It seems to me that the diversity sought by most universities is literally only skin deep. Universities want to be able to fill their mailings with photographs of their campus communities that look like Benetton ads. So long as there is a diversity of skin tones, they feel they have done their duty. What most universities do not seem to be interested in is intellectual diversities. In fact, the prevailing college cultures today seem to be stridently against people who think differently and/or have different opinions. The only thing more offensive than having an unpopular opinion is to be caught speaking the truth about the effects of affirmative action. I am disgusted by the actions of the Georgetown University Law Center toward Sandra A. Sellers. All she did was ask for advice on how to help her Black students do better in her class. Archie Bunker, she was not. The only possible reason that could justify her firing was if she was unique among the faculty in having Black students do, on average, more poorly than other students. But in order to defend her, they would have had to reveal she was not unique. But the last thing they wanted to do was admit that. It was far less painful to not renew her contract. Universities should never be in the business of hiding the truth.
Interestingly, you leave out the great white affirmative action programs (white wealth and power accumulation throughout the past 4 centuries). Europeans received 2 billion acres of free Indian land and free African labor that mal distributed massive generation wealth and power to whites. Slaves left the plantations without land, guns to defend themselves, government assistance, etc. Many returned to the plantations as exploited sharecroppers. Land and its resources increase in value. Furthermore, FDR implemented white affirmative action programs that mostly benefitted whites. These programs were, for the most part, controlled by the white locals in the South who grossly discriminated against Southern blacks. Conservatism is unequivocally anti-black as demonstrated by history--- legal discrimination. We don't need more meritorious manumission sellouts like Clarence Thomas who's too absorbed in pink nipples and pale skin, a white woman who supported the racist John Birch Society. The logic? The conservative move for Thomas was the shortest line to power and wreaked revenge on his black brethren. When he was young, Thomas was often ostracized for pigmentation and pronounced African features by lighter skin, black folks. He praises his grandfather who mentally and physically abused him. The Psychology of Clarence Thomas?
I think you may be reading a great deal into my comment that I neither wrote nor intended. I do not deny the United States has an atrocious history of slavery, racism, and discrimination. What I was talking about is the type of diversity sought by university administrators. My personal belief is that intellectual diversity is as least as important, if not more important for a university than racial and ethnic diversity. Yes, I agree that Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard was correctly decided. But that is because I believe it is correctly interpreting the 14th Amendment and theCivil Rights Act of 1964. The 1964 Civil Rights Act makes it illegal to discriminate on the basis of race if you receive federal funding. There is no question that if you discriminate in favor of a member of a racial or ethnic group, you are discriminating against people who are not members of that group. For more than 50 years universities got away with discriminating on the basis of race. As Chief Justice Roberts wrote a few years ago, "The way to stop discriminating on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race." Applicants that have overcome racial discrimination or other adversity are free to write about that in application essays. Students should be judged as individuals, not as representatives of their ethnic groups.
I find it interesting that you chose to use your reply to my comment to make a racist attack on Justice Thomas for having the temerity to marry a white woman. I'll be honest, I have a really negative opinion of Ginny Thomas. But my opinion has nothing to do with miscegenation and everything to do with her support for Trump's stolen election narrative. There are plenty of reasons to dislike Ginny Thomas that have nothing to do with her marriage to a Black man. What does it say about a person that decides to attack her for an interracial marriage? It says to me that person is a racist. If you disagree, I am open to being persuaded that I am wrong.
What does it say that conspicuous by its absence in rulings that Uncle Clarence would reconsider is Loving vs. Virginia establishing the right to interracial marriage.
Of course, it doesn't make a difference to you what Clarence Thomas actually thinks. It's what *he is* that matters. (You know...like ALL THOSE people.)
It seems to me that the diversity sought by most universities is literally only skin deep. Universities want to be able to fill their mailings with photographs of their campus communities that look like Benetton ads. So long as there is a diversity of skin tones, they feel they have done their duty. What most universities do not seem to be interested in is intellectual diversities. In fact, the prevailing college cultures today seem to be stridently against people who think differently and/or have different opinions. The only thing more offensive than having an unpopular opinion is to be caught speaking the truth about the effects of affirmative action. I am disgusted by the actions of the Georgetown University Law Center toward Sandra A. Sellers. All she did was ask for advice on how to help her Black students do better in her class. Archie Bunker, she was not. The only possible reason that could justify her firing was if she was unique among the faculty in having Black students do, on average, more poorly than other students. But in order to defend her, they would have had to reveal she was not unique. But the last thing they wanted to do was admit that. It was far less painful to not renew her contract. Universities should never be in the business of hiding the truth.
Interestingly, you leave out the great white affirmative action programs (white wealth and power accumulation throughout the past 4 centuries). Europeans received 2 billion acres of free Indian land and free African labor that mal distributed massive generation wealth and power to whites. Slaves left the plantations without land, guns to defend themselves, government assistance, etc. Many returned to the plantations as exploited sharecroppers. Land and its resources increase in value. Furthermore, FDR implemented white affirmative action programs that mostly benefitted whites. These programs were, for the most part, controlled by the white locals in the South who grossly discriminated against Southern blacks. Conservatism is unequivocally anti-black as demonstrated by history--- legal discrimination. We don't need more meritorious manumission sellouts like Clarence Thomas who's too absorbed in pink nipples and pale skin, a white woman who supported the racist John Birch Society. The logic? The conservative move for Thomas was the shortest line to power and wreaked revenge on his black brethren. When he was young, Thomas was often ostracized for pigmentation and pronounced African features by lighter skin, black folks. He praises his grandfather who mentally and physically abused him. The Psychology of Clarence Thomas?
I think you may be reading a great deal into my comment that I neither wrote nor intended. I do not deny the United States has an atrocious history of slavery, racism, and discrimination. What I was talking about is the type of diversity sought by university administrators. My personal belief is that intellectual diversity is as least as important, if not more important for a university than racial and ethnic diversity. Yes, I agree that Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard was correctly decided. But that is because I believe it is correctly interpreting the 14th Amendment and theCivil Rights Act of 1964. The 1964 Civil Rights Act makes it illegal to discriminate on the basis of race if you receive federal funding. There is no question that if you discriminate in favor of a member of a racial or ethnic group, you are discriminating against people who are not members of that group. For more than 50 years universities got away with discriminating on the basis of race. As Chief Justice Roberts wrote a few years ago, "The way to stop discriminating on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race." Applicants that have overcome racial discrimination or other adversity are free to write about that in application essays. Students should be judged as individuals, not as representatives of their ethnic groups.
I find it interesting that you chose to use your reply to my comment to make a racist attack on Justice Thomas for having the temerity to marry a white woman. I'll be honest, I have a really negative opinion of Ginny Thomas. But my opinion has nothing to do with miscegenation and everything to do with her support for Trump's stolen election narrative. There are plenty of reasons to dislike Ginny Thomas that have nothing to do with her marriage to a Black man. What does it say about a person that decides to attack her for an interracial marriage? It says to me that person is a racist. If you disagree, I am open to being persuaded that I am wrong.
What does it say that conspicuous by its absence in rulings that Uncle Clarence would reconsider is Loving vs. Virginia establishing the right to interracial marriage.
Is that conspicuous? Despite his explanation of it in hist dissent in Obergfell? (See https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/pdf/14-556.pdf).
Of course, it doesn't make a difference to you what Clarence Thomas actually thinks. It's what *he is* that matters. (You know...like ALL THOSE people.)
What Uncle Clarence thinks is that the whole fucking world revolves around Uncle Clarence.