SCOTUS outlaws race as college admissions factor

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I agree with the ruling. The open racism
against Asian students boggled my mind. There has also been a large anti white male issue happening and now less white males even go to college than before.The differences in criteria have been unfair. You even see this in kids who grew up on same street and parents make same money but are various ethnicities. Like many things people push things until enough people say no. I do think the SAT will be gone soon because schools will look to find away around this. FWIW I always thought the SAT was also unfair because you need to spend so much money in tutoring and for every genius that doesn’t need it you have thousands more kids who need the tutoring to get over these crazy scores.

Many people don't want to admit that Asians, as a group, are very smart. Their intelligence shows up at a very ypung age in preschool and elementary school settings, long before private tutoring or SAT prep.

It’s not even all intelligence related. 99% of your child’s success is due to PARENTING and taking personal responsibility. Asians just have better familial structure, value education more, and respect laws and norms a lot more than most other groups. People don’t want to admit it but it’s true. Go travel to Asian countries where societies are rigid but crime is very low and they push their kids’ educations hard. You don’t see many a Asian parents letting their kids roam like wild animals in the streets at 10 pm on a school night then whine later they need special treatment for getting into college after they get poor grades due to ‘lack of opportunities’. No, maybe you had piss poor grades because your parents suck, let you roam the streets at 10 pm, and skipped school 40% of the time. Parents need to do better rather than ask for handicaps.

Funny you say that because I live in a 50 percent Indian community, and this single black lady went nuts because an Indian lady asked her kids not to play in her yard at 11 pm. The kids were being loud and bringing their dogs into the yard. The lady lashed out online saying no one can even speak to her kids and they need to come directly to her. This is a new community, and no one knows each other. Poor manners on the black ladies' part. Way to laminate yourself from the neighborhood. Another black family just got busted for drug dealing. I've never seen that with Indians.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have read this whole thread and still have not seen a single argument for raced based admissions. Just vague statements about I institutional racism. I still don't understand what the color of my skin should affect my life story, what I've had to overcome, or what privilege I've had. Someone actually spell it out please. Again, we are not talking socioeconomic status, only color of skin. Explain to me why Obama's daughters should get preference for the color of their skin vs poor white coal minor's daughter.

what you fail to see is that affirmative action and diversity considerations ALSO help the "poor white coal minor's daughter." I was an admission counselor. I wasn't in coal region. but farming is similar. the poor white kids from the farming communities that were border line admits got preference points coming from "low income community" in our admission model. We admitted far more poor white folks from rural USA than inner city urban kids. Diversity considerations go beyond just skin. These decisions erode all considerations and screw not just the incur city dark people that y'all hate, but your friendly, but poor farmer or coal miner kid.

No other group benefitted from AA more than white women. I don't see anyone here complaining about gender discrimination.

SO TRUE! another fact folks like to ignore.

I will also co-sign to this. I'm in senior management at my firm. the easiest way to promote diversity is to talk about "women." many in the workforce get quite uneasy when we talk about increasing the number of brown and black people in certain roles. But way less complain when we promote or recruit women. If we hire about a woman color, it really can only be after we hire 3-4 white women, and at least one white man. That's the only way the grumbling is minimized. in 2018, we have 4 senior management positions open. 2 were filled by women of color. 1 white man and 1 white woman. it was a near uproar. funny thing is both women of color are crushing it!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have read this whole thread and still have not seen a single argument for raced based admissions. Just vague statements about I institutional racism. I still don't understand what the color of my skin should affect my life story, what I've had to overcome, or what privilege I've had. Someone actually spell it out please. Again, we are not talking socioeconomic status, only color of skin. Explain to me why Obama's daughters should get preference for the color of their skin vs poor white coal minor's daughter.

what you fail to see is that affirmative action and diversity considerations ALSO help the "poor white coal minor's daughter." I was an admission counselor. I wasn't in coal region. but farming is similar. the poor white kids from the farming communities that were border line admits got preference points coming from "low income community" in our admission model. We admitted far more poor white folks from rural USA than inner city urban kids. Diversity considerations go beyond just skin. These decisions erode all considerations and screw not just the incur city dark people that y'all hate, but your friendly, but poor farmer or coal miner kid.

