Reply to U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts on Friday called for a response from a Virginia school

Forum Index » Advanced Academic Programs (AAP)

Reply to "U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts on Friday called for a response from a Virginia school"

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]SB members better get ready to get spanked publicly once more.[/quote]

They'd wear a 6-3 rolling from the Court as a badge of pride. [/quote]

Ironic that in this day and age, some people are proud to be racists. [/quote]

Ironic that people fighting to keep black kids out of TJ are also the ones screaming racism. [/quote]

Nobody is keeping blacks out of TJ. Asians are excluded from the policy making (SB) and Asians are excluded from the implementation of the policy (Admissions office/Admissions Panels). They are dominated by whites with some blacks/Hispanics here and there. [/quote]

The old process was keeping low-income kids out of TJ. 
[/quote]

Non-sequitur. Disparate impact does not indicate explicit discrimination or intent. Regardless, income level is not a protected class and there is nothing in the charter of TJ regarding favoring low-income kids in consideration of merit. [/quote]

An in round 2, that's how the board can achieve the diversity that they want. There is nothing illegal about quotas or admissions bumps for farms kids [/quote]

I'm not sure how a racist board can ever implement anything without being challenged on the basis of already-established racist intent. Any change they make, other than reverting to the old admissions policies, will be regarded as racist and challenged in court. [/quote]

So you didn't like the concurrence.  Then let's just pretend it's not there, while we wait for Wednesday.  Why not?[/quote]

The concurrence is heavily flawed. Just one example, Heyten's argument is that the disparate impact analysis was wrong for using a "before and after" comparison and then ironically proceeds to use a "before and after" comparison to establish his own contention that there is no disparate impact - just using different metrics. Heyten's metric for his "before and after" is laughably flawed, by using applicant-vs-offered ratio, completely ignoring the fact that the racist policy simply prevents students from being eligible to apply in the first place. This is like saying that voter suppression laws were not racist because all the people that met the requirements of those laws were able to vote, never mind that the laws disqualified many people from being able to vote in the first place.[/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics