https://www.c-span.org/video/?523896-3%2Fwashington-journal-mark-walsh-discusses-supreme-court-oral-arguments-affirmative-action=&event=523896&playEvent=&auto=

Mark Walsh, law writer for Education Week, interviewed on Washington
Journal 10/31/2022.

There was a segment on C-SPAN this morning concerning arguments for two
cases, Harvard and University of North Carolina, on their race-conscious
admissions practices. Both schools face scrutiny under Title VI (Civil
Rights Act of 1964). Because UNC is a state school, it also faces
scrutiny under the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment.

Newly seated Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, on one of Harvard's boards
until recently, had to recuse herself from that case. Because of this,
the two cases were not consolidated.

In some of the discussion this morning, Harvard used race as a "plus
factor", but that was criticized by a Harvard economist. The eocnomist
pointed out that these admissions practices aren't truly creating a
diverse class of students as 71% of students are from wealthy families,
and that includes minority students. He suggested admitting students
with potential from poor backgrounds to really show that admissions
policies are intended to help the disadvantaged.

Is creating racial diversity among rich kids a type of diversity that
reflects American society?

One of the callers complained that in the briefs, Asian ethnicity was
used as a negative factor in evaluation.

Both lawsuits were brought by Students for Fair Admissions, which is
Edward Blum, an American Enterprise Institute fellow, who has sued on
behalf of Asian students and their families in education discrimination
cases. He also sued in the Shelby County case.

Walsh pointed out that SFA doesn't represent any plaintiffs who can show
harm, so I'm confused as to how Blum got this into court in the first
place.

I know that Bakke (1978) is known as the reverse discrimination case,
but I've always seen it as the full employment for lawyers case. It said
racial quotas were a denial of equal protection but affirmative action
without quotas did not, even though affirmative action can indeed be
discriminatory on the basis of race.

Harvard is said to have spent $27 million defending its admissions
practices over the years.

On Tue, 1 Nov 2022 00:39:41 -0000 (UTC), "Adam H. Kerman"
<ahk@chinet.com> wrote:

>https://www.c-span.org/video/?523896-3%2Fwashington-journal-mark-walsh-discusses-supreme-court-oral-arguments-affirmative-action=&event=523896&playEvent=&auto=
>
>Mark Walsh, law writer for Education Week, interviewed on Washington
>Journal 10/31/2022.
>
>There was a segment on C-SPAN this morning concerning arguments for two
>cases, Harvard and University of North Carolina, on their race-conscious
>admissions practices. Both schools face scrutiny under Title VI (Civil
>Rights Act of 1964). Because UNC is a state school, it also faces
>scrutiny under the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment.
>
>Newly seated Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, on one of Harvard's boards
>until recently, had to recuse herself from that case. Because of this,
>the two cases were not consolidated.
>
>In some of the discussion this morning, Harvard used race as a "plus
>factor", but that was criticized by a Harvard economist. The eocnomist
>pointed out that these admissions practices aren't truly creating a
>diverse class of students as 71% of students are from wealthy families,
>and that includes minority students. He suggested admitting students
>with potential from poor backgrounds to really show that admissions
>policies are intended to help the disadvantaged.
>
>Is creating racial diversity among rich kids a type of diversity that
>reflects American society?
>
>One of the callers complained that in the briefs, Asian ethnicity was
>used as a negative factor in evaluation.
>
>Both lawsuits were brought by Students for Fair Admissions, which is
>Edward Blum, an American Enterprise Institute fellow, who has sued on
>behalf of Asian students and their families in education discrimination
>cases. He also sued in the Shelby County case.
>
>Walsh pointed out that SFA doesn't represent any plaintiffs who can show
>harm, so I'm confused as to how Blum got this into court in the first
>place.
>
>I know that Bakke (1978) is known as the reverse discrimination case,
>but I've always seen it as the full employment for lawyers case. It said
>racial quotas were a denial of equal protection but affirmative action
>without quotas did not, even though affirmative action can indeed be
>discriminatory on the basis of race.
>
>Harvard is said to have spent $27 million defending its admissions
>practices over the years.

In Canada they would accomplish the same thing by admitting FOREIGN
students (primarily China and India) with lower grades than Canadians
would need to be admitted. My alma mater has done this to the point
that 30-35% of undergraduates are from the Peoples' Republic of China.

