Harvard tell Trump to pound sand

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Current student at Harvard and I don't approve. Harvard has to comply with civil rights laws. I have to comply with them, you have to comply, employers have to comply, and universities have to comply too.

How is this a violation of civil rights laws?

Have you read the letter from the administration? A quick summary: Harvard must immediately begin choosing applicants based on merit and not based on race, sex, etc. Harvard must discipline the students who participated in the hate crime of assaulting Jewish students in 2023. Harvard must stop including antisemitic texts or materials in its curriculum.

All of these are civil rights issues. Let's play a game. If it had been white supremacists beating black students, would that be a civil rights issue? If the request was to stop teaching materials racist against black people, would that not be a civil rights issue? And re admissions, either you believe in merit based evaluations or you believe in giving advantages to certain races. SCOTUS has been very clear that choosing based on race is a civil rights violation.

That's a very fancy way of saying the government can require all people to be nice to Jews under penalty of whatever. If that is the government you wish for, please exercise your right of return.

That’s literally the whole point of civil rights legislation.

Black people can eat at the diner counter and Jewish students can walk across the campus without being harassed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Current student at Harvard and I don't approve. Harvard has to comply with civil rights laws. I have to comply with them, you have to comply, employers have to comply, and universities have to comply too.

How is this a violation of civil rights laws?

Have you read the letter from the administration? A quick summary: Harvard must immediately begin choosing applicants based on merit and not based on race, sex, etc. Harvard must discipline the students who participated in the hate crime of assaulting Jewish students in 2023. Harvard must stop including antisemitic texts or materials in its curriculum.

All of these are civil rights issues. Let's play a game. If it had been white supremacists beating black students, would that be a civil rights issue? If the request was to stop teaching materials racist against black people, would that not be a civil rights issue? And re admissions, either you believe in merit based evaluations or you believe in giving advantages to certain races. SCOTUS has been very clear that choosing based on race is a civil rights violation.

How about all things endorsing genocide and random slaughter? The classic texts of Judaism endorse it and it seems that "slaughter" is a civil rights violation.

From the Old Testament:

"The LORD said to Moses,

"Take vengeance on the Midianites for the Israelites. After that, you will be gathered to your people."

So Moses said to the people, "Arm some of your men to go to war against the Midianites and to carry out the LORD's vengeance on them. Send into battle a thousand men from each of the tribes of Israel."

So twelve thousand men armed for battle, a thousand from each tribe, were supplied from the clans of Israel. Moses sent them into battle, a thousand from each tribe, along with Phinehas son of Eleazar, the priest, who took with him articles from the sanctuary and the trumpets for signaling.

They fought against Midian, as the LORD commanded Moses, and killed every man. The Israelites captured the Midianite women and children and took all the Midianite herds, flocks and goods as plunder. They burned all the towns where the Midianites had settled, as well as all their camps*.*

They took all the plunder and spoils, including the people and animals, and brought the captives, spoils and plunder to Moses and Eleazar the priest and the Israelite assembly at their camp on the plains of Moab, by the Jordan across from Jericho. [1]

Moses, Eleazar the priest and all the leaders of the community went to meet them outside the camp. Moses was angry with the officers of the army--the commanders of thousands and commanders of hundreds--who returned from the battle. "Have you allowed all the women to live?" he asked them*.*

"They were the ones who followed Balaam's advice and were the means of turning the Israelites away from the LORD in what happened at Peor, so that a plague struck the LORD's people.

Now kill all the boys. And kill every woman who has slept with a man, but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man*.*

"All of you who have killed anyone or touched anyone who was killed must stay outside the camp seven days. On the third and seventh days you must purify yourselves and your captives. Purify every garment as well as everything made of leather, goat hair or wood. Then Eleazar the priest said to the soldiers who had gone into battle, "This is the requirement of the law that the LORD gave Moses."

So Moses and Eleazar the priest did as the LORD commanded Moses. The plunder remaining from the spoils that the soldiers took was 675,000 sheep, 72,000 cattle, 61,000 donkeys and 32,000 women who had never slept with a man."

