Federal judge rules in favor of Harvard in discrimination case

Discuss everything else: politics, society, culture, science, philosophy, ideas, etc.
pjhair
Hair Loss Expert
Hair Loss Expert
Posts: 573
Joined: 1 year ago
Reputation: 1691

Federal judge rules in favor of Harvard in discrimination case

Post by pjhair » 1 week ago

So a federal judge ruled in favor of Harvard's racist admission policies claiming that diversity is "important." Diversity is NOT more important than justice. Diversity is NOT so important that Harvard has to engage in blatant racism. I have started to despise the term "diversity" because of all the lunatic policies being implemented in it's name. I hope Supreme Court disagrees with her ruling.


User avatar
blackg
Hair Loss Guru
Hair Loss Guru
Posts: 1455
Joined: 1 year ago
Reputation: 2094

Re: Federal judge rules in favor of Harvard in discrimination case

Post by blackg » 1 week ago

It's good to see Harvard leading the way with more diversity in Ivy League schools.
There naturally should be a quota of African American, Native American, Asian American, Latino American and Arab Americans on all university campuses, regardless of student SAT's.

We need a more diverse, salt of the earth America, not a smarter one.
"Grandpa, fix my climate!"

User avatar
yettee
Hair Loss Enthusiast
Hair Loss Enthusiast
Posts: 364
Joined: 1 year ago
Reputation: 1017
Norwood: NW2
Regimen: Minoxidil

Re: Federal judge rules in favor of Harvard in discrimination case

Post by yettee » 1 week ago

pjhair wrote:
1 week ago
So a federal judge ruled in favor of Harvard's racist admission policies claiming that diversity is "important." Diversity is NOT more important than justice. Diversity is NOT so important that Harvard has to engage in blatant racism. I have started to despise the term "diversity" because of all the lunatic policies being implemented in it's name. I hope Supreme Court disagrees with her ruling.
Justice... a good, important word.

So I would assume that your position is that justice, in this case, would mean that people should be admitted into universities based on merit, correct? A student with a higher SAT score, grades, more comprehensive set of activities and achievements etc., should be admitted over someone with lower scores, lower grades, etc.?

If so, I think you'll find a lot of agreement on both the right and left, as long as your position is consistent. That's a positon which clearly reflects justice. Which of course means that legacy admissions - the extremely widespread practice of admitting a student based on Mommy or Daddy's prior attendance at the school - needs to be immediately abolished. Furthermore the practice of admitting a student based on a donation to the school by Mommy or Daddy would also need to be abolished, as of course superior students are then eliminated, which in no way is a reflection of justice.

If you agree with these points, why aren't they part of your outrage? You have begun to despise the term diversity, why not legacy?

pjhair
Hair Loss Expert
Hair Loss Expert
Posts: 573
Joined: 1 year ago
Reputation: 1691

Re: Federal judge rules in favor of Harvard in discrimination case

Post by pjhair » 1 week ago

yettee wrote:
1 week ago
If you agree with these points, why aren't they part of your outrage? You have begun to despise the term diversity, why not legacy?
I specifically mentioned "diversity" because that's the reason federal judge used to exonerate Harvard racist and unfair admission process. She didn't mention legacy (as far as I know).

Nevertheless, Unlike diversity, "legacy" is not upheld as some ultimate virtue that must be hued to no matter what the cost. I am exasperated by this bizarre thought process. It's fine to want diversity, but it shouldn't be done at the cost of engaging in unfair admission process or hiring practices. It appears however that according to a large swathe of population, that is precisely we should do. In fact, it seems they think that it's immoral not to do. I have yet to see someone make a similar moral argument about "legacy" or "donation".

Regardless, admitting someone because they are legacy or because of donation is so stupid and unfair that I am not going to waste my breath talking about it.

