Supreme Court Strikes Down College Affirmative Action

[SoCal Deek]

Just now, BillStime said:

But that’s how she feels, right?

 

 

Apparently. It’s just that most people aren’t stupid enough to tweet about it. 

[BillStime]

I mean - the Supreme Court just ruled in favor over a fn hypothetical - over her supposed feelings.

 

Right?

Just now, SoCal Deek said:

Apparently. It’s just that most people aren’t stupid enough to tweet about it. 

Have you met Donald Trump?

[SoCal Deek]

1 minute ago, BillStime said:

I mean - the Supreme Court just ruled in favor over a fn hypothetical - over her supposed feelings.

 

Right?

As always….you do you. I have literally no idea what you’re talking about. But as long as you’ve moved on from your Trump meme phase…I’ll take it! 😉

[BillStime]

1 minute ago, SoCal Deek said:

As always….you do you. I have literally no idea what you’re talking about. But as long as you’ve moved on from your Trump meme phase…I’ll take it! 😉

Don’t tempt me with a Trump meme

[boyst]

8 hours ago, Buftex said:

Still pretty much the same #######s that have been posting here year after year, copy and pasting their tired BS. I'd think you would love it!

Ha not really. The intelligence left 3 years ago when the adults left the children to themselves. Lord of the flies meets Rugrats. 

[BillStime]

8 minutes ago, boyst said:

Ha not really. The intelligence left 3 years ago when the adults left the children to themselves. Lord of the flies meets Rugrats. 

Then why are you here?

 

lolz

[Westside]

29 minutes ago, boyst said:

Ha not really. The intelligence left 3 years ago when the adults left the children to themselves. Lord of the flies meets Rugrats. 

Do you mean grumpy ass DC Tom? 

[boyst]

Just now, Westside said:

Do you mean grumpy ass DC Tom? 

He's not grumpy. He just doesn't suffer a fool.

[Westside]

Just now, boyst said:

He's not grumpy. He just doesn't suffer a fool.

Well we’ll have to agree to disagree. He was pretty efficient at calling people idiots. 

[B-Man]

13 minutes ago, Westside said:

Well we’ll have to agree to disagree. He was pretty efficient at calling people idiots. 

 

 

He still does over on the good board.   (name change though)

 

.

[boyst]

2 hours ago, Westside said:

Well we’ll have to agree to disagree. He was pretty efficient at calling people idiots. 

Fwiw it's Been speculated here that he left here due to being doxxxed. So, if that gives you any idea of who and what type of people use PPP and this forum - there ya go.

 

They've doxxxed a handful of people besides him but he could really have professional and personal problems from it 

[John from Riverside]

To me, this ruling is not overall a big deal as long as it’s not associated with overreach to come

 

As I have said, earlier in the thread, we have not considered diversity admissions solely based on color, since I have been processing them

 

Not included in the conversation but one thing I can tell you that does play a role in this is international students are always at a disadvantage because of the non-resident tuition that they have to pay every quarter faculty just don’t want to take on students that they might have to pay for their non-resident Wishon because they didn’t advance to candidacy on time and so the international students have to be exceptional 

 

If somebody gets discriminated against its them

[Doc]

3 hours ago, boyst said:

Fwiw it's Been speculated here that he left here due to being doxxxed. So, if that gives you any idea of who and what type of people use PPP and this forum - there ya go.

 

They've doxxxed a handful of people besides him but he could really have professional and personal problems from it 

 

If that's true that's terrible. 

[B-Man]

 

 

Justices Thomas And Jackson Help Us Understand Judicial Activism

by Ted Noel

 

The ink is barely dry on the Supreme Court’s decisions on religious freedom and affirmative action.

 

That hasn’t hampered instapundits from offering their own decisions. “An extremist minority” has “displayed a willful ignorance of our reality.”

 

I haven’t found polemics denouncing “activist courts,” but that’s probably because I can’t stomach searching for such unhinged screeds. But is every decision of the Court from activists? Are they legislating from the bench, to recall another favorite line from the party of the recently gored ox?

 

Of course, it’s a bit rich to call the Supremes “extremists,” when even Justice Jackson joined a unanimous Court in upholding the free practice of religion.

 

This brings us back to what an “activist” court looks like. I must first admit that, as a conservative, I thought that decisions to avoid decisions in favor of the freedom to practice religion (Masterpiece Cake Shop) smelled funny. The pendulum swung when the Dobbs decision gored the Left’s ox.

 

But were either of those cases actually legislating from the bench, to use the worn-out pejorative? As I’ve become an active consumer of SCOTUS legalese, I believe that there is a useful distinction between someone who legislates from the bench and one who does not. The opinions of Justices Thomas and Jackson provide us with the decoder ring.

 

{snip}

 

Justice Thomas’ concurrence in Students for Fair Admissions is a classic study in legal analysis. He walks step by step through the colorblind nature of the Constitution. He notes that the Fourteenth Amendment “ensures racial equality with no textual reference to race whatsoever.” (Emphasis in the original.) He walks through the broad and long-standing legal identity between citizenship and equality. The arguments both for and against various wordings are fully exposed. Then he dissects the “antisubordination” view “that the Amendment forbids only laws that hurt, but not help, blacks.” This is radically opposite to the colorblind origins and intentions of the Reconstruction Amendments. This view is a policy preference but cannot be supported as law.

