SCOTUS upholds college Affirmative Action

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:To the pp who love to " startle" white people with your wealth and success...


Do you pronounce "ask" correctly? That may be catching them off guard.
Xo

Nice one!

[Anonymous]

Goodness! Away for a couple of days, and you all are still at it?

[Anonymous]

I'm not the person who wrote this but Becky refers to the Beyoncé song reference of Becky with the Good Hair. This is presumably refers to white women. Abigail Fisher is trending on twitter as Becky with the Bad Grades.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Question for the anti-AA posters: Do you have the same disdain for college admission criteria that benefit predominantly non-minority students, like legacies? Probably not, as it is a benefit that either you or someone in your family has/will take advantage of. I understand, bash AA because it does not benefit you. But honestly have you ever looked down on someone's achievements because they are a legacy?

Legacies are little different. Many of the parents (alum) give back to school which is an important aspect of college business model. So, personally, while I am not crazy about it, I can certainly understand it.

I don't think most people have issues with the overall concept of Affirmative Actions. The fact it's squarely designed for POC is what bothers me. I think it should be SES-based? Poor kids of all colors get the same benefits.

Too many poor Asians and whites destroy even upper class URMs in scores so race-blind SES only aa would insure that lots of URMs would be locked out of top school.

I support race blind SES based aa, but race hustlers won't.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Should I be concerned about proving anything to you or anyone else? I'm not.

However, I do recognize that if people don't believe me it's most likely because they don't want to believe me. A successful Black woman who has benefited from AA who embraces that fact. You want me to feel ashamed, and I don't. It also bothers you that I enjoy more material success than most of you posting here. If my arrogance offends you...too bad.

I think people have hard time understanding how you can live yourself knowing you didn't get where you are by your own merit.

New poster: First, I assume English is your second language from your diction so I thought I might fill you in about some American History. The Ivy league Universities (and most other colleges) were created for men born into a certain social class. Historically, there were no testing requirements for entry. There are still thousand of legacy, rich kids, and famous children attending elite schools because of their ancestors who would not be admitted based on their personal record. These same kids go onto elite jobs ot based on their record but their connection. Do you want them all to walk around embarrassed? Are you angry at the multi-generations of Kennedy, Rockefeller and Roosevelt Ivy leaguers? The kids of Fortune 100 company CEOs? At people who inherit money? Or is that all fine if they are white.

Please tell me why you think English is her second language . If it is , that would mean she's bilingual . Something many of you here can't say .

OP: She is missing words. "I think people have hard time"... "you can live yourself knowing". I know you want to offer a vigorous defense but that is not proper diction. It appears she either can not write or its her second language. Moreover, her reasoning was illogical... Essentially, don't you feel terrible with all those legacies, rich people and athletes that you were helped in your admittance. If she was American she would have made sure her kid fit in some category to increase their chances of admittance if that was the desired result. Basically, best at something in addition to test and GPA.

Im afraid you're the one who is being illogical here. You're all over the place

OK. Maybe you need help with diction and reading comprehension too. The American system of getting into elite schools has never been based solely on test scores and GPA. This is a fact that is likely to change in my lifetime or yours. Even if AA went away tomorrow the schools will still be filled with students who did not "earn" their entrance based on test scores and grades.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

No, the issue is that if you would discount the person in front of you based on statistics, that is YOUR issue - not mine. What I "truly believe" actually matters very little in the discussion. We are talking about opportunities - not about who you and I think is "smarter." I am just starting to think that this whole discussion is some Whites fighting for their right to be mediocre. Elite White students will be fine anywhere. It just seems that folks are fighting for people like Fisher, underachieving White students, to have the right to benefit the way they always have.

People are fighting for fairness.

One (1) Black person and 4 Hispanics were admitted to UT-Austin with lower scores than Fisher the year she was rejected. There were 42 whites who were admitted that same year with lower scores than Fisher. Her lawsuit only focused on the 5 minorities with lower scores. Tell me again about how "[white] people are fighting for fairness."

This thread, at this point, is about AAction in general, not specifics of Fisher case.

BTW, no need to roll your eyes.

