Didn’t most of the private schools take Covid money from the federal government. Doesn’t that count

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:K-12s are allowed to remain racist

Huh? Ignorant. Are you ok with sexism? Admission based upon Gender is ok. Legacy admission? Let’s look at legacy admissions. RACIST… blacks and browns have historically prevented from generational wealth that allowed attendance of the parents, grandparents and great-grandparents of legacies.

Where’s our 40 acres and a mule for building this country?

How do you feel about legacy admission preferences for the children of black and brown Harvard alums?

I’m fine with it all actually. Just don’t clutch your pearls for one preference and not the other. It reeks of racism.

When preferences have different bases and different rationales, it is perfectly rationale to “clutch your pearls” about one preference but not another. The rationale for your own rant is muddy - in contrast to your post saying legacy admission is racist, now you are actually fine with legacy admission for some.

This is America. Very few things in America lack a racist tilt. Legacy admission. Home ownership. Education. Employment. Social organizations. There is little to nothing in America that indigenous black people have not been wrongfully excluded from or sidelined.

I’m ok with ensuring that women are fairly represented. I’m ok with diversity and all places and spaces reflecting all of us.

I’m ok with legacy admission because someone has to ensure that the money continues to flow in.

Just like those who think that doing away with AA is their ticket to HYP, the top 50, whatever else their privileged selves have failed to gain entry to, doing away with legacy admissions is still not going to get your precious Johnny or Susan in. I can’t wait for you all to find that out! Lol

Cotton.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:K-12s are allowed to remain racist

Huh? Ignorant. Are you ok with sexism? Admission based upon Gender is ok. Legacy admission? Let’s look at legacy admissions. RACIST… blacks and browns have historically prevented from generational wealth that allowed attendance of the parents, grandparents and great-grandparents of legacies.

Where’s our 40 acres and a mule for building this country?

How do you feel about legacy admission preferences for the children of black and brown Harvard alums?

I’m fine with it all actually. Just don’t clutch your pearls for one preference and not the other. It reeks of racism.

When preferences have different bases and different rationales, it is perfectly rationale to “clutch your pearls” about one preference but not another. The rationale for your own rant is muddy - in contrast to your post saying legacy admission is racist, now you are actually fine with legacy admission for some.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:K-12s are allowed to remain racist

Huh? Ignorant. Are you ok with sexism? Admission based upon Gender is ok. Legacy admission? Let’s look at legacy admissions. RACIST… blacks and browns have historically prevented from generational wealth that allowed attendance of the parents, grandparents and great-grandparents of legacies.

Where’s our 40 acres and a mule for building this country?

How do you feel about legacy admission preferences for the children of black and brown Harvard alums?

I’m fine with it all actually. Just don’t clutch your pearls for one preference and not the other. It reeks of racism.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:K-12s are allowed to remain racist

Huh? Ignorant. Are you ok with sexism? Admission based upon Gender is ok. Legacy admission? Let’s look at legacy admissions. RACIST… blacks and browns have historically prevented from generational wealth that allowed attendance of the parents, grandparents and great-grandparents of legacies.

Where’s our 40 acres and a mule for building this country?

How do you feel about legacy admission preferences for the children of black and brown Harvard alums?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:K-12s are allowed to remain racist

I mean, tons of private schools were founded to avoid desegregation after Brown v Board so not sure why this appears to be news to you?

It’s only racist when blacks and browns are treated fairly.

I’m the PP you’re responding to. Harvard-style race-based affirmative action is not fair. But private K-12s are a different animal and that was my point.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:K-12s are allowed to remain racist

I mean, tons of private schools were founded to avoid desegregation after Brown v Board so not sure why this appears to be news to you?

It’s only racist when blacks and browns are treated fairly.

Anonymous wrote:K-12s are allowed to remain racist

Huh? Ignorant. Are you ok with sexism? Admission based upon Gender is ok. Legacy admission? Let’s look at legacy admissions. RACIST… blacks and browns have historically prevented from generational wealth that allowed attendance of the parents, grandparents and great-grandparents of legacies.