We already know much of world religion is based on hatred and bloodshed from thousands of years ago. Many conservative religious people still view many things through the hateful lens of religion. We see this playing out in the continuing conflicts in the Middle East and with individual rights being threatened right here in the US based on conservative religious beliefs. God must be so proud of Christians, Muslims, and Jews.

He’s not. He weeps.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Current student at Harvard and I don't approve. Harvard has to comply with civil rights laws. I have to comply with them, you have to comply, employers have to comply, and universities have to comply too.

Yet ironically they don't want people people who protest for Palestinians to be afforded the same rights.

You can protest for Palestine without beating Jewish students or providing material support to terrorist groups. It's possible and people do it all the time. Harvard students can too.

Don't forget Israeli students did chemical attacks on pro-Palestinian protesters

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Has Harvard stopped its racial discrimination?

WTF are you going on about? This is about the RWNJs dictating what will be taught, who will teach it, what can not be taught and who can attend Harvard. This is Mao Tse-tung thought police and you are Trumps Red Guard.

Wow. So, this is how democracy does in darkness. Criticism of only one party is allowed. Proof that goose steppers also vote blue and wear blue.

Most people that typically support Democrats will admit that nominating Biden in 2020 was a mistake because his unfitness wound up making it possible for an even bigger mistake to win a second POTUS term in 2024. Being honest with yourself by admitting mistakes is a sign of intelligence that leads to not repeating mistakes. Very few people who mistakenly supported Trump have admitted to their mistake and most of them have repeated that mistake.

What does all this mean? The average Dem is a few notches up the IQ ladder from the average Republican.

Agree that admitting mistakes is a sign of intelligence. Comparing one party to another is ridiculous. Side A being slightly less ((bad characteristic)) than side B on an issue doesn’t mean that side Ą is good. What the PP upthread failed to understand is that some do-good policies at Harvard lead to discriminatory behaviors. They cannot see that because they see that is somehow exempts them from criticism and feel the need to shut down such comments. THAT is also totalitarian behavior. Free speech is only free if it supports the correct side (or the side in office).

Please tell us which "side" is "correct". All we've had to witness in recent years is a bunch of pathetic losers losing to another group of pathetic losers.

The side that doesn't discriminate based on race

Nice try but that factor eliminates both "sides" from the realm of righteousness.

And so it should. A pox on both their houses. But they discriminate against different groups so it yield different results.

Republicans are nativist, white supremacists, racist against urm, and anti intellectual.

Democrats are elitist, white supremacist, racist against Asians, bigoted against pre and working class whites, and anti merit.

There are no good options just the least of two evils.

This is bullsh*t. Dems are not racist against Asians and do believe in merit. We just believe that everyone should at least get a chance to compete. The Republicans have shown over and over again that they do not believe in merit. Look at Trump's cabinet.

Every Senate Democrat voted against an amendment to deny funds to colleges that discriminated against Asians.

That’s because colleges at large don’t discriminate against Asians. They just don’t allow them to be an overwhelmingly majority of their class. They try to balance the dynamics of the class.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Current student at Harvard and I don't approve. Harvard has to comply with civil rights laws. I have to comply with them, you have to comply, employers have to comply, and universities have to comply too.

Yet ironically they don't want people people who protest for Palestinians to be afforded the same rights.

You can protest for Palestine without beating Jewish students or providing material support to terrorist groups. It's possible and people do it all the time. Harvard students can too.

Don't forget Israeli students did chemical attacks on pro-Palestinian protesters

Citation of Israeli students at Harvard using WMDs on protesters, please.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Current student at Harvard and I don't approve. Harvard has to comply with civil rights laws. I have to comply with them, you have to comply, employers have to comply, and universities have to comply too.

How is this a violation of civil rights laws?

Have you read the letter from the administration? A quick summary: Harvard must immediately begin choosing applicants based on merit and not based on race, sex, etc. Harvard must discipline the students who participated in the hate crime of assaulting Jewish students in 2023. Harvard must stop including antisemitic texts or materials in its curriculum.

All of these are civil rights issues. Let's play a game. If it had been white supremacists beating black students, would that be a civil rights issue? If the request was to stop teaching materials racist against black people, would that not be a civil rights issue? And re admissions, either you believe in merit based evaluations or you believe in giving advantages to certain races. SCOTUS has been very clear that choosing based on race is a civil rights violation.

