Rasmussen Reports reports.
Interesting poll results. Not surprising though. So why is it interesting? I'd say, because elite media treated the decision as if it was an outrage committed by a far right-wing Court. We were stirred up to think the Court had gone off the rails and done something drastic and damaging. But opinion wasn't swayed, or at least it wasn't swayed in the direction elite media tried to sway it.
By the way, I sort of hated to put "Barely one-in-five voters think" in the post title. The hyphens are hinky and there's a lack of subject/verb agreement.
पोस्ट्स
१०४ टिप्पण्या:
The hope is they are running low on people who fall for their crap. It is only hope…
More than hinky. Improper!
A complete fail by WaPo.
WaPo and NYT should run a poll about what America thinks of them. Dem shills. Liars. Anti-American.
Try 20%. Try a tiny minority. Try a tiny minority of racists.
"So why is it interesting? I'd say, because elite media treated the decision as if it was an outrage committed by a far right-wing Court. We were stirred up to think the Court had gone off the rails and done something drastic and damaging. But opinion wasn't swayed, or at least it wasn't swayed in the direction elite media tried to sway it."
What else is new??
I'd say, because elite media treated the decision as if it was an outrage committed by a far right-wing Court.
Fake news.
Notice how the “reform the Court” articles have also increased as a result.
Easy solution. For undergrad, set aside a certain percentage for athletes, musicians and legacies. Establish minimum ACT or SAT score. Then a lottery for the remaining seats. Same deal for law and medical schools, but only a 10% set aside for legacies. Just be fair.
I’m old enough to remember when affirmative action was sold to the public as a temporary measure to adjust for the sorry fact that under Jim Crow, and we were assured that it would never be allowed to turn into a quota system. Well it did turn into a quota system, same as Title IX, and fifty-eight years is only technically “temporary.”
I recall Hubert Humphrey assuring the American people that no one would lose their job due to affirmative action. Tell that to my cousin’s husband. He lost out on a promotion to a black woman, who immediately got rid of him and other people qualified to do her job.
this JUST SHOWS, how Important it is, that we follow the democratic ideal of:
IGNORING THE OPINIONS AND DESIRES OF THE POPULOUS
We MUST list to ONLY our elites, They are Elite. They are Our MASTERS.. OBEY!!!!
So issues of civil rights should be decided by popular opinion. I bet if you asked whether people one should be allowed to burn the American Flag as an act of protest, most would say no, and not even consider the 1st Amendment implications.
A lot of cost and not much benefit, and went on for 50 years. The blacks are still rioting and burning like before.
But a cabal of Right wingers has foisted a radical SCOTUS on us!🤦♂️
They need another Dobbs-level hysteria. The furor from Dobbs is dying down. Independents and even liberal republicans are pissed about this admin's mismanagement of the economy and continual failures overseas.
"Barely one-in-five voters think"
Why are the hyphens there?
Barely one in five voters thinks...
The Media lie, obscure, distort
Facts sadly they do not report
Surprise awaits news consumers
Used to absorbing stupid rumors
Nice!
(Reaction to Cassandra at 8:18)
Twenty-eight per-cent disagree with the SCOTUS decision. This meets the Scott Adams 25% rule; that about 25% of the people get every survey question wrong.
All the shit that a large majority of the American public agree upon. Voter ID... this affirmative action decision...
Some reasonable timeframe for abortion. The American public doesn't give a shit about Global Warming (just like the elite and liberals who pretend to care).
Makes you wonder if the Democrat success in elections is rigged...
Freder Frederson said...So issues of civil rights should be decided by popular opinion.
Welcome back, I've missed your nonsense. Like here--way to completely miss the point! It wasn't decided by popular opinion, it was decided by the Supreme Court. The left-wing media tried to stir up public opinion against the court and failed.
Blogger rehajm said...
The hope is they are running low on people who fall for their crap. It is only hope…
This would be hopeful. But the reality is we passed on dealing with election fraud in 2020. We 'moved on'. Courts failed. Legislatures cowered.
It is now baked in as planned.
And there is NOTHING you can do about college educated white women. I'm sure they are the people that opposed the affirmative action decision. They benefited more than any other oppressed group. Like Bill Burr said, they somehow seem to know how to cut to the front of the oppression line.
For some reason hyphen use has grown in newspapers and gotten more irrational. It's often a judgment call - there are not that many cases where the rules demand it. The most important rule should be, are things potentially unclear without the hyphen(s)? And err on the side of no hyphen, because they're annoying and prissy when overused.