User avatar
yettee
Hair Loss Enthusiast
Hair Loss Enthusiast
Posts: 364
Joined: 1 year ago
Reputation: 1017
Norwood: NW2
Regimen: Minoxidil

Re: Federal judge rules in favor of Harvard in discrimination case

Post by yettee » 1 week ago

pjhair wrote:
1 week ago
Regardless, admitting someone because they are legacy or because of donation is so stupid and unfair that I am not going to waste my breath talking about it.
African-Americans who support affirmative action, which is what you are arguing against, sure do want to talk about it. Clearly the vast majority of people in the US with the money to buy their way into universities aren't the people of color in the projects, they are white people - both on the right and left. And furthermore kids are being admitted into ivy league schools because daddy was a student, and his daddy was a student decades ago - at a time when not only was there no affirmative action, but the reverse was true, non-WASPs were intentionally being shunned by universities. This is not an aspect of history, but is widespread practice and continues to this day, and it's something that consideration of diversity in admissions is meant to counterbalance.

What I am saying is that I actually agree with you, at this point in time, I think, that we can do away with affirmative action in college admissions - but one must not consider the world in a bubble convenient to one's own political leanings, but rather as it is. Admission based on merit must include the abolition of legacy admissions, and arguing for one while disagreeing with or ignoring the other (as most people do) is just partisan and has nothing to do with real justice.

User avatar
Admin
Site Admin
Site Admin
Posts: 1829
Joined: 1 year ago
Reputation: 4051
Norwood: NW2.5
Regimen: - 5% Minoxidil once a day and Head & Shoulders caffeine shampoo
- Discontinued due to lack of results: Stemoxydine and dermarolling
Location: Belgium
Age: 29
Contact:

Re: Federal judge rules in favor of Harvard in discrimination case

Post by Admin » 1 week ago

I won't even address postmodern neomarxist @yettee's posts here. For my own sake and everyone reading this forum, I refuse to get on that train. @Hairblues, this is the discernment I was talking about in the political thread by the way. Some battles shouldn't be fought, some battles have no spoils. Now let's talk about a battle that must be fought and won if we want to prevent the West from sinking into tribal warfare.

https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/sa ... ive-action

A more appropriate title would be: Harvard University is allowed to implement racist policies. Another battle lost by the defenders of a fair and free society, and another win for the illegitimate, unelected racist far left taking over parts our societies.

About fairness and unfair discrimination: in other news, the Flemish government, after forming his new right-wing government decided to pull out of the organization called UNIA, which is supposed to fight against racism, sexism and other forms of discrimination.

https://www.brusselstimes.com/all-news/ ... on-centre/
Brussels Times wrote:Unia, officially named the Inter-Federal Equal Opportunities Centre, had been in the crosshairs of the Nieuw Vlaamse Alliantie (N-VA) —one of the leading parties in the new regional coalition— with regional ministers of the nationalist party in 2017 criticising the centre as being biased.

“If a blonde, blue-eyed woman files a complaint after being called a nazi prostitute (sic), she has zero chances of being heard,” integration minister Liesbeth Homans said at the time. “But if a veiled woman (sic) introduces a complaint after being insulted, her chances of being heard are of 100%.”
Like Hardvard, judges and our social media overlords, they are unfair, biased and racist. And they are doing everything they can to endanger free societies and make them descend into tribalism, which I'll say it again because it can't be repeated enough, leads to genocide. Every responsible citizen should fight this lunacy wherever they see it, with all the peaceful means they have at their disposal.

Those battles can be won. UNIA lost its funding from the Flemish community and its place in it thanks to our vote. And with enough action, we can push back and we will prevail. We will not let them fill our society with hatred, anger and resentment, and make no mistake, that is their primary goal.

Imagine how those Asian American students must feel, and imagine how it must feel to be a white person in Europe, constantly living in fear that those dangerous "anti-discrimination" organisms are going to come for you, or knowing that they wouldn't even defend you if you were a victim of unfair discrimination.

User avatar
yettee
Hair Loss Enthusiast
Hair Loss Enthusiast
Posts: 364
Joined: 1 year ago
Reputation: 1017
Norwood: NW2
Regimen: Minoxidil

Re: Federal judge rules in favor of Harvard in discrimination case

Post by yettee » 1 week ago

Admin wrote:
1 week ago
I won't even address postmodern neomarxist @yettee's posts here.
LOL, OK. Thanks for the buzzwords.