No other group benefitted from AA more than white women. I don't see anyone here complaining about gender discrimination.

SO TRUE! another fact folks like to ignore.

+100. Is the supreme court going to try to undermine women’s progress next in relation to college admission and employment?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have read this whole thread and still have not seen a single argument for raced based admissions. Just vague statements about I institutional racism. I still don't understand what the color of my skin should affect my life story, what I've had to overcome, or what privilege I've had. Someone actually spell it out please. Again, we are not talking socioeconomic status, only color of skin. Explain to me why Obama's daughters should get preference for the color of their skin vs poor white coal minor's daughter.

what you fail to see is that affirmative action and diversity considerations ALSO help the "poor white coal minor's daughter." I was an admission counselor. I wasn't in coal region. but farming is similar. the poor white kids from the farming communities that were border line admits got preference points coming from "low income community" in our admission model. We admitted far more poor white folks from rural USA than inner city urban kids. Diversity considerations go beyond just skin. These decisions erode all considerations and screw not just the incur city dark people that y'all hate, but your friendly, but poor farmer or coal miner kid.

No other group benefitted from AA more than white women. I don't see anyone here complaining about gender discrimination.

SO TRUE! another fact folks like to ignore.

I will also co-sign to this. I'm in senior management at my firm. the easiest way to promote diversity is to talk about "women." many in the workforce get quite uneasy when we talk about increasing the number of brown and black people in certain roles. But way less complain when we promote or recruit women. If we hire about a woman color, it really can only be after we hire 3-4 white women, and at least one white man. That's the only way the grumbling is minimized. in 2018, we have 4 senior management positions open. 2 were filled by women of color. 1 white man and 1 white woman. it was a near uproar. funny thing is both women of color are crushing it!

Who are these people in "near uproar"? Did you call them out for their bigotry? Either you're telling a tall tale or you're part of the problem for not calling out the bigots by listing their names here and now. Be part of the solution or stop lying please.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I agree with the ruling. The open racism
against Asian students boggled my mind. There has also been a large anti white male issue happening and now less white males even go to college than before.The differences in criteria have been unfair. You even see this in kids who grew up on same street and parents make same money but are various ethnicities. Like many things people push things until enough people say no. I do think the SAT will be gone soon because schools will look to find away around this. FWIW I always thought the SAT was also unfair because you need to spend so much money in tutoring and for every genius that doesn’t need it you have thousands more kids who need the tutoring to get over these crazy scores.

Many people don't want to admit that Asians, as a group, are very smart. Their intelligence shows up at a very ypung age in preschool and elementary school settings, long before private tutoring or SAT prep.

It’s not even all intelligence related. 99% of your child’s success is due to PARENTING and taking personal responsibility. Asians just have better familial structure, value education more, and respect laws and norms a lot more than most other groups. People don’t want to admit it but it’s true. Go travel to Asian countries where societies are rigid but crime is very low and they push their kids’ educations hard. You don’t see many a Asian parents letting their kids roam like wild animals in the streets at 10 pm on a school night then whine later they need special treatment for getting into college after they get poor grades due to ‘lack of opportunities’. No, maybe you had piss poor grades because your parents suck, let you roam the streets at 10 pm, and skipped school 40% of the time. Parents need to do better rather than ask for handicaps.

Funny you say that because I live in a 50 percent Indian community, and this single black lady went nuts because an Indian lady asked her kids not to play in her yard at 11 pm. The kids were being loud and bringing their dogs into the yard. The lady lashed out online saying no one can even speak to her kids and they need to come directly to her. This is a new community, and no one knows each other. Poor manners on the black ladies' part. Way to laminate yourself from the neighborhood. Another black family just got busted for drug dealing. I've never seen that with Indians.

Yes, she must have behaved that way because of the color of her skin and not some other reason. But hey, you know all single black women and their kids so you must have an insight into why she acted that way. I say, publish that insightful data of yours so we can all be similarly enlightened. And shout out to the Indian motherland for being a drug-free country because Indians don't sell or consume drugs.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I agree with the ruling. The open racism
against Asian students boggled my mind. There has also been a large anti white male issue happening and now less white males even go to college than before.The differences in criteria have been unfair. You even see this in kids who grew up on same street and parents make same money but are various ethnicities. Like many things people push things until enough people say no. I do think the SAT will be gone soon because schools will look to find away around this. FWIW I always thought the SAT was also unfair because you need to spend so much money in tutoring and for every genius that doesn’t need it you have thousands more kids who need the tutoring to get over these crazy scores.