Blogger Freder Frederson said...
So issues of civil rights should be decided by popular opinion.
Of course not! All civil rights issues should be decided by college educated white women.
Especially the Karens that run university admissions departments. Extra power to the grade school transgender groomers. And if you're willing to take a six year old to watch a witch dressed tranny masturbate with a dildo, than we should all just do whatever you say.
We don't want to be beholden to the "whims" of public majorities do we? We're trying to protect democracy here!
Freder: "So issues of civil rights should be decided by popular opinion." No but they should be color-blind, or they are not really Civil Rights, just discrimination on the basis of race or sex, backed by the power of the State. The flag argument is a red herring, IMHO. Maybe a majority got tired of being subjected to categorical & tribal BS based on skin color and wanted to get back to a more idealized version of Civil Rights -- including a lot of people of color who were also tired of being judged for not having earned their admission or promotion based on merit. Just because "popular opinion" is sometimes wrong -- from a constitutional perspective, does not mean it is always wrong. Peace to you Freder -- I appreciate your comments here.
"So issues of civil rights should be decided by popular opinion."
Is that your opinion? You're the one who wrote "So" and I said nothing linking these concepts up like that.
What caught me in this post was your use of the word 'hinky'. I understood what it meant, but I realized I've never used that word. I will going forward.
Hinky and bullshit are the words I'm getting from the two posts I've just read. Complimentary words.
Of course the media acted as if this had been a great disservice to humanity. They have The Narrative to promote. Hell, most of them are covering for their own employment. People in general can sniff out injustices, be they small or great. And the public gets that they do not want a society where positions of importance are staffed by people who may not be the best or smartest at what they do- but simply have been hired because of skin color or approved genitalia. Seems preposterous. And of course, the other end of it is that you could have the brightest person in med school as your doc, but if he/she a Black man or woman, you might have a nagging worry in the back of your mind. It's not fair to them, but it's what a system of affirmative action nurtures: Doubt.
In any case, there's an effort to stir up reaction to Supreme Court opinions, and it's part of a larger agenda of electoral politics. Presidents appoint Supreme Court Justices and confirmation by the Senate is required, and this can be a big or a small issue politically. There's currently an effort to stir up outrage against the existing majority on the Court. To some extent, that's just another way to help Democrats get elected, but it's also about changing the makeup of the Court over time. The ability to effect that change hinges in part on getting people to think the Court has gone wrong — either in its legal analysis or by inflicting bad consequences on us.
To say that is not to say the Court "should" decide legal questions other than by legal reasoning or to deny that many or most people believe that in the close cases political tilt or ideas about what the people want or what's good for the people will determine the outcome.
Of course, in the Students for Fair Admissions case, those who asserted their rights were violated won, so that's, at least technically, a victory for civil rights.
It would be interesting to know the demographics of those who strongly disapprove. I suspect wealthy people of European descent are well represented in that cohort.
I’m old enough to remember when affirmative action was sold to the public as a temporary measure to adjust for the sorry fact that under Jim Crow
Two weeks to flatten the curve.
See also, medical marijuana is only for terminal cancer patients.
I bet if you asked whether people one should be allowed to burn the American Flag as an act of protest, most would say no, and not even consider the 1st Amendment implications.
IIRC, there’s a First Amendment exception for “fighting words.” What Brennan, Marshall, Blackmun, Scalia (!), and Kennedy failed to consider is that seeing an American flag deliberately set afire might make many Americans angry enough to kill the perpetrators. If I was on a jury (I wouldn’t be because I’m over 75) and the case involved someone accused of homicide for killing flag burners, I’d hold out for acquittal until Hell froze shut.
“Of course, in the Students for Fair Admissions case, those who asserted their rights were violated won, so that's, at least technically, a victory for civil rights.”
Yes. It was a victory for civil rights. And if the loony left complaining about that decision were the ones being discriminated “against”, they would have demanded this result. And rightly so.
They don’t want civil rights for all, they want anything that is more favorable to them (that’s why they cobble together the group knows as “POC” and LGBTIA+ because the more in the group, the bigger the pool for dues paying?)
When devices such as hyphens and ratios make the sentence unwieldy, recast it.
"Barely one voter in five thinks . . " suffices.
My reading of the lefty press (Slate, WaPo, WSJ primarily) is that they see the Judiciary as the American analog of the House of Lords. SCOTUS has no obligation to vote with an eye on the Constitution. It should vote laws up or down based on whether they see that particular law as a good idea or a bad idea. If restricting gun ownership, or easing voting, or allowing racial or gender quotas results in a better outcome, it must be constitutional. Turning abortion regulation back to the states is particularly troubling for them. Pregnant women who want to abort their fetuses now have to travel to a state where it remains legal. They never consider that abortion, nor any other aspect of health care, is mentioned even within the penumbras or emanations of the Constitution.
Too much trouble to change the Constitution to better match their vision.
It's almost like they are ignorant of the history of the USA.
"elite media treated the decision as if it was an outrage committed by a far right-wing Court"
Elite media write for the 16% and hire from "diverse" elite schools. Elite reproduction needs to keep the propaganda going.
Yes, most people believe that affirmative action programs have not been successful. But a substantial number believe a.a. hasn't been successful because IT HASN'T BEEN TRIED HARD ENOUGH.
Temujin
The first time I heard the word "hinky" was in "The Fugitive" starring Harrison Ford and Tommy Lee Jones.
It was used by the U.S. Marshalls. Great word. I used it in a brief recently.
Kevin said...
See also, medical marijuana is only for terminal cancer patients.
but Kevin! we are ALL terminal cancer patients!
If/when we live long enough.. We will ALL (eventually) get a cancer (or two! (or three!!)
Also, we will ALL (eventually) Die!!!!!
So, you see? We are ALL terminal cancer patients.
Also covid-19 has (will have) a 100% fatality rate. ALL the people that got it.. will ALL die (eventually)
Freder: "So issues of civil rights should be decided by popular opinion."
Fredder? have you Ever heard, of a jury trial? What IS a jury trial? do you know?
Freder Frederson said...
I bet if you asked whether people one should be allowed to burn the RAINBOW Flag as an act of protest, most would say no, and not even consider the 1st Amendment implications.
Well? Freder? is burning a Rainbow flag hate speech? Please Answer YES, or NO?
"So issues of civil rights should be decided by popular opinion."
You are full of shit, Freder, as usual. The court explicitly acted to protect the civil rights of the Asian students against whom Harvard and UNC were discriminating.
"What caught me in this post was your use of the word 'hinky'. I understood what it meant, but I realized I've never used that word. I will going forward...."
A question I have is whether there's a distinction between "hinky" and "janky."
I remember street cops using the term "hinky" in describing behavior 40 years ago.
I wonder what percent of Blacks feel the decision was wrong. My guess is that the bulk of the 20% are Blacks. Those are the people who need to feel that America offers them a fair deal. Blacks have plenty cause for resentment against America, but the paradox is that their resentment is part of what holds them back. This decision will probably increase their resentment. And so it goes on.
…so that's, at least technically, a victory for civil rights.
No. Not “technically” at all Althouse. It is absolutely a big fucking deal to get a defense of civil rights finally. What possible defense is there for continuing racial discrimination against non-black applicants? I’m always and forever against racism especially when posing as “helpful” because perpetuating decisions made on race is evil. Full stop.
"Establish minimum ACT or SAT score. Then a lottery for the remaining seats."
That'll dumb-down society in a hurry (although we may be at rock bottom already).
We need the brightest, most prepared students entering college for the benefit of society.
I don't think my particular ethnicity is overly represented in elite colleges or among elite athletes. It doesn't bother me. My early life I had more than my fair share of adverse shocks and dislocations. Nobody discriminated for or against me. In later life, I reached a safe haven. This was partly due to my own efforts but mostly due to the fact that America is a good place and that if you hold down a steady job for twenty years or so and avoid the neon vices, life works out....That's white privilege: The sense that the world is indifferent but is not actually conspiring to screw you over.
Now that's a question! A distinction between "hinky" and "janky."
I say yes.
Hinky is something that's not quite right. Janky is something that isn't put together well. But I could be wrong.
People from Chicago would know better than me. These are Chicago words.
Such polls of the public's "opinions" are of little real value, as too many people "think" without "knowing."
I am extremely pleased by the Supreme Court's decision, although I'm apprehensive about Massive Resistamce 2.0 coming from elite institutions to keep Asian numbers down. And seeing public opinion massively in favour of abolishing "affirmative action" race discrimination is heartening. But I do wonder whether those numbers would shift if the public understood just how massive the academic gap between average Asians and average Blacks (to take the two extremes) is, and what it would mean for the credentials gap downstream if elite institutions stopped discriminating against Asians. I think a lot of people genuinely believe that the intra-racial gaps are fairly modest.