Someone on the left supporting affirmative action might call me a right wing Nazi racist for supporting the end of affirmative action under any conditions, as they'd likely call you, for your position. Both are silly of course. Neither side has a monopoly on justice or the truth. As with many things (but not all) there's some merit to both sides and that's part of the reason why it's a never ending struggle, people want to call names and stake out a position and not acknowledge whatever is inconvenient to acknowledge.

Admin wrote:
1 week ago
Like Hardvard, judges and our social media overlords, they are unfair, biased and racist. And they are doing everything they can to endanger free societies and make them descend into tribalism, which I'll say it again because it can't be repeated enough, leads to genocide. Every responsible citizen should fight this lunacy wherever they see it, with all the peaceful means they have at their disposal.
I'll add this. You call them racist, biased and unfair, and want to fight the lunacy. They call you racist, biased and unfair and want to fight the lunacy. In my view, war is a result of two sides staring at each other, each feeling like thay are right and have a monopoly on the truth and justice. Peace is a compromise and involves an understanding that what the other side is saying might have some merit. In the case of universities, you have people being admitted that shouldn't be admitted for both race (black) and class (legacy) reasons, each yelling at the other, all of it should be addressed, full stop.

User avatar
Hairblues
Hair Loss Guru
Hair Loss Guru
Posts: 1074
Joined: 1 year ago
Reputation: 1978
Norwood: NW1.5
Regimen: Topical minoxidil and finasteride

Re: Federal judge rules in favor of Harvard in discrimination case

Post by Hairblues » 1 week ago

I’m not really up on this topic.

I listened to the NPR snippet provided by @pjhair.

They made some valid points. The United States is a diverse country. If they are having many future political leaders of the country go to this school who go on to become politicians isn’t it important that people of color get in if they are achieving the grades to do so?
Also, yettee made a great point and I’m not sure why it’s being dismissed.
These schools do have an overall admission issue with legacy. As we see from the huge case involving felicity hufman and aunt Becky.
Also people donate funds just so their kids go to school.
People such as George Bush jr going to Yale got is due to his afather and I don’t believe he was reported as a good student and he went on to become president of the United States.

I will say this, it’s possible I don’t know enough on the topic and it may be more of an issue than I’m aware of.

But I did find it interesting that she mentioned no former students testified for the plaintiff but I believe she said a hundred testified for the defendant. That’s kind of a huge red flag for me for the plantifs case.

It will be interesting to see what comes of it if it does go up to the Supreme Court but again I’m not really up on this and don’t have that much of an opinion on it yet outside of this post.

Added in 16 minutes 32 seconds:
Admin wrote:
1 week ago
I won't even address postmodern neomarxist @yettee's posts here. For my own sake and everyone reading this forum, I refuse to get on that train. @Hairblues, this is the discernment I was talking about in the political thread by the way. Some battles shouldn't be fought, some battles have no spoils. Now let's talk about a battle that must be fought and won if we want to prevent the West from sinking into tribal warfare.

https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/sa ... ive-action

A more appropriate title would be: Harvard University is allowed to implement racist policies. Another battle lost by the defenders of a fair and free society, and another win for the illegitimate, unelected racist far left taking over parts our societies.

About fairness and unfair discrimination: in other news, the Flemish government, after forming his new right-wing government decided to pull out of the organization called UNIA, which is supposed to fight against racism, sexism and other forms of discrimination.

https://www.brusselstimes.com/all-news/ ... on-centre/



Like Hardvard, judges and our social media overlords, they are unfair, biased and racist. And they are doing everything they can to endanger free societies and make them descend into tribalism, which I'll say it again because it can't be repeated enough, leads to genocide. Every responsible citizen should fight this lunacy wherever they see it, with all the peaceful means they have at their disposal.

Those battles can be won. UNIA lost its funding from the Flemish community and its place in it thanks to our vote. And with enough action, we can push back and we will prevail. We will not let them fill our society with hatred, anger and resentment, and make no mistake, that is their primary goal.

