Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:F--- Trump.

UCLA is test blind anyway and since grading varies significantly across different schools, there is no "objective" criteria for them to evaluate. Everything is holistic or subjective.

It's all about the essays and EC list.

doubt the fed lawyers can make a clear case here since they don't take any AP, SAT or ACT tests and are TEST BLIND.

This part. It will make no sense for this to be litigated. It's always been subjective and there will be no "proof" or objective enough "data" that is being considered here. They recalculate all the GPAs and don't consider scores anyway. Really hard to build a case that someone should be admitted who wasn't.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Stand up America!!! Stand the fk up!

This is fascism.

Where are all the colleges? Only like 16 signed the amicus brief for Harvard.

So gross. Why aren’t they sticking together and protesting this corruption?

They are splintering. There are so many hiding, trying not to draw attention to themselves. This is how fascism is allowed to grow. It’s how the Nazi movement spread- p

+1. They are all trying to keep their head down to avoid being the next shakedown victim. It’s sad to see it come to this.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:UCLA lost in court before it settled. The chancellor testified he knew there was a "jew exclusion zone" on campus.

I am not denying that they are selectively enforcing but that isn't a legal defense.

You know what. This is a fair point. However, did the court also ask for $1B as part of that settlement. The point is that it is up to courts to settle civil suits. It is not within the rights of US Government, under the direction of a dictatorial president, to selectively cut funding and ask for extortion money to double down on a court case loss.

Also, why would an attack on antisemitism require changes to trans-gender policy and DEI usage in admissions? This has absolutely nothing to do with allowing protesters to restrict the access of Jewish people on campus.

Lastly, I agree with a PP who said that the colleges need to grow a pair and stand up to this BS. It may take a few years, but as a united group - I think they have a very strong case against the government. And that is even with this gerrymandered Supreme Court that the dictator set up.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:UCLA lost in court before it settled. The chancellor testified he knew there was a "jew exclusion zone" on campus.

I am not denying that they are selectively enforcing but that isn't a legal defense.

You know what. This is a fair point. However, did the court also ask for $1B as part of that settlement. The point is that it is up to courts to settle civil suits. It is not within the rights of US Government, under the direction of a dictatorial president, to selectively cut funding and ask for extortion money to double down on a court case loss.

Also, why would an attack on antisemitism require changes to trans-gender policy and DEI usage in admissions? This has absolutely nothing to do with allowing protesters to restrict the access of Jewish people on campus.

Lastly, I agree with a PP who said that the colleges need to grow a pair and stand up to this BS. It may take a few years, but as a united group - I think they have a very strong case against the government. And that is even with this gerrymandered Supreme Court that the dictator set up.

+100. Because as was shown with Columbia, it won’t stop here. This is not now or has it ever been about anti-semitism. And each time people fight them that is shown in court.

DP

Regardless, searing resentment toward our Jewish communities will likely be the lasting product of this outrageous encroachment on the independence of our colleges and universities.

This won’t be forgotten. It doesn’t matter what the “real reason” turns out to be.

It’s being done in their name. It reinforces just about every negative stereotype in the book. And after we’ve been lectured over and over again about the evils of cancel culture and DEI, it ironically reeks of selective cancel culture and selective DEI - you know, the same exact ideas but only for “chosen people”.

How far behind China will be when this idiocy is finally derailed?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:UCLA lost in court before it settled. The chancellor testified he knew there was a "jew exclusion zone" on campus.

I am not denying that they are selectively enforcing but that isn't a legal defense.

You know what. This is a fair point. However, did the court also ask for $1B as part of that settlement. The point is that it is up to courts to settle civil suits. It is not within the rights of US Government, under the direction of a dictatorial president, to selectively cut funding and ask for extortion money to double down on a court case loss.

Also, why would an attack on antisemitism require changes to trans-gender policy and DEI usage in admissions? This has absolutely nothing to do with allowing protesters to restrict the access of Jewish people on campus.

Lastly, I agree with a PP who said that the colleges need to grow a pair and stand up to this BS. It may take a few years, but as a united group - I think they have a very strong case against the government. And that is even with this gerrymandered Supreme Court that the dictator set up.

+100. Because as was shown with Columbia, it won’t stop here. This is not now or has it ever been about anti-semitism. And each time people fight them that is shown in court.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:UCLA lost in court before it settled. The chancellor testified he knew there was a "jew exclusion zone" on campus.

I am not denying that they are selectively enforcing but that isn't a legal defense.