As I've noted before, I'm open to the idea that in some positions where professionals are dealing with a public that includes nontrivial numbers of racists from underrepresented groups, there's actually a strong public interest in trying to train up members of those underrepresented groups who otherwise wouldn't make the cut, to ensure that racists who wouldn't trust Asian or White professionals (e.g. doctors) aren't effectively denied access to important care.
Need an explicit, commonly understood definition of "success" for affirmative action before the poll means anything. Otherwise, who knows what the individual respondents considered success as each answered 'yes' or 'no.'
I've always liked the word 'hinky' and am pretty sure it has been in my vocabulary since my early teens.
When in the Supreme Court ruled in '89 or '90 that US flag burning was protected speech, I was aghast that the vote wasn't 9-0. A coworker was also aghast, but thought the vote should have been 9-0 in the other direction. We each identified as conservative.
Though I wonder if burning a rainbow flag woukd be considered protected speech by thise that matter in the first instance (police, DA, trial court judge).
When devices-such-as-hyphens-and-ratios make the sentence unwieldy, recast it.
"Well? Freder? is burning a Rainbow flag hate speech? Please Answer YES, or NO"
Freder's brain will short out on this one, Gilbar.
Huh. I've been using 'hinky' for decades as "awkward" or "not quite right".
"That story sounds a little hinky to me."
To me, hinky meant something had a fixable flaw.
Janky meant something, possibly, didn't.
Well? Freder? is burning a Rainbow flag hate speech? Please Answer YES, or NO?
Yes, it is. But show me where I ever said hate speech is not protected by the 1st Amendment.
Where the line is crossed is when the speech becomes a threat of violence. You can burn all the crosses or Rainbow Flags you want on your own property, but if you do it on the front lawn of the Black or LBGT family that just moved in down the street, that is an act of intimidation and threat.
The court explicitly acted to protect the civil rights of the Asian students against whom Harvard and UNC were discriminating.
Then why didn't they address legacy admissions? Over a third of the students admitted to Harvard are legacies. Your chances of being admitted if one of your parents is an alum is more than 5 times higher than the hoi polloi. And even if you are not a legacy, if your dad throws enough money at the school (in the case of Jared Kushner it was apparently $2.5 million--I would have thought Harvard could have gotten much more) that will also put you at the head of the line.
Actually, the issue is working its way through the courts. I will make a bet. If the case reaches the Supreme Court (with its current make up) they will find some bullshit excuse to not touch it.
And there is NOTHING you can do about college educated white women.
We could repeal the 19th.
Of course, in the Students for Fair Admissions case, those who asserted their rights were violated won, so that's, at least technically, a victory for civil rights.
Do you really believe your own bullshit? "Students for Fair Admissions" was founded by Edward Blum. I wonder where in Asia he traces his family's origins to.
I suppose it depends on how you measure success. Has it erased the past? No. That's not possible. Has it helped some black folks do better in life than they otherwise would have. Probably. It has hurt a lot of black folks, too (i.e., Mismatch Theory) - perhaps even more than it has helped. It has stigmatized many black folks who didn't need it at all. Has it helped black Americans to overcome poverty? It may have in the 60s or 70s, but for the most part it benefits those already doing well. Has it helped unify Americans despite our racial differences? Nope. It has the opposite effect.
Has it helped the Democrats maintain a grip on 90+% black voters? Yes. Affirmative action is and always has been just another goody that the Democrats can give to a favored constituents to keep them within the fold. Obviously, university admissions involves private entities (run by Democrats) as well, but the point is the same. The left has an entitlement mentality when it comes to black loyalty, which is the principal reason why they're so upset with the ruling - not because of some ideological commitment to helping black people improve their lives.
"Janky" is a term of art. Consult Reddit: r/machinists
Voters think? That is a large proposition presented without supporting evidence.
One of the most fierce opponents of Affirmative Action and forced desegregation of K-12 schools was a grad school colleague and friend of mine who was a Black college professor in the New Orleans area. (He had a Master's and was pursuing a PhD [not in Education -- he was too smart to fall for that]}.
He was about 6-7 years old when his Grade school in N'Awlins was desegregated. He said Black students would have been way better off if instead more money had been put into the Black schools for newer/better books, equipment, and especially to pay the good teachers there who had worked so hard for such low pay for so many years. Instead they got new "white overseers" (his words, not mine) telling them what was and wasn't good for Black students like him.
