Trump Administration sues Yale for letting in too many Black kids

[Voice of Reason]

Nobody's going to give you tangibles. You're supposed to take your tangibles.

Even in a thread that's basically describing how other groups are systematically taking their tangibles (e.g. court packing, bringing cases to the Supreme Court, voting, biding their time) people are still too naive to realize how the game is played.

They'll be some of the first to talk about "Jews running shyt" and "Asians running shyt". And they'll have no idea how it happened.

I’m not naive at all I know what’s going on because it’s been happening for ever since these types of programs were implemented.

 

[Professor Emeritus]

Race based admission should be gone. It's used to deny black kids more than any other tool available to admissions offices.

Where do you get this bullshyt?

Here's what happened when the UC's ended race-blind admissions:

In 1995, led by UC Regent Ward Connerly, the Board voted to end the university’s consideration of race or gender in hiring and admissions decisions. A year later, Connerly championed passage of Prop. 209, which barred public institutions in California from “granting preferential treatment” to any individual or group on the basis of race, sex, color, ethnicity or national origin.

Its passage had an immediate and dramatic effect on UC enrollment, especially at the system’s most competitive campuses.

At UC Berkeley, the most sought-after campus at the time, the percentage of Black, Latino and Native American students admitted to the university dropped 55 percent in one year following the implementation of the restrictions. African American students alone saw a drop in offers by 64 percent, according to a press release issued at the time.

Actual enrollment of students from underrepresented groups entering UC Berkeley as freshmen fell from 807 students in 1995 to 412 students in 1998. That occurred even as the university as a whole was welcoming more students. Thus, the decline as a percentage of total freshmen was much greater: from 24 percent to 11 percent. UCLA, the second-most competitive campus, saw similarly striking statistics.

The impact on graduate and professional programs was also pronounced.

UC Berkeley law school, for example, was one of the most diverse in the nation prior to Prop. 209. According to UC Regents Vice Chair Cecilia Estolano, who was a student there at the time, the law school enrolled a single African American student in the year following Prop. 209, and that student had deferred admission from the year before.

 

[Voice of Reason]

Where do you get this bullshyt?

Here's what happened when the UC's ended race-blind admissions:

You fellow African brehs said they don't need Affirmative Action.

 

[Professor Emeritus]

You fellow African brehs said they don't need Affirmative Action.

I have no idea what this comment has anything to do with anything or why you think you know my background.

 

[I Really Mean It]

That’s why RBG not stepping down gonna fukk the country for years to come

She didn’t step down because she was a racist and didn’t want her replacement to be appointed by a black man.

 

[Hiphoplives4eva]

 

[iBrowse]

Both sides

/thread

 

[iBrowse]

shut up c*nt. Trump openly practices white supremacy and you clowns are quiet. Meanwhile, some random nigerian c00n tweets something and you filth have hours and hours of desparing comments directed at africans and nigerians.

You're a confused, disgusting piece of shyt and i hope you get electrocuted by a bolt of lighting on your next midnight dikk hunt you fakkit.

 

[LV Koopa]

Where do you get this bullshyt?

Here's what happened when the UC's ended race-blind admissions:

I got it because I went to a top tier schools in NYC and remember what happened when they tried it. You had less kids getting in because they ended up with a quota system. It's also not the answer to fixing education at lower levels. You fix the problem there - not put it off for later. Moving the bar lower just sets kids up for failure. I've seen it first hand plenty of times.

The Changing Meaning of Affirmative Action

Since the late nineteen-sixties, however, affirmative action has also had a more proactive meaning, as the name of an effort to attain a certain number, or, as it’s called today, “critical mass,” of underrepresented groups in a business or an educational institution by, if necessary, giving applicants from those groups preference over similarly or better qualified whites. This form of affirmative action is usually branded by those who disapprove of it with the dreaded Q-word, “quota.” After 1978, when the Supreme Court declared racial quotas unconstitutional, affirmative-action programs avoided any suggestion of the Q-word. But that is essentially what affirmative action in this second sense entails. You can use terms like “targets” and “goals,” both of which are constitutionally legit, but if you have an idea of the point at which you would attain a critical mass then you have a quota.

