Jump to content
View in the app

A better way to browse. Learn more.

The Eagles Message Board

A full-screen app on your home screen with push notifications, badges and more.

To install this app on iOS and iPadOS
  1. Tap the Share icon in Safari
  2. Scroll the menu and tap Add to Home Screen.
  3. Tap Add in the top-right corner.
To install this app on Android
  1. Tap the 3-dot menu (⋮) in the top-right corner of the browser.
  2. Tap Add to Home screen or Install app.
  3. Confirm by tapping Install.

Supreme Court ends affirmative action in higher ed

Featured Replies

35 minutes ago, Dave Moss said:

I think keeping it for the military academies only is a subtle admission it works

Thats the crazy thing about handing out freebies: people take them

21 minutes ago, The_Omega said:

Moss laughed at it because that's what he does, but it's right there in the decision, and Biden just telegraphed it in his remarks

Moss loves himself some nuance this time around :lol:

Well Colleges Universities are certainly free to use economic status, as a factor in the admissions process and admit more poor people, in effort to achieve a more diverse student body. 

 

4 minutes ago, jsdarkstar said:

Well Colleges Universities are certainly free to use economic status, as a factor in the admissions process and admit more poor people, in effort to achieve a more diverse student body. 

 

So only diverse people are poor?

Or you just want them to take only the non-white poor people?

1 minute ago, Mike31mt said:

So only diverse people are poor?

Or you just want them to take only the non-white poor people?

Poor kids are just as bright and talented as white kids.

1 hour ago, The_Omega said:

All that’s going to change is that minority applicants will be coached to play up/embellish the struggles they’ve faced because of their race. The activists running admissions aren’t going to change their selections just because the Supreme Court told them to.

All you Trumpbot loons are firmly against going to college anyway, so it really doesn't affect you much.

  • Author
6 minutes ago, Gannan said:

All you Trumpbot loons are firmly against book learning

Fyp

Maybe the activists running admissions should go back to the way it was pre Affirmative Action and deny all the blacks admission because they are black. The folks against affirmative action used race as a reason to deny admissions. Hence the need for Affirmative Action. 

to the uneducated white male, diversity is the boogey man.

White America, White Power is the cult credo. 

3 minutes ago, jsdarkstar said:

Maybe the activists running admissions should go back to the way it was pre Affirmative Action and deny all the blacks admission because they are black. The folks against affirmative action used race as a reason to deny admissions. Hence the need for Affirmative Action. 

to the uneducated white male, diversity is the boogey man.

White America, White Power is the cult credo. 

Wow...you are a special one.

After reading a few headlines and giving them a few moments thought, allow me to explain why everyone is wrong, stupid,  and/or evil...

image.gif.dfa38d84eda7ea2d264a8dd42f935ba7.gif
 

I thought I smelled that pos stingo Jr in here.

I laughed
 

 

I don't disagree with the decision but I'm not sure how they reconcile it being ok for military (read: govt) admission decisions but not for civilians. 

That doesn't make sense to me either ethically or legally.

37 minutes ago, jsdarkstar said:

Maybe the activists running admissions should go back to the way it was pre Affirmative Action and deny all the blacks admission because they are black. The folks against affirmative action used race as a reason to deny admissions. Hence the need for Affirmative Action. 

to the uneducated white male, diversity is the boogey man.

White America, White Power is the cult credo. 

You have serious mental issues.

14 minutes ago, vikas83 said:

I laughed
 

 

LOL

She actually recused herself though, because she has ties to Harvard.

Rookie mistake, amirite?

4 minutes ago, JohnSnowsHair said:

LOL

She actually recused herself though, because she has ties to Harvard.

Rookie mistake, amirite?

But she wrote a twenty nine page dissent.

1 minute ago, BBE said:

But she wrote a twenty nine page dissent.

Ok. But the recusal still shows integrity.

Thomas should take note, but he won't.

1 minute ago, JohnSnowsHair said:

Ok. But the recusal still shows integrity.

Thomas should take note, but he won't.

What, you mean failing to recuse yourself when you were the lone dissenter on a case for suppressing documents for those involved in January 6th when your wife was found to be communicating with Trump lawyers is a bad thing?? I bet next you're gonna tell me that accepting extravagant vacations, gifts, and money without disclosing them is also bad? I mean, come on, the guy's just trying to earn an honest living for crying out loud!

12 minutes ago, JohnSnowsHair said:

Ok. But the recusal still shows integrity.

Thomas should take note, but he won't.

She recused herself from the Harvard case, did not recuse herself from the UNC case and wrote a dissent for the combined case?

 

Not exactly a true recusal.

 

But definitely a deflection from the point I made.

3 minutes ago, BBE said:

She refused herself from the Harvard case, did not recuse herself from the UNC case and wrote a dissent for the combined case?

 

Not exactly a true recusal.

:lol: ok. 

Jackson has already recused herself from more cases in her short tenure than Thomas has the last 4 years. 

But hang on to the "not true" recusal.

3 minutes ago, JohnSnowsHair said:

:lol: ok. 

Jackson has already recused herself from more cases in her short tenure than Thomas has the last 4 years. 

But hang on to the "not true" recusal.

Whataboutism aside:

 

She wrote a dissent.  How does someone write a dissent and recuse herself at the same time?  They don't. 

 

If she recused the dissent would not exist, correct?

1 minute ago, BBE said:

Whataboutism aside:

 

She wrote a dissent.  How does someone write a dissent and recuse herself at the same time?  They don't. 

 

If she recused the dissent would not exist, correct?

She didn't have a vote in the ruling. 

That's recusal.

It's not complicated. 

Just now, JohnSnowsHair said:

She didn't have a vote in the ruling. 

That's recusal.

It's not complicated. 

But references Harvard in her dissent.  So, she didn't vote but wrote what her vote would have been?

 

2 minutes ago, BBE said:

But references Harvard in her dissent.  So, she didn't vote but wrote what her vote would have been?

 

She withdrew her vote. 

She didn't weigh in on the debate.

But when the vote was complete she was given the honor of writing a dissent.

She withdrew from the process of deciding the case. That's recusal.

Who wrote the dissenting opinion is irrelevant to whether they are recused. If they weren't involved in deciding the case they're recused.

Not to mention she was part of the ruling around UNC, because she had no conflict of interest there.

She's still recused herself more in a few months than Thomas has in four years.

Her integrity is less of the issue than Thomas's lack of it.

Create an account or sign in to comment

Configure browser push notifications

Chrome (Android)
  1. Tap the lock icon next to the address bar.
  2. Tap Permissions → Notifications.
  3. Adjust your preference.
Chrome (Desktop)
  1. Click the padlock icon in the address bar.
  2. Select Site settings.
  3. Find Notifications and adjust your preference.