Which given the current state of Canadian - Chinese relations is
appalling though Justin Trudeau or any of the provincial governments
show any wish to reverse this catastrophic trend. Many of these
foreign students consider a Canadian degree a short cut to a green
card.

I haven't auto-consigned to spam e-mails from my alma mater yet but to
be sure it's been 20+ years since I've given them a nickel (beyond of
course the vast sums they get via taxation).

For me the Vancouver Sun report that compared freshmen admitting
grades requirements between foreign and domestic students was the
final straw.

So I wish them well with Harvard and I hope the kids represented by
the plaintiff lawyer are domestic not foreign. I can guarantee America
did not spend vast sums educating the children of the former Soviet
Union.

Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:

>. . .

>Both lawsuits were brought by Students for Fair Admissions, which is
>Edward Blum, an American Enterprise Institute fellow, who has sued on
>behalf of Asian students and their families in education discrimination
>cases. He also sued in the Shelby County case. . . .

Here's Blum's opinion.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/race-college-fair-admissions-harvard-unc-title-vi-civil-rights-act-affirmative-action-grutter-supreme-court-asian-discrimination-racism-11667140146

Here's an explanation from several years ago about Harvard's admission
policies, including how factors with negative weight are applied to
Asian applicants.

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2019/10/harvard-affirmative-action-case-legacies-athletes-aldc.html

Here's an argument from a law professor that the Radical Republicans who
wrote the Fourteenth Amendment were protecting blacks and not trying to
create race-neutral criteria.

The Framers of the 14th Amendment Weren't Color Blind
Supreme Court conservatives can't ignore the origins of the 14th
Amendment.
by Sheryll Cashin
Politico
10/31/2022 04:36 PM EDT
https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2022/10/31/why-supreme-court-conservatives-should-back-affirmative-action-00064308

I absolutely disagree with her and I would point out the obvious
concerning that kind of thinking, which in the Slaughter-House Cases
nullified the Privileges or Immunities clause and led to substantive due
process in Lochner v New York (1905).

She conflates a view that equal protection is colorblind with the
various anti-Reconstruction decisions of the Supreme Court. She doesn't
mention Slaughter-House but implies Plessy.

Could these cases give us back the Privileges or Immunities clause? Just
wishful thinking on my part.

On Monday, October 31, 2022 at 8:39:46 PM UTC-4, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
> https://www.c-span.org/video/?523896-3%2Fwashington-journal-mark-walsh-discusses-supreme-court-oral-arguments-affirmative-action=&event=523896&playEvent=&auto=

When you give preferential treatment to a person based
on race, it is racism. Period. The problem is that liberals
only see racism in one color and that color is always white.

Irish Mike

Irish Mike <irishranger317@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Monday, October 31, 2022 at 8:39:46 PM UTC-4, Adam H. Kerman wrote:

>>https://www.c-span.org/video/?523896-3%2Fwashington-journal-mark-walsh-discusses-supreme-court-oral-arguments-affirmative-action=&event=523896&playEvent=&auto=

>When you give preferential treatment to a person based
>on race, it is racism. Period. The problem is that liberals
>only see racism in one color and that color is always white.

Did you understand any of the issues? Harvard isn't truly trying to create a
racially-diverse environment because nearly all of the non-white students
benefitting from a racial preference are still from wealthy families and
didn't attend inner-city public schools nor grow up in poor families.

This isn't "liberal" at all. Harvard wants to retain its elitist
reputation.

I haven't read much about UNC's admissions policies.

On 11/1/22 10:42 PM, RichA wrote:
> I watch a black woman on PBS studiously avoid mentioning Asians

Did your mental constipation disallow you to conjugate verbs now? Or
are right wing assholes only concerned with "pronouns" these days? Or both?