He hated Affirmative Action for the same reasons, basically. He believed it was much more of a hindrance than a help for almost all Black students. He was unhappy about "mismatching" schools and Black students, especially because it was the white elite 'helping' the "po' helpless Negros" (his words) get into they schools they liked, not into schools that would work for them.
He teaches now at a Black University and is extremely proud of how well his students fare in the real world.
He probably applauded the SCOTUS decision.
Let's assume, for a moment, that affirmative action programs had "been successful". What would that mean? What would that success look like? Joy Reid displaying her stupidity and ignorance on TV? Bingo! Joy must be one of the 20%.
"Freder: 'So issues of civil rights should be decided by popular opinion.'
"Fredder? have you Ever heard, of a jury trial? What IS a jury trial? do you know?"
Presumably, a jury's verdict is neither simply "opinion" nor arbitrary, but an informed and dispassionate determination of the facts in a criminal or civil dispute, as proved (to the jury's satisfaction) by the evidence presented at trial. Obviously, the reality is not always so tidy, but the basis of the jury system is the belief that a reasoned examination of the facts (as known) by a panel of informed citizens is the most just way to determine guilt or innocence of an alleged violation.
Opinion can and sometime does appear, especially in (uncommon) cases of jury nullification, where the jury renders a verdict of "not guilty" even if the facts prove the defendant to have committed the offense with which he is charged. This can occur when the jury believes either that the law under which the defendant has been charged--or the likely punishments for violation of that law--are unjust, or both.
Such polls of the public's "opinions" are of little real value, as too many people "think" without "knowing."
Don't you mean the reverse? "too many people 'know' without 'thinking'?
I wonder what percent of Blacks feel the decision was wrong.
LOL then look it up. Brookings found:
* According to a pre-decision poll conducted by the Pew Research Center, only 1 in 5 Black respondents thought that they had personally benefitted from affirmative action in college admissions or hiring decisions (1).
* Black Americans, on whose behalf affirmative action was begun more than half a century ago and who might have been expected to support it — were at most ambivalent, as a recent
Economist/YouGov survey (2) reveals. To the surprise of many observers, they supported the Court by 44% to 36%, and the share who strongly approved of the decision exceeded those who strongly opposed it.
(1) Same Pew story cited in Althouse's excerpt: https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2023/07/06/whos-okay-with-the-affirmative-action-decision-many-black-americans/
(2) https://docs.cdn.yougov.com/kpnwbn3sup/econTabReport.pdf#page46
Alvin Bragg releasing criminals to terrorize NYC? Kim Foxx doing the same in Chicago? Ketanji Jackson on the Supreme Court? Half-bright criminals with half-assed law degrees, who clearly regard the law as a poorly-disguised racial spoils system, occupying high legal offices. Isn't that "success"? Was anything else hoped for? If so, why?
"I remember street cops using the term "hinky" in describing behavior 40 years ago."
Often in connection with Third-degree mopery.
Re: Freder Frederson:
Do you really believe your own bullshit? "Students for Fair Admissions" was founded by Edward Blum. I wonder where in Asia he traces his family's origins to.
Do you? I'm Asian-American, and I am immensely pleased that the Court has finally spoken up and told these institutions they can't discriminate against people like me with impunity. I know that, because of people like you, they will continue to try. But it's a victory for us regardless of where the advocate came from, and it fills me with mingled disgust and rage to see all the little bigots like you so devoted to your sacred principle of fucking over Asians.
Freder Frederson said, Do you really believe your own bullshit? "Students for Fair Admissions" was founded by Edward Blum. I wonder where in Asia he traces his family's origins to.
LOL so what? Not enough racial purity in the SFFA? I know a latino jew who is a card carrying member of the NAACP. Did your head explode again reading that? You don't "wonder" about Blum at all. You just smear him unthinkingly because you suppose he has no place defending Asian students. Now do AWFLs in general and tell me why their opinion about affirmative action
means more than the black people most directly affected. Because you side with the AWFLs here Fredi. On the wrong side of history as the arc bends toward justice.
Freder Frederson said...
"'Students for Fair Admissions' was founded by Edward Blum. I wonder where in Asia he traces his family's origins to."
That would be the Levant. Why the focus on him? Are you saying it's just a Jewish conspiracy?
"Students for Fair Admissions" was founded by Edward Blum. I wonder where in Asia he traces his family's origins to.
From his Wikipedia page:
"Edward Blum is also challenging race-conscious admissions policies at other selective universities, claiming that they do not comply with the strict legal standard set forth in Fisher.[17] To that end, he has founded Students for Fair Admissions, an offshoot of the Project on Fair Representation. This organization seeks to recruit students who have been rejected by selective universities and file lawsuits on their behalf."
So you have a problem with a person's becoming an activist for a cause he "can't claim" for his own, is that it? And a black actor shouldn't ever play a character based on or written as white? And a man shouldn't ever espouse feminism? Nor a person without children advocate for an end to child trafficking? It's all just appropriation, hmm?
Come on.
Plus, Blum is, or was at least raised, Jewish (I don't know whether he still cleaves to his Judaism) and points to his own and his parents' experiences of antisemitism as seminal in forming his world view, so.
Don't be racist.
Did you ever wonder why, on Star Trek, in the wonderful Kumbaya future when the whole Earth is run by the enlightened Federation, and all racial and national divisions are unlamented aspects of a barbaric past, there are still Russians and Chinese and Scots and Americans? Why Kirk may make out with Uhura, but there's no way he'd ever marry her? The Progressives have always known that "multi-cultural" shit is a crock. It's just a hustle to guilt-trip and soft-soap all us white rubes, while they take control so they can genocide us.
80% think AA doesn't work, but only 65% approve of its elimination? What are the other 15% thinking - that AA didn't work because it didn't go far enough?
* According to a pre-decision poll conducted by the Pew Research Center, only 1 in 5 Black respondents thought that they had personally benefitted from affirmative action in college admissions or hiring decisions (1).
Was that 1 in 5 who had been admitted to college, or 1 in 5 overall? Only about 36% of the student age black population attended college according to 2020 data, so somewhere close to 1 3 out of 4 necessarily did not benefit from AA in admissions.
Surprisingly, only about 40% of the overall student-aged population went to college. I would have guessed it was much higher.
"and it fills me with mingled disgust and rage to see all the little bigots like you so devoted to your sacred principle of fucking over Asians."
To be fair, you're only collateral damage in his quest to fuck over those guilty of wrong-think.
"I bet if you asked whether people one should be allowed to burn the American Flag as an act of protest, most would say no"
While that is true and supported by multiple polls, what you need to understand is that flag burning does not create artificial barriers unjustly impeding the economic opportunities of any American citizen.
Flags =/= People
Apples =/= Oranges
On the subject of hinky, what happened to dink? I heard hinky-dink long before I head just hinky. In the 60’s the NFL used to have a playoff game for third place between the losers of the semi-final games. According to Alex Watt, writing on the site Mental Floss:
“The Playoff Bowl gave the fans another dose of playoff action and raised over a million dollars for the Bert Bell players' pension fund, but it was not without its critics. Hall of Fame coach Vince Lombardi referred to it as …“a hinky-dink football game, held in a hinky-dink town, played by hinky-dink players. That's all second place is – hinky dink."
I agree with the hinky/janky distinction noted up thread.
Janky is something more or less permanently broken. Hinky is something that's broken but fixable.
“ Then why didn't they address legacy admissions?”
Because that matter was not brought before the Court. Perhaps you’re unaware that the Supreme Court does not arbitrarily reach out and find issues to address. Someone has to try a case, lose a case at appeals, and then ask the Supreme Court to review the case.
Find a block of people discriminated against by legacy admissions. In theory one should suffice, but more is better. Sue Harvard for discriminating against them. Lose and appeal. Repeat until you get the Supreme Court to grant cert. THEN they’ll take up the matter of legacy admissions.
If they do, you’ll be surprised by how many people agree with you. In the weeks since the Affirmative Action ruling, I have not seen one person defend legacy admissions. I’ve seen many criticize it regardless of their opinion of this case. It’s popular with donors, but nobody else.
“Do you really believe your own bullshit? "Students for Fair Admissions" was founded by Edward Blum. I wonder where in Asia he traces his family's origins to.”
Freder, there were 647,000 Union casualties in the civil war, about 110,000 of those killed in battle. The vast majority were white.
White people led the abolitionist movement. White people started the war to end slavery. Was that wrong of them? Should…should they not have done that? Does their race invalidate their initiating that particular fight for others’ civil rights?
You are such a bigoted dope.
- Rafe
Freder Frederson said...
So issues of civil rights should be decided by popular opinion
Why yes, Freder, "issues of civil rights" should be decided by the democratic process, not by dictatorial imposition by left wing thugs.
The democratic process has produced a Constititon, and laws, and NEITHER of them allow for the racist programs you so love
"80% think AA doesn't work, but only 65% approve of its elimination? What are the other 15% thinking - that AA didn't work because it didn't go far enough?"
Ding, ding, ding! I think we may have a winner.
"Affirmative action is and always has been just another goody that the Democrats can give to a favored constituents to keep them within the fold."
Actually, modern affirmative action began with Richard Nixon. Who understood the median voter theorem and, when it came to domestic policy, had no strong attachment to principle.
Actually, the issue is working its way through the courts. I will make a bet. If the case reaches the Supreme Court (with its current make up) they will find some bullshit excuse to not touch it.
Legacy admissions in and of themselves do not discriminate either for, or against, a protected class or a race.
tommyesq said...
"80% think AA doesn't work, but only 65% approve of its elimination? What are the other 15% thinking?"
I suspect the other 15% are of the "Mend it don't end it" mindset. If we just find the right knob to twiddle, we can get it to work!
It seems many people believe that the way to stop discrimination is to stop discriminating.
Such simple people, trying to make a convoluted subject worthy of a career or three parsing it out, finessing all of the nuanced facets, end by merely not doing the bad thing any more.
Talk about AI taking away jobs, this wiuld decumate suppluers in academia and the middlemen in media if it catches hold! Won't someone think of the grievance-mongers!?
William said...
I wonder what percent of Blacks feel the decision was wrong. My guess is that the bulk of the 20% are Blacks. Those are the people who need to feel that America offers them a fair deal. Blacks have plenty cause for resentment against America, but the paradox is that their resentment is part of what holds them back. This decision will probably increase their resentment. And so it goes on.
I've read all the comments, and for some reason this one sparked a memory of a cartoon that occasionally circulates around.
A young black woman finds the magical genie lamp, and the genie gives her one wish.
"I wish there had never been slavery in the US."
The wish was immediately granted.
And as she finds herself in native clothing standing in front of a mud hut in Africa she says "Oh, shit!"
And this actually goes along with the previous Haiti post. What is Haiti known for? The only successful (AFAIK) black slave revolt in history. Haiti shares an island with the Dominican Republic, which was forcibly annexed by Haiti and subsequently fought for it's independence. And- they're building a borer wall to keep the Haitians out. Seems everyone but us does that to keep out unwanted immigrants...
So are Dominicans prejudiced against blacks? Do they need affirmative action and quotas to correct past wrongs against Haitians?
The world is a complicated place. For the most part, African nations want nothing to do with black Americans.
Mademoiselle from Armentieres
Parlez-vous
Mademoiselle from Armentieres
She hasn't been kissed for 40 years
Hinky-dinky parlez-vous
Oh Mademoiselle from Armentieres
Parlez-vous
She got the palm and the croix de guerre
For washin' soldiers' underwear
Hinky-dinky parlez-vous
The Colonel got the Croix de Guerre
Parlez-vous
The Colonel got the Croix de Guerre
The son-of-a-gun was never there
Hinky-dinky parlez-vous
Oh Mademoiselle from Armentieres
Parlez-vous
You didn't have to know her long
To know the reason men go wrong
Hinky-dinky parlez-vous
Oh Mademoiselle from Armentieres
Parlez-vous
She's the hardest working girl in town
But she makes her living upside down
Hinky-dinky parlez-vous
Oh Mademoiselle from Armentieres
Parlez-vous
The cooties rambled through her hair;
She whispered sweetly "C'est la guerre"
Hinky-dinky parlez-vous
Oh Mademoiselle from Armentieres
Parlez-vous
She'll do it for wine she'll do it for rum
And sometimes for chocolate or chewing gum
Hinky-dinky parlez-vous
Oh Mademoiselle from Armentieres
Parlez-vous
You might forget the gas and shell
But you'll nev'r forget the Mademoiselle
Hinky-dinky parlez-vous
As a Leftist, Freder casts himself in the role of protector of and advocate for black people. He fantasizes that white racist American society is still bent on holding down those he considers his natural political allies.
His self-image in that role is what truly matters to him and others of that ilk. Thus, these poll results give him big-time cognitive dissonance.
It would be funny if it wasn't so ignoble.
Now that's a question! A distinction between "hinky" and "janky."
While there are slight differences of nuance, the overriding consideration is that both terms are invidious racial slurs, and only an unrepentant racist would ever use either one of them outside of quotes.
"On the subject of hinky, what happened to dink?"
Same thing as happened to "slope". The war ended, and the survivors from our side came home.
Freder: Courts address the questions brought to them. Legacy admissions weren't so it wasn't addressed. Find some to sue based on legacy admissions and it may get to the court.
How many African Americans are admitted to Harvard or the University of North Carolina isn't the big issue. The BIG QUESTION is WHY they were/or were not admitted.
WHITE AMERICANS fought and died to end slavery, but then we tolerated Jim Crow segregation.
We White Americans have a big challenge: How do we welcome into the national community people who don't look like us?
Most African American children are in underperforming schools. Pretending that everything is OK if a tiny handful of them can go to Harvard ignores the real problem.
Ignore Harvard (which is a good general rule).
"Most African American children are in underperforming schools."
Lots of those underperforming schools (along with the local governments they are operating under) are run by blacks. Do you have any ideas why that might be so?
Well, there's this... https://www.britannica.com/topic/Radical-Reconstruction
Racist Republican history.
Oh, it's working!
"Most African American children are in underperforming schools."
And those schools are filled with Black teachers, administered by Black principals, run by Black school boards and exist in cities run by Democrats for generations.
"I will make a bet. If the case reaches the Supreme Court (with its current make up) they will find some bullshit excuse to not touch it."
This is what incurious partisanship actually looks like.
Seriously, as it stands, what moron would take your bet when "some bullshit excuse" is entirely subjective to your whim? You will first need to provide a comprehensive list of what, exactly, qualifies as "some bullshit excuse". When you do, feel free to get back to us. And when/if you do, please include odds and a dollar amount.
"As a Leftist, Freder casts himself in the role of protector of and advocate for black people."
I'd have gone with overseer, but that's just me.
"Most African American children are in underperforming schools"
Those kids bring the underperformance with them on their first day of kindergarten. They arrive fully unprepared.
You can't set a broken femur with a round-edge scissors and library paste. I write this with years of experience working directly with inner-city youth.
If I have an option between an Asian doctor or a black doctor, what is my rational choice?
Well, if I know that both graduated from a school that emphasized strict meritocratic principles, then it's a wash.
But what if I know that both graduated from a school that accepted lower-quality black students, by way of "affirmative action"? In that case, in the absence of any other knowledge, my rational choice is to avoid the black doctor.
Dave Begley said...
"Now that's a question! A distinction between "hinky" and "janky."
I say yes.
Hinky is something that's not quite right. Janky is something that isn't put together well. But I could be wrong.
People from Chicago would know better than me. These are Chicago words."
"Over by dere."
Yeah you got it right. "Dah police aren't dere to create disorder. Dah police are dere to preserve disorder!" My favorite Richard J Daly malapropism.
You know what's funny? I'll tell you what's funny. When Freder steps on his own dick so often in one post he has to elaborate his position and steps on his dick some more. Put the hammer down, Freder, you'll hurt yourself.
Freder Frederson said...
You can burn all the crosses or Rainbow Flags you want on your own property..
So, it's Just American Flags, that one can freely burn on public property?
NPR: Illinois Man Is Arrested After Burning U.S. Flag, Won't Face Charges
meanwhile..
Fifteen years in Iowa jail for burning pride flag
Suspect charged with hate crime in connection with NYC pride flag fire
gilbar said...
Freder Frederson said...
I bet if you asked whether people one should be allowed to burn the RAINBOW Flag as an act of protest, most would say no, and not even consider the 1st Amendment implications.
Well? Freder? is burning a Rainbow flag hate speech? Please Answer YES, or NO?
--
It bears reminding that "hate speech" by itself is legally not a crime. The term can be used to treat another crime as racially based, but it doesn't stand by itself.
I think AA was a canny solution at the time it was implemented.
1. It underlined the inequality of black access to a better education. And tangentially to many other aspects of American life.
2. It's no longer relevant or necessary. And hasn't been for a good while.
Freder Frederson said...
Then why didn't they address legacy admissions?
Gee, I don't know. Maybe because it's neither a Constitutional nor legal issue, so the Courts have no standing to get involved?
Or, could it be because NITHER SIDE IN THE CASE RAISED THE ISSUE, so no legitimate ruling could be based on it?
Has it EVER occurred to you that you would be better off if you tried to make intelligent and relevant points? Or does doing so just violate every "principle" you have?
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा