News Flash...yet another race thread...

[TAC]

Supreme Ct. Rules Race May Be Used in M. Law School Admissions (http://www.abcnews.go.com/wire/US/ap20030623_695.html)

[ June 23, 2003, 09:48 AM: Message edited by: TAC ]

[Ron LeFloor]

What are the chances of seeing an article about some downtrodden white college grad, with an accompanying photo taken in his posh Bloomfield Hills home? I'd say 90%.

"Waaaaa... I didn't get into UM 'cause of some black kid... his GPA was a whole .001th lower than mine... waaaa... I had to go to MSU instead and now I'm living in this crummy $400k home. I could have two Mercedes SUVs by now if it wasn't for..."

[ June 23, 2003, 09:59 AM: Message edited by: Ron LeFloor ]

[mhd]

Wow! Great post, can't wait to get a look at the opinion, this is great news, i think, gotta see it first

[TAC]

Originally posted by Ron LeFloor:
What are the chances of seeing an article about some downtrodden white college grad, with an accompanying photo taken in his posh Bloomfield Hills home? I'd say 90%.

"Waaaaa... I didn't get into UM 'cause of some black kid... his GPA was a whole .001th lower than mine... waaaa... I had to go to MSU instead and now I'm living in this crummy $400k home. I could have two Mercedes SUVs by now if it wasn't for..." I guess this sh*t is just shooting over your head.

Anyway, this is key point stated in the article

"Government has a compelling interest in promoting racial diversity on campus, and the law school plan is narrowly focused on that goal, the court majority said."

[mhd]

Originally posted by TAC:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Ron LeFloor:
What are the chances of seeing an article about some downtrodden white college grad, with an accompanying photo taken in his posh Bloomfield Hills home? I'd say 90%.

"Waaaaa... I didn't get into UM 'cause of some black kid... his GPA was a whole .001th lower than mine... waaaa... I had to go to MSU instead and now I'm living in this crummy $400k home. I could have two Mercedes SUVs by now if it wasn't for..." I guess this sh*t is just shooting over your head.

Anyway, this is key point stated in the article

"Government has a compelling interest in promoting racial diversity on campus, and the law school plan is narrowly focused on that goal, the court majority said." </font>[/QUOTE]you are so right, i was going to highlight that exact same passage, that is major!

[TAC]

Originally posted by mhd:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by TAC:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Ron LeFloor:
What are the chances of seeing an article about some downtrodden white college grad, with an accompanying photo taken in his posh Bloomfield Hills home? I'd say 90%.

"Waaaaa... I didn't get into UM 'cause of some black kid... his GPA was a whole .001th lower than mine... waaaa... I had to go to MSU instead and now I'm living in this crummy $400k home. I could have two Mercedes SUVs by now if it wasn't for..." I guess this sh*t is just shooting over your head.

Anyway, this is key point stated in the article

"Government has a compelling interest in promoting racial diversity on campus, and the law school plan is narrowly focused on that goal, the court majority said." </font>[/QUOTE]you are so right, i was going to highlight that exact same passage, that is major! </font>[/QUOTE]Good to see you in on this one!

Maybe, we can get a good discussion going on this. So much for that conservative right wing think tank that's been advancing these attacks on AA.

The point here is that it puts an end to the b*llsh*t that has been going on. FINALLY. As the article pointed out, this decision has far reaching implications.

So my question is, what about California? Didn't they pull some madness that saw their Minority enrollment crash, or was that Texas and U. of Austin.?

[Ron LeFloor]

I guess this sh*t is just shooting over your head.No, I caught that important bit.

However, that doesn't change the odds that there will be whining from those who don't think race should play any role in admissions.

[mdpm99]

I think it was Florida?

d

[mhd]

On point, it was California, that saw a tragic decline in minority enrollment where only one brother was admitted to Boalt Hall following the passage of that ridiculous statute. It would be great if they could act immediately, "with all deliberate speed", to affect this years incoming class in a couple of months, doubtful, i'm sure

[TAC]

Originally posted by Ron LeFloor:
No, I caught that important bit.[/QB]Okay, cool.


However, that doesn't change the odds that there will be whining from those who don't think race should play any role in admissions. Let them whine, I say. These people still just don't get it. The goverment is simply trying to level the playing field, and fast.

P.S. I just got an email on a second ruling that was handed down. "U.S. Supreme Court rules point system which considers race as factor in University of Michigan undergraduate admissions is unconstitutional." I'll have to see what's up here.