On 11/2/22 12:49 AM, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
> Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
>
>> . . .
>
>> Both lawsuits were brought by Students for Fair Admissions, which is
>> Edward Blum, an American Enterprise Institute fellow, who has sued on
>> behalf of Asian students and their families in education discrimination
>> cases. He also sued in the Shelby County case. . . .
>
> Here's Blum's opinion.
>
> https://www.wsj.com/articles/race-college-fair-admissions-harvard-unc-title-vi-civil-rights-act-affirmative-action-grutter-supreme-court-asian-discrimination-racism-11667140146
>
> Here's an explanation from several years ago about Harvard's admission
> policies, including how factors with negative weight are applied to
> Asian applicants.
>
> https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2019/10/harvard-affirmative-action-case-legacies-athletes-aldc.html
>
> Here's an argument from a law professor that the Radical Republicans who
> wrote the Fourteenth Amendment were protecting blacks and not trying to
> create race-neutral criteria.
>
> The Framers of the 14th Amendment Weren't Color Blind
> Supreme Court conservatives can't ignore the origins of the 14th
> Amendment.
> by Sheryll Cashin
> Politico
> 10/31/2022 04:36 PM EDT
> https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2022/10/31/why-supreme-court-conservatives-should-back-affirmative-action-00064308
>
> I absolutely disagree with her and I would point out the obvious
> concerning that kind of thinking, which in the Slaughter-House Cases
> nullified the Privileges or Immunities clause and led to substantive due
> process in Lochner v New York (1905).
>
> She conflates a view that equal protection is colorblind

Equal protection is color blind is a view, or is it redundant Capt. Obvious?

On 11/2/22 1:18 AM, RichA wrote:
> On Wednesday, 2 November 2022 at 02:08:47 UTC-4, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
>> Irish Mike <irishra...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Monday, October 31, 2022 at 8:39:46 PM UTC-4, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
>>
>>>> https://www.c-span.org/video/?523896-3%2Fwashington-journal-mark-walsh-discusses-supreme-court-oral-arguments-affirmative-action=&event=523896&playEvent=&auto=
>>
>>> When you give preferential treatment to a person based
>>> on race, it is racism. Period. The problem is that liberals
>>> only see racism in one color and that color is always white.
>> Did you understand any of the issues? Harvard isn't truly trying to create a
>> racially-diverse environment because nearly all of the non-white students
>> benefitting from a racial preference are still from wealthy families and
>> didn't attend inner-city public schools nor grow up in poor families.
>>
>> This isn't "liberal" at all. Harvard wants to retain its elitist
>> reputation.
>>
>> I haven't read much about UNC's admissions policies.
>
> In a typical year: 55% of our undergraduates receive need-based Harvard scholarships.

When you say "our" are you talking about Canadians? Or have you
confused yourself into thinking you're American now, or what the flying
fuck are you talking about?

On 11/2/2022 1:54 AM, Irish Mike wrote:
> On Monday, October 31, 2022 at 8:39:46 PM UTC-4, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
>> https://www.c-span.org/video/?523896-3%2Fwashington-journal-mark-walsh-discusses-supreme-court-oral-arguments-affirmative-action=&event=523896&playEvent=&auto=
>
> When you give preferential treatment to a person based
> on race, it is racism. Period. The problem is that liberals
> only see racism in one color and that color is always white.

It's addressing the *results* of earlier racism. Now, maybe you think
there *was* no 'earlier racism', or that its results shouldn't be
addressed. But calling those who address it 'racist' is disingenuous.

In article <Aiv8L.31$VHX7.6@fx01.iad>, moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com>
wrote:

> On 11/2/2022 1:54 AM, Irish Mike wrote:
> > On Monday, October 31, 2022 at 8:39:46 PM UTC-4, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
> >> https://www.c-span.org/video/?523896-3%2Fwashington-journal-mark-walsh-disc
> >> usses-supreme-court-oral-arguments-affirmative-action=&event=523896&playEve
> >> nt=&auto=
> >
> > When you give preferential treatment to a person based
> > on race, it is racism. Period. The problem is that liberals
> > only see racism in one color and that color is always white.
>
> It's addressing the *results* of earlier racism. Now, maybe you think
> there *was* no 'earlier racism', or that its results shouldn't be
> addressed. But calling those who address it 'racist' is disingenuous.

So is soft-pedaling racist policies with euphemistic excuses like,
"We're only being racist to address past racism!"

BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:
>moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:
>>On 11/2/2022 1:54 AM, Irish Mike wrote:
>>>On Monday, October 31, 2022 at 8:39:46 PM UTC-4, Adam H. Kerman wrote:

>>>>https://www.c-span.org/video/?523896-3%2Fwashington-journal-mark-walsh-discusses-supreme-court-oral-arguments-affirmative-action=&event=523896&playEvent=&auto=

>>>When you give preferential treatment to a person based
>>>on race, it is racism. Period. The problem is that liberals
>>>only see racism in one color and that color is always white.

