The latest anti-liberal rant thread (get your daily dose here)

[alhoon]

What do you expect, if the American culture is such that it's beneficial for one to be offended by something, especially if the person has the right racial background, it's only logical that people will look for reasons to be offended.

You are right. You are absolutely right!
So many things make better sense now that I wonder why I haven't seen it in the past. I am not trolling, seriously.

It is as simple as you say: For good or for ill (answer: for ill) the USA academic system rewards people that are offended and scream to their professors over made-up issues especially if they are of the right racial background.
Thus people look for reasons to be offended and accuse others of racism/misogyny/religious intolerance.

Some people go to USA unis to learn how to be engineers, doctors, physicists, historians, chemists, etc.
Some people go to USA unis to learn how to be offended.

[Sar1n]

You are right. You are absolutely right!
So many things make better sense now that I wonder why I haven't seen it in the past. I am not trolling, seriously.

It is as simple as you say: For good or for ill (answer: for ill) the USA academic system rewards people that are offended and scream to their professors over made-up issues especially if they are of the right racial background.
Thus people look for reasons to be offended and accuse others of racism/misogyny/religious intolerance.

Some people go to USA unis to learn how to be engineers, doctors, physicists, historians, chemists, etc.
Some people go to USA unis to learn how to be offended.

It gets even scarier if you realize that it's not just academia. So much of what's happening has roots in simple, base desires like material gain, mob mentality or that little rush from showing dominance like your local Karen.

[Cookiegod]

Calling them progressives is a misnomer, really.

[Raubritter]

Calling them progressives is a misnomer, really.

Yeah, cause early 20th century progressives were for all the cool stuff like killing the genetic defected and that war hardens a nation and makes men.


Imagine the USA had a progressive president who would start his press conferences with "okay folks the bug is making the rounds, so hug your old granny, your fat diabetic mother and your chainsmoker beer drinker father for the last time cause if this is for real we gonna loose some slag in the coming weeks. Also watch the live execution of a child molester at 5."

[alhoon]

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wire...acism-73098823

Fast forward to the rant-worthy part:
"The Justice Department announced in August that a two-year investigation at Yale University revealed illegal discrimination against Asian American and white applicants. The department is supporting a lawsuit making similar claims of bias at Harvard University."


Yeap. Yale was discriminating against white people. Because at heart, a lot of progressive slactivists are really black supremacists. It is considered very bad to be white in USA academia nowdays, to the point that people pretend to be black.


PS. I am not saying Princeton does not have systemic racism or something. I don't know that. What I am saying is that they are a bunch of buttholes that think that "let's punish white people!" will make up for being buttholes to black people in the past.


I really hope the justice department fines the crap out of them to the point that the current leadership is forced to step down in shame, as Princeton struggles to find money even to buy chalk.

[PointOfViewGun]

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wire...acism-73098823

Fast forward to the rant-worthy part:
"The Justice Department announced in August that a two-year investigation at Yale University revealed illegal discrimination against Asian American and white applicants. The department is supporting a lawsuit making similar claims of bias at Harvard University."

Yeap. Yale was discriminating against white people. Because at heart, a lot of progressive slactivists are really black supremacists. It is considered very bad to be white in USA academia nowdays, to the point that people pretend to be black.

PS. I am not saying Princeton does not have systemic racism or something. I don't know that. What I am saying is that they are a bunch of buttholes that think that "let's punish white people!" will make up for being buttholes to black people in the past.

I really hope the justice department fines the crap out of them to the point that the current leadership is forced to step down in shame, as Princeton struggles to find money even to buy chalk.

So, how did they discriminate?

[Infidel144]

So, how did they discriminate?

"The Department of Justice found Yale discriminates based on race and national origin in its undergraduate admissions process, and that race is the determinative factor in hundreds of admissions decisions each year. For the great majority of applicants, Asian Americans and whites have only one-tenth to one-fourth of the likelihood of admission as African American applicants with comparable academic credentials. Yale rejects scores of Asian American and white applicants each year based on their race, whom it otherwise would admit.