Peace
TAC

[Mr 1977]

AWESOME! I've been waiting for this decision. My faith has been restored. At least for now.

[rob gregory]

Originally posted by mhd:
On point, it was California, that saw a tragic decline in minority enrollment where only one brother was admitted to Boalt Hall following the passage of that ridiculous statute. It would be great if they could act immediately, "with all deliberate speed", to affect this years incoming class in a couple of months, doubtful, i'm sure I really don't understand. Black enrollment goes down because race won't be considered as a factor? This sounds like, "I don't have total faith in my credentials, but atleast I'm black."

Are we assuming that two applicants with identical qualifications apply, and for the sake of diversity, we'll choose the minority. Is that the way it's suppose to work? Or, are underqualified minorities given extra consideration because of race?

Am I missing the point? If so, what is the point, plain and simple?

[mhd]

Originally posted by PhoreAyem:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by mhd:
On point, it was California, that saw a tragic decline in minority enrollment where only one brother was admitted to Boalt Hall following the passage of that ridiculous statute. It would be great if they could act immediately, "with all deliberate speed", to affect this years incoming class in a couple of months, doubtful, i'm sure I really don't understand. Black enrollment goes down because race won't be considered as a factor? This sounds like, "I don't have total faith in my credentials, but atleast I'm black."

Are we assuming that two applicants with identical qualifications apply, and for the sake of diversity, we'll choose the minority. Is that the way it's suppose to work? Or, are underqualified minorities given extra consideration because of race?

Am I missing the point? If so, what is the point, plain and simple? </font>[/QUOTE]only "qualified" minorities are admitted.

[rob gregory]

Originally posted by TAC:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Ron LeFloor:
No, I caught that important bit.Okay, cool.


However, that doesn't change the odds that there will be whining from those who don't think race should play any role in admissions. Let them whine, I say. These people still just don't get it. The goverment is simply trying to level the playing field, and fast.


Just so that I'm clear are we talking discrimination or diversity?

Also, are blacks applying at these "top campuses" at such high numbers that the acceptance rate is suspect?

I'm really trying to understand.

P.S. I just got an email on a second ruling that was handed down. "U.S. Supreme Court rules point system which considers race as factor in University of Michigan undergraduate admissions is unconstitutional." I'll have to see what's up here.

Peace
TAC [/QB]</font>[/QUOTE]

[Moksha]

But they ruled against the undergrad admissions!?!? What does this mean? There seems to be very little clarification here. "Critical mass" is okay, but "quotas" are not..."diversity" is a good thing, but schools cannot award admissions points to achieve diversity. How will this pair of decisions change things?

Very strange.

[rob gregory]

Originally posted by mhd:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by PhoreAyem:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by mhd:
On point, it was California, that saw a tragic decline in minority enrollment where only one brother was admitted to Boalt Hall following the passage of that ridiculous statute. It would be great if they could act immediately, "with all deliberate speed", to affect this years incoming class in a couple of months, doubtful, i'm sure I really don't understand. Black enrollment goes down because race won't be considered as a factor? This sounds like, "I don't have total faith in my credentials, but atleast I'm black."

Are we assuming that two applicants with identical qualifications apply, and for the sake of diversity, we'll choose the minority. Is that the way it's suppose to work? Or, are underqualified minorities given extra consideration because of race?

Am I missing the point? If so, what is the point, plain and simple? </font>[/QUOTE]only "qualified" minorities are admitted. </font>[/QUOTE]Thanks. I'm being serious when I say I've really struggled to understand the issue.

[Bill Blake]

Affirmative Action in my opinion (when done properly) is a brilliant example of how common law practices take into consideration cost and economic efficiency.


The overall argument is that economic efficiency takes precedence over private property rights (like the freedom to hire who you please because its your business) in these decisions BECAUSE it was assumed that private property rights allow economies to be the most efficient.

However, when people in the market make decisions (who to hire or allow in school) based on affiliation, RACE, class and the like, AND those factors outweigh merit, it causes inefficiency.

Those inefficient practices have and still take place in this country and these laws try to curb the effect those inefficient practices have had and still do in our society.

In essence Affirmative Action is in place to correct a market failure and in that regard, justified.

[ June 23, 2003, 10:48 AM: Message edited by: Jamie Lennox ]

[mhd]

Originally posted by Orion:
But they ruled against the undergrad admissions!?!? What does this mean? There seems to be very little clarification here. "Critical mass" is okay, but "quotas" are not..."diversity" is a good thing, but schools cannot award admissions points to achieve diversity. How will this pair of decisions change things?