>>It's addressing the *results* of earlier racism. Now, maybe you think
>>there *was* no 'earlier racism', or that its results shouldn't be
>>addressed. But calling those who address it 'racist' is disingenuous.

>So is soft-pedaling racist policies with euphemistic excuses like,
>"We're only being racist to address past racism!"

Not-Irish Mike and moviePig share the same delusion as neither has been
reading the articles.

The race-based preferential treatment GIVEN TO BLACK APPLICANTS benefits
those from wealthy backgrounds. 'Cuz, you know, those from wealthy families
suffered worse racism in the past than those from poor families whose
income was very low due to discrimination and therefore fewer opportunities
to better their lives.

On 11/2/22 11:49 AM, BTR1701 wrote:
> In article <Aiv8L.31$VHX7.6@fx01.iad>, moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com>
> wrote:
>
>> On 11/2/2022 1:54 AM, Irish Mike wrote:
>>> On Monday, October 31, 2022 at 8:39:46 PM UTC-4, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
>>>> https://www.c-span.org/video/?523896-3%2Fwashington-journal-mark-walsh-disc
>>>> usses-supreme-court-oral-arguments-affirmative-action=&event=523896&playEve
>>>> nt=&auto=
>>>
>>> When you give preferential treatment to a person based
>>> on race, it is racism. Period. The problem is that liberals
>>> only see racism in one color and that color is always white.
>>
>> It's addressing the *results* of earlier racism. Now, maybe you think
>> there *was* no 'earlier racism', or that its results shouldn't be
>> addressed. But calling those who address it 'racist' is disingenuous.
>
> So is soft-pedaling racist policies with euphemistic excuses like,
> "We're only being racist to address past racism!"

Past racism? When you see confederate flags all over the fucking place?
Stop shitposting you fucking eunuch.

On 11/2/2022 12:49 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
> In article <Aiv8L.31$VHX7.6@fx01.iad>, moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com>
> wrote:
>
>> On 11/2/2022 1:54 AM, Irish Mike wrote:
>>> On Monday, October 31, 2022 at 8:39:46 PM UTC-4, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
>>>> https://www.c-span.org/video/?523896-3%2Fwashington-journal-mark-walsh-disc
>>>> usses-supreme-court-oral-arguments-affirmative-action=&event=523896&playEve
>>>> nt=&auto=
>>>
>>> When you give preferential treatment to a person based
>>> on race, it is racism. Period. The problem is that liberals
>>> only see racism in one color and that color is always white.
>>
>> It's addressing the *results* of earlier racism. Now, maybe you think
>> there *was* no 'earlier racism', or that its results shouldn't be
>> addressed. But calling those who address it 'racist' is disingenuous.
>
> So is soft-pedaling racist policies with euphemistic excuses like,
> "We're only being racist to address past racism!"

How is it possible to directly aid the racially disadvantaged without
being able to see who they are and treat them accordingly?

In article <%8z8L.23906$TUR8.873@fx17.iad>,
moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:

> On 11/2/2022 12:49 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
> > In article <Aiv8L.31$VHX7.6@fx01.iad>, moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> >> On 11/2/2022 1:54 AM, Irish Mike wrote:
> >>> On Monday, October 31, 2022 at 8:39:46 PM UTC-4, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
> >>>
> >>> When you give preferential treatment to a person based
> >>> on race, it is racism. Period. The problem is that liberals
> >>> only see racism in one color and that color is always white.
> >>
> >> It's addressing the *results* of earlier racism. Now, maybe you think
> >> there *was* no 'earlier racism', or that its results shouldn't be
> >> addressed. But calling those who address it 'racist' is disingenuous.
> >
> > So is soft-pedaling racist policies with euphemistic excuses like,
> > "We're only being racist to address past racism!"
>
> How is it possible to directly aid the racially disadvantaged without
> being able to see who they are and treat them accordingly?

Other than ensuring everyone is treated equally under the law, why is it
the proper function of government to aid the racially disadvantaged?

> moviePig
> > Irish Mike
> >
> > When you give preferential treatment to a person based
> > on race, it is racism. Period. The problem is that liberals
> > only see racism in one color and that color is always white.
>
> It's addressing the *results* of earlier racism. Now, maybe you
> think there *was* no 'earlier racism', or that its results shouldn't be
> addressed. But calling those who address it 'racist' is disingenuous.

