"Diversity"

[Patrick]

In other words, NO applicant was qualified based on grades alone. Their grades were sufficient to score them points, but their race was the decisive factor. Is that right, Pat?

It's not surprising - it happens everywhere.



I didn't say race was the decisive factor, and I don't have the point system used for the undergraduates at hand, but race was worth a lot of points.

I can't read the minds of the Law School Admissions Committee members, but the analysis of the respective GPAs and LSAT scores, the relevent strictly quantitative data, plus the races of admitted an rejected students, showed when taken together that anti-white discrimination was a strong factor. Racial discrimination in any amount is unacceptable to the rational and ethical.

 

[c0rbin]

"...but race was worth a lot of points..."

But not racist enough for the SCOTUS to strike them down, so to speak.

It seems that the school doesn't use a hard line to cut off for the LSAT, but:

How does the University of Michigan Law School handle multiple LSAT scores?
Consideration is given to each score, as well as to the average score. If there is a significant disparity between the two scores -- six or more points -- you should consider addressing the difference in performance in an optional essay.

http://www.law.umich.edu/prospectivestudents/Admissions/faq.htm

Yep, they are so anti-white that 70% of the class of 2006 is white.

Also, you can get a pretty good idea of their secret admissions policy at the link below.

http://www.law.umich.edu/prospectivestudents/Admissions/index.htm

 

[Patrick]

Yep, they are so anti-white that 70% of the class of 2006 is white. And the general population is about 75% white? And what percentage would be white in the absence of anti-white discrimination? 80%? 85%? Your comment reduces to it's OK if say just a few thousand white students (just looking at U of M alone) get screwed. Great.

 

[Ed]

"...but race was worth a lot of points..."

But not racist enough for the SCOTUS to strike them down, so to speak.

It seems that the school doesn't use a hard line to cut off for the LSAT, but:



http://www.law.umich.edu/prospectivestudents/Admissions/faq.htm

Yep, they are so anti-white that 70% of the class of 2006 is white.

Last I looked Blacks made up about 12% of the population. Of the 30% non-white enrollment how many, I wonder, are Orthodox Jews. Point is that any percentage much over 12% shows bias. 12% may in itself show racism, depends how folks were chosen.

 

[TragicMonkey]

It also depends on whether you're using national or local statistics for figuring out your quotas. Group A may be 10% of the national population, but 30% of the state population, and 80% of the city population. Which one do you use?

 

[Patrick]

It also depends on whether you're using national or local statistics for figuring out your quotas. Group A may be 10% of the national population, but 30% of the state population, and 80% of the city population. Which one do you use?

The relevent population break down should be the same as that for all applicants. But even that is a skewed metric, if some whites who would otherwise apply are discouraged from applying because of U of M's infamous reputation for anti-white racial discrimination.

 

[TragicMonkey]

My question wasn't whether they should use different percentages, but which one they DO use to determine what the percentage of each race is.

 

[Dancing David]

[B
The relevent population break down should be the same as that for all applicants. But even that is a skewed metric, if some whites who would otherwise apply are discouraged from applying because of U of M's infamous reputation for anti-white racial discrimination. [/B]

And that is just unsubstantiated polemic, do people not apply to yale becasuse of the legacy system. What if more peopel were given preference because of legacy than race?

 

[Patrick]

And that is just unsubstantiated polemic, do people not apply to yale becasuse of the legacy system. What if more peopel were given preference because of legacy than race?

I said IF, Colonel ADS.

And if more people were given preference because of legacy than race (and of course, what actually prevails is the wholesale opposite) then there would be no problem with that - it would not constitute a violation of the Equal Protection Clause prohibition against RACIAL discrimination, or at least the former EPC that has been deleted by the USSC.

 

[Dancing David]

[BI said IF, Colonel ADS.

And if more people were given preference because of legacy than race (and of course, what actually prevails is the wholesale opposite) then there would be no problem with that - it would not constitute a violation of the Equal Protection Clause prohibition against RACIAL discrimination, or at least the former EPC that has been deleted by the USSC. [/B]

You so silly, you just hyontisised by that TV news, Patrick, the case is in most law schools is that preference is given to many many thing other than race, which is why in a 'point based system' the Supreme Court rules that AA was just a nother set a points in a system that unfairly weights all sorts of things in acedemic admissiom.

