Supreme Court rejects affirmative action at colleges, says schools can’t consider race in admission

The only thing blind here is believing centuries of legalized oppression without remedies to uplift groups who were hurt by it, is “equality”.

There is nothing equal about that.

 

The party that started the KKK continues to show its true colors:

 

Maybe it will, maybe it won’t. I didn’t necessarily mean YOUR kid, it was just kinda general.

TBH, I’m ambivalent about this decision because I’ve seen it work both ways. If you’re going to even the playing field, then do that.

Fun fact, you have a better chance of getting into some schools if you’re male because the majority of college students are female and they don’t want to tip the balance too far.

Anecdotally, we have family friends whose daughter couldn’t get into William and Mary (we all lived in VA at the time) but several males got in with lower test scores, GPA, extracurriculars, etc. She got into UF as one of the best out of state applicants so she was very well qualified. The Washington Post ran an article around the same time with Chancellor addressing the disparity and his explanation was that if the female population got to be too big that it might hurt their applicant pool.

 

Stop with the ridiculous nonsense that’s devoid of historical context. Criticize the decision but don’t be dumb.

 

Erica saying the quiet part out loud.

 

Ha no I think I will continue to point out the lunacy of Democrats.
Every single time I hear a Democrat talking about voter id laws, it's such a massive insult to black people.
This law was allowing institutions to turn away other races in the name of "social justice". They turned away people who worked extremely hard and are very well qualified.
So they had to be racist in order to not be racist...

 

While historically accurate on the issue of civil rights the parties of switched places. The switch began when Strom Thurmond, who ran as the presidential candidate of the Dixiecrat Party (formal name States Rights Party) in 1948 to protest the Democrats support of civil rights, became in a Republican in 1964 in response to the Democrats support of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Although Thurmond was the first others include Jeff Sessions, Jesse Helms and Roy Moore all of which originally entered politics as Democrats and flipped to anti-civil rights party.

 

Scholarship athletes don’t go through the application process in the same way. They don’t enter the pool of applicants waiting to hear back on the somewhat arbitrary and opaque admissions process. Instead, they are offered scholarship by the sport and only have to meet the standards set forth… I.e the “minimums” for admission as they are defined by the NCAA/SEC/state of FL. So the answer to your question is: nope. No effect at state U, other than possible resentments should family and friends be denied entry going forward.

Non-scholarship athletes get some amount of preference as well, even at the ivies where technically they do not have sports scholarships. I know for a fact elite athletes get some serious admissions weight there, but I doubt that extends all the way down to a “barely eligible” student like it might at a football factory type school. I just know several who were “good” students who were assisted through the admissions process as well at finding some academic assistance. I could see this ruling affect some of those efforts, since some of that academic money was available on the basis of racial scholarships… which may be a problematic place to turn in leagues where athletic scholarships are disallowed.

 

There's a place for affirmative action - I'm not agreeing with the court's decision, but to say that no black person CAN succeed in a merit based system is genuinely racist.

"Whether you think you can, or think you can't, you're right."

 

Ya one dip shit.

Look at the vote breakdown:



He switched because like a lot of politicians, he saw which side was starting to win.

The majority of Republicans by a large amount voted for the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

Also, becoming a Republican also helped him change his views over time:

Sen. Strom Thurmond switched parties in '64 - The Sumter Item

As a Republican senator, Thurmond served consecutive terms from 1964 through 2003. During this long service, he gradually altered his segregationist views. In 1971, he was the first member of the Southern congressional delegation to hire a black legislative assistant. He began to pay attention to South Carolina's black politicians and their constituents. In 1980, Thurmond became chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee and eventually supported renewal of the Voting Rights Act. He also voted to establish a holiday in honor of Martin Luther King Jr.

In 1994, at age 92, Thurmond became chairman of the Armed Services Committee and president pro tempore of the Senate. When he turned 100 years old in 2002, he was the oldest person ever to serve as a senator. In January 2003, he resigned his seat. He died in Edgefield the following June.

 

The problem is SAT scores for African-Americans have been going down. When you lower the standard of admission to colleges for a particular race, it removes the incentive for them to work harder during their primary educational years and it makes it easier for the parents to coast. That can't go on forever. It was a viable experiment for a while, but they have to pick up the ball and run with it now.

The government will never ever ever fix this problem for African-Americans. And I'm not speaking about all of them. There are a plethora of African-Americans and African-American families who have overcome and are achieving higher test scores than most of their peers. If you want to blame it on income, there are even more examples of students from all races overcoming, families overcoming. It does not cost much at all to self-tutor your children. The big cost is time. You make the time, as a parent. If you do nothing else but help your child advance as a student, you've given them a gift that they'll never be able to repay you and you will have instilled in them the need to the same with your grandchildren.

 

I’m talking about the KKK reference. THAT’S what’s dumb.

 

Thurmond switched to protest the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and largely because the Republican nominee Barry Goldwater voted against the legislation although for a completely different reason. Giving Thurmond credit where credit is due, like Robert Byrd who was once a Klansman he evolved over time and did the Republican party in the opposite direction. Republicans also voted overwhelminly in favor of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 while Southern Democrats opposed it. In 2021 the Republican Party actively opposed legislation to expand and protect voting rights. Whether you're willing to admit it or not the Republican Party of today is the philosophical successor to the pre-civil rights era Southern Democratic Party. For an example read the thread on Tommy Tuberville.

 

Take a history or government class, it’ll do ya good.

Here, take a stab at explaining this picture. I’m going to give you a hint, the election was AFTER the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was passed. What do you think caused this?

 

Ruh roh.

 

Another hint

 

That one didn't go over too well...

 

Suggesting Barry Goldwater represented the Republican Party of the time would be like suggesting Liz Cheney represents the Republican Party today and Joe Manchin represents the Democratic Party today.

You are specifically teaching history out of context by honing in on a handful of Republicans like Thurmond and Goldwater while ignoring the holistic numbers. And it is simply a fact that proportionally more Republicans supported the Civil Rights Act of '64 than Democrats.

What really happened was Democrats sensed the changing winds so they shifted from the pro-White party to the pro-Black party. They have always been the party supporting racist policy and they remain that party today. The 1960s simply embodied this vast cultural shift where it became much more difficult for politicians to come out and openly support policies that are pro-White on their face. So, they began supporting policies that are pro-Black or pro-minority on their face, as they continue to today.

 

Because it’s stupid and those that continue to parrot it aren’t real bright/honest.

 

Certain Republicans appealing to bad people to win elections because their opposition isn't going anywhere doesn't make the Party racist, nor does it make their platform racist.

It's evil, it's ugly, it's a nasty part of politics; but it does not logically follow that the Party itself is racist or that the bulk of the Party's support is racist.