Very strange. that is why i said you got to see it first, sounds like they are struggling with the how

[mhd]

common misunderstnding is that the minority candidate is unqulaified, time and time again, year after year, decade after decade, hell century after century, the previously "unqulaified" minority is proven to be vastly superior to his majority counterpart and opponent

[TAC]

Originally posted by mhd:
On point, it was California, that saw a tragic decline in minority enrollment where only one brother was admitted to Boalt Hall following the passage of that ridiculous statute. It would be great if they could act immediately, "with all deliberate speed", to affect this years incoming class in a couple of months, doubtful, i'm sure Yea, I remember now. It was a State law that was passed. So much for that. Also, I think there was some back lash, in that some people decided not to apply as a way of protesting the law (don't quote me on this). This led to an exaggerated (sp?) end effect.

[TAC]

Originally posted by mhd:
common misunderstnding is that the minority candidate is unqulaified, time and time again, year after year, decade after decade, hell century after century, the previously "unqulaified" minority is proven to be vastly superior to his majority counterpart and opponent Thank you sir. This is the common misunderstanding that "we" fight against everyday.

Twice as good for half as much.

[Koffy Brown]

I think the biggest mistake when dealing with anti-affirmative action people is not explaining affirmative action itself and the reason it was needed to begin with. Also, alot of people have the misconception that the only people who benefit from it are "black" which is untrue...but none the less I am glad that this was upheld ...

[Moksha]

The law school decision is available as a pdf on New York Times website.

Here's the latest:

Court Upholds Use of Race in College Admissions With Limits
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS

ASHINGTON-- In two split decisions, the Supreme Court on Monday ruled that minority applicants may be given an edge when applying for admissions to universities, but limited how much a factor race can play in the selection of students.

The high court struck down a point system used by the University of Michigan to give minority preference, but did not go as far as opponents of affirmative action had wanted. The court approved a separate program used at the University of Michigan law school that gives race less prominence in the admissions decision-making process.

The Constitution "does not prohibit the law school's narrowly tailored use of race in admissions decisions to further a compelling interest in obtaining the educational benefits that flow from a diverse student body," Justice Sandra Day O'Connor wrote.

The court divided in both cases. It upheld the law school program that sought a "critical mass" of minorities by a 5-4 vote, with O'Connor siding with the court's more liberal justices to decide the case.

The court split 6-3 in finding the undergraduate program unconstitutional. Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist wrote the majority opinion in the undergraduate case, joined by O'Connor and Justices Antonin Scalia, Anthony M. Kennedy, Clarence Thomas and Stephen Breyer.

Justices John Paul Stevens, David Souter and Ruth Bader Ginsburg dissented.

Government has a compelling interest in promoting racial diversity on campus, but the undergraduate school's admissions policy is not the way to get there, the court majority said.

"The university's policy, which automatically distributes 20 points, or one-fifth of the points needed to guarantee admission, to every single underrepresented minority applicant solely because of race, is not narrowly tailored to achieve the interest in educational diversity," that Michigan claimed justified the policy, Rehnquist wrote.

The ruling affects tax-supported schools, and by extension private schools and other institutions, that have looked for ways to boost minority enrollment without violating the Constitution's guarantee against discrimination.

The University of Michigan cases are the most significant test of affirmative action to reach the court in a generation. At issue was whether racial preference programs unconstitutionally discriminate against white students.

The rulings follow the path the court set a generation ago, when it outlawed quotas but still left room for schools to improve the odds for minority applicants.

The two Michigan cases directly address only admissions at public, tax-supported institutions. But the court's rationale is expected to have a wide ripple through private colleges and universities, other government decision-making and the business world.

"This court has long recognized that 'education is the very foundation of good citizenship'," O'Connor wrote, quoting from the landmark Brown v. Board of Education ruling of nearly 50 years ago.

"For this reason, the diffusion of knowledge and opportunity through public institutions of higher education must be accessible to all individuals regardless of race or ethnicity," O'Connor wrote. "Effective participation by members of all racial and ethnic groups in the civic life of our nation is essential if the dream of one nation, indivisible, is to be realized."

Opponents of affirmative action had hoped the Supreme Court would use this opportunity to ban most consideration of race in any government decisions. The court is far more conservative than in 1978, when it last ruled on affirmative action in higher education admissions, and the justices have put heavy conditions on government affirmative action in other arenas over the past decade.