"Racism was bad! But NOW racism good!"

BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:
>moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:
>>On 11/2/2022 12:49 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>>moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:
>>>>On 11/2/2022 1:54 AM, Irish Mike wrote:

>>>>>When you give preferential treatment to a person based
>>>>>on race, it is racism. Period. The problem is that liberals
>>>>>only see racism in one color and that color is always white.

>>>>It's addressing the *results* of earlier racism. Now, maybe you think
>>>>there *was* no 'earlier racism', or that its results shouldn't be
>>>> addressed. But calling those who address it 'racist' is disingenuous.

>>>So is soft-pedaling racist policies with euphemistic excuses like,
>>>"We're only being racist to address past racism!"

>>How is it possible to directly aid the racially disadvantaged without
>>being able to see who they are and treat them accordingly?

>Other than ensuring everyone is treated equally under the law, why is it
>the proper function of government to aid the racially disadvantaged?

Could moviePig be any more condescending?

Blacks today aren't RACIALLY DISADVANTAGED despite a legacy of slavery that
no one alive experienced. There are specific people who are discriminated
against due to race and, under a great many circumstances, that's illegal
under federal and state law. But that's not evidence that there's no
equality of opportunity in America if one isn't discriminated against and
it sure as hell isn't evidence that blacks as a race are disadvantaged
due to race if no one was discriminated against.

Perhaps moviePig might explain how a black kid from a wealthy family
that got accepted to Harvard due to preference gives some advantage to a
black kid from a poor family who can't afford to attend any college. I
wanna hear this.

Ed Stasiak <edstasiak1067@gmail.com> wrote:

>>moviePig
>>>Irish Mike

>>>When you give preferential treatment to a person based
>>>on race, it is racism. Period. The problem is that liberals
>>>only see racism in one color and that color is always white.

>>It's addressing the *results* of earlier racism. Now, maybe you
>>think there *was* no 'earlier racism', or that its results shouldn't be
>>addressed. But calling those who address it 'racist' is disingenuous.

>"Racism was bad! But NOW racism good!"

'Cuz slavery was about racial discrimination against black kids from
wealthy families.

On 11/2/2022 1:19 PM, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
> BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:
>> moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:
>>> On 11/2/2022 12:49 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>>> moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:
>>>>> On 11/2/2022 1:54 AM, Irish Mike wrote:
>
>>>>>> When you give preferential treatment to a person based
>>>>>> on race, it is racism. Period. The problem is that liberals
>>>>>> only see racism in one color and that color is always white.
>
>>>>> It's addressing the *results* of earlier racism. Now, maybe you think
>>>>> there *was* no 'earlier racism', or that its results shouldn't be
>>>>> addressed. But calling those who address it 'racist' is disingenuous.
>
>>>> So is soft-pedaling racist policies with euphemistic excuses like,
>>>> "We're only being racist to address past racism!"
>
>>> How is it possible to directly aid the racially disadvantaged without
>>> being able to see who they are and treat them accordingly?
>
>> Other than ensuring everyone is treated equally under the law, why is it
>> the proper function of government to aid the racially disadvantaged?
>
> Could moviePig be any more condescending?
>
> Blacks today aren't RACIALLY DISADVANTAGED despite a legacy of slavery that
> no one alive experienced. There are specific people who are discriminated
> against due to race and, under a great many circumstances, that's illegal
> under federal and state law. But that's not evidence that there's no
> equality of opportunity in America if one isn't discriminated against and
> it sure as hell isn't evidence that blacks as a race are disadvantaged
> due to race if no one was discriminated against.
>
> Perhaps moviePig might explain how a black kid from a wealthy family
> that got accepted to Harvard due to preference gives some advantage to a
> black kid from a poor family who can't afford to attend any college. I
> wanna hear this.
>

The irony in this mess is that Thomas entered Yale under affirmative
action. I don't know his or his family's economic status though.