Many people don't want to admit that Asians, as a group, are very smart. Their intelligence shows up at a very ypung age in preschool and elementary school settings, long before private tutoring or SAT prep.

It’s not even all intelligence related. 99% of your child’s success is due to PARENTING and taking personal responsibility. Asians just have better familial structure, value education more, and respect laws and norms a lot more than most other groups. People don’t want to admit it but it’s true. Go travel to Asian countries where societies are rigid but crime is very low and they push their kids’ educations hard. You don’t see many a Asian parents letting their kids roam like wild animals in the streets at 10 pm on a school night then whine later they need special treatment for getting into college after they get poor grades due to ‘lack of opportunities’. No, maybe you had piss poor grades because your parents suck, let you roam the streets at 10 pm, and skipped school 40% of the time. Parents need to do better rather than ask for handicaps.

Funny you say that because I live in a 50 percent Indian community, and this single black lady went nuts because an Indian lady asked her kids not to play in her yard at 11 pm. The kids were being loud and bringing their dogs into the yard. The lady lashed out online saying no one can even speak to her kids and they need to come directly to her. This is a new community, and no one knows each other. Poor manners on the black ladies' part. Way to laminate yourself from the neighborhood. Another black family just got busted for drug dealing. I've never seen that with Indians.

Yes, she must have behaved that way because of the color of her skin and not some other reason. But hey, you know all single black women and their kids so you must have an insight into why she acted that way. I say, publish that insightful data of yours so we can all be similarly enlightened. And shout out to the Indian motherland for being a drug-free country because Indians don't sell or consume drugs.

lol... yea it's the skin color that caused the "black ladies' poor manners". God help these mindless bigots.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have read this whole thread and still have not seen a single argument for raced based admissions. Just vague statements about I institutional racism. I still don't understand what the color of my skin should affect my life story, what I've had to overcome, or what privilege I've had. Someone actually spell it out please. Again, we are not talking socioeconomic status, only color of skin. Explain to me why Obama's daughters should get preference for the color of their skin vs poor white coal minor's daughter.

what you fail to see is that affirmative action and diversity considerations ALSO help the "poor white coal minor's daughter." I was an admission counselor. I wasn't in coal region. but farming is similar. the poor white kids from the farming communities that were border line admits got preference points coming from "low income community" in our admission model. We admitted far more poor white folks from rural USA than inner city urban kids. Diversity considerations go beyond just skin. These decisions erode all considerations and screw not just the incur city dark people that y'all hate, but your friendly, but poor farmer or coal miner kid.

No other group benefitted from AA more than white women. I don't see anyone here complaining about gender discrimination.

SO TRUE! another fact folks like to ignore.

I will also co-sign to this. I'm in senior management at my firm. the easiest way to promote diversity is to talk about "women." many in the workforce get quite uneasy when we talk about increasing the number of brown and black people in certain roles. But way less complain when we promote or recruit women. If we hire about a woman color, it really can only be after we hire 3-4 white women, and at least one white man. That's the only way the grumbling is minimized. in 2018, we have 4 senior management positions open. 2 were filled by women of color. 1 white man and 1 white woman. it was a near uproar. funny thing is both women of color are crushing it!

Who are these people in "near uproar"? Did you call them out for their bigotry? Either you're telling a tall tale or you're part of the problem for not calling out the bigots by listing their names here and now. Be part of the solution or stop lying please.

lol. you must not live in reality. sure we sent out emails and had town hall discussions. we offered sensitivity training and people complained. What happened is that many of the talented staff that felt like they should have been picked, left. when so much turnover happens, sometimes you get toxic leaders that won't do anything. I'm a senior manager, not a VP or partner. A few of my peers who pushed a little too hard are no longer here. I'm 3 years from retiring. so I'm not trying to go anywhere else and start over. so I do for my division and it stops there.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:getting rid of affirmative action is not going to stop white people from thinking people of color are taking their spots. As a black person, I got a 168 on my LSAT. had a 3.8 GPA, worked 4 campus jobs, worked an internship EVERY summer and I still got shady comments from white students how they would be screwed compared to me because they were not minority. As if my qualifications were less. some of the folks saying this didn't even crack 160 or have a 3.5 GPA and barely did 1 internship.