That's a very fancy way of saying the government can require all people to be nice to Jews under penalty of whatever. If that is the government you wish for, please exercise your right of return.

No. It's a fancy way of saying that Jews are protected by the same laws as any other protected class.

DP

Why are YOU silent in demanding the same accountability standards for the highly-documented Zionist thugs who terrorized the UCLA campus and students last April? As you certainly must know by now, the criminal acts of those terrorists DWARFED the combined acts that affected Jewish students last year.

This is your moment to show us that you believe in the rule of law, in equal protection for all …

Because I'm a student at Harvard, not UCLA.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Current student at Harvard and I don't approve. Harvard has to comply with civil rights laws. I have to comply with them, you have to comply, employers have to comply, and universities have to comply too.

How is this a violation of civil rights laws?

Have you read the letter from the administration? A quick summary: Harvard must immediately begin choosing applicants based on merit and not based on race, sex, etc. Harvard must discipline the students who participated in the hate crime of assaulting Jewish students in 2023. Harvard must stop including antisemitic texts or materials in its curriculum.

All of these are civil rights issues. Let's play a game. If it had been white supremacists beating black students, would that be a civil rights issue? If the request was to stop teaching materials racist against black people, would that not be a civil rights issue? And re admissions, either you believe in merit based evaluations or you believe in giving advantages to certain races. SCOTUS has been very clear that choosing based on race is a civil rights violation.

That's a very fancy way of saying the government can require all people to be nice to Jews under penalty of whatever. If that is the government you wish for, please exercise your right of return.

No. It's a fancy way of saying that Jews are protected by the same laws as any other protected class.

So … DEI, then, right?

No. Civil rights legislation.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/trump-vance-cruz-irs-harvard-b2735343.html

“.. If the IRS can go after you because of your beliefs, we'd no longer live in a free country,” Vance, in a resurfaced clip, says to Fox News host Laura Ingraham.”

This and more will come out during the litigation that is sure to come and, once again, Trump and his orcs willl lose, have egg all over their faces yet somehow blame the radical leftists.

This might be riveting click bait, but its not a legal argument. They cannot say "but your honor I found a clip that proves JD Vance is a hypocrite." That isn't a legal argument. They need to present a case that either they aren't required to follow civil rights laws, or that civil rights laws are unconstitutional.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Has Harvard stopped its racial discrimination?

WTF are you going on about? This is about the RWNJs dictating what will be taught, who will teach it, what can not be taught and who can attend Harvard. This is Mao Tse-tung thought police and you are Trumps Red Guard.

Wow. So, this is how democracy does in darkness. Criticism of only one party is allowed. Proof that goose steppers also vote blue and wear blue.

Most people that typically support Democrats will admit that nominating Biden in 2020 was a mistake because his unfitness wound up making it possible for an even bigger mistake to win a second POTUS term in 2024. Being honest with yourself by admitting mistakes is a sign of intelligence that leads to not repeating mistakes. Very few people who mistakenly supported Trump have admitted to their mistake and most of them have repeated that mistake.

What does all this mean? The average Dem is a few notches up the IQ ladder from the average Republican.

Agree that admitting mistakes is a sign of intelligence. Comparing one party to another is ridiculous. Side A being slightly less ((bad characteristic)) than side B on an issue doesn’t mean that side Ą is good. What the PP upthread failed to understand is that some do-good policies at Harvard lead to discriminatory behaviors. They cannot see that because they see that is somehow exempts them from criticism and feel the need to shut down such comments. THAT is also totalitarian behavior. Free speech is only free if it supports the correct side (or the side in office).

Please tell us which "side" is "correct". All we've had to witness in recent years is a bunch of pathetic losers losing to another group of pathetic losers.

The side that doesn't discriminate based on race

Nice try but that factor eliminates both "sides" from the realm of righteousness.

And so it should. A pox on both their houses. But they discriminate against different groups so it yield different results.

Republicans are nativist, white supremacists, racist against urm, and anti intellectual.

Democrats are elitist, white supremacist, racist against Asians, bigoted against pre and working class whites, and anti merit.