Defending its general approach to affirmative action, the university has said that having what it calls a critical mass of minority students benefits the whole student body. Minorities must be present in more than token numbers to ensure all students can interact, the university has said.

Rehnquist dismissed that rationale in a dissenting opinion in the law school case.

"Stripped of its 'critical mass' veil, the law school's program is revealed as a naked effort to achieve racial balancing," Rehnquist wrote.

Michigan insists that it accepts only academically qualified students, no matter what their race.

Michigan's undergraduate school used a 150-point index to screen applicants. The 20 points awarded to minorities was more than the school awarded for some measures of academic excellence, writing ability or leadership skills. Outstanding athletes also got 20 points, as did impoverished applicants.

The school has also "flagged" minority applications, making it easier to keep an applicant in the pool even if he or she flunked an initial review.

In 1997, the year that two white students sued, the school had 13,500 applicants and selected 3,958 of them as freshmen.

The white plaintiffs, Jennifer Gratz and Patrick Hamacher, were Michigan residents with good grades and other qualifications when they were rejected at the flagship Ann Arbor campus. Both have since graduated from other colleges.

The Bush administration sided with the students, but did not call for an outright end to affirmative action.

The students were supported by a range of conservative legal groups, some law professors and affirmative action opponents.

The university's law school program uses a separate, less structured system to promote minority enrollment.

[rob gregory]

Originally posted by mhd:
common misunderstnding is that the minority candidate is unqulaified, time and time again, year after year, decade after decade, hell century after century, the previously "unqulaified" minority is proven to be vastly superior to his majority counterpart and opponent Understood.

I've heard cases where applicants tried to sue the university claiming they were discriminated against. I.e. an unqualified minority was admitted for the sake of diversity.

My question, Is it incumbent on the university to show that all accepted applicants are qualified?

[mhd]

Originally posted by PhoreAyem:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by mhd:
common misunderstnding is that the minority candidate is unqulaified, time and time again, year after year, decade after decade, hell century after century, the previously "unqulaified" minority is proven to be vastly superior to his majority counterpart and opponent Understood.

I've heard cases where applicants tried to sue the university claiming they were discriminated against. I.e. an unqualified minority was admitted for the sake of diversity.

My question, Is it incumbent on the university to show that all accepted applicants are qualified? </font>[/QUOTE]acceptance = qualified

[Bill Blake]

Originally posted by mhd:
common misunderstnding is that the minority candidate is unqulaified, time and time again, year after year, decade after decade, hell century after century, the previously "unqulaified" minority is proven to be vastly superior to his majority counterpart and opponent True and it really brings into question the whole system in place that dertermines what qualified really is

[mhd]

Originally posted by Jamie Lennox:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by mhd:
common misunderstnding is that the minority candidate is unqulaified, time and time again, year after year, decade after decade, hell century after century, the previously "unqulaified" minority is proven to be vastly superior to his majority counterpart and opponent True and it really brings into question the whole system in place that dertermines what qualified really is </font>[/QUOTE]BINGO!!! but because "we" don't frame the debate that part is constantly overlooked

[DeesKo]

What about the part where "we" show these kids that college is even an option ?

The laws are nice, but what we need are more people willing and able to exercise them.

My high school didn't even openly announce when the SAT's were being given, much less bother to tell "us" that there were ways to get grants and scholarships etc etc to help pay for school. There was absolutely no positive reinforcement what-so-ever so while the laws are a step in the right direction and needed, what about figuring out how to get people to take advantage of them.

just my 1.5 cents.

peace

[JL]

You were right Mark, Sandra did vote well in the law school case. This is good news indeed.

On a somewhat related note, anybody here catch the article in last Friday's Washington Post about "Whiteness Studies"?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A14386-2003Jun19.html?nav=hptop_tb

[mhd]

"Stripped of its 'critical mass' veil, the law school's program is revealed as a naked effort to achieve racial balancing," Rehnquist wrote.

of course, we can't have that

[mhd]

Originally posted by DeesKo:
What about the part where "we" show these kids that college is even an option ?

The laws are nice, but what we need are more people willing and able to exercise them.

My high school didn't even openly announce when the SAT's were being given, much less bother to tell "us" that there were ways to get grants and scholarships etc etc to help pay for school. There was absolutely no positive reinforcement what-so-ever so while the laws are a step in the right direction and needed, what about figuring out how to get people to take advantage of them.

just my 1.5 cents.

peace so true, my friend, the way its supposed to work is that folks who benefit