Wednesday's Most Active Threads

Yesterday might be described as the coming of the second wave of Supreme Court-related threads because the first two threads I will discuss are both related to recent Supreme Court cases, but were started after the threads on those topics that have dominated the site for several days. The first thread was titled, "Will Admissions Officers pick up on clues in application regarding URM?" and posted in the "College and University Discussion" forum. The original poster asks whether college admissions officers will be able to pick up clues in applications in order to identify underrepresented minorities and suggests that colleges might want to "lock in" the stronger URM applicants in order to maintain diversity on their campuses. Many of those responding agree that applications will provide plenty of clues about URM status and several suggest that admissions officers probably already have plans prepared to maintain diversity. One poster pointed out that the Supreme Court has not invalidated the First Amendment and that applicants don't have to hint, they can freely disclose their URM status. Some posters insist that regardless of whether URM status is determined through hints or through explicit declaration, it can't be used as a factor in the application process. One thing that is very clear from the responses is that those opposed to affirmative action see the courts as their weapon of choice and repeatedly threaten legal action in response to unwelcomed admissions decisions. It is obvious from discussions such as this one that hopes for Asian and White applicants have been massively raised and it is likely that a bunch of folks who never stood a chance of being accepted by Harvard are going to be very disappointed to learn that they still have no chance of being accepted by Harvard. These folks will still insist that their place was unfairly taken by URMs who did not deserve to be admitted. Whereas affirmative action was once blamed for this unfairness, now conspiracies and unfounded allegations will be used to explain why an URM candidate was accepted. A common argument against affirmative action in the past was that it unfairly gave the impression that all URMs on campus had received a boost rather than earning their place and that eliminating affirmative action would remove that taint. Threads such as this show that this is simply not the case. URMs will still be considered by many to be unworthy of admission to a top college, though their explanation of why will be somewhat less coherent.

The second most active thread yesterday was posted in the "Political Discussion" forum. Titled, "Question about Religious Liberty vs. Business Discrimination", the topic is related to the Supreme Court decision to allow a website designer to discriminate against LGBTQ customers. The original poster wants to know whether she could legally discriminate against a host of ethnic, racial, or religious groups if she subscribed to a religion that forbids such people. The first poster to respond argues that the Court's decision was based on First Amendment grounds and was related to the message, not the identity of the customer. In other words, the sexual orientation of the customers is not the issue precisely, but the fact that the Court believed the forced creation of a gay-themed wedding website would be coerced expression. What the original poster was proposing did not involve similar free speech issues, but rather discrimination on the basis of identity. Several posters responded to say that the Supreme Court in the Citizen's United case had determined that spending money is a form of speech. Therefore, any service or good that is sold would involve speech. Many posters agreed with this analysis, commenting that a series of bad Court decisions had created a very slippery slop. One constant amongst those who support discrimination is the belief that they themselves will never become a victim of similar discrimination. Ironically, the same individuals seem to live in constant fear that "liberals" are planning to implement exactly that sort of discrimination. Don't ask me to reconcile these two beliefs. But, based on responses in this thread, it appears the contradiction is resolved by faith in the Supreme Court to only allow the "good" kind of discrimination while prohibiting the "bad" kind. For example, the Court rightly ruled that the website designer could discriminate against gays because that is "good" discrimination. But, the Court would wisely reject claims of another religion that its adherents should not work with, for example, evangelical Christians. That would be "bad" discrimination and the Court would know that such a religion is illegitimate. Sadly, given the nature of today's Court, this may well be correct. But, it seems fairly obvious that over a longer term, this decision is going to have a lot of unexpected and probably unwanted consequences. I will again reiterate my own religious convictions that require me to discriminate against non-gay MAGAs. Website forums clearly involve speech, so don't give me any guff about identity.

The third most active thread yesterday was titled, "Another round of Covid boosters coming in the fall" and posted in the "Health and Medicine" forum. The original poster links to a New York Times article saying that officials will be urging Americans to get three vaccinations this fall to combat flu, Covid and R.S.V. The original poster wonders how this suggestion will be received. Many posters are adamantly opposed to additional COVID boosters. Their arguments are not new. In their view, the vaccines had unwelcomed side affects, failed to prevent COVID, and that COVID wan't a big deal even if one caught it. On the other hand were posters who welcome a booster and accept the recommendations of doctors and scientists that the shots are an effective means of reducing the dangers of the disease. Much of this thread is simply a rehash of the same old arguments against or in favor of the vaccines. As such, I have neither interest nor patience to read it. It's just 7 pages so not that big of an undertaking for those of you feeling nostalgia for this perenial debate from the last couple of years.

The final thread at which I'll look today was posted in the "College and University Discussion" forum. Titled, "Ap score release", the original poster asks how and when scores for advanced placement tests are released. The first poster to respond replies, "Tomorrow via the college board website", referring to what is now yesterday. Technically, given this clear and complete answer to the original poster's questions, this thread could have ended there. Obviously, it did not. Instead, the thread continued the next day as posters reported whether their kids had or had not received their scores. Posters appeared to be waiting for AP scores with the same intensity of Taylor Swift fans waiting to hear from Ticketmaster. Those whose results were distributed in early waves gloated while those whose scores were still to come moped sullenly. As one poster sarcastically put it, "They are not [dear child's] AP scores, they are YOUR scores...How your kid feels about all this is 100% irrelevant." Several posters pushed back on this by providing a range of reasons the results were important to their children. None of those explained why the difference of a couple of hours mattered, however. Discussion continued with parents proudly announcing the achievements of their children. The DCUMers who can never allow another to experience even a moment of joy were quick to pan any and all apparent successes. One such poster criticized taking practice tests and undertaking other test preparation because it took away time from other academic tasks. Obviously, the students with the multiple 4s or 5s on their tests who will enter college with nearly a semester's worth of credits are the real evildoers here. Though, frankly, I was surprised to find out that this thread would have evildoers.