Where’s our 40 acres and a mule for building this country?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can someone point me to a source that says this only affects schools that accept federal funding? I cannot find this.

Uh, read 1) the 14th Amendment to the Constitution and 2) the Courts opinion yesterday.

I will take pity on PP. Here is a helpful quote from Gorsuch’s concurrence:

“The Equal Protection Clause reads: “No State shall . . . deny to any person within its jurisdic- tion the equal protection of the laws.” Amdt. 14, §1. That such differently worded provisions should mean the same thing is implausible on its face.
Consider just some of the obvious differences. The Equal Protection Clause operates on States. It does not purport to regulate the conduct of private parties. By contrast, Title VI applies to recipients of federal funds—covering not just many state actors, but many private actors too. In this way, Title VI reaches entities and organizations that the Equal Protection Clause does not.”

Thank you for your helpful summary, PP! Legal jargon is just not my forte. Makes my eyes glaze over. If you ever have a lambda calculus question, I am your girl, and the rude PP can look it up herself.

😆 I’m a lawyer and it makes my eyes glaze over too. I have no idea what lambda calculus is so kudos to you

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can someone point me to a source that says this only affects schools that accept federal funding? I cannot find this.

Uh, read 1) the 14th Amendment to the Constitution and 2) the Courts opinion yesterday.

I will take pity on PP. Here is a helpful quote from Gorsuch’s concurrence:

“The Equal Protection Clause reads: “No State shall . . . deny to any person within its jurisdic- tion the equal protection of the laws.” Amdt. 14, §1. That such differently worded provisions should mean the same thing is implausible on its face.
Consider just some of the obvious differences. The Equal Protection Clause operates on States. It does not purport to regulate the conduct of private parties. By contrast, Title VI applies to recipients of federal funds—covering not just many state actors, but many private actors too. In this way, Title VI reaches entities and organizations that the Equal Protection Clause does not.”

Thank you for your helpful summary, PP! Legal jargon is just not my forte. Makes my eyes glaze over. If you ever have a lambda calculus question, I am your girl, and the rude PP can look it up herself.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can someone point me to a source that says this only affects schools that accept federal funding? I cannot find this.

Uh, read 1) the 14th Amendment to the Constitution and 2) the Courts opinion yesterday.

I will take pity on PP. Here is a helpful quote from Gorsuch’s concurrence:

“The Equal Protection Clause reads: “No State shall . . . deny to any person within its jurisdic- tion the equal protection of the laws.” Amdt. 14, §1. That such differently worded provisions should mean the same thing is implausible on its face.
Consider just some of the obvious differences. The Equal Protection Clause operates on States. It does not purport to regulate the conduct of private parties. By contrast, Title VI applies to recipients of federal funds—covering not just many state actors, but many private actors too. In this way, Title VI reaches entities and organizations that the Equal Protection Clause does not.”

For context, he’s discussing the majority’s reliance on a court decision that as to racial discrimination the Equal Protection Clause and Title VI mean the same thing.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can someone point me to a source that says this only affects schools that accept federal funding? I cannot find this.

Uh, read 1) the 14th Amendment to the Constitution and 2) the Courts opinion yesterday.

I will take pity on PP. Here is a helpful quote from Gorsuch’s concurrence:

“The Equal Protection Clause reads: “No State shall . . . deny to any person within its jurisdic- tion the equal protection of the laws.” Amdt. 14, §1. That such differently worded provisions should mean the same thing is implausible on its face.
Consider just some of the obvious differences. The Equal Protection Clause operates on States. It does not purport to regulate the conduct of private parties. By contrast, Title VI applies to recipients of federal funds—covering not just many state actors, but many private actors too. In this way, Title VI reaches entities and organizations that the Equal Protection Clause does not.”

Anonymous wrote:Can someone point me to a source that says this only affects schools that accept federal funding? I cannot find this.

Uh, read 1) the 14th Amendment to the Constitution and 2) the Courts opinion yesterday.

Anonymous wrote:K-12s are allowed to remain racist

I mean, tons of private schools were founded to avoid desegregation after Brown v Board so not sure why this appears to be news to you?