Scalia: Seperate and Not Equal, Yes!

Scalia: Maybe black students belong at 'less-advanced' schools

Oh boy. So, it's not that less qualified students shouldn't go to the better schools, it's specifically that black students shouldn't go to the better schools.

But that's ok, because the need for anti-segregation laws has passed, ya know.

After World War Two, Bavaria's constitution carried a paragraph that forbade the government from introducing compulsory youth organisations. Back in 98, they amended the Constitution and took that paragraph out. Why? Because we were no longer a totalitarian state and so nobody had any plans to introduce a compulsory youth organisation, hence why forbid it?

It's only illogical if you believe them. Once you realize they're liars, it all makes perfect sense.

Better than treating blacks like we treat mentally retarded people, which is the liberal way of perpetuating labels that move the country backwards instead of forward.

Oh, and Martin L. King's dream wasn't that we treat his skin-mates as special needs charity cases handed out rewards for their blackness from the supremely endowed white folk.

You should read the article and get an understanding of the case before the court. What you are saying might make sense in a different context, but not this one. A white woman sued because she didn't make the qualifications, which are that the top 10% of graduating high school students are granted admission. Her contention is that such a system (which is colorblind) somehow allows inferior black students a spot ahead of her in the line. Scalia seems to be suggesting not only that, but that black students are inherently unsuited for the academic rigors of a UT education. The complainant might have a point if the state is allowing lax standards in majority minority schools, but demanding higher standards in less diverse schools. But Scalia doesn't have a point at all.

Scalia's lack of tact notwithstanding, the issue isn't that blacks are any less capable or unwilling to perform at the level of a better school, but that they often come from schools that have lower funding and thus less AP classes. Even white students from the poorest part of the Appalachias have similar experiences in college.

This point was made in "Stand and Deliever" when the teacher had to create an AP Calculus class from scratch because the East LA school in the movie offered no math classes beyond Geometry (a class offered in most other places in America at 9th grade).

Personally,I'm all for schools choosing to admit kids in the 90th percentile of lower income high school on the system similar to Japan where they study the material(s) they didn't have the opportunity to learn first before jumping into college work...because yeah, that isn't doing anyone a favor. But the solution isn't to ban them all.

^Glad you posted.
I don't tell how stupid you sound mainly because you're black - you are 'special needs' - like when you say really stupid things e.g. about people only joining the US armed forces because they are poor or stupid. Your arrogance and know-it-allisms that you've been expressing quite often lately go unchallenged solely because of some pigmentation thing. Proud?

I figured they went unchallenged because Dayton, gtardo and now Dinner were far bigger targets these days.

People,including yourself, have had no problems telling me off when I deserve it in the past, so I doubt it had fuck all to do with skin color.

Nope, partly because I like you, but mostly because I don't pick on black chicks.

And you've said some real doozies lately.
Happens to most smart people around 30 - it'll take another few years to realize that the more you learn, the more you become aware of what you don't know.

Anyway, I rarely go for the easy targets, maybe 1 in 50 stupid comments by Shitstain and Dayton merit comment.

Affirmative action?

Oh, the military thing. I wasn't entirely talking outta my ass on that, seeing as I was in for five years. A lotta of 'em do enlist because they couldn't find work--doubly so around the time I joined in 2010 for obvious reasons.

And while I do think the service is receiving an influx of talent with folks holding bachelor's degrees and even Masters in some cases, there's still far too many of the stereotypical military left in charge. They'll eventually leave out, but in the meantime, so will the grunts that have degrees or any other means to make money that doesn't involved being treated like shit, or having all kinds of crazy schedules.

#SorryNotSorry

Scalia is doing his job as a Supreme Court Justice, grilling the people before the court to find the weaknesses in their arguments. His use of the phrase "there are those who contend" is part of that grilling. Once again liberal writers didn't bother to get the court transcript, they just rushed to their laptops.

The actual transcripts make him look even worse.

No, he's listing some arguments that have been made and asking the lawyers for a response. They gave a response, and Scalia followed up by asking 'but what if they're right?' (paraphrasing). Judges do that, sometimes essentially saying "What if absolutely everything the plaintiffs say is right? Do you still have a case?" That's why almost no serious legal writer bases opinions on what goes on during the legal arguments. They wait until the court publishes its opinion, where the judges often rule completely contrary to the lines of argumentation they'd used.

Two things come to mind: one, yes, and yay!, you got my not-so-subtle point. Two, there's an ocean of difference between an individual's words or deeds and what I believe appropriate for institutionalized policy imposed by government.

Honestly, the systems which automatically take a certain percentage from each school does mean different standards (based on geography not race). Being in the top 10% of a failing school where half the students drop out is relatively easy where as being in the 10% competitive school is pretty hard. It is an imperfect system but I have yet to hear a better one.

Exactly.

This is why I support a nationalized curriculum, but good luck ever getting that passed in Congress.

Ahh positive discrimination.

Warms the heart.

Ahem, it's called affirmative action 'round these parts.

And you really should look into getting a pair of glasses that enables you to read between the lines - I mean, 'positive discrimination' is what the whole thread is about, you knew that, right?

That's wrong, since Bakke has been the law of the land since 1978, and the Fisher case was effectively a challenge to that supreme-court-made case law.

That's my whole objection - institutionalized racism that perpetuates being "black" as a basis for measurement.

Trascript of the oral arguments, for anyone interested.

Maybe we need a it's ok rating.For sympathy

Then there's this piece of work: a Michigan state senator who thinks some school districts can't be helped because "we can't make an African-American white."

The real icing on the cake is his defense: "If they knew me they would know that I am not racist at all ... I have an African-American employee who works for me."

Anthony scalia is not racist. He is so not racist he even let his slave clarence thomas serve on the court with him. Of course he does not let clarence speak to much because he aint to good with the english yet. Occasionally he might let clarence put a pubic hair in some woman's coke to entice her to breed with him, but it is all good wholesome fun as put down in the bible and the original constitution.

Is that a real comment or the answer to the essay question on your Aryan Nations membership application?

Scalia is the gift that keeps on giving. Which is to say that the second amendment is the only one he seems to give much of a rat's ass about. After all, he's also one of the one's responsible for the destruction of the fourth and fifth amendments and the elimination of castle doctrine, so why the fuck wouldn't he be against the fourteenth while he's at it?

Read the transcript. What he and several other justices are trying to get at is whether the university's arguments are sound. Is their goal really in the best interest of the minority students, or is it just to make themselves feel better at the cost of the students?

They're also very cognizant of the goals of affirmative action, which was to put the government's thumb on the scales to correct the lingering effects of long term and severe discrimination. The purpose is to move things along to the point where that thumb is no longer necessary because everybody has caught up, and thus the programs still using race-based criteria need to show that doing so is advancing things towards the day when such measures won't be needed.

I linked the transcript up-thread. It's interesting reading.

Scalia may not have a gift with words, but it's hard to conclude from these cherry-picked comments that he actually supports segregation.

He doesn't. In fact, he's doing the opposite. The affirmative action programs are exceptions to the amendments and subsequent laws that banned discrimination on the basis of race. The exceptions exist because of unique and clear circumstances that the government had to step in to redress. In doing so, parties still practicing such forms of discrimination, when called to account, must be able to show how they're helping the problem, not making it worse. Because if the government gave sanction to types of racial discrimination that hurt blacks, in their educational opportunities, educational achievements, career prospects, and lifetime achievements, well, that would be bad. And if the programs don't accomplish anything at all then we're just racially discriminating for no reason, which also can't be allowed.

What Scalia was referencing in one part is studies by block professors that argued that the system that developed to heavily recruit minority students drastically increased their dropout rate and badly hurt their educational attainment. The theory, backed up with lots of data, was that a kid who would excel at, say, a state university would find himself in the bottom of his class if recruited by Harvard or Princeton. So instead of becoming a doctor or lawyer he drops out in his sophomore year, deep in debt, and ends up with some minor job with city government. As was pointed out during the oral arguments, the minority students who don't take advantage of the affirmative action slots, and just proceed as if they didn't exist, skip going to the elite schools but are vastly more likely to get their degrees and then go on to get their masters and PhD's. It's possible that the only people benefiting are the whites with the cushy admissions jobs and the people who are suffering the cost are, as always, minorities.

So the justices are throwing a lot of tough questions at the University of Texas, and the university is having trouble answering a lot of them, possibly because they have a big disincentive to take a hard look at the statistical data on the outcomes of their efforts.

I'm pretty against affirmative action myself, because it's racist (and cutting both ways at that), but what Scalia said is just stupid. Even if you can calk this up to being poorly articulated, it still comes across as him basically talking down to minority students rather than supporting a meritocracy. Plus, not a big fan of his when it comes to civil liberties anyway.

Actually, I agreed with your points. Students have to brought up to speed before you throw them into the fire. That's just common sense. That's why many students choose to attend the local junior/community college and get remedial & basic requirements out of the way before heading off to the big university.