I still haven't seen any of you "Champions of Fairness" address the fact that 42 white students with lower scores were admitted to UT the same year Abby was rejected. Were these white students somehow (STILL) more deserving than the 1 Black and 4 Hispanic students? What case does Abby have against the white students? I'll wait for your explanation.

I'm still waiting.

You'll be waiting until,the sun rise in the west and set in the east. There is no explanation to your question. Nada.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Question for the anti-AA posters: Do you have the same disdain for college admission criteria that benefit predominantly non-minority students, like legacies? Probably not, as it is a benefit that either you or someone in your family has/will take advantage of. I understand, bash AA because it does not benefit you. But honestly have you ever looked down on someone's achievements because they are a legacy?

Legacies are little different. Many of the parents (alum) give back to school which is an important aspect of college business model. So, personally, while I am not crazy about it, I can certainly understand it.

I don't think most people have issues with the overall concept of Affirmative Actions. The fact it's squarely designed for POC is what bothers me. I think it should be SES-based? Poor kids of all colors get the same benefits.

Too many poor Asians and whites destroy even upper class URMs in scores so race-blind SES only aa would insure that lots of URMs would be locked out of top school.

I support race blind SES based aa, but race hustlers won't.

"Race-blind" approaches to selection criteria time and time again alphas proven to be essentially AA for whites and the wealthy.

Tell me if people are okay with SES being a determining factor how could they not be okay with race? Certain races are at an inherent disadvantage in this country simply because of the complexion of their skin. How is this any different then considering the income hardship?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:^ post their profile/stats and i can tell you why. that's no rocket science.

I just gave you their profile: The 42 white students ALL had lower scores than Abby Fisher. You have no problem opining about why non-white students are admitted with lower scores (without knowing anything else about their "profile" ). So please tell me why these white students were admitted with lower scores than Abby. Why shouldn't she sue over that? I mean, they did take "her" seat after all.

I don't consider your blanket statement their profile. Maybe they were in top 10% of their class even with lower scores. Give me applicant by applicant profile of gender, GPA, test scores, any hooks, % of class, ECs. Now, go get it. You can do it.

The top 10% were already admitted (that's based on grades, not SAT/ACT scores). Abby and the 42 white students with lower scores who were admitted did NOT graduate in the 10% of their class. They were considered in a different pool.

Just as I suspected...you have nothing but excuses for this pathetic lawsuit. You cannot defend the indefensible. You and Abby are both mediocre.

NP. Without more information on those 42, who knows why they were admitted. For example, my DS attends a top SLAC and his roommate went to a magnet high school in TX ranked in the top 30 in the country. He did not graduate in the top 10% due to the caliber of student that attends the high school but nevertheless has almost a full merit scholarship to the SLAC based on his high school record.

NP. That's all well and grand. The lawsuit was that Hispanics and Blacks were admitted with a lower SAT score than Fisher The implication was and is that is that the only thing those five students offered was the color of their skin. Fisher and her supporters on this thread and others didn't ask or consider the kids schools, grades, ECs, etc. Their one note argument is that Fisher had a better SAT score therefore one of the five took her seat at UT. Apparently, 42 White students also had lower SAT scores than Fisher, but you and others give the 42 white students benefit of the doubt that they had something else to offer. Hypocrisy.

[Anonymous]

The irony of this case: Abby Fisher challenged a policy that has historically mostly benefited people like her (white women), and she still didn't make the cut. Oh how it must sting for the SCOTUS to essentially imply you were too mediocre for your case to be valid. That hashtag seems appropriate.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

You're so lazy! Don't be like your ancestors, do your own work Becky...

I realize doing your own work maybe a new concept to you but, in real life, you need to get the facts ready before asking the question. No AActions can help you with that.

No, someone who forces others to do their work under threat of violence is the very definition of lazy...and evil. Your insistence that I do your work, instead of answering a simple question, sounds...familiar. It appears the rotten apple hasn't fallen far from the tree.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:To the pp who love to " startle" white people with your wealth and success...


Do you pronounce "ask" correctly? That may be catching them off guard.
Xo

Some white people are so uncomfortable with Black excellence and success that they fall back on tired and racist stereotypes. Your post says so much more about your small and petty character than the person you are trying to ridicule. Hopefully, you'll become a better person when you grow up.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:^ post their profile/stats and i can tell you why. that's no rocket science.

