SFFA doesn't like the Asian American %

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:A country with 80 percent whites and 20 percent blacks is "homogeneous" in your book?

That was in 1760. In more recent times, the 1960s, many places were 90-95% white. That’s pretty homogeneous. So much so that many people still won’t live in certain parts of the US due to lack of diversity. Do you disagree? Is everyone sprinkled around equally?

[Anonymous]

Now you're changing the goalposts. There will always be pockets of homogeneity.

But how does that make the U.S. "a very homogeneous country," either now or at any point in its history?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Now you're changing the goalposts. There will always be pockets of homogeneity.

But how does that make the U.S. "a very homogeneous country," either now or at any point in its history?

I didn’t make the comment, just refuting the “simply not true” poster who still hasn’t backed up their statement. But it’s good to know so many believe the US is, and always was, very diverse! What progress!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A country with 80 percent whites and 20 percent blacks is "homogeneous" in your book?

That was in 1760. In more recent times, the 1960s, many places were 90-95% white. That’s pretty homogeneous. So much so that many people still won’t live in certain parts of the US due to lack of diversity. Do you disagree? Is everyone sprinkled around equally?

The SFFA isn’t suing the University of Iowa.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Now you're changing the goalposts. There will always be pockets of homogeneity.

But how does that make the U.S. "a very homogeneous country," either now or at any point in its history?

I didn’t make the comment, just refuting the “simply not true” poster who still hasn’t backed up their statement. But it’s good to know so many believe the US is, and always was, very diverse! What progress!

You're the one framing this as a false dichotomy between homogeneous and very diverse, not me.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Now you're changing the goalposts. There will always be pockets of homogeneity.

But how does that make the U.S. "a very homogeneous country," either now or at any point in its history?

I didn’t make the comment, just refuting the “simply not true” poster who still hasn’t backed up their statement. But it’s good to know so many believe the US is, and always was, very diverse! What progress!

You're the one framing this as a false dichotomy between homogeneous and very diverse, not me.

Bizarre claims should be backed up.

[Anonymous]

Yes, and the bizarre claim that "[t]he US was a very homogenous country until relatively recently" wasn't backed up.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Yes, and the bizarre claim that "[t]he US was a very homogenous country until relatively recently" wasn't backed up.

But still less bizarre than not true there were LOADS of black people.

[Anonymous]

Stop dodging the issue. Whether or not there were "LOADS of black people" in 1760, has the US ever been a "very homogeneous country"?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Stop dodging the issue. Whether or not there were "LOADS of black people" in 1760, has the US ever been a "very homogeneous country"?

That poster can come back to discuss that. People have argued about the homogeneity of the US for years. But nobody has ever said Blacks were a large portion of the population now or ever. That’s just not debatable.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
Now Ed Blum's group doesn't like the decrease in admitted Asian American students at Yale, Princeton, and Duke.

This is getting ridiculous.

Excerpt from a New York Times article from today:

"The group that successfully sued Harvard to end affirmative action in university admissions last year is now threatening to investigate whether schools are complying with the new rules and to file lawsuits if it believes that they are not.

The group, Students for Fair Admissions, has focused on three universities — Princeton, Yale and Duke — where there were notable declines in Asian American enrollment this year compared with the last year, which the group said defied expectations.

On Tuesday, Students for Fair Admissions sent letters to the schools questioning whether they were complying with the rules laid out by the Supreme Court. Princeton, Duke and Yale also saw minor differences in Black and Hispanic enrollment in the first class of students admitted since the court struck down race-conscious admissions.

The group, a nonprofit that opposes race-based admissions and that represented Asian students in the lawsuit against Harvard, suggested that it was setting itself up as an enforcer of the new rules."

Whoever is running SFFA needs a reason to continue getting their paycheck

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Stop dodging the issue. Whether or not there were "LOADS of black people" in 1760, has the US ever been a "very homogeneous country"?

That poster can come back to discuss that. People have argued about the homogeneity of the US for years. But nobody has ever said Blacks were a large portion of the population now or ever. That’s just not debatable.

You do know that terms like "sizeable minority" exist?

And no, people haven't "argued about the homogeneity of the US for years." Because you're using the word in a way that's completely contrary to its definition

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Stop dodging the issue. Whether or not there were "LOADS of black people" in 1760, has the US ever been a "very homogeneous country"?

That poster can come back to discuss that. People have argued about the homogeneity of the US for years. But nobody has ever said Blacks were a large portion of the population now or ever. That’s just not debatable.

You do know that terms like "sizeable minority" exist?

And no, people haven't "argued about the homogeneity of the US for years." Because you're using the word in a way that's completely contrary to its definition

Ok, sizeable minority. I see we’re getting closer to the truth. But the homogenous argument wasn’t mine so I have no obligation to indulge you in discussing that which you so clearly want.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:A high enough percentage that the U.S. couldn't be considered homogeneous. Please keep up.

+1

We have had a melting pot blending of languages, cultures, ethnicities, races, and religions from the start.

White Europeans were the minority when they first arrived. Ever since, people from all over the world have been migrating here, some against their will.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Diversity simply isn't that important for learning.

Somewhat true for certain subjects. And only true if you myopically view "learning" as confined to the classroom. Virtually all top U.S. colleges view residence halls as a place of learning too.

Does lesser learning go on at HBCUs? Are their graduates myopically crippled in America full of non-black people they have to interact with?

You do know that the diversity at HBCUs has been steadily growing over the years?