On 11/2/22 2:13 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
> In article <%8z8L.23906$TUR8.873@fx17.iad>,
> moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:
>
>> On 11/2/2022 12:49 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>> In article <Aiv8L.31$VHX7.6@fx01.iad>, moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 11/2/2022 1:54 AM, Irish Mike wrote:
>>>>> On Monday, October 31, 2022 at 8:39:46 PM UTC-4, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> When you give preferential treatment to a person based
>>>>> on race, it is racism. Period. The problem is that liberals
>>>>> only see racism in one color and that color is always white.
>>>>
>>>> It's addressing the *results* of earlier racism. Now, maybe you think
>>>> there *was* no 'earlier racism', or that its results shouldn't be
>>>> addressed. But calling those who address it 'racist' is disingenuous.
>>>
>>> So is soft-pedaling racist policies with euphemistic excuses like,
>>> "We're only being racist to address past racism!"
>>
>> How is it possible to directly aid the racially disadvantaged without
>> being able to see who they are and treat them accordingly?
>
> Other than ensuring everyone is treated equally under the law, why is it
> the proper function of government to aid the racially disadvantaged?

Because legislation was enacted saying so. Are you new to how govt. works?

suzeeq <suzee@imbris.com> wrote:
> On 11/2/2022 1:19 PM, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
>> BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:
>>> moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:
>>>> On 11/2/2022 12:49 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>>>> moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:
>>>>>> On 11/2/2022 1:54 AM, Irish Mike wrote:
>>
>>>>>>> When you give preferential treatment to a person based
>>>>>>> on race, it is racism. Period. The problem is that liberals
>>>>>>> only see racism in one color and that color is always white.
>>
>>>>>> It's addressing the *results* of earlier racism. Now, maybe you think
>>>>>> there *was* no 'earlier racism', or that its results shouldn't be
>>>>>> addressed. But calling those who address it 'racist' is disingenuous.
>>
>>>>> So is soft-pedaling racist policies with euphemistic excuses like,
>>>>> "We're only being racist to address past racism!"
>>
>>>> How is it possible to directly aid the racially disadvantaged without
>>>> being able to see who they are and treat them accordingly?
>>
>>> Other than ensuring everyone is treated equally under the law, why is it
>>> the proper function of government to aid the racially disadvantaged?
>>
>> Could moviePig be any more condescending?
>>
>> Blacks today aren't RACIALLY DISADVANTAGED despite a legacy of slavery that
>> no one alive experienced. There are specific people who are discriminated
>> against due to race and, under a great many circumstances, that's illegal
>> under federal and state law. But that's not evidence that there's no
>> equality of opportunity in America if one isn't discriminated against and
>> it sure as hell isn't evidence that blacks as a race are disadvantaged
>> due to race if no one was discriminated against.
>>
>> Perhaps moviePig might explain how a black kid from a wealthy family
>> that got accepted to Harvard due to preference gives some advantage to a
>> black kid from a poor family who can't afford to attend any college. I
>> wanna hear this.
>>
>
> The irony in this mess is that Thomas entered Yale under affirmative
> action. I don't know his or his family's economic status though.

Which would be infuriating to me if I was a minority and had to live with
the stigma that I was only admitted to Yale or got any job because of a
lowered bar due to my skin color.

trotsky <gmsingh@email.com> wrote:
> On 11/2/22 2:13 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>> In article <%8z8L.23906$TUR8.873@fx17.iad>,
>> moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On 11/2/2022 12:49 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>>> In article <Aiv8L.31$VHX7.6@fx01.iad>, moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 11/2/2022 1:54 AM, Irish Mike wrote:
>>>>>> On Monday, October 31, 2022 at 8:39:46 PM UTC-4, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> When you give preferential treatment to a person based
>>>>>> on race, it is racism. Period. The problem is that liberals
>>>>>> only see racism in one color and that color is always white.
>>>>>
>>>>> It's addressing the *results* of earlier racism. Now, maybe you think
>>>>> there *was* no 'earlier racism', or that its results shouldn't be
>>>>> addressed. But calling those who address it 'racist' is disingenuous.
>>>>
>>>> So is soft-pedaling racist policies with euphemistic excuses like,
>>>> "We're only being racist to address past racism!"
>>>
>>> How is it possible to directly aid the racially disadvantaged without
>>> being able to see who they are and treat them accordingly?
>>
>> Other than ensuring everyone is treated equally under the law, why is it
>> the proper function of government to aid the racially disadvantaged?
>
> Because legislation was enacted saying so. Are you new to how govt. works?

