Were you all aware of this Obama Administration that went out to colleges...

[Anonymous]

...after the Supreme Court ruling re: UT Austin? I was not:

http://downtrend.com/jrc410/obama-administration-engages-in-reverse-racism-for-college-admissions

[Anonymous]

OP again -- I don't think it's right to discriminate against any race. This is not a good trend.

[Anonymous]

Gee, that's a shockingly neutral and unbiased site you've linked to there, OP. Not to mention the fact that it's long on opinion and short on facts.

[Anonymous]

Would you rather it from the LA Times?

http://articles.latimes.com/2013/sep/28/nation/la-na-nn-obama-administration-backs-use-of-race-in-college-admissions-20130927

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Would you rather it from the LA Times?

http://articles.latimes.com/2013/sep/28/nation/la-na-nn-obama-administration-backs-use-of-race-in-college-admissions-20130927

From the article:

"In a letter to college and university presidents, the departments of Education and Justice reminded educators that the Supreme Court in June ruled that race could still be used as a factor in admissions, as long as the race-based policies were necessary to achieve diversity."

What is controversial about the Administration writing letters about Supreme Court decisions? Isn't that what the Administration should do?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Would you rather it from the LA Times?

http://articles.latimes.com/2013/sep/28/nation/la-na-nn-obama-administration-backs-use-of-race-in-college-admissions-20130927

From the article:

"In a letter to college and university presidents, the departments of Education and Justice reminded educators that the Supreme Court in June ruled that race could still be used as a factor in admissions, as long as the race-based policies were necessary to achieve diversity."

What is controversial about the Administration writing letters about Supreme Court decisions? Isn't that what the Administration should do?

Because what the Supreme Court was doing was NARROWING the criteria that was previously in place re: Affirmative Action due to the UT at Austin suit. The letter was a reminder to colleges that the ruling essentially said they could indeed still use race as a criteria for admissions decisions. In short, the Administration was pissed at the narrowing of the criteria.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
Because what the Supreme Court was doing was NARROWING the criteria that was previously in place re: Affirmative Action due to the UT at Austin suit. The letter was a reminder to colleges that the ruling essentially said they could indeed still use race as a criteria for admissions decisions. In short, the Administration was pissed at the narrowing of the criteria.

Do you think the Administration wrongly explained the Supreme Court decision? If so, in what way?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Because what the Supreme Court was doing was NARROWING the criteria that was previously in place re: Affirmative Action due to the UT at Austin suit. The letter was a reminder to colleges that the ruling essentially said they could indeed still use race as a criteria for admissions decisions. In short, the Administration was pissed at the narrowing of the criteria.

Do you think the Administration wrongly explained the Supreme Court decision? If so, in what way?

I think what they did was wrong because a letter to colleges about the decision can easily be seen as a form of coercive pressure. Reminding them they can still use race as a basis for admissions shows a clear agenda.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Because what the Supreme Court was doing was NARROWING the criteria that was previously in place re: Affirmative Action due to the UT at Austin suit. The letter was a reminder to colleges that the ruling essentially said they could indeed still use race as a criteria for admissions decisions. In short, the Administration was pissed at the narrowing of the criteria.

Do you think the Administration wrongly explained the Supreme Court decision? If so, in what way?

I think what they did was wrong because a letter to colleges about the decision can easily be seen as a form of coercive pressure. Reminding them they can still use race as a basis for admissions shows a clear agenda.

An agenda that the Supreme Court has ruled is constitutional.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Because what the Supreme Court was doing was NARROWING the criteria that was previously in place re: Affirmative Action due to the UT at Austin suit. The letter was a reminder to colleges that the ruling essentially said they could indeed still use race as a criteria for admissions decisions. In short, the Administration was pissed at the narrowing of the criteria.

Do you think the Administration wrongly explained the Supreme Court decision? If so, in what way?

I think what they did was wrong because a letter to colleges about the decision can easily be seen as a form of coercive pressure. Reminding them they can still use race as a basis for admissions shows a clear agenda.

An agenda that the Supreme Court has ruled is constitutional.

Again, the Supreme Court narrowed the criteria. A proper letter to colleges would not be to remind colleges they can still engage in racial decision making for applicants, but would be a detailing of what the narrowed criteria means. That would be a letter without an agenda.

Constitutionality is only one part of this issue. No one is debating that.

[Anonymous]

A president for all the people!

[Anonymous]

Wow, that's the least coherent writing I've read in a long time. Congratulations!

You can practically see the spittle-flecks on the screen.

[Anonymous]

Isn't it fun watching people get mad over stuff like that?

I don't care either way, I just love watching people like the OP get up in arms about that.

[Anonymous]

Folks like the OP hate racism, yet they have it stuck on their mind.

[Anonymous]

Somedays it is harder than others to get the old outrage machine fired up. This is one of them, I guess.