Apart from stone-cold racists, everyone is happy, or claims to be happy, with affirmative action in the first sense. And many people are happy, or will say they are, with affirmative action in the second sense so far as the outcome is concerned. Legally, we want the system to be color-blind; we want everyone to have the same rights.

If you want some sort of AA to battle the stupid legacy systems and favoritism in college admissions, I'm all for it IF it's a different solution that doesn't just throw kids in because they are looking to fill a number. It doesn't fix the root issue which is the education at lower levels leaving children unprepared. A few posters in this thread have championed HBCUs which are part of the way forward. Instead of hawking over Ivy League schools with overpriced tuition, get the credential elsewhere.

 

[Professor Emeritus]

I got it because I went to a top tier schools in NYC and remember what happened when they tried it. You had less kids getting in because they ended up with a quota system. It's also not the answer to fixing education at lower levels. You fix the problem there - not put it off for later. Moving the bar lower just sets kids up for failure. I've seen it first hand plenty of times.

The Changing Meaning of Affirmative Action

Breh, did you read that article? The entire thing is a front-to-back argument supporting my position.

The author clearly supports Affirmative Action and gives you numerous examples of how large a positive difference it has made.

On the other hand, student bodies, where race- and gender-conscious admissions policies can have an effect more quickly, have diversified. In 1976, eighty-three per cent of university students were white; in 2016, fifty-seven per cent were white. The percentage of black students in that period increased from ten to fourteen; the percentage of students that the government categorizes as Hispanic increased from less than four to more than eighteen. The percentage of black and Latinx graduates (as opposed to enrollees) also increased (although graduation rates for both groups are lower than for whites).

Did affirmative-action admissions help? Starting in the mid-nineties, opponents of affirmative action were able to get laws passed prohibiting the use of race in admissions at public universities in several states, including Michigan, Washington, and California. The top public universities in those states tried to attract minority students by other means, but Urofsky says that the percentage of black and Hispanic students has dropped significantly.

William Bowen and Derek Bok showed, in “The Shape of the River” (1998)—the most rigorous statistical analysis of race-conscious college admissions to that point—that of seven hundred black students who entered twenty-eight selective schools under race-preferential criteria in 1976, thirty-two per cent attained doctorates or professional degrees, as compared with thirty-seven per cent of white students. Nearly a hundred and twenty-five of the black students were business executives, and more than three hundred were “civic leaders” (running youth or community groups, for example). Race-conscious admissions policies, Bowen and Bok concluded, have been “highly successful” in advancing educational and societal goals.

Study after study suggests that it is just not the case that “it would have happened anyway.” In 1981, for example, as Urofsky tells us, the Reagan Labor Department commissioned a report on gains in hiring among African-Americans and women. It found that between 1974 and 1980 the rate of minority employment in businesses that contracted with the federal government, and were therefore susceptible to being squeezed, rose by twenty per cent, and the rate of employment of women rose by 15.2 per cent. In companies that did not contract with the government, the rates were twelve per cent and 2.2 per cent, respectively.

This was so contrary to everything that Reagan had been saying about affirmative action that the Labor Department hired an outside consulting firm to vet its own report. When the firm returned with the news that the methods and the conclusions were valid, the Administration did the only thing it could do. It refused to release the report, thus allowing politicians to go on telling the public that affirmative action didn’t work.

Under Jimmy Carter, affirmative-action requirements were extended to virtually all firms, educational institutions, and state and local governments that received contracts or grants from the federal government—which covers a lot of the national waterfront. By and large, the courts went along. And so did businesses. When a company is serving customers of different races, it wants to present a diversified face. If you are selling cars to African-Americans, you do not want all the salesmen in your showroom to be white.

If, to achieve this result, a company diversifies on its own, it is open to lawsuits claiming reverse discrimination. But when a company (or a police department or a fire department) adopts a race-conscious hiring program under government guidance it is immunized. When Reagan made noises about abolishing affirmative-action requirements, the National Association of Manufacturers lobbied him to leave the program alone. It was helping manufacturing companies do what they could not have done without it. The biggest problem businesses had wasn’t that they couldn’t find qualified women and minorities. It was dealing with labor unions, whose seniority systems overwhelmingly favored white male workers. (Small businesses also resented the paperwork.)

The extent of the corporate buy-in was put on dramatic display in 2003, when the Supreme Court heard Grutter v. Bollinger, another admissions case, this one involving the University of Michigan Law School. The Court received sixty-nine amicus briefs (a lot) arguing in favor of Michigan’s affirmative-action admissions program, and among the amici were General Motors, Dow Chemical, and Intel, along with the largest federation of unions in the United States, the A.F.L.-C.I.O. They supported affirmative-action admissions because they wanted universities to produce educated people for a diversified workforce.

The Court also received, in Grutter, what became known as “the military brief.” This was an amicus brief signed by big-name generals like Norman Schwarzkopf, Wesley Clark, and John Shalikashvili; by a former Defense Secretary, William Cohen; and by former superintendents of the service academies, all of which, of course, are government agencies. “At present,” they told the Court, “the military cannot achieve an officer corps that is both highly qualified and racially diverse unless the service academies and the ROTC use limited race-conscious recruiting and admissions policies.” They were saying that if the Court ruled against Michigan it would be upending efforts, up to that point highly successful, to maintain a diverse officer corps. The Court voted to uphold the Michigan program, but it was a 5–4 decision.

Literally the entire essay is a forceful argument in favor of our position. I only have to assume you didn't read it.

 

[LV Koopa]

Breh, did you read that article? The entire thing is a front-to-back argument supporting my position.

The author clearly supports Affirmative Action and gives you numerous examples of how large a positive difference it has made.







Literally the entire essay is a forceful argument in favor of our position. I only have to assume you didn't read it.

I did. I specifically arguing about the quota issue with AA. I even said if AA is used as something NOT to fix education problems I'd be for it. The way it's used as a way to give people equality of outcome is the issue I have with it. Do you understand what I'm saying here?

 

[Professor Emeritus]

I did. I specifically arguing about the quota issue with AA. I even said if AA is used as something NOT to fix education problems I'd be for it. The way it's used as a way to give people equality of outcome is the issue I have with it. Do you understand what I'm saying here?

But AA isn't a quota, none of these colleges are using it as a quota, and its already been proven numerous times that when you remove it Black enrollment goes down.

Now, if you're arguing that it isn't the root of America's education issues and racial gap, of course I agree with that. The root is in K-12 and Black communities in general. But higher ed and K-12 ed are completely different. K-12 ed is going to take a generation or two to solve once we START working on it, eliminating Affirmative Action in higher ed ain't going to help anyone in the meantime.

 

[yung Herbie Hancock]

I know... more black kids especially the smart ones should be going full gusto into getting into MIT for the future is all im saying... and takeover... But the problem with these PWI's is the tuitions they are so fukking insane, how do you even pay your way when your family probably poor asf and you cant get scholarships, loans you still gotta pay back, shyt is ridiculous even trying to get into these schools..

If your family makes less than 100k you go to school for free at MIT and Stanford. Look it up.

 

[yung Herbie Hancock]

Cacs have been to trying to strip affirmative action since it was implemented and black folks have been fighting them at every step. We don't ignore this shyt. This why ADOS vote overwhelmingly for liberal judges and politicians. Of course ADOS will have smoke for other black people that adopt anti ADOS thinking from cacs as well.

Uhhh this time it's different my guy. A lot of these judges now are conservatives put in place by Trump. I honestly don't see race based admissions being a thing in the next 5 years.

 

[yung Herbie Hancock]

HBCU's are needed now more than ever before..
I believe if the best Black minds from the US along with foreign Black students attending the science and engineering disciplines, our intelligence and our natural knack for creativity will propel us farther than anyone else..

Ummm.... you still need connections to enter certain industries. Good luck getting a job as an investment banker if you didn't go to an Ivy league.