 

By way of contrast, Justice Jackson’s dissent focuses on “the historical subjugation of black Americans, invoking statistical racial gaps to argue in favor of defining and categorizing individuals by their race.” Somehow, we are trapped in a fundamentally racist society. She effectively denies Justice Roberts’ comment in 2006 that “The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race.” Her solution appears to be “to unquestioningly accede to the view of elite experts and reallocate society’s riches by racial means as necessary to ‘level the playing field,’ all as judged by racial metrics.”

 

In her dissent, Justice Jackson demonstrates most vividly the contrast between legal analysis and activist rhetoric. Jackson’s dissent is based not on law but on policy. And this runs right into the Scylla and Charybdis of the Constitution. On one side, the highest law in the land, the Constitution, stands directly athwart her aspirations. On the other, the Constitution forbids the Courts to enter the realm of policy. That remains exclusively the purview of Congress.

 

For the moment, Donald Trump shines brightly over America. He has given us a Supreme Court that actually settles cases in law.

 

https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2023/07/do_the_current_conservative_decisions_show_an_activist_supreme_court.html

[Big Blitz]

 

[B-Man]

 

 

 

The Muddled Mindset of Progressivism

By J. Peder Zane     July 05, 2023

 

It’s time we had a courageous conversation about the left’s incoherent stance on big government and race.

 

This muddled mindset was on full display last week as two progressive Supreme Court justices, Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson, attacked the majority’s decision rejecting affirmative action in higher education by crediting such race-based policies for progress while also claiming that nothing much has changed in our supposedly racist country.

 

“Today,” Sotomayor declares in the second paragraph of her dissent, “this court stands in the way and rolls back decades of precedent and momentous progress.” Despite that grand advancement, she asserts just one sentence later that the majority was cementing “a superficial rule of colorblindness as a constitutional principle in an endemically segregated society where race has always mattered and continues to matter.”

 

Momentous progress in an endemically segregated nation?

 

Both Sotomayor and Jackson try to show how race continues to matter by drawing on the pessimistic historical determinism of critical race theory to argue that African Americans are still shackled by the original sin of slavery.

 

{snip}

 

Returning to Sotomayor’s claim, one wonders: How “momentous” could our progress be if, six decades after the Civil Rights Acts of 1964 and 1965 that dismantled Jim Crow, America is still “endemically segregated”? If the government policies enforced since then, backed by trillions of dollars in spending, haven’t achieved the desired result, why do we believe they ever will?

 

Liberals they will not, which explains the rising calls for trillions of dollars of reparations for African Americans – affirmative action on steroids. Instead of addressing the complex root causes of the troubling disparities, they are pushing another big government give-away. More is always their answer. What guarantee do we have that an even larger check will keep black boys and men in school and out of prison? What we can be sure of is that a massive windfall to one small group of Americans will only stoke the fires of racial division.

 

Progressives continue to double down on failed policies because of ideology. Their key conceit is that they should run the show because of their self-proclaimed expertise: There is no problem they can’t solve through their top-down interventions. “We know what works” is their mantra. As it infantilizes the populace – especially the racial minorities they claim to represent, who are afforded little personal agency to change their lives – this hubristic mindset can never admit defeat because that would strike at the heart of progressive authority.

 

If their programs fail, it is only because they were not fully implemented or funded – and because of emotional opposition from the ignorant masses and the conniving of monied interests. Reality is not the facts on the ground, but the vision they embrace. Conveniently, that vision depends on giving them ever greater power: Since the people are incapable of improving their own lot, they must be granted ever more authority.

 

One definition of insanity is expecting a different result from the same action. Both Jackson and Sotomayor argue that we must keep the policies and approaches they say have failed. This illogic is the logic of progressivism.

 

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2023/07/05/the_muddled_mindset_of_progressivism_149449.html

 

.

[ArdmoreRyno]

On 6/29/2023 at 11:03 AM, John from Riverside said:

As someone that works directly in this field, this really doesn’t affect how we do admissions that much
 

I am an admissions counselor at a University here in Southern California

 

we put weight on diversity, but the diversity is not based on skin color it’s based on other factors for instance, if you are a black person, but come from a well-to-do family and have a mother and a father that are doctors, then you would not be eligible for diversity, fellowships and admission

 

I have a question for you... my youngest daughter graduated from high school in Oklahoma in 2021. One of the best public HS's in the state. Her credentials... 

 

Top 10 in her class (finished 3rd out of 120 or so)

4.18 GPA

29 ACT

Academic All-State cheerleader

Member of the National Honor Society

Established debate team at her high school

FCCLA 

Class President

 

• Outside school, she established a foundation (Lauren's Lemonade Stand) when she was in the 4th grade and raised money every year to help wounded veterans. Managed to work with people like Miranda Lambert, raised THOUSANDS. Did this every year up to graduation.
• Member of the Chickasaw Nation (she has a CDIB card) 

 

She applied at Michigan... denied. Texas.... denied. University of Chicago... denied. Yale, Princeton, Cornell... all denied. Got into Oklahoma State, Oklahoma and Ole Miss (where she is a 4.0 pre-law student). 

