friends we knew"

So what if blacks alone lost their homes. Are they talking about hovels not maintained, filthy, dirty, rat infested? I am not sure.

When they built the Dan Ryan Expressway in Chicago they tour down negro inhabited eyesore dwellings that were a disgrace. Was that so bad/