What does need have to do with it? The law allows colleges to treat two candidates who are equal in all other respects differently because of the color of their skin. That is by definition both racism and having an effect on educational prospects. Most police officers don't consider race. Differential outcomes of police interactions isn't something forces on to all police officers. I guess we can put that issue to bed, right? More importantly, the issue with Affirmative Action is that is codifies racism. It isn't a bad actor that creates a statistically measurable effect in when taken in the aggregate with other bad actors, it is the laws on the books actually allowing for public institutions to treat people differently based on the color of their skin. The numbers do not bear this out. it isn't that charity work and a bad situation make up for a few points. It is that skin color, regardless of other factors, makes up for a whole standard deviation or more. If it weren't a real issue, why would you try to minimize it with obvious lies. It needs to be that skin color is not considered at all. I don't care what the number of people of each admitted group is. It should just be a race neutral process, just like we demand in the Constitution. Yes, the numbers are clear. Race makes up for huge discrepancies in entrance exam scores. This in turn closes the "admissions gap" but not so much the "graduation gap". Again, it is about the process, not the outcome. Wouldn't the same hold true for the black and Latinx candidates that would not be allowed in under a race neutral system? The demographics of the schools in comparison with the demographic breakdowns of the admissions test scores tell the story that the schools are discriminating on the basis of race. The numbers of admitted students are not the point, the process used to admit them is. Yes, the AA debate does bring out the true colors of those who claim to be anti-racist, but are truly just pro-their own race.
You are missing the part that it is impossible that two candidates are equal in every respect. All you did was say "Well, one tests higher so that person should go in," which isn't how admissions work. Nor should it, people are more than their test scores. The difference is that if a white kid doesn't go to Harvard he'll go to another IVY league school or Stanford or something, you see this as oppression for some reason. This is like arguing that the top RB prospect was passed on by Alabama and had to go to USC instead, boo hoo. A lot of these Anti-AA people are just like the Texas girl, didn't get to go the school she WANTED to go to and whining about it. When a cop considers race an innocent person goes to jail. So yeah, bad comparison. No, it is the laws on the books that ensure that top schools consider their racial makeup so that the pipeline to powerful positions, like those of Senate, Congress, Law, etc remains open to all people and here you are complaining about the 7% black people that get into Yale. What numbers? Are you doing admissions for top universities? You do realize that many top schools while they certainly love high test scores they do not consider them the end all be all, mostly because we know you can take the same person, have him/her do the same test 3 times, and get different scores each time. The fact is standardized tests are not the only measure. That's the simple fact that can't be ignored when talking about this. Well no, you don't care, but history isn't kind to 'race-neutral' processes. Colleges. Don't. Only. Consider. Exam. Scores. By the way, lets talk about graduation. Blacks graduate from Ivy league schools at high rates so so obviously the ones getting in deserve it, no matter how much you loathe to admit it. http://www.brownalumnimagazine.com/content/view/1564/40/index.html Also, lets be clear that when you are talking about AA you are talking about top schools, that's all it's ever really been about, and these top schools often have alumni that hold positions of power in the country. Would it? Do you think racism is extinct sir? AA is merely a safeguard against it. To protect minorities against possible racism, the fact is, it's not hurting any deserving Asian or White student that excelled in high-school...the same as a top center prospect may not go to Duke, but he can take his talents to Kentucky and prove he's the best. Again, you are hung up on test scores when admissions are not all about that. Hell, most of these schools nowadays are arguing about the validity of standardized testing itself. In sports terms you are saying because a high-school point guard prospect averaged 30 ppg he's better than the one that averaged 20ppg...and we both know that isn't the case. Just because someone is a good tester doesn't mean that they are going to be the better collegiate student. Yeah, again, A SCOTUS judge of the past decade said that blacks should go on the slow track and where was your outrage then? Instead your outraged that Yale has a 7% black population and according to you, this is just far too high...based on....what again? People always try to use Asians to destroy AA because I guarantee you if they got rid of it Asians would be the ones that realized how much it actually helped them. We JUST had Bannon right under Trump...the guy that was complaining that Asians were taking over...but hey...let's get outraged at this random journalist! I can tell many of you couldn't walk a mile in the shoes of a minority, we get that racist **** flung at us 24/7, I can't even play games online without getting called the N word almost daily.
Affirmative Action is only mandated in the case of proven discrimination. Other institutions use it but it is not mandated. Furthermore, the folks who are accepted all meet qualifications. The whites who go to those schools are helped by the diversity from affirmative action. But we know that blacks are both under-identified as gifted/talented even when meeting the qualifications. They are over-identified as special needs even if they don't meet the criteria. The same doesn't happen to whites.
Surprised nobody posted this yet tweet thread yet (pretty long): So when does the "counter trolling" excuse run out of steam, and when does it actually start to be, erm, her actual personality? Clear cover job by her. But "muh feelings were hurt" online, so I say what I want! Lel brb gonna start a flame war, someone told me to kys on Youtube. This whole dig up people's tweets to get them fired has really got to stop on both sides of the aisle. She should not be fired, but I think that maybe there were better people for the job after seeing her lack of common sense with regards to handling public interactions. And they are a private company, they can do whatever they want. We'll see if it affects their bottom line or not.