In the 40s, legislation was enacted to strip every American of Japanese
decent of the their property and put them into internment camps. Do you
claim that was a proper function of government just "because legislation
was enacted saying so", Hutt, you stinking hobgoblin?

On 11/2/2022 6:21 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
> suzeeq <suzee@imbris.com> wrote:
>> On 11/2/2022 1:19 PM, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
>>> BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:
>>>> moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:
>>>>> On 11/2/2022 12:49 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>>>>> moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> On 11/2/2022 1:54 AM, Irish Mike wrote:
>>>
>>>>>>>> When you give preferential treatment to a person based
>>>>>>>> on race, it is racism. Period. The problem is that liberals
>>>>>>>> only see racism in one color and that color is always white.
>>>
>>>>>>> It's addressing the *results* of earlier racism. Now, maybe you think
>>>>>>> there *was* no 'earlier racism', or that its results shouldn't be
>>>>>>> addressed. But calling those who address it 'racist' is disingenuous.
>>>
>>>>>> So is soft-pedaling racist policies with euphemistic excuses like,
>>>>>> "We're only being racist to address past racism!"
>>>
>>>>> How is it possible to directly aid the racially disadvantaged without
>>>>> being able to see who they are and treat them accordingly?
>>>
>>>> Other than ensuring everyone is treated equally under the law, why is it
>>>> the proper function of government to aid the racially disadvantaged?
>>>
>>> Could moviePig be any more condescending?
>>>
>>> Blacks today aren't RACIALLY DISADVANTAGED despite a legacy of slavery that
>>> no one alive experienced. There are specific people who are discriminated
>>> against due to race and, under a great many circumstances, that's illegal
>>> under federal and state law. But that's not evidence that there's no
>>> equality of opportunity in America if one isn't discriminated against and
>>> it sure as hell isn't evidence that blacks as a race are disadvantaged
>>> due to race if no one was discriminated against.
>>>
>>> Perhaps moviePig might explain how a black kid from a wealthy family
>>> that got accepted to Harvard due to preference gives some advantage to a
>>> black kid from a poor family who can't afford to attend any college. I
>>> wanna hear this.
>>>
>>
>> The irony in this mess is that Thomas entered Yale under affirmative
>> action. I don't know his or his family's economic status though.
>
> Which would be infuriating to me if I was a minority and had to live with
> the stigma that I was only admitted to Yale or got any job because of a
> lowered bar due to my skin color.

Indeed, that may help explain Thomas...

On 11/2/2022 3:13 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
> In article <%8z8L.23906$TUR8.873@fx17.iad>,
> moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:
>
>> On 11/2/2022 12:49 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>> In article <Aiv8L.31$VHX7.6@fx01.iad>, moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 11/2/2022 1:54 AM, Irish Mike wrote:
>>>>> On Monday, October 31, 2022 at 8:39:46 PM UTC-4, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> When you give preferential treatment to a person based
>>>>> on race, it is racism. Period. The problem is that liberals
>>>>> only see racism in one color and that color is always white.
>>>>
>>>> It's addressing the *results* of earlier racism. Now, maybe you think
>>>> there *was* no 'earlier racism', or that its results shouldn't be
>>>> addressed. But calling those who address it 'racist' is disingenuous.
>>>
>>> So is soft-pedaling racist policies with euphemistic excuses like,
>>> "We're only being racist to address past racism!"
>>
>> How is it possible to directly aid the racially disadvantaged without
>> being able to see who they are and treat them accordingly?
>
> Other than ensuring everyone is treated equally under the law, why is it
> the proper function of government to aid the racially disadvantaged?

I'll leave what's "proper" to the proper people. (I'm sure you all know
who you are.) Meanwhile, maybe repeating my point will help clarify it:

"[Preferential treatment is] addressing the *results* of earlier
racism. Now, maybe you think there *was* no 'earlier racism', or that
its results shouldn't be addressed. But calling those who address it
'racist' is disingenuous.

(Nothing there, e.g., about "function of government", only about whether
actions taken to redress racism can be properly called "racist".)