The Equal Protection Clause is an interesting one, it only applies to the government, not to society. Which is why it was invoked in Brown vs. Board of education, but not in a catholic charity hiring only catholics. And I agree that AA programs seem to be based upon reverse racism, which is why is prior threads i agreed that the single most important barrier to school is economic status and that instead of AA , it should be given priority for school placement.


So Patrick did you ever say why you felt that Sandanistas were a 'repressive dictatorship', I agree with many things you say and would hate to think that you just parrot what you hear on FOX news.

 

[Patrick]

You so silly, you just hyontisised by that TV news, Patrick, the case is in most law schools is that preference is given to many many thing other than race, which is why in a 'point based system' the Supreme Court rules that AA was just a nother set a points in a system that unfairly weights all sorts of things in acedemic admissiom.

The Equal Protection Clause is an interesting one, it only applies to the government, not to society. Which is why it was invoked in Brown vs. Board of education, but not in a catholic charity hiring only catholics. And I agree that AA programs seem to be based upon reverse racism, which is why is prior threads i agreed that the single most important barrier to school is economic status and that instead of AA , it should be given priority for school placement.


The short answer to this stream of buffoon babble is you are a moron. Tempted to leave it at that, but I will attempt a little education. If preference is given to race, it doesn't matter what else or how much else is given to "other things" - an admissions policy that gives race 50% weight is 50% (anti-white) racist, one that gives race 13.5% weight is 13.5% (anti-white) racist. An ethical, rational and constitutional society gives ZERO per cent to race.

The Equal Protection Clause is an interesting one, it only applies to the government, not to society.

Raising your grasp of that aspect above the dope level - the EPC applies just as well to "private" entities like the U of M for which the government is a substantial partner, with funding, grants, tax privileges, tax exempt status of donations, government facilities on campus, etc etc etc.

 

[thaiboxerken]

Re: Re: Re: Let's be honest.

Yeah, that's what it is. I'm a redneck. That must be it. Anybody who thinks that maybe individuals should be judged solely on the content of their character (or their abilities) rather than their ethnic background (or their gender, or their "orientation", etc.) must be a redneck. Jeeze, I think I heard that somewhere - content of their character - rings a bell, but I just can't place it.

Ha! I agree that people should be judged solely on their qualifications as well. A diverse group of people means that this is how it is happening. Believe it or not, a black person can actually be smarter and more qualified for a job than a white guy. Diversity means equal opportunity, not racial quotas.

 

[thaiboxerken]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Let's be honest.

This is not a difficult concept. Explain to me how be racially conscious, how making race a criteria on which you evaluate the merits of one candidate over another is not being racist? The same applies to gender and sexual orientation issues. I thought not being racist meant being color BLIND????

It does mean being color blind. You are simply twisting the semantics of "diversity" to mean that these companies actually hiring based on race and ethnic backgrounds. I guess you are just PO'd that you live in the trailer.

 

[thaiboxerken]

Re: Oh please....

Well that's pretty kneejerky. Ive hardly seen anything from Patrick that indicates he is a racist.

Well, many bigots don't consider other bigots bigots either.

I can hardly see how his view point that evaluation of a candidate for entry into a school should be based on academic merit rather than on their ethnic background could be construed as racist.

That's not his or your viewpoint, though. Your viewpoints both seem to be that white people should get the best education no matter what.

Somehow, being color blind is being racist. Somehow, not making someones sex or orientation or ethnicity a determining factor in your evalution of their worthiness them is being a bigot. Seems very Orwellian to me.

It's a huge strawmant that you and the other racist keep building. People are not suggesting to make race a factor in hiring, but they are supporting laws that should stop people from hiring based on race. The big bitch that Grand Wizard Patrick has is that Boeing says they they value diversity. Diversity in itself is not racist.

 

[thaiboxerken]

Yep, they are so anti-white that 70% of the class of 2006 is white. And the general population is about 75% white? And what percentage would be white in the absence of anti-white discrimination? 80%? 85%? Your comment reduces to it's OK if say just a few thousand white students (just looking at U of M alone) get screwed. Great.

Ever think that maybe minority races might be more qualified than the caucasians?

Your white hood is showing.

 

[billydkid]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Let's be honest.

Believe it or not, a black person can actually be smarter and more qualified for a job than a white guy.

Have I said anything that even remotely suggests I believe otherwise? I think not. Consider the actual content of posts and don't "read between the lines". Go after me for what I actually say and not for what you think I might mean.

 

[Tony]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Let's be honest.

I agree that people should be judged solely on their qualifications as well. A diverse group of people means that this is how it is happening.

Non-sequitor.

Believe it or not, a black person can actually be smarter and more qualified for a job than a white guy.

Did anyone say otherwise?

Diversity means equal opportunity, not racial quotas.

If being a certain color puts you ahead of others than there is no equl opportunity.

 

[billydkid]

Re: Re: Oh please....

Well that's pretty kneejerky. Ive hardly seen anything from Patrick that indicates he is a racist.

Well, many bigots don't consider other bigots bigots either.

I can hardly see how his view point that evaluation of a candidate for entry into a school should be based on academic merit rather than on their ethnic background could be construed as racist.

That's not his or your viewpoint, though. Your viewpoints both seem to be that white people should get the best education no matter what.

Somehow, being color blind is being racist. Somehow, not making someones sex or orientation or ethnicity a determining factor in your evalution of their worthiness them is being a bigot. Seems very Orwellian to me.

It's a huge strawmant that you and the other racist keep building. People are not suggesting to make race a factor in hiring, but they are supporting laws that should stop people from hiring based on race. The big bitch that Grand Wizard Patrick has is that Boeing says they they value diversity. Diversity in itself is not racist.

Hey listen pal, don't be going around calling me a racist. If you knew me at all you would know how ridiculous that accusation is. I have said nothing remotely racist and the fact that you are so ready jump up and start slingling around insults is extremely telling. The fact is, in none of the posts I read from Patrick did I see anything that looked racist. And let me clue you, if you call me a racist again I am going to contact the moderators and have something done about it.

Nobody has said that diversity is racist. What has been said is that judging people based on their race rather than on their qualifications is racist. If you can not get that through you head then there is not much left to say. I believe in a color blind society - does that make me racist? I believe that a given position should go to best qualified candidate, whether male or female or black or white or asian or Inuit or a midget or a transexual. If that make me racist or sexist or homophobic to you, then fine. I believe people should be judged on their INDIVIDUAL characteristics and specifically not on their gender or their ethnic background. To you that is racist and sexist. Nothing I can do about that.

Let me stress this again in case you missed it - call me racist again and I will be reporting your post to the moderators.

 

[DoubleStreamer]

Originally posted by thaiboxerken
I guess you are just PO'd that you live in the trailer.

Well, many bigots don't consider other bigots bigots either.

Your viewpoints both seem to be that white people should get the best education no matter what.

It's a huge strawmant that you and the other racist keep building.

Your white hood is showing.

Well, I might have missed something, but I can't find anything in this thread to justify the demonization reflected in these comments. So please cite at least one statement or passage from each of the posters you're referring to that clearly demonstrates what you're talking about. For comments of this nature, that's not too much to ask in a forum like this - at least, not if you want to be taken seriously.

 

[DavidJames]

Well, I might have missed something, but I can't find anything in this thread to justify the demonization reflected in these comments. So please cite at least one statement or passage from each of the posters you're referring to that clearly demonstrates what you're talking about. For comments of this nature, that's not too much to ask in a forum like this - at least, not if you want to be taken seriously.

Taken alone I don't think being against AA makes one a racist. I would need to look at other comments someone made. In response to an earlier request , I made the following post. regarding comments made by Patrick.

"In one ad, has a stunning blonde WF student who looks about like pure icelandic descent, with her arm all cozily around the neck of a BM who looks like he just popped out of the african jungle"

Perhaps this thread may shed some light on Patricks views of race.

Please read the attached link and draw your own conclusions.