[W:148] Affirmative Action promotes systemic racial discrimination.

[RealityChecker]

Treating people differently based on their racial, sexual, and/or other identity characteristic is what white supremacists and the Chinese Communist Party, and the supporters of AA policies all do. We can be sure the Biden administration's DOJ will support Harvard's AA policies. It will be interesting to see if the Supreme Court hears this case and outlaws treating people differently based on their group identity.

As Supreme Court Weighs Harvard Admissions Case, Two Asian Americans Speak Out And Allege Bias

A new study indicates Asian acceptance to selective schools would not increase much if test scores were only factor.

www.wgbh.org

 

[AGENT J]

Treating people differently based on their racial, sexual, and/or other identity characteristic is what white supremacists and the Chinese Communist Party, and the supporters of AA policies all do. We can be sure the Biden administration's DOJ will support Harvard's AA policies. It will be interesting to see if the Supreme Court hears this case and outlaws treating people differently based on their group identity.

As Supreme Court Weighs Harvard Admissions Case, Two Asian Americans Speak Out And Allege Bias

A new study indicates Asian acceptance to selective schools would not increase much if test scores were only factor.

www.wgbh.org

white supremacists???
Chinese Communist Party????
Biden????
holy trigger failed deflection

What is in that post that proves the OP title and 5 claims in the OP are statements of facts???

oh that's right, NOTHING LMAO

 

[RealityChecker]

Harvard uses AA policies that treat people differently based on their racial identity. The Biden DOJ will likely support Harvard's use of using racial identity as a factor in determining which applicants are accepted and rejected. As an AA administrator (or former one?) do you believe the SCOTUS should take this case? If so, any thoughts on how the SCOTUS will rule? Assuming the SCOTUS hears this case how do you believe the SCOTUS should rule? Do you believe it should rule it is lawful to be using race as a factor to judge applicants differently or do you believe that doing so violates the US Constitution, the 14th Amendment, and/or the 1964 Civil Rights Act?

It seems pretty clear that a SCOTUS ruling in this case may impact AA policies. This case and its potential impact on how AA policies seems relevant to this OP. It is either lawful or unlawful to judge an individual applicant differently based on the applicant's race, ethnicity, gender identity, or other factors.

 

[AGENT J]

Harvard uses AA policies that treat people differently based on their racial identity. The Biden DOJ will likely support Harvard's use of using racial identity as a factor in determining which applicants are accepted and rejected. As an AA administrator (or former one?) do you believe the SCOTUS should take this case? If so, any thoughts on how the SCOTUS will rule? Assuming the SCOTUS hears this case how do you believe the SCOTUS should rule? Do you believe it should rule it is lawful to be using race as a factor to judge applicants differently or do you believe that doing so violates the US Constitution, the 14th Amendment, and/or the 1964 Civil Rights Act?

It seems pretty clear that a SCOTUS ruling in this case may impact AA policies. This case and its potential impact on how AA policies seems relevant to this OP. It is either lawful or unlawful to judge an individual applicant differently based on the applicant's race, ethnicity, gender identity, or other factors.

aaaand another post that does NOTHING to make the thread title and 5 claims in the OP statements of facts. LOL
Your failed posts just keep proving us right over and over
try again!

 

[TurtleDude]

Harvard uses AA policies that treat people differently based on their racial identity. The Biden DOJ will likely support Harvard's use of using racial identity as a factor in determining which applicants are accepted and rejected. As an AA administrator (or former one?) do you believe the SCOTUS should take this case? If so, any thoughts on how the SCOTUS will rule? Assuming the SCOTUS hears this case how do you believe the SCOTUS should rule? Do you believe it should rule it is lawful to be using race as a factor to judge applicants differently or do you believe that doing so violates the US Constitution, the 14th Amendment, and/or the 1964 Civil Rights Act?

It seems pretty clear that a SCOTUS ruling in this case may impact AA policies. This case and its potential impact on how AA policies seems relevant to this OP. It is either lawful or unlawful to judge an individual applicant differently based on the applicant's race, ethnicity, gender identity, or other factors.