BTR1701 <no_email@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>suzeeq <suzee@imbris.com> wrote:
>>On 11/2/2022 1:19 PM, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
>>>BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:
>>>>moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:
>>>>>On 11/2/2022 12:49 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>>>>>moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>On 11/2/2022 1:54 AM, Irish Mike wrote:

>>>>>>>>When you give preferential treatment to a person based
>>>>>>>>on race, it is racism. Period. The problem is that liberals
>>>>>>>>only see racism in one color and that color is always white.

>>>>>>>It's addressing the *results* of earlier racism. Now, maybe you think
>>>>>>>there *was* no 'earlier racism', or that its results shouldn't be
>>>>>>>addressed. But calling those who address it 'racist' is disingenuous.

>>>>>>So is soft-pedaling racist policies with euphemistic excuses like,
>>>>>>"We're only being racist to address past racism!"

>>>>>How is it possible to directly aid the racially disadvantaged without
>>>>>being able to see who they are and treat them accordingly?

>>>>Other than ensuring everyone is treated equally under the law, why is it
>>>>the proper function of government to aid the racially disadvantaged?

>>>Could moviePig be any more condescending?

>>>Blacks today aren't RACIALLY DISADVANTAGED despite a legacy of slavery that
>>>no one alive experienced. There are specific people who are discriminated
>>>against due to race and, under a great many circumstances, that's illegal
>>>under federal and state law. But that's not evidence that there's no
>>>equality of opportunity in America if one isn't discriminated against and
>>>it sure as hell isn't evidence that blacks as a race are disadvantaged
>>>due to race if no one was discriminated against.

>>>Perhaps moviePig might explain how a black kid from a wealthy family
>>>that got accepted to Harvard due to preference gives some advantage to a
>>>black kid from a poor family who can't afford to attend any college. I
>>>wanna hear this.
>>The irony in this mess is that Thomas entered Yale under affirmative
>>action. I don't know his or his family's economic status though.

>Which would be infuriating to me if I was a minority and had to live with
>the stigma that I was only admitted to Yale or got any job because of a
>lowered bar due to my skin color.

That's why George H.W. Bush appointed him to the Supreme Court to
succeed Thurgood Marshall.

On 11/2/22 5:21 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
> suzeeq <suzee@imbris.com> wrote:
>> On 11/2/2022 1:19 PM, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
>>> BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:
>>>> moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:
>>>>> On 11/2/2022 12:49 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>>>>> moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> On 11/2/2022 1:54 AM, Irish Mike wrote:
>>>
>>>>>>>> When you give preferential treatment to a person based
>>>>>>>> on race, it is racism. Period. The problem is that liberals
>>>>>>>> only see racism in one color and that color is always white.
>>>
>>>>>>> It's addressing the *results* of earlier racism. Now, maybe you think
>>>>>>> there *was* no 'earlier racism', or that its results shouldn't be
>>>>>>> addressed. But calling those who address it 'racist' is disingenuous.
>>>
>>>>>> So is soft-pedaling racist policies with euphemistic excuses like,
>>>>>> "We're only being racist to address past racism!"
>>>
>>>>> How is it possible to directly aid the racially disadvantaged without
>>>>> being able to see who they are and treat them accordingly?
>>>
>>>> Other than ensuring everyone is treated equally under the law, why is it
>>>> the proper function of government to aid the racially disadvantaged?
>>>
>>> Could moviePig be any more condescending?
>>>
>>> Blacks today aren't RACIALLY DISADVANTAGED despite a legacy of slavery that
>>> no one alive experienced. There are specific people who are discriminated
>>> against due to race and, under a great many circumstances, that's illegal
>>> under federal and state law. But that's not evidence that there's no
>>> equality of opportunity in America if one isn't discriminated against and
>>> it sure as hell isn't evidence that blacks as a race are disadvantaged
>>> due to race if no one was discriminated against.
>>>
>>> Perhaps moviePig might explain how a black kid from a wealthy family
>>> that got accepted to Harvard due to preference gives some advantage to a
>>> black kid from a poor family who can't afford to attend any college. I
>>> wanna hear this.
>>>
>>
>> The irony in this mess is that Thomas entered Yale under affirmative
>> action. I don't know his or his family's economic status though.
>
> Which would be infuriating to me if I was a minority and had to live with
> the stigma that I was only admitted to Yale or got any job because of a
> lowered bar due to my skin color.

Fortunately we're concerned with the opinions of people that aren't
white. I know this is difficult for a white supremacist to conceive.