 

Why did she get rejected by so many? Was in just because of the the post-covid year? I was following a parent on a FB page where their kid spent his whole life wanting to get into Purdue. 4.2 GPA, 32 ACT, everything. Got rejected by Purdue. 

 

Still shocked my little one, who is technically a minority with such a strong academic record, got rejected to schools like Michigan and UT. 

 

 

[John from Riverside]

2 hours ago, ArdmoreRyno said:

 

I have a question for you... my youngest daughter graduated from high school in Oklahoma in 2021. One of the best public HS's in the state. Her credentials... 

 

Top 10 in her class (finished 3rd out of 120 or so)

4.18 GPA

29 ACT

Academic All-State cheerleader

Member of the National Honor Society

Established debate team at her high school

FCCLA 

Class President

 

• Outside school, she established a foundation (Lauren's Lemonade Stand) when she was in the 4th grade and raised money every year to help wounded veterans. Managed to work with people like Miranda Lambert, raised THOUSANDS. Did this every year up to graduation.
• Member of the Chickasaw Nation (she has a CDIB card) 

 

She applied at Michigan... denied. Texas.... denied. University of Chicago... denied. Yale, Princeton, Cornell... all denied. Got into Oklahoma State, Oklahoma and Ole Miss (where she is a 4.0 pre-law student). 

 

Why did she get rejected by so many? Was in just because of the the post-covid year? I was following a parent on a FB page where their kid spent his whole life wanting to get into Purdue. 4.2 GPA, 32 ACT, everything. Got rejected by Purdue. 

 

Still shocked my little one, who is technically a minority with such a strong academic record, got rejected to schools like Michigan and UT. 

 

 

It's hard for me to answer that question. Because these are not my schools, all of those credentials seem excellent, especially the great point average.

 

Whenever I see things like that happen. My first question is, what did her self statement look like? Believe it or not, just that part of the application can sway admissions. 

[DrW]

4 hours ago, ArdmoreRyno said:

 

I have a question for you... my youngest daughter graduated from high school in Oklahoma in 2021. One of the best public HS's in the state. Her credentials... 

 

Top 10 in her class (finished 3rd out of 120 or so)

4.18 GPA

29 ACT

Academic All-State cheerleader

Member of the National Honor Society

Established debate team at her high school

FCCLA 

Class President

 

• Outside school, she established a foundation (Lauren's Lemonade Stand) when she was in the 4th grade and raised money every year to help wounded veterans. Managed to work with people like Miranda Lambert, raised THOUSANDS. Did this every year up to graduation.
• Member of the Chickasaw Nation (she has a CDIB card) 

 

She applied at Michigan... denied. Texas.... denied. University of Chicago... denied. Yale, Princeton, Cornell... all denied. Got into Oklahoma State, Oklahoma and Ole Miss (where she is a 4.0 pre-law student). 

 

Why did she get rejected by so many? Was in just because of the the post-covid year? I was following a parent on a FB page where their kid spent his whole life wanting to get into Purdue. 4.2 GPA, 32 ACT, everything. Got rejected by Purdue. 

 

Still shocked my little one, who is technically a minority with such a strong academic record, got rejected to schools like Michigan and UT. 

 

 

 

While there are many things wrong with Texas (a very recent example: Ken Paxton), one thing they got right: a quota for gifted students, whatever their color may be. If your kid graduates in the top 10% of his/her high school class, every Texas ***** university has to take you (well, UT Austin got an exemption: they only need to take the top 7%.) Couple that with in-state tuition of about $6,000 per semester even for the best universities (such as Austin), and you have a real bargain.

[The Frankish Reich]

4 hours ago, ArdmoreRyno said:

Top 10 in her class (finished 3rd out of 120 or so)

4.18 GPA

29 ACT

Academic All-State cheerleader

Member of the National Honor Society

Established debate team at her high school

FCCLA 

Class President

These are fantastic credentials. Congratulations to her, and with this record of achievement (demonstrating intelligence and hard work) she will no doubt do extremely well at whatever college she attends, and then in her career.

 

But we have to be realistic about exactly how competitive admissions is at these colleges. It is difficult to compare to other applicants in the Ivy League or public Ivies applicant pools, except for the ACT score: a 29 was in the 91st percentile. Again, solidly top 10 percent.

People don't realize exactly how competitive these schools are, and this is even with the now-infamous race/legacy/recruited athlete/major donor advantages. In other words, nearly the entire entering class is just about perfect.

 

Harvard Admissions Statistics

There are three critical numbers when considering your admissions chances: ACT scores, GPA, and acceptance rate. All these combine to tell you what you scores are required to get into Harvard University.

 

Average ACT: 34

The average ACT score composite at Harvard is a 34.

The 25th percentile ACT score is 33, and the 75th percentile ACT score is 35.

In other words, a 33 places you below average, while a 35 will move you up to above average. There's no absolute ACT requirement at Harvard, but they really want to see at least a 33 to have a chance at being considered.