There are no good options just the least of two evils.

This is bullsh*t. Dems are not racist against Asians and do believe in merit. We just believe that everyone should at least get a chance to compete. The Republicans have shown over and over again that they do not believe in merit. Look at Trump's cabinet.

Every Senate Democrat voted against an amendment to deny funds to colleges that discriminated against Asians.

That’s because colleges at large don’t discriminate against Asians. They just don’t allow them to be an overwhelmingly majority of their class. They try to balance the dynamics of the class.

And how do they accomplish this?

By discriminating against them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Has Harvard stopped its racial discrimination?

WTF are you going on about? This is about the RWNJs dictating what will be taught, who will teach it, what can not be taught and who can attend Harvard. This is Mao Tse-tung thought police and you are Trumps Red Guard.

Wow. So, this is how democracy does in darkness. Criticism of only one party is allowed. Proof that goose steppers also vote blue and wear blue.

Most people that typically support Democrats will admit that nominating Biden in 2020 was a mistake because his unfitness wound up making it possible for an even bigger mistake to win a second POTUS term in 2024. Being honest with yourself by admitting mistakes is a sign of intelligence that leads to not repeating mistakes. Very few people who mistakenly supported Trump have admitted to their mistake and most of them have repeated that mistake.

What does all this mean? The average Dem is a few notches up the IQ ladder from the average Republican.

Agree that admitting mistakes is a sign of intelligence. Comparing one party to another is ridiculous. Side A being slightly less ((bad characteristic)) than side B on an issue doesn’t mean that side Ą is good. What the PP upthread failed to understand is that some do-good policies at Harvard lead to discriminatory behaviors. They cannot see that because they see that is somehow exempts them from criticism and feel the need to shut down such comments. THAT is also totalitarian behavior. Free speech is only free if it supports the correct side (or the side in office).

Please tell us which "side" is "correct". All we've had to witness in recent years is a bunch of pathetic losers losing to another group of pathetic losers.

The side that doesn't discriminate based on race

Nice try but that factor eliminates both "sides" from the realm of righteousness.

And so it should. A pox on both their houses. But they discriminate against different groups so it yield different results.

Republicans are nativist, white supremacists, racist against urm, and anti intellectual.

Democrats are elitist, white supremacist, racist against Asians, bigoted against pre and working class whites, and anti merit.

There are no good options just the least of two evils.

This is bullsh*t. Dems are not racist against Asians and do believe in merit. We just believe that everyone should at least get a chance to compete. The Republicans have shown over and over again that they do not believe in merit. Look at Trump's cabinet.

Every Senate Democrat voted against an amendment to deny funds to colleges that discriminated against Asians.

That’s because colleges at large don’t discriminate against Asians. They just don’t allow them to be an overwhelmingly majority of their class. They try to balance the dynamics of the class.

And how do they accomplish this?

By discriminating against them.

+1

I wish they would at least admit the obvious: they support systemic racism against Asians and whites for the benefit of everyone else. They do not want admissions to be based on merit. They want them to be based on a preconceived notion of what the student body should physically look like.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Current student at Harvard and I don't approve. Harvard has to comply with civil rights laws. I have to comply with them, you have to comply, employers have to comply, and universities have to comply too.

How is this a violation of civil rights laws?

Have you read the letter from the administration? A quick summary: Harvard must immediately begin choosing applicants based on merit and not based on race, sex, etc. Harvard must discipline the students who participated in the hate crime of assaulting Jewish students in 2023. Harvard must stop including antisemitic texts or materials in its curriculum.

All of these are civil rights issues. Let's play a game. If it had been white supremacists beating black students, would that be a civil rights issue? If the request was to stop teaching materials racist against black people, would that not be a civil rights issue? And re admissions, either you believe in merit based evaluations or you believe in giving advantages to certain races. SCOTUS has been very clear that choosing based on race is a civil rights violation.

That's a very fancy way of saying the government can require all people to be nice to Jews under penalty of whatever. If that is the government you wish for, please exercise your right of return.

No. It's a fancy way of saying that Jews are protected by the same laws as any other protected class.