I just gave you their profile: The 42 white students ALL had lower scores than Abby Fisher. You have no problem opining about why non-white students are admitted with lower scores (without knowing anything else about their "profile" ). So please tell me why these white students were admitted with lower scores than Abby. Why shouldn't she sue over that? I mean, they did take "her" seat after all.

I don't consider your blanket statement their profile. Maybe they were in top 10% of their class even with lower scores. Give me applicant by applicant profile of gender, GPA, test scores, any hooks, % of class, ECs. Now, go get it. You can do it.

The top 10% were already admitted (that's based on grades, not SAT/ACT scores). Abby and the 42 white students with lower scores who were admitted did NOT graduate in the 10% of their class. They were considered in a different pool.

Just as I suspected...you have nothing but excuses for this pathetic lawsuit. You cannot defend the indefensible. You and Abby are both mediocre.

NP. Without more information on those 42, who knows why they were admitted. For example, my DS attends a top SLAC and his roommate went to a magnet high school in TX ranked in the top 30 in the country. He did not graduate in the top 10% due to the caliber of student that attends the high school but nevertheless has almost a full merit scholarship to the SLAC based on his high school record.

NP. That's all well and grand. The lawsuit was that Hispanics and Blacks were admitted with a lower SAT score than Fisher The implication was and is that is that the only thing those five students offered was the color of their skin. Fisher and her supporters on this thread and others didn't ask or consider the kids schools, grades, ECs, etc. Their one note argument is that Fisher had a better SAT score therefore one of the five took her seat at UT. Apparently, 42 White students also had lower SAT scores than Fisher, but you and others give the 42 white students benefit of the doubt that they had something else to offer. Hypocrisy.

This. And they will continue to ignore this.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:To the pp who love to " startle" white people with your wealth and success...


Do you pronounce "ask" correctly? That may be catching them off guard.
Xo

Some white people are so uncomfortable with Black excellence and success that they fall back on tired and racist stereotypes. Your post says so much more about your small and petty character than the person you are trying to ridicule. Hopefully, you'll become a better person when you grow up.

AA is not black excellence and success. It is white nobility and decency. At least some whites fight for the blacks, but very few blacks ever cared of other races. Any black person who does not favor the interest of blacks is called a traitor, for example of Justice Thomas, regardless if he/she is for greater fairness or the interest of US as a whole country.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:To the pp who love to " startle" white people with your wealth and success...


Do you pronounce "ask" correctly? That may be catching them off guard.
Xo

Some white people are so uncomfortable with Black excellence and success that they fall back on tired and racist stereotypes. Your post says so much more about your small and petty character than the person you are trying to ridicule. Hopefully, you'll become a better person when you grow up.

AA is not black excellence and success. It is white nobility and decency. At least some whites fight for the blacks, but very few blacks ever cared of other races. Any black person who does not favor the interest of blacks is called a traitor, for example of Justice Thomas, regardless if he/she is for greater fairness or the interest of US as a whole country.

You've said a whole bunch of nothing .

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:To the pp who love to " startle" white people with your wealth and success...


Do you pronounce "ask" correctly? That may be catching them off guard.
Xo

Some white people are so uncomfortable with Black excellence and success that they fall back on tired and racist stereotypes. Your post says so much more about your small and petty character than the person you are trying to ridicule. Hopefully, you'll become a better person when you grow up.

AA is not black excellence and success. It is white nobility and decency. At least some whites fight for the blacks, but very few blacks ever cared of other races. Any black person who does not favor the interest of blacks is called a traitor, for example of Justice Thomas, regardless if he/she is for greater fairness or the interest of US as a whole country.

The PP referred to the Black law partner and Ivy League grad. That is the manifestation of Black professional excellence, with or without AA. What have you accomplished with your AA (also known as white skin privilege)? I'm sure your accomplishments are far less impressive.

White nobility and decency? When did this occur? Before or after chattel slavery, rape and centuries of labor theft, among other despicable acts? The Blacks who were the architects of (and the foot soldiers in) the civil rights movement are the embodiment of brilliance, strength and nobility. They fought for and won whatever gains they have made in this country. Power concedes nothing without a fight. It never has and it never will. -FD