In law school I was in top 8% of my class. but folks swore I was at the bottom taking job offers from y'all. 14 years into my career I'm a partner at a big law firm. Y'all would assume it is only for diversity reasons and overlook all the cases I won, big business I brought in and top billing. It's funny how folks use to clutch their pearls in disbelief that I was in the top 3 producing associates 7 consecutive years. Like it wasn't possible for a black person to do this. no matter what the merits are, white people love to ASSUME that no one else could ever possibly achieve more than them. So even without AA folks will still find a way to complain about people of color taking their jobs or getting into top universities.

I am a black lawyer who did not do great on the LSAT. I am sure that I got into law school because of affirmative action. However, I finished in the top 5% of my class. Clearly, I deserved to be there. Personally, I don't care what white people think of me. I know that I am the CEO of a company and I'm pretty sure that given its success, it is not because I was a diversity hire, but because I'm damn good at what I do.

Asians are even worse than whites in their belief that POC (which they once were) are intellectually inferior and need handouts to succeed.

So a white person with low LSATs wouldn’t get that same opportunity to excel because of race….. but that’s ok because ? Gimme a break. Glad you’re honest at least.

[Anonymous]

A Landmark for Racial Equality at the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court had one of its finest hours on Thurs­day as it reaf­firmed, in log­i­cal but force­ful fash­ion, the bedrock Amer­i­can prin­ci­ple of equal­ity un­der the law. In bar­ring the use of race in col­lege ad­mis­sions, a six-Jus­tice ma­jor­ity took a gi­ant step back from the racial Balka­niza­tion that risks be­com­ing set in in­sti­tu­tional stone.

Pres­i­dent Biden de­nounced the de­ci­sion, per­haps be­cause he un­der­stands that its de­c­la­ra­tion of moral and le­gal prin­ci­ple jeop­ardizes his poli­cies that di­vide by race. Cor­po­rate di­ver­sity and eq­uity pro­grams that di­vide and clas­sify by race should also be on no­tice that they will face le­gal chal­lenges.

The Amer­i­can peo­ple seem to agree with the Court’s view. Even in lib­eral states such as Cal­i­for­nia and Wash­ing­ton, vot­ers have re­jected race-based ad­mis­sions. Pew’s lat­est polls show three-quar­ters of the pop­u­la­tion op­pose the use of race in col­lege ad­mis­sions, in­clud­ing ma­jori­ties of Asian-Amer­i­cans, His­pan­ics and black Amer­i­cans.

The U.S. still has much work to do to achieve a truly color-blind society. Above all it needs to liberate a K-12 education system that traps too many minorities in failure factories. But the attempt to discriminate by race in college admissions to make up for that failure creates other problems and judges individuals not by their talent or character but the color of their skin. As the Chief underscores, “Our constitutional history does not tolerate that choice.”    

https://www.wsj.com/articles/harvard-unc-students-for-fair-admissions-supreme-court-affirmative-action-john-roberts-clarence-thomas-racial-preferences-f8c998f6

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have read this whole thread and still have not seen a single argument for raced based admissions. Just vague statements about I institutional racism. I still don't understand what the color of my skin should affect my life story, what I've had to overcome, or what privilege I've had. Someone actually spell it out please. Again, we are not talking socioeconomic status, only color of skin. Explain to me why Obama's daughters should get preference for the color of their skin vs poor white coal minor's daughter.

what you fail to see is that affirmative action and diversity considerations ALSO help the "poor white coal minor's daughter." I was an admission counselor. I wasn't in coal region. but farming is similar. the poor white kids from the farming communities that were border line admits got preference points coming from "low income community" in our admission model. We admitted far more poor white folks from rural USA than inner city urban kids. Diversity considerations go beyond just skin. These decisions erode all considerations and screw not just the incur city dark people that y'all hate, but your friendly, but poor farmer or coal miner kid.