Being allowed is more than odious enough. Meeting the minimum qualifications isn't the issue. A great many people meet the minimum qualifications but are not accepted to competitive schools. The issue is, what criteria should be considered in the admissions process. If you said race, then you support racism (aka judging people by the color of their skin and not the content of their character). Are the whites that are rejected for blacks and Latinxs with lower scores helped by the diversity from affirmative action? Can there be diversity of thought in a racially homogeneous school? Is every Howard graduate a carbon copy of the one before because of its 95% black population, or can students with the same skin color still be radically different? What do either of those statistics have to do with whether or not we should use racism in college admissions? There are not white geniuses that are not GATE students? There are no white kids of normal intelligence put into special needs classes?
I agree that Jeong should not be fired from the New York Times. The Times is a racist newspaper and her beliefs are consistent with what that paper and the Democrat left value these days. What this should and I expect will serve to do is help to disable the lynch mob style campaigns of the Democrat left to socially terrorize people that they and the Times disagree with or are openly bigoted towards. For example, Paula Deen was harassed, attacked and socially terrorized to the point of being fired at her position at the Cooking Channel for previously in her life - many years ago - having uttered the "n-word". No exact quote was provided and certainly nothing recorded or written by her was produced. Does the using of the "N-word" make someone a racist? If it does, there are tens of millions of people in inner cities around our country who continue to use that term proudly, loudly, frequently and with impunity, even knowing how vile, hateful and otherwise useless that word is. But of course that was not what Paula Deen's harassment and ultimate firing was about. It was about much of the Democrat left's open bigotry towards Southern white people. She was a Southern white woman and they socially terrorized her because of that - not because she was being hateful or racist or bigoted, as she clearly does not appear to be any of those things. Paula Deen is associated by the increasingly neo-Marxist Democrat left with an identity politics related group that many among the Democrat left openly despise and are actively hostile towards, as they demonstrated here in this episode. They socially terrorized her because so many on the Democrat left are hateful, racist bigots and she was their target in this instance because of that. Their defense of Susan Joeng is much the same. They are protecting their agenda of hatefulness and incivility, not any righteousness that Joeng represents here, which appears to be precisely none on this topic. This vile, anti-social behavior must be stopped. The cycle of allowing people to have their careers ruined because their values or views are not "Politically correct" must be stopped. That means now. So going forward, the acceptance and promotion of this openly racist, aggressively bigoted woman by the New York Times and the Democrat left should be used like a rhetorical billy club against anyone trying to socially terrorize people more innocent than Susan Joeng is on this topic, which should include nearly everyone, but certainly included the likes of Paula Deen. It is time to stop this now. No more.
Wow, where did I even type that I don't condemn white supremacists and anti-Semitics??? You are changing the subject. This rampant racism and anti-minority tyranny you keep crying about is not nearly as prolific as you dumb leftists make it out to be. I just don't ever see it every day life. I don't deny it exists, but it's not ruining your life or your chance to make a better life in America. You're just a media sheep convinced that the sky is falling because doom and gloom sells. Read MojoMans response to your pathetic rebuttal. He nailed it.
You still haven't condemned them and you support a racist president that is negatively affecting the lives of all minority groups. Anti-minority tyranny? You sound like an alt-righter. You don't deny racism exists but you deny racism affects people's prospects???? That's what racism is you idiot. And yes, racism does negatively impact people's lives from job prospects to the justice system. Just because you don't see it and you are programmed to pretend it doesn't exist because your sad brain can't handle the truth so you go on here to spew your ignorant and uninformed views.
You write nothing of value on here so this is laughable You people are so stupid if you think she really is racist against whites and wasn't being satirical. Imagine if Swift lived today - people would accuse him of infanticide for this: https://www.gutenberg.org/files/1080/1080-h/1080-h.htm Yes he proposed that poor children be cooked and eaten. Could you imagine how much in arms you crazy snowflake alt-righters would be if she had posted something like that? Stop being so stupid for once. The NY Times is a racist paper? Really, are you that programmed? You are the climate deniers, the racist pigs, the economically misinformed don't realize it? You are the Trumpsters. You are the morons the world laughs at. The poor losers who don't know anything about economics that people like Trump easily manipulate to their ends, You believe that the left has mass conspiracy theories when in reality we can't organize jack-**** and have a small fraction of the money compared to the forces on the right. Meanwhile Trump and Putin are working together openly and you can't see it. Wow. And frankly, you are in the top 5 of idiots on here along with bigotexxxx and bobbythemoron and rojo the climate denier.
Yeah that's just an attempt by certain racists to redefine the word so that it no longer applies to them. It's very transparent.
And the people who are promoters of this malignent, self-serving nonsense are virtually always among the most eggrgious, outspoken racists our society has to offer. For example, Susan Joeng, and by association now, the New York Times.
I'm glad that everyone is so outraged over a random journalist saying racist things (But btw, never when it is Oreily or Limbaugh, I remember all the excuses people gave them) because the right never shows this outrage towards Breitbart or their journalists when they attack non-white people. So people are going to see the American right for what they are ultimately if they keep this up, no wonder they have continued to lose the non-white demographic when their only duty is to protect white fragility. This ENTIRE thread is white fragility by the way. It is the ultimate example of it. Minorities get harassed on twitter and the internet on a daily basis and we have to sit through and watch Fox News push racist narratives...but one journalist like Jeong does and again...you'd think white people were being lynched in the streets. We have an actual congressman in Iowa that pushes out white nationalist talking points by the way.
For sure, I mean the New York Times are trying to tell people that they embrace racism....we should listen to them.
You can't make this stuff up Wow! Candace Owens Copies Racist Tweets by Sarah Jeong but Replaces "White" with "Black" .... IS IMMEDIATELY SUSPENDED!