DP

Why are YOU silent in demanding the same accountability standards for the highly-documented Zionist thugs who terrorized the UCLA campus and students last April? As you certainly must know by now, the criminal acts of those terrorists DWARFED the combined acts that affected Jewish students last year.

This is your moment to show us that you believe in the rule of law, in equal protection for all …

Because I'm a student at Harvard, not UCLA.

OK, cool … so you’re not going to waste our time trying to dispute the UCLA facts. That could have been really awkward …

Turning our attention to Harvard …

The act of protesting what’s occurring in Gaza does not constitute “harassing Jewish students” on the Harvard campus, right? As in, the average protester standing there on campus, exercising their right to assemble with others and their right to free speech by calling for an end to the conflict … definitely not anti-semitic and definitely not harassment of Jewish students, right?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Current student at Harvard and I don't approve. Harvard has to comply with civil rights laws. I have to comply with them, you have to comply, employers have to comply, and universities have to comply too.

How is this a violation of civil rights laws?

Have you read the letter from the administration? A quick summary: Harvard must immediately begin choosing applicants based on merit and not based on race, sex, etc. Harvard must discipline the students who participated in the hate crime of assaulting Jewish students in 2023. Harvard must stop including antisemitic texts or materials in its curriculum.

All of these are civil rights issues. Let's play a game. If it had been white supremacists beating black students, would that be a civil rights issue? If the request was to stop teaching materials racist against black people, would that not be a civil rights issue? And re admissions, either you believe in merit based evaluations or you believe in giving advantages to certain races. SCOTUS has been very clear that choosing based on race is a civil rights violation.

That's a very fancy way of saying the government can require all people to be nice to Jews under penalty of whatever. If that is the government you wish for, please exercise your right of return.

No. It's a fancy way of saying that Jews are protected by the same laws as any other protected class.

DP

Why are YOU silent in demanding the same accountability standards for the highly-documented Zionist thugs who terrorized the UCLA campus and students last April? As you certainly must know by now, the criminal acts of those terrorists DWARFED the combined acts that affected Jewish students last year.

This is your moment to show us that you believe in the rule of law, in equal protection for all …

Because I'm a student at Harvard, not UCLA.

I’ll be more direct: if you aggregate all campus disorder over the past two years, across the entire U.S., the vast majority of criminality occurred on the UCLA campus last April and the vast majority of those crimes were committed by pro-Israel thugs, most of whom have no affiliation with UCLA.

Given that, why TF are we talking about egregious violations of our Constitution not to address those crimes, but to instead punish institutions that will not surrender their independence to the current U.S. administration and effectively consent to a two-tiered system where Jewish students are placed on a pedestal above others?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Has Harvard stopped its racial discrimination?

WTF are you going on about? This is about the RWNJs dictating what will be taught, who will teach it, what can not be taught and who can attend Harvard. This is Mao Tse-tung thought police and you are Trumps Red Guard.

Wow. So, this is how democracy does in darkness. Criticism of only one party is allowed. Proof that goose steppers also vote blue and wear blue.

Most people that typically support Democrats will admit that nominating Biden in 2020 was a mistake because his unfitness wound up making it possible for an even bigger mistake to win a second POTUS term in 2024. Being honest with yourself by admitting mistakes is a sign of intelligence that leads to not repeating mistakes. Very few people who mistakenly supported Trump have admitted to their mistake and most of them have repeated that mistake.

What does all this mean? The average Dem is a few notches up the IQ ladder from the average Republican.

Agree that admitting mistakes is a sign of intelligence. Comparing one party to another is ridiculous. Side A being slightly less ((bad characteristic)) than side B on an issue doesn’t mean that side Ą is good. What the PP upthread failed to understand is that some do-good policies at Harvard lead to discriminatory behaviors. They cannot see that because they see that is somehow exempts them from criticism and feel the need to shut down such comments. THAT is also totalitarian behavior. Free speech is only free if it supports the correct side (or the side in office).

Please tell us which "side" is "correct". All we've had to witness in recent years is a bunch of pathetic losers losing to another group of pathetic losers.

The side that doesn't discriminate based on race

Nice try but that factor eliminates both "sides" from the realm of righteousness.