Imagine how those Asian American students must feel, and imagine how it must feel to be a white person in Europe, constantly living in fear that those dangerous "anti-discrimination" organisms are going to come for you, or knowing that they wouldn't even defend you if you were a victim of unfair discrimination.
I understand what discernment means. But what context I was asking you that day was specifically related to meaning was it a religious or Christian/Catholic discernment since we were talking about Bush and God speaking to him. And I wasn’t clear if so based on that previous answer.
I have to read this post later I just woke and need coffee.

User avatar
Admin
Site Admin
Site Admin
Posts: 1829
Joined: 1 year ago
Reputation: 4051
Norwood: NW2.5
Regimen: - 5% Minoxidil once a day and Head & Shoulders caffeine shampoo
- Discontinued due to lack of results: Stemoxydine and dermarolling
Location: Belgium
Age: 29
Contact:

Re: Federal judge rules in favor of Harvard in discrimination case

Post by Admin » 1 week ago

I try to look at what matters in those cases. So what I do is look at the results, which are more division, infighting and tribal hostility in our Western society and then infer the motivation of those groups who pretend to fight for equality, or rather equity here (equality of outcome). The motivation is to break down our Western societies, and it's working to an extent.

Thankfully, the resistance is organizing and fighting for a return to putting the individual first and the group a distant second, restoring people's faith in our institutions, in the fact that their society is there to defend their inalienable rights, not punish for being a straight white male or whatever the bourgeois of the day is for the modern collectivist left.

Their side, their vision, leads to genocide. The side of the people fighting them leads at best to an incrementally fairer society, creating an environment that encourages individuals to become better people instead of forcing their definition of fairness from above, and at worst to a maintaining of the status quo (breaking news: life is unfair) and a few temper tantrums from the radical leftists.

There aren't two equal sides fighting for their legitimate concerns and truth here. There is no "their truth and our truth", there is only the truth, the good. And one side is fighting for the good while the other is trying to unleash evil on Western Civilization. This is what happens when they get their way, this is what they (whether consciously or subconsciously) want and that's what matters.

User avatar
Hairblues
Hair Loss Guru
Hair Loss Guru
Posts: 1074
Joined: 1 year ago
Reputation: 1978
Norwood: NW1.5
Regimen: Topical minoxidil and finasteride

Re: Federal judge rules in favor of Harvard in discrimination case

Post by Hairblues » 1 week ago

Admin wrote:
1 week ago
I try to look at what matters in those cases. So what I do is look at the results
That’s exactly what US judges aren’t supposed to do.
Judges they have to look at the laws and the evidence of the case presented to them.
That’s why I said that it’s telling if the plaintiff has no former students testimony or letters but the defendant has over 100.

User avatar
Admin
Site Admin
Site Admin
Posts: 1829
Joined: 1 year ago
Reputation: 4051
Norwood: NW2.5
Regimen: - 5% Minoxidil once a day and Head & Shoulders caffeine shampoo
- Discontinued due to lack of results: Stemoxydine and dermarolling
Location: Belgium
Age: 29
Contact:

Re: Federal judge rules in favor of Harvard in discrimination case

Post by Admin » 1 week ago

Hairblues wrote:
1 week ago
That’s exactly what US judges aren’t supposed to do.
Judges they have to look at the laws and the evidence of the case presented to them.
That’s why I said that it’s telling if the plaintiff has no former students testimony or letters but the defendant has over 100.
These people, these far left activists, live for this shit. They're a collectivist cult whose mission in life is to destabilize and eventually destroy Western society. Moderates ain't got no time for that, they usually have their own lives to worry about and they're not thinking about changing the whole world to fit their own toxic vision of reality. That's why the radical left has won so many battles, but the tide has been turning, and thank God for that.

I don't care if they have tens of thousands of letters, I care about the truth. And I'm going to go back to referencing Christianity because this is important here. To Christians, the truth and the good cannot be dissociated from one another. It's as radical as stating the following: if you say something and it ruins someone's lives, then it's not true, regardless of its factual accuracy.

There's an element of morality that should always be injected into the truth, otherwise it's not the truth (again in the Christian sense). And it's hard to understand why. Apply a cold, materialistic, positive interpretation of the law, pull on that string and see where it leads us as a society.