Although the Supreme Court has held that colleges receiving federal funds may consider applicants’ race in certain limited circumstances as one of a number of factors, the Department of Justice found Yale’s use of race is anything but limited. Yale uses race at multiple steps of its admissions process resulting in a multiplied effect of race on an applicant’s likelihood of admission, and Yale racially balances its classes."
https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/justi...-undergraduate

[PointOfViewGun]

"The Department of Justice found Yale discriminates based on race and national origin in its undergraduate admissions process, and that race is the determinative factor in hundreds of admissions decisions each year. For the great majority of applicants, Asian Americans and whites have only one-tenth to one-fourth of the likelihood of admission as African American applicants with comparable academic credentials. Yale rejects scores of Asian American and white applicants each year based on their race, whom it otherwise would admit.

Although the Supreme Court has held that colleges receiving federal funds may consider applicants’ race in certain limited circumstances as one of a number of factors, the Department of Justice found Yale’s use of race is anything but limited. Yale uses race at multiple steps of its admissions process resulting in a multiplied effect of race on an applicant’s likelihood of admission, and Yale racially balances its classes."
https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/justi...-undergraduate

They make it sound like all they got going is the proportionality of applicants and accepted students based on race. If that's the case their case is pretty weak. Admission process into a university in USA has no real quantitative way of comparing students as they submit bunch of essays and often conduct interviews. They mention nationality. To what number do they even compare there for proportionality. Every year, a lot of foreign students with great scores and backgrounds compared to your average USA citizen apply to colleges in USA. What's stopping a college from admitting 100% foreign students?

[Cope]

They make it sound like all they got going is the proportionality of applicants and accepted students based on race. If that's the case their case is pretty weak. Admission process into a university in USA has no real quantitative way of comparing students as they submit bunch of essays and often conduct interviews. They mention nationality. To what number do they even compare there for proportionality. Every year, a lot of foreign students with great scores and backgrounds compared to your average USA citizen apply to colleges in USA. What's stopping a college from admitting 100% foreign students?

The law.

No person in the United States shall, on the ground of race, color, or national origin, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance.

42 U.S. Code § 2000d: Prohibition against exclusion from participation in, denial of benefits of, and discrimination under federally assisted programs on ground of race, color, or national origin.

[PointOfViewGun]

The law.

How does that sit with this:

Although the Supreme Court has held that colleges receiving federal funds may consider applicants’ race in certain limited circumstances as one of a number of factors, the Department of Justice found Yale’s use of race is anything but limited. Yale uses race at multiple steps of its admissions process resulting in a multiplied effect of race on an applicant’s likelihood of admission, and Yale racially balances its classes.

Also, how did Yale use federal funds in connection to the way it accepted applicants?

[Cope]

How does that sit with this:

Also, how did Yale use federal funds in connection to the way it accepted applicants?

You asked:

What's stopping a college from admitting 100% foreign students?

The answer is Title VI of the Civil Rights Act (as cited above) in addition to the 14th Amendment and any anti-discrimination state legislation. No part of Title VI states that the federal funds have to be specifically connected to the university's application process in order for the statute to apply.

[PointOfViewGun]

You asked:
The answer is Title VI of the Civil Rights Act (as cited above) in addition to the 14th Amendment and any anti-discrimination state legislation. No part of Title VI states that the federal funds have to be specifically connected to the university's application process in order for the statute to apply.

Then you didn't understand the question. Just because a university accepted only foreign students for a particular year doesn't mean they excluded all the domestic participants. There is no quantitative manner that you can rank applicants. The applicants are accepted based on merit; not just based on their SAT scores but also based on essays, portfolios, extracurricular activities, etc.

[Cope]

Then you didn't understand the question. Just because a university accepted only foreign students for a particular year doesn't mean they excluded all the domestic participants. There is no quantitative manner that you can rank applicants. The applicants are accepted based on merit; not just based on their SAT scores but also based on essays, portfolios, extracurricular activities, etc.

This is not a circumstance which has, or ever would, occur. It can be discarded.

[PointOfViewGun]

This is not a circumstance which ever would, or has, occurred. It can be discarded.

According to DoJ article it does. They claim discrimination based on national origin. The only argument they put forward is proportionality. It's only logical to question how they manage to do that. Last year, percentage of admitted students to Yale who were foreign students was 10% while that number for Boston University was 22%. In fact, Yale sits pretty far from the top of the list.

[Infidel144]

According to DoJ article it does.

Your question was:
"What's stopping a college from admitting 100% foreign students?"
Show me in the article where it says Yale was admitting 100% foreign students.