And so it should. A pox on both their houses. But they discriminate against different groups so it yield different results.

Republicans are nativist, white supremacists, racist against urm, and anti intellectual.

Democrats are elitist, white supremacist, racist against Asians, bigoted against pre and working class whites, and anti merit.

There are no good options just the least of two evils.

This is bullsh*t. Dems are not racist against Asians and do believe in merit. We just believe that everyone should at least get a chance to compete. The Republicans have shown over and over again that they do not believe in merit. Look at Trump's cabinet.

Every Senate Democrat voted against an amendment to deny funds to colleges that discriminated against Asians.

This isn't true simply because there has been no confirmed cases of discrimination against Asians by colleges and universities. If there were, I'd be the first to agree with you.

The vote happened.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Has Harvard stopped its racial discrimination?

WTF are you going on about? This is about the RWNJs dictating what will be taught, who will teach it, what can not be taught and who can attend Harvard. This is Mao Tse-tung thought police and you are Trumps Red Guard.

Wow. So, this is how democracy does in darkness. Criticism of only one party is allowed. Proof that goose steppers also vote blue and wear blue.

Most people that typically support Democrats will admit that nominating Biden in 2020 was a mistake because his unfitness wound up making it possible for an even bigger mistake to win a second POTUS term in 2024. Being honest with yourself by admitting mistakes is a sign of intelligence that leads to not repeating mistakes. Very few people who mistakenly supported Trump have admitted to their mistake and most of them have repeated that mistake.

What does all this mean? The average Dem is a few notches up the IQ ladder from the average Republican.

Agree that admitting mistakes is a sign of intelligence. Comparing one party to another is ridiculous. Side A being slightly less ((bad characteristic)) than side B on an issue doesn’t mean that side Ą is good. What the PP upthread failed to understand is that some do-good policies at Harvard lead to discriminatory behaviors. They cannot see that because they see that is somehow exempts them from criticism and feel the need to shut down such comments. THAT is also totalitarian behavior. Free speech is only free if it supports the correct side (or the side in office).

Please tell us which "side" is "correct". All we've had to witness in recent years is a bunch of pathetic losers losing to another group of pathetic losers.

The side that doesn't discriminate based on race

Nice try but that factor eliminates both "sides" from the realm of righteousness.

And so it should. A pox on both their houses. But they discriminate against different groups so it yield different results.

Republicans are nativist, white supremacists, racist against urm, and anti intellectual.

Democrats are elitist, white supremacist, racist against Asians, bigoted against pre and working class whites, and anti merit.

There are no good options just the least of two evils.

This is bullsh*t. Dems are not racist against Asians and do believe in merit. We just believe that everyone should at least get a chance to compete. The Republicans have shown over and over again that they do not believe in merit. Look at Trump's cabinet.

Every Senate Democrat voted against an amendment to deny funds to colleges that discriminated against Asians.

That’s because colleges at large don’t discriminate against Asians. They just don’t allow them to be an overwhelmingly majority of their class. They try to balance the dynamics of the class.

The issue is that you don’t actually understand what the word “discriminate” means.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Current student at Harvard and I don't approve. Harvard has to comply with civil rights laws. I have to comply with them, you have to comply, employers have to comply, and universities have to comply too.

How is this a violation of civil rights laws?

Have you read the letter from the administration? A quick summary: Harvard must immediately begin choosing applicants based on merit and not based on race, sex, etc. Harvard must discipline the students who participated in the hate crime of assaulting Jewish students in 2023. Harvard must stop including antisemitic texts or materials in its curriculum.

All of these are civil rights issues. Let's play a game. If it had been white supremacists beating black students, would that be a civil rights issue? If the request was to stop teaching materials racist against black people, would that not be a civil rights issue? And re admissions, either you believe in merit based evaluations or you believe in giving advantages to certain races. SCOTUS has been very clear that choosing based on race is a civil rights violation.

That's a very fancy way of saying the government can require all people to be nice to Jews under penalty of whatever. If that is the government you wish for, please exercise your right of return.

That’s literally the whole point of civil rights legislation.

Black people can eat at the diner counter and Jewish students can walk across the campus without being harassed.

+1