No other group benefitted from AA more than white women. I don't see anyone here complaining about gender discrimination.

SO TRUE! another fact folks like to ignore.

I will also co-sign to this. I'm in senior management at my firm. the easiest way to promote diversity is to talk about "women." many in the workforce get quite uneasy when we talk about increasing the number of brown and black people in certain roles. But way less complain when we promote or recruit women. If we hire about a woman color, it really can only be after we hire 3-4 white women, and at least one white man. That's the only way the grumbling is minimized. in 2018, we have 4 senior management positions open. 2 were filled by women of color. 1 white man and 1 white woman. it was a near uproar. funny thing is both women of color are crushing it!

Who are these people in "near uproar"? Did you call them out for their bigotry? Either you're telling a tall tale or you're part of the problem for not calling out the bigots by listing their names here and now. Be part of the solution or stop lying please.

lol. you must not live in reality. sure we sent out emails and had town hall discussions. we offered sensitivity training and people complained. What happened is that many of the talented staff that felt like they should have been picked, left. when so much turnover happens, sometimes you get toxic leaders that won't do anything. I'm a senior manager, not a VP or partner. A few of my peers who pushed a little too hard are no longer here. I'm 3 years from retiring. so I'm not trying to go anywhere else and start over. so I do for my division and it stops there.

If people are in uproar because people with less tenure and less qualifications were promoted ahead of them, that is understandable uproar. If people are in uproar for no other reason other than the skin color of those promoted ahead of them, that is bigotry and no one should hesitate to call that out.

[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:

Anonymous wrote:

Why don't you look to see who is leading top US tech firms like NVIDIA, AMD, Microsoft, and Adobe?

I told you how they took over the tech in the US. Once one Indian has a foot in the door, they will bring onboard their friends and cousins and then they only hire Indians, then they promote each other to top positions.

This is how it happened in Silicon Valley. Ask anyone who works there. They know.

Oh for crying out loud. Don't act like white people don't do this. Have you ever heard of the good old boys club? Look at most government contracting companies in the DMV and tell me the white male holding a C-level position didn't bring in their friends for other C-level or leadership positions. I.see.it.all.the.time.

You see, the truth is they don't see it when it's white people doing this. But if a racial group they don't belong to suddenly does it, OMG the world is ending! Though in all seriousness, no one should be doing this.

White people’s nepotism and cronyism is why we need civil rights laws and affirmative action goals in the first place. Universities are more meritorious than any other institutions in the country, because they take the time and effort to assess each individual applicant. Unlike the Supreme Court, which makes decisions according to “who is for, who is against, and which side funds me.”

Great, then do it in a way that doesn't discriminate against Asians like Harvard was doing. You want to do it by income? Go for it. But what Harvard was doing is unacceptable.

I still don't understand...Asians were not under-represented as compared to the general population at Harvard, so how are "they" being discriminated against? If Asians make up 12% of the population and have roughly 12% of the seats, then what is the complaint? I mean, Harvard turns away 98% of their applicants, and it is possible that the number of Asian rejections is higher because there may be more Asian applicants, but I still feel like this was not the right decision.

The Asian community won’t be happy until 100% of Asians who apply are accepted into Harvard. They feel they deserve it when other kids do not. They are arguing that their kids are always superior to others. Anyone else admitted who isn’t Asian is not as bright and only there due to AA or legacy. It’s been well explain on this thread.

Are you even listening to yourself and not embarrassed by what you're saying? The Asian community is NOT a monolith. I repeat. We are not all tiger moms and we're not all rich nor are we all great in math. My kids don't have straight As. They play sports, not chess. We wouldn't even think of applying to Harvard. We'd be happy if they get into UMCP. What the hell is wrong with you? What we don't want however, is for people to discriminate against my kids and make it more difficult for them to get into schools more than non-Asian kids because of some stereotype or racial bias that you hold against us. Got it? Is that too much to ask?

You say that Asian students are not a monolith but you assume every Asian student was discrinated against because they were rejected by Harvard? Make it make sense.

PP is not saying they were discriminated against. And, pp is not saying ALL Asian students are discriminated against.
The reason the law was changed was because the Supreme Court found that Asian students were discriminated against. Based on the evidence presented to the court. And, they were. Just as they are at other schools. And, not only universities.