You know what. This is a fair point. However, did the court also ask for $1B as part of that settlement. The point is that it is up to courts to settle civil suits. It is not within the rights of US Government, under the direction of a dictatorial president, to selectively cut funding and ask for extortion money to double down on a court case loss.

Also, why would an attack on antisemitism require changes to trans-gender policy and DEI usage in admissions? This has absolutely nothing to do with allowing protesters to restrict the access of Jewish people on campus.

Lastly, I agree with a PP who said that the colleges need to grow a pair and stand up to this BS. It may take a few years, but as a united group - I think they have a very strong case against the government. And that is even with this gerrymandered Supreme Court that the dictator set up.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:F--- Trump.

UCLA is test blind anyway and since grading varies significantly across different schools, there is no "objective" criteria for them to evaluate. Everything is holistic or subjective.

It's all about the essays and EC list.

doubt the fed lawyers can make a clear case here since they don't take any AP, SAT or ACT tests and are TEST BLIND.

This part. It will make no sense for this to be litigated. It's always been subjective and there will be no "proof" or objective enough "data" that is being considered here. They recalculate all the GPAs and don't consider scores anyway. Really hard to build a case that someone should be admitted who wasn't.

Anonymous wrote:F--- Trump.

UCLA is test blind anyway and since grading varies significantly across different schools, there is no "objective" criteria for them to evaluate. Everything is holistic or subjective.

It's all about the essays and EC list.

doubt the fed lawyers can make a clear case here since they don't take any AP, SAT or ACT tests and are TEST BLIND.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Will anti-Zionist Jews and Arab students left defenseless by UCLA during a Zionist attack be allowed to submit claims to the anti-discrimination fund?

Exactly. Nearly 100.00% of the civil rights violations and actual crimes committed on the UCLA campus during the protests last year were committed by Zionist terrorists that descended on the campus with flare guns, illegal fireworks, and various weapons to attack and harm those protesting the genocide in Gaza and the UC system’s refusal to cooperate with the collective voice of its students.

It’s documented. It’s unequivocal. The civil rights violators and terrorists were Zionists. Full stop.

That "incident" was a bunch of Huntington Beach Proud Boy morons descending on UCLA.

Maybe get off social media for a minute and take a deep breathe. And maybe talk to some people in California.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Will anti-Zionist Jews and Arab students left defenseless by UCLA during a Zionist attack be allowed to submit claims to the anti-discrimination fund?

Exactly. Nearly 100.00% of the civil rights violations and actual crimes committed on the UCLA campus during the protests last year were committed by Zionist terrorists that descended on the campus with flare guns, illegal fireworks, and various weapons to attack and harm those protesting the genocide in Gaza and the UC system’s refusal to cooperate with the collective voice of its students.

It’s documented. It’s unequivocal. The civil rights violators and terrorists were Zionists. Full stop.

That "incident" was a bunch of Huntington Beach Proud Boy morons descending on UCLA.

Maybe get off social media for a minute and take a deep breathe. And maybe talk to some people in California.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:UCLA has been violating civil rights law.

Can you name the civil law violated? Serious question

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:F--- Trump.

UCLA is test blind anyway and since grading varies significantly across different schools, there is no "objective" criteria for them to evaluate. Everything is holistic or subjective.

It's all about the essays and EC list.

doubt the fed lawyers can make a clear case here since they don't take any AP, SAT or ACT tests and are TEST BLIND.

This part. It will make no sense for this to be litigated. It's always been subjective and there will be no "proof" or objective enough "data" that is being considered here. They recalculate all the GPAs and don't consider scores anyway. Really hard to build a case that someone should be admitted who wasn't.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:First we have to get rid of all the maga idiots. There are more Americans than there are maga. There’s no reason our country, and the world, needs to be impacted by these fleas.

You realize Trump won the popular vote, right?

If "Did Not Vote" had been a presidential candidate, they would have beaten Donald Trump by 9.1 million votes, and they would have won 21 states, earning 265 electoral college votes to Trump's 175 and Harris's 98
https://www.environmentalvoter.org/updates/2024-was-landslidefor-did-not-vote

Anonymous wrote:Frankel v UCLA-
UCLA allowed protestors to stop Jewish students from entering buildings/crossing parts of campus unless they verbally disclaimed Israel's right to exist. That is conduct, not speech, you get to shout hate but you don't get to block or limit other students access to campus. These offenders were subject to the school's code of conduct and should have been expelled or otherwise prevented (i.e. arrested if needed). Straight up discrimination on the basis of religion/national origin not speech and not protected