Yale discriminates against whites and Asians: US Justice dep't finding

[Derec]

No. It is time to eject Trump and his corrupt DoJ.

They are "corrupt" because they do not support colleges discriminating against members of certain races?
Unfortunately, when Biden takes office he will bury this investigation quickly, because he and the Democratic Party are in full support of racial preferences when they discriminate in favor of the race that is voting for them at >90% rates. But nothing corrupt about that, right?

What part of "President Donald Trump's administration has been a strong opponent of so-called affirmative action" do you not understand? The fact that they are demanding Yale not to use race of national origin at all in the upcoming admissions cycle in the face of decades of SCOTUS rulings in favor of Affirmative Action tells you all you need to know.

Discriminating on the basis of race is clearly contrary to both the letter and the spirit of the 14th Amendment. SCOTUS can err and persist in error for political expediency. They were wrong on Dredd Scott and they are wrong on discriminating against college students on the basis of race. In any case, the DOJ is not trying to override a SCOTUS ruling (like that Democrat Andrew Jackson did) but rather are seeking SCOTUS consider the matter again. What's wrong with that?

 

[Derec]

I think you are all ignoring the simple fact that the Supreme Court has accepted that private universities can show slight preferences for a certain race as a part of an overall effort to have a community of students that more reflects the the US as a whole.

A related question: why is it that mainstream universities, already relatively diverse, should discriminate on the basis of race to achive some sort of (near) partity, but at the same time, the most non-diverse universities in the US (so-called HBCUs) are lauded and celebrated for their monochromaticity?

 

[ruby sparks]

Um, in exactly what ways is it "only fair"?

In ways I have explained many times and which I think should be obvious. You may disagree, but I think you are doing it by overstating the relatively minor adverse effects on one side and understating the much more important reasons why the repairs were needed, justified and most of all beneficial to the society as a whole. In other words, I think your case is unbalanced.

 

[laughing dog]

I think you are all ignoring the simple fact that the Supreme Court has accepted that private universities can show slight preferences for a certain race as a part of an overall effort to have a community of students that more reflects the the US as a whole.

A related question: why is it that mainstream universities, already relatively diverse, should discriminate on the basis of race to achive some sort of (near) partity, but at the same time, the most non-diverse universities in the US (so-called HBCUs) are lauded and celebrated for their monochromaticity?

Those HBCUs are lauded and celebrated for their historic (you know, the "H" part) efforts educating black people during a time when many colleges and universities in the USA discriminated against blacks, which helped to create a successful black professional and middle class.

 

[KeepTalking]

No. It is time to eject Trump and his corrupt DoJ.

They are "corrupt" because they do not support colleges discriminating against members of certain races?

No. Care to try again?

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

Justice Dept. Accuses Yale of Discrimination in Application Process

The New York Times seems to have chosen a side in this debate.

 

[Bomb#20]

Um, in exactly what ways is it "only fair"?

In ways I have explained many times and which I think should be obvious.

I don't understand your answer. I have not seen you anywhere explain why it's fair; if you can refer me to another of your posts, that's fine. As for obvious, to my mind there is only one way for it to qualify as obviously fair: if the applicants being discriminated against deserve it. Are you claiming they deserve it? Do you have some more subtle reason for calling it fair? Or do you mean something by "fair" that's different from what I mean by "fair"?

You may disagree, but I think you are doing it by overstating the relatively minor adverse effects on one side

I lost you. Which adverse affects are you talking about, and what did I say that overstated them? And what "side" are you talking about? People don't apply to college for the sake of a "side".

and understating the much more important reasons why the repairs were needed, justified and most of all beneficial to the society as a whole.

Huh? Reasons the repairs were needed, justified and most of all beneficial to the society as a whole aren't anything I disputed. As I said, "It's one thing to say legally imposed discrimination against Protestants is something to be sucked up and accepted, because your government spent centuries treating Catholics as second-class citizens. It's entirely another to say that in some ways it's only fair, overall." Any reasons the repairs were needed, justified and most of all beneficial to the society as a whole are arguments for sucking it up and accepting it; they aren't arguments for it being fair. So what additional statements was I supposed to make about important reasons why the repairs were needed, justified and most of all beneficial to the society as a whole, and how would any such statements have contributed to our dispute about fairness?

In other words, I think your case is unbalanced.

Huh? I didn't offer any case; I asked you a series of questions intended to challenge you to back up your claim that it's only fair.

Do you perhaps simply not make a distinction between "fair" and "right"? It may sometimes be right to prevent a war by sacrificing the life of an innocent, but that wouldn't make it fair.