They claim discrimination based on national origin.

What the article said was:
"The Department of Justice found Yale discriminates based on race and national origin in its undergraduate admissions process, and that race is the determinative factor in hundreds of admissions decisions each year."

[PointOfViewGun]

Your question was:
"What's stopping a college from admitting 100% foreign students?"
Show me in the article where it says Yale was admitting 100% foreign students.
What the article said was:
"The Department of Justice found Yale discriminates based on race and national origin in its undergraduate admissions process, and that race is the determinative factor in hundreds of admissions decisions each year."

I didn't claim that the article suggested Yale admitted 100% foreign students. I didn't even imply it. I asked a hypothetical question in line with what I was arguing which you cut out. You wanna pick 30%? 20%? Or 10% like Yale actually did last summer? What makes accepting 10% foreign students violate the law?

[Infidel144]

I didn't claim that the article suggested Yale admitted 100% foreign students. I didn't even imply it. I asked a hypothetical question in line with what I was arguing which you cut out.

You:
"What's stopping a college from admitting 100% foreign students?"
Also you:
"Just because a university accepted only foreign students for a particular year..."
Cope:
"This is not a circumstance which has, or ever would, occur."
You:
"According to DoJ article it does."

'Only' '100%'. 'Article says so'

You wanna pick 30%? 20%? Or 10% like Yale actually did last summer? What makes accepting 10% foreign students violate the law?

Where does the article say accepting accepting foreign students violates the law?

[Cope]

I didn't claim that the article suggested Yale admitted 100% foreign students. I didn't even imply it. I asked a hypothetical question in line with what I was arguing which you cut out. You wanna pick 30%? 20%? Or 10% like Yale actually did last summer? What makes accepting 10% foreign students violate the law?

The law is violated if race-conscious affirmative action policies extend beyond the boundaries of the strict scrutiny standard used by the courts to determine the legitimacy (or lack thereof) of preferential treatment guidelines. The proportion of students belonging to certain racial or national backgrounds only matters if candidates are being systemically favoured/disadvantaged according to race and/or national origin by the application process (such as is the case at Yale).

[PointOfViewGun]

You:
"What's stopping a college from admitting 100% foreign students?"
Also you:
"Just because a university accepted only foreign students for a particular year..."
Cope:
"This is not a circumstance which has, or ever would, occur."
You:
"According to DoJ article it does."
'Only' '100%'. 'Article says so'

Nice distortion. Keep it up.

Where does the article say accepting accepting foreign students violates the law?

The article claims discrimination based on national origin and only mentions proportionality. I can only assume they have some kind of proportionality when it comes to foreign and domestic students. It's not a matter of accepting foreign students but at which perception they do.

The law is violated if race-conscious affirmative action policies extend beyond the boundaries of the strict scrutiny standard used by the courts to determine the legitimacy (or lack thereof) of preferential treatment guidelines. The proportion of students belonging to certain racial or national backgrounds only matters if candidates are being systemically favoured/disadvantaged according to race and/or national origin by the application process (such as is the case at Yale).

That connection is arbitrary and trivial. It sounds fancy but it doesn't tells us anything. The question remains. How could DoJ decide the qualitative analysis of Yale of its applicants was discriminatory. The letter suggests that they didn't not have substance to back it up. They simply backed on proportionality and test scores to make their claims. The article makes that quite obvious. Otherwise, how could they know?

[Cope]

That connection is arbitrary and trivial. It sounds fancy but it doesn't tells us anything.

It's the law.

The question remains. How could DoJ decide the qualitative analysis of Yale of its applicants was discriminatory. The letter suggests that they didn't not have substance to back it up. They simply backed on proportionality and test scores to make their claims. The article makes that quite obvious. Otherwise, how could they know?

The DoJ is alleging that Yale's systemic preferential treatment policies (which the university openly endorses) are discriminatory. The excessively disproportionate acceptance rates for applicants who are also the beneficiaries of codified affirmative action policies form part of the preliminary evidence; an analysis of the race-conscious affirmative action policies themselves (which the DoJ states are unnecessarily used at "multiple steps of [the] admissions process") forms another. Presumably the department has elaborated on these findings in their full report.

In any case, what the DOJ "knows" or claims to know is largely irrelevant; what matters is the view of the court vis-a-vis the strict scrutiny standard I mentioned above.