The judge can either apply a positivist interpretation of the law or one based in natural law.

https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-diffe ... atural-law

So to summarize: "well it's the law! Who cares if it will slowly lead us to chaos!" vs. "wait a minute, this is a stupid law which will tilt the world a bit more towards hell, let's back up a little and consider the nefarious consequences".

And of course for the leftist judges, it will almost entirely depend on their own ideological agenda. And of course I can already see the "but both sides do it!", ah, not really here. Some people do have moral values, some people are consistent, some people will let their own ideology take a bullet so that that the truth and the good can prevail.

User avatar
Hairblues
Hair Loss Guru
Hair Loss Guru
Posts: 1074
Joined: 1 year ago
Reputation: 1978
Norwood: NW1.5
Regimen: Topical minoxidil and finasteride

Re: Federal judge rules in favor of Harvard in discrimination case

Post by Hairblues » 1 week ago

Admin wrote:
1 week ago
I try to look at what matters in those cases. So what I do is look at the results, which are more division, infighting and tribal hostility in our Western society and then infer the motivation of those groups who pretend to fight for equality, or rather equity here (equality of outcome). The motivation is to break down our Western societies, and it's working to an extent.

Thankfully, the resistance is organizing and fighting for a return to putting the individual first and the group a distant second, restoring people's faith in our institutions, in the fact that their society is there to defend their inalienable rights, not punish for being a straight white male or whatever the bourgeois of the day is for the modern collectivist left.

Their side, their vision, leads to genocide. The side of the people fighting them leads at best to an incrementally fairer society, creating an environment that encourages individuals to become better people instead of forcing their definition of fairness from above, and at worst to a maintaining of the status quo (breaking news: life is unfair) and a few temper tantrums from the radical leftists.

There aren't two equal sides fighting for their legitimate concerns and truth here. There is no "their truth and our truth", there is only the truth, the good. And one side is fighting for the good while the other is trying to unleash evil on Western Civilization. This is what happens when they get their way, this is what they (whether consciously or subconsciously) want and that's what matters.
I wouldn’t necessarily assume a conservative (originalist) judge would find for the plantiff.

The reason is they normally rule for businesses to set their own criteria and the philosophy of conservatives (not Trumpsters, who I don’t believe are conservative anymore by the policies they support) believe in the market setting itself.

This is Harvard a private business setting their own admission policy. Telling them how to admit students goes against what traditionally conservative judges believe in. I’m not sure how they would justify legislatively and their own principals and interpretations of law how they would find for the plaintiff.

Added in 5 seconds:
Admin wrote:
1 week ago
These people, these far left activists, live for this shit. They're a collectivist cult whose mission in life is to destabilize and eventually destroy Western society. Moderates ain't got no time for that, they usually have their own lives to worry about and they're not thinking about changing the whole world to fit their own toxic vision of reality. That's why the radical left has won so many battles, but the tide has been turning, and thank God for that.

I don't care if they have tens of thousands of letters, I care about the truth. And I'm going to go back to referencing Christianity because this is important here. To Christians, the truth and the good cannot be dissociated from one another. It's as radical as stating the following: if you say something and it ruins someone's lives, then it's not true, regardless of its factual accuracy.

There's an element of morality that should always be injected into the truth, otherwise it's not the truth (again in the Christian sense). And it's hard to understand why. Apply a cold, materialistic, positive interpretation of the law, pull on that string and see where it leads us as a society.

The judge can either apply a positivist interpretation of the law or one based in natural law.

https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-diffe ... atural-law

So to summarize: "well it's the law! Who cares if it will slowly lead us to chaos!" vs. "wait a minute, this is a stupid law which will tilt the world a bit more towards hell, let's back up a little and consider the nefarious consequences"

And of course for the leftist judges, it will almost entirely depend on their own agenda. And of course I can already see the "but both sides do it!", ah, not really here. Some people do have moral values, some people are consistent, some people will let their own ideology take a bullet so that that the truth and the good can prevail.
Of course if enough people have issue with the law then let’s change the law... but would a conservative Supreme Court want to set a precedent of telling a business ‘how’ they admit people?

That’s opening a can of worms that may get criticism in other areas from conservatives.

Conservatives usually don’t want to oversee businesses. If they do so for Harvard, they set a precedent for any other business to use.