I posted several articles proving discrimination clearly existed and I didn't get a single rebuttal. All I saw was a few people screaming "triggered" or meltdown. No response whatsoever.

 

[AGENT J]

I posted several articles proving discrimination clearly existed and I didn't get a single rebuttal. All I saw was a few people screaming "triggered" or meltdown. No response whatsoever.

Did any of them prove the OP title and 5 claims in the OP to be statements of facts? . . any of them? . . . . NOPE
so no "rebuttal" would be needed for those failed triggered meltdowns, feelings and failed deflections you speak of

ONce again we are in the same spot, not one single post has shown the thread title or the 5 claims in the OP to be statements of facts.
Let us know when that changes, thanks!

 

[TurtleDude]

Did any of them prove the OP title and 5 claims in the OP to be statements of facts? . . any of them? . . . . NOPE
so no "rebuttal" would be needed for those failed triggered meltdowns, feelings and failed deflections you speak of

ONce again we are in the same spot, not one single post has shown the thread title or the 5 claims in the OP to be statements of facts.
Let us know when that changes, thanks!

moving the goal posts again since you have never had possession of the football?

it proved the following

blacks with far inferior scores were being admitted into top schools ahead of far more objectively qualified whites and Asians

That undermines Merit and yes, it causes resentment

 

[RealityChecker]

I posted several articles proving discrimination clearly existed and I didn't get a single rebuttal. All I saw was a few people screaming "triggered" or meltdown. No response whatsoever.

It seems some people are interested in debating this topics and others seem to have no interest in a civil debate on this topic. If one has no cogent rebuttal or point why be so eager to demonstrate that by simply posting the same rant over and over again? Any thoughts about what the SCOTUS may do with the Harvard lawsuit? I'd be very surprised if the Biden DOJ does not side with Harvard, but how the SCOTUS will actually end up ruling on this I really have no idea. It seems Roberts is more interested in tortured logic than simply following the law. Ignoring the law seems to be par for the course for many on the progressive left who seem to believe they are either above the law or that the end somehow justifies apparently illegal means. Your thoughts?

 

[AGENT J]

moving the goal posts again since you have never had possession of the football?

moving the goal post from where? the OP?
sweet irony! LMAO

as usual, another failed post and nothing has changed. Try again through its fun watching them fail over and over and facts never changing!

 

[AtlantaAdonis]

"The only remedy to racist discrimination is antiracist discrimination."

-Ibram Kendi, leading world expert in anti-racism

But right wingers don't trust experts in vaccine science or climate change, why the exerptise of anti-racism experts?

 

[RealityChecker]

"The only remedy to racist discrimination is antiracist discrimination."

-Ibram Kendi, leading world expert in anti-racism

But right wingers don't trust experts in vaccine science or climate change, why the exerptise of anti-racism experts?

Ibram Kendi is an anti-American promoter of racism. He is an expert at seeing all white people as racist. Critical race theory is not based on science.

What Is Critical Race Theory? | PragerU

Uncover the truth about Critical Race Theory and its impact on education and workplace culture.

www.prageru.com

 

[TurtleDude]

"The only remedy to racist discrimination is antiracist discrimination."

-Ibram Kendi, leading world expert in anti-racism

But right wingers don't trust experts in vaccine science or climate change, why the exerptise of anti-racism experts?

what makes someone an "anti racism" expert. That sounds like some complete bullshit. The guy you quote has a PhD from less than prestigious sources and is in African-American studies. His books have been criticized as simplistic and he may well be a racist himself given what he said about Justice Barrett's adoption of african children.

 

[TurtleDude]

Ibram Kendi is an anti-American promoter of racism. He is an expert at seeing all white people as racist. Critical race theory is not based on science.

What Is Critical Race Theory? | PragerU

Uncover the truth about Critical Race Theory and its impact on education and workplace culture.

www.prageru.com

yes, he's not exactly anything more than a bomb thrower

 

[RealityChecker]

yes, he's not exactly anything more than a bomb thrower

Here is a young women who is the polar opposite of the race hustling zealotry of Ibram Kendi. Her take on the anti-American, racist ideology of the progressive left is spot on. She was indoctrinated into progressive leftist ideology by her mother, but escaped from this zealous secular cult and is now exposing it hypocrisy as she does in the 5 minute video.

Amala Ekpunobi: Why I Quit My Job as a Leftist Organizer | PragerU

Amala Ekpunobi exposes how leftist policies she once supported actually foster racism.

www.prageru.com

 

[AGENT J]

Anybody yet?

can ANYBODY prove the op title and the 5 claims in the op:

- Over time AA has evolved into laws and regulations that support systemic racism.
- Like so many progressive left programs AA actually creates systemic racial discrimination and undermines individual liberty.
- No doubt the intent of AA was to reduce race based discrimination, but the effect of AA is now the only form of government promoted and condoned race-based discrimination.
- AA is immoral and conflicts with the civil rights laws which were intended to outlaw and discourage racial discrimination.
- AA seriously undermine merit and demands people be judged less on objective qualifications and more based on race, ethnicity, and gender indenity.

to be statements of facts?

 

[RealityChecker]

Anybody yet?

can ANYBODY prove the op title and the 5 claims in the op:

- Over time AA has evolved into laws and regulations that support systemic racism.
- Like so many progressive left programs AA actually creates systemic racial discrimination and undermines individual liberty.
- No doubt the intent of AA was to reduce race based discrimination, but the effect of AA is now the only form of government promoted and condoned race-based discrimination.
- AA is immoral and conflicts with the civil rights laws which were intended to outlaw and discourage racial discrimination.
- AA seriously undermine merit and demands people be judged less on objective qualifications and more based on race, ethnicity, and gender identity.

to be statements of facts?

Pick any one of the 5 and tell us what specifically you believe is out of sync with reality.

 

[AGENT J]

Pick any one of the 5 and tell us what specifically you believe is out of sync with reality.

once again dodging and posting failed deflections won't fool any of us. lol
The onus is on you. Its your job to support your claims and prove they are statements of facts. So far nobody has nor can in 1400+ posts and over 30 days.
Let us know when that changes, thanks!

 

[RealityChecker]

A little history of how "affirmative action" [AA] evolved. Back in the 1970s AA used quotas that required less qualified blacks applicants to colleges or for jobs be hired instead of more qualified white applicants. This was government promoted race-based discrimination was it not? As I said stated AA policies was forced to evolve so they were less apparently blatant race-based discrimination, but such discrimination (called AA) lasted until 1978. In 1978 the SCOTUS outlawed such race-based quota policies. This resulted in the elites trying various schemes to hide their racist discrimination. Plausible deniability required that some plausible pretense had to be used to pretend AA was not in fact systematically discriminating for and against individual applicants based on race. Racial discrimination is supposedly against the law so bureaucrats came up with more subtle ways of achieving the AA goal of having applicants from specific identity groups accepted in numbers closer to the "diversity goals" of AA policies. Below we see AA defenders rationalizing how AA is a good thing even though it is technically illegal in violation of the law:

"The terrible paradox of the civil-rights movement is that outlawing racial discrimination made it harder to remediate its effects. Once we amended the Constitution and passed laws to protect people of color from being treated differently in ways that were harmful to them, the government had trouble enacting programs that treat people of color differently in ways that might be beneficial. We took race out of the equation only to realize that, if we truly wanted not just equality of opportunity for all Americans but equality of result, we needed to put it back in. Our name for this paradox is "affirmative action."

Gee, it is hard to read those words and not think that the 5 points I made in post #1 are not all spot on. But, the defenders of immorality, racial discrimination, and other forms of discrimination will continue to hide what they do behind closed doors and deny the reality of what they and others like them have been doing since the 1970s. Sadly, over time AA has [like a cancer] metastasized into more and more irrational defense of AA policies that are either immoral, illegal, or both.

 

[AGENT J]

Gee, it is hard to read those words and not think that the 5 points I made in post #1 are not all spot on.

ANd thats all it ever will be, your feelings LMAO

Let us know when the thread title and your failed 5 claims can be proven to be statements of fact, thanks!

 

[RealityChecker]

Well as someone who has administered immoral AA policies I would expect you would still have no cogent rebuttal to anything I think is true. Your claim that my opinions are based on feelings is wrong as I and TurtleDude know how how unethical and/or hypocritical many of the AA administrators have been in promoting racism as a remedy to racism. But you know this which is why you keep posting the same dubious claims over and over again.

Let us know when tyou have any credible evidence that proves my statements of out of sync with reality, thanks!

 

[AGENT J]

Well as someone who has administered immoral AA policies I would expect you would still have no cogent rebuttal to anything I think is true. Your claim that my opinions are based on feelings is wrong as I and TurtleDude know how how unethical and/or hypocritical many of the AA administrators have been in promoting racism as a remedy to racism. But you know this which is why you keep posting the same dubious claims over and over again.

Let us know when tyou have any credible evidence that proves my statements of out of sync with reality, thanks!

LMAO another failed desperate deflection, lie and strawman post that changes nothing and ZERO facts that make your thread title the 5 claims in the OP statements of facts. Please let us know when that changes, thanks!

 

[RealityChecker]

LMAO another failed desperate deflection, lie and strawman post that changes nothing and ZERO facts that make your thread title the 5 claims in the OP statements of facts. Please let us know when that changes, thanks!

Deja vu all over again. Perhaps this would be more interesting if you give us your take about why you feel discrimination now is the remedy for long ago discrimination? You seem determined to avoid this topic, which as an AA administrator you ought to know a lot about. But for some reason you appear to be afraid to discuss or share your perspective about. LMAO

 

[AGENT J]

Deja vu all over again.

Well like people mentioned over 1000 posts ago, facts wont change based on your posted feelings, so theres no need to say anything else besides the fact the thread title and the 5 claims haven not been proven to be statements of facts. Only feelings.

Perhaps this would be more interesting if you give us your take about why you feel discrimination now is the remedy for long ago discrimination?

The facts i mentioned above not being interesting is not my concern nor are any of your posted lies

You seem determined to avoid this topic, which as an AA administrator you ought to know a lot about. But for some reason you appear to be afraid to discuss or share your perspective about. LMAO

aaaaand another failed delicious deflection and lie LMAO. 1400+ posts and then entertainment of the failed OP continues, I love it!

 

[RealityChecker]

A bit more information about the evolution of government promoted systemic discrimination policies that AGENT J administered (or so he claimed). AA looks a lot like the old proverb of "putting lipstick on a pig." It is still pretty ugly and anyone involved in such racist and sexist discrimination ought to feel ashamed of pretending something so ugly and evil was appealing:

"Since the late nineteen-sixties, however, affirmative action has also had a more proactive meaning, as the name of an effort to attain a certain number, or, as it’s called today, “critical mass,” of underrepresented groups in a business or an educational institution by, if necessary, giving applicants from those groups preference over similarly or better qualified whites. This form of affirmative action is usually branded by those who disapprove of it with the dreaded Q-word, “quota.” After 1978, when the Supreme Court declared racial quotas unconstitutional, affirmative-action programs avoided any suggestion of the Q-word. But that is essentially what affirmative action in this second sense entails. You can use terms like “targets” and “goals,” both of which are constitutionally legit, but if you have an idea of the point at which you would attain a critical mass then you have a quota."

 

[RealityChecker]

"The other type of affirmative-action skeptic is the person who knows that this is wishful thinking but is unable to get his or her head around the idea that the way to end discrimination is by discriminating. The law professor Melvin Urofsky, in “The Affirmative Action Puzzle” (Pantheon), says he is agnostic on the issue, but he would seem to be a person of the second type. He wants racial diversity, and he knows that it is not going to come about on its own very soon, but he thinks that specific goals or targets are at odds with the rights of individuals. That’s why he calls it a puzzle."

The reality is those who defend race-based discrimination or AA policies that promote race-based discrimination won't even attempt civil debate as we see here because they know their arguments can easily be exposed as immoral, illegal, hypocritical, illogical, unfair, and/or some combination of the puzzling ideas that have given us today's AA policies.