Oh please. The SC wanted to get rid of affirmative action and put a target on the backs of Asian kids. Why is it that most Asian students at Harvard did not agree with this case, nor did any of the Asian civil rights groups. They knew that Asians were being used.

+1. South Asian here. Expect to see the right-wing now turn against the Asians and claim that they make universities "too competitive". One only needs to look at the Real Estate Forum and see how people are uncomfortable with the growing Indian communities in eastern Loudoun County.

So fear of right wing nutjobs justifies racism by left wing nutjobs?

I wish the far right and far left wing nut jobs could be shipped to their own island to fight to the death so the non nut job 90% majority could get back to some sense of normalcy as it pertains to government and politics.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have read this whole thread and still have not seen a single argument for raced based admissions. Just vague statements about I institutional racism. I still don't understand what the color of my skin should affect my life story, what I've had to overcome, or what privilege I've had. Someone actually spell it out please. Again, we are not talking socioeconomic status, only color of skin. Explain to me why Obama's daughters should get preference for the color of their skin vs poor white coal minor's daughter.

what you fail to see is that affirmative action and diversity considerations ALSO help the "poor white coal minor's daughter." I was an admission counselor. I wasn't in coal region. but farming is similar. the poor white kids from the farming communities that were border line admits got preference points coming from "low income community" in our admission model. We admitted far more poor white folks from rural USA than inner city urban kids. Diversity considerations go beyond just skin. These decisions erode all considerations and screw not just the incur city dark people that y'all hate, but your friendly, but poor farmer or coal miner kid.

No other group benefitted from AA more than white women. I don't see anyone here complaining about gender discrimination.

SO TRUE! another fact folks like to ignore.

I will also co-sign to this. I'm in senior management at my firm. the easiest way to promote diversity is to talk about "women." many in the workforce get quite uneasy when we talk about increasing the number of brown and black people in certain roles. But way less complain when we promote or recruit women. If we hire about a woman color, it really can only be after we hire 3-4 white women, and at least one white man. That's the only way the grumbling is minimized. in 2018, we have 4 senior management positions open. 2 were filled by women of color. 1 white man and 1 white woman. it was a near uproar. funny thing is both women of color are crushing it!

Who are these people in "near uproar"? Did you call them out for their bigotry? Either you're telling a tall tale or you're part of the problem for not calling out the bigots by listing their names here and now. Be part of the solution or stop lying please.

lol. you must not live in reality. sure we sent out emails and had town hall discussions. we offered sensitivity training and people complained. What happened is that many of the talented staff that felt like they should have been picked, left. when so much turnover happens, sometimes you get toxic leaders that won't do anything. I'm a senior manager, not a VP or partner. A few of my peers who pushed a little too hard are no longer here. I'm 3 years from retiring. so I'm not trying to go anywhere else and start over. so I do for my division and it stops there.

If people are in uproar because people with less tenure and less qualifications were promoted ahead of them, that is understandable uproar. If people are in uproar for no other reason other than the skin color of those promoted ahead of them, that is bigotry and no one should hesitate to call that out.

People get angry because you never know when someone was hired under affirmative action or a diversity quota. No one comes out and says "thanks for applying, but we needed 2 POC and 3 women." Now that affirmative action is gone, it will be blatantly racist to claim a black person got into Harvard due to their skin color.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have read this whole thread and still have not seen a single argument for raced based admissions. Just vague statements about I institutional racism. I still don't understand what the color of my skin should affect my life story, what I've had to overcome, or what privilege I've had. Someone actually spell it out please. Again, we are not talking socioeconomic status, only color of skin. Explain to me why Obama's daughters should get preference for the color of their skin vs poor white coal minor's daughter.

what you fail to see is that affirmative action and diversity considerations ALSO help the "poor white coal minor's daughter." I was an admission counselor. I wasn't in coal region. but farming is similar. the poor white kids from the farming communities that were border line admits got preference points coming from "low income community" in our admission model. We admitted far more poor white folks from rural USA than inner city urban kids. Diversity considerations go beyond just skin. These decisions erode all considerations and screw not just the incur city dark people that y'all hate, but your friendly, but poor farmer or coal miner kid.

No other group benefitted from AA more than white women. I don't see anyone here complaining about gender discrimination.

SO TRUE! another fact folks like to ignore.

I will also co-sign to this. I'm in senior management at my firm. the easiest way to promote diversity is to talk about "women." many in the workforce get quite uneasy when we talk about increasing the number of brown and black people in certain roles. But way less complain when we promote or recruit women. If we hire about a woman color, it really can only be after we hire 3-4 white women, and at least one white man. That's the only way the grumbling is minimized. in 2018, we have 4 senior management positions open. 2 were filled by women of color. 1 white man and 1 white woman. it was a near uproar. funny thing is both women of color are crushing it!

Who are these people in "near uproar"? Did you call them out for their bigotry? Either you're telling a tall tale or you're part of the problem for not calling out the bigots by listing their names here and now. Be part of the solution or stop lying please.

lol. you must not live in reality. sure we sent out emails and had town hall discussions. we offered sensitivity training and people complained. What happened is that many of the talented staff that felt like they should have been picked, left. when so much turnover happens, sometimes you get toxic leaders that won't do anything. I'm a senior manager, not a VP or partner. A few of my peers who pushed a little too hard are no longer here. I'm 3 years from retiring. so I'm not trying to go anywhere else and start over. so I do for my division and it stops there.

If people are in uproar because people with less tenure and less qualifications were promoted ahead of them, that is understandable uproar. If people are in uproar for no other reason other than the skin color of those promoted ahead of them, that is bigotry and no one should hesitate to call that out.

People get angry because you never know when someone was hired under affirmative action or a diversity quota. No one comes out and says "thanks for applying, but we needed 2 POC and 3 women." Now that affirmative action is gone, it will be blatantly racist to claim a black person got into Harvard due to their skin color.

I think the smart and best thing to do in this situation is to assume the people hired were hired on merit and not because of skin color or gender but I get what you're saying.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have read this whole thread and still have not seen a single argument for raced based admissions. Just vague statements about I institutional racism. I still don't understand what the color of my skin should affect my life story, what I've had to overcome, or what privilege I've had. Someone actually spell it out please. Again, we are not talking socioeconomic status, only color of skin. Explain to me why Obama's daughters should get preference for the color of their skin vs poor white coal minor's daughter.

what you fail to see is that affirmative action and diversity considerations ALSO help the "poor white coal minor's daughter." I was an admission counselor. I wasn't in coal region. but farming is similar. the poor white kids from the farming communities that were border line admits got preference points coming from "low income community" in our admission model. We admitted far more poor white folks from rural USA than inner city urban kids. Diversity considerations go beyond just skin. These decisions erode all considerations and screw not just the incur city dark people that y'all hate, but your friendly, but poor farmer or coal miner kid.

I don't fail to see that. You fail to see that the SCOTUS decision doesn't erode any other kind of diversity consideration other than skin color. So to understanding all the whining about the decision, I am specifically looking for why skin color should be a consideration by itself.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have read this whole thread and still have not seen a single argument for raced based admissions. Just vague statements about I institutional racism. I still don't understand what the color of my skin should affect my life story, what I've had to overcome, or what privilege I've had. Someone actually spell it out please. Again, we are not talking socioeconomic status, only color of skin. Explain to me why Obama's daughters should get preference for the color of their skin vs poor white coal minor's daughter.

what you fail to see is that affirmative action and diversity considerations ALSO help the "poor white coal minor's daughter." I was an admission counselor. I wasn't in coal region. but farming is similar. the poor white kids from the farming communities that were border line admits got preference points coming from "low income community" in our admission model. We admitted far more poor white folks from rural USA than inner city urban kids. Diversity considerations go beyond just skin. These decisions erode all considerations and screw not just the incur city dark people that y'all hate, but your friendly, but poor farmer or coal miner kid.

No other group benefitted from AA more than white women. I don't see anyone here complaining about gender discrimination.

SO TRUE! another fact folks like to ignore.

+100. Is the supreme court going to try to undermine women’s progress next in relation to college admission and employment?

Women do better and get better grades now in school, so if there is to be sex based affirmative action, it would be for the boys.