Added in 9 minutes 47 seconds:
Instead of trying to manipulate the law, and possibly open a can or worms that will have negative consequences down the road, why not simply go to other schools?

It’s not like Asians with high marks are being black listed.

The power of a few schools bothers me anyway. And this goes back to @yettee point.

How many people white black Asian etc really deserve to go to this school vs other students who are denied? Weather it’s legacy and buying in or color of skin?

Why do these few school dictate someone’s future over others?

It’s a charade that it’s the best of the best. And to me that’s more of a point to make.

That chick was so dumb (Becky’s daughter) thar she had to pretend she was a rower to get into a top school. They had to commit fraud to get their kids into these kinds of schools.
These schools shouldn’t be so powerful in predicting someone’s future.

User avatar
Admin
Site Admin
Site Admin
Posts: 1829
Joined: 1 year ago
Reputation: 4051
Norwood: NW2.5
Regimen: - 5% Minoxidil once a day and Head & Shoulders caffeine shampoo
- Discontinued due to lack of results: Stemoxydine and dermarolling
Location: Belgium
Age: 29
Contact:

Re: Federal judge rules in favor of Harvard in discrimination case

Post by Admin » 1 week ago

Hairblues wrote:
1 week ago
Of course if enough people have issue with the law then let’s change the law... but would a conservative Supreme Court want to set a precedent of telling a business ‘how’ they admit people?
This is a good argument, which the left, now that it has a lot of legal and cultural power loves to use, to the point that it has become quite the popular meme:

Image

And it reminds me that one should remember that there is a good chance that nature, or muh free market will eventually take care of the problem if universities refuse to stop playing that little game, like it did for Evergreen:

https://www.foxnews.com/us/evergreen-st ... e-meltdown

That's also why I say that the side of the good will prevail eventually, but notwithstanding that fact, it is sometimes quite scary to see what tricks the devils of the radical left pull out their sleeve. One shouldn't forget that one side has almost no shame, no limits and no morals.

pjhair
Hair Loss Expert
Hair Loss Expert
Posts: 573
Joined: 1 year ago
Reputation: 1691

Re: Federal judge rules in favor of Harvard in discrimination case

Post by pjhair » 1 week ago

yettee wrote:
1 week ago
arguing for one while disagreeing with or ignoring the other (as most people do) is just partisan and has nothing to do with real justice.
I am not really sure why you felt the need to state this to me. I explicitly said that I started this thread because of the recent decision by the federal judge. She cited "diversity" as the reason to exonerate Harvard, NOT legacy. Had she included "legacy" in her reasons, I would have complained about it. Is it really so hard to get?? You are barking at the wrong tree pal.

User avatar
Hairblues
Hair Loss Guru
Hair Loss Guru
Posts: 1074
Joined: 1 year ago
Reputation: 1978
Norwood: NW1.5
Regimen: Topical minoxidil and finasteride

Re: Federal judge rules in favor of Harvard in discrimination case

Post by Hairblues » 1 week ago

Admin wrote:
1 week ago
This is a good argument, which the left, now that it has a lot of legal and cultural power love to use, to the point that it has become quite the popular meme:

Image

And it reminds me that one should remember that there is a good chance that nature, or muh free market will eventually take care of the problem if universities refuse to stop playing that little game, like it did for Evergreen:

https://www.foxnews.com/us/evergreen-st ... e-meltdown

That's also why I say that the side of the good will prevail eventually, but notwithstanding that fact, it is sometimes quite scary to see what tricks the devils of the radical left pull out their sleeve. One shouldn't forget that one side has almost no shame, no limits and no morals.

Lol you say I make a good argument and then make sure you toss in that I’m on left implying I can’t think for myself.


When I was in college my first few semesters I studied criminal law and police procedures.
I toyed with the idea ‘briefly’ of joining FBI and was obsessed with law and I still have penal code books and case study and judicial ruling books in storeage.
I’m not up on it in recent years but I can think objectively. I also was in debate classes and can argue for or against any issue.
Last edited by Hairblues 1 week ago, edited 1 time in total.

Post Reply
  • Similar Topics
    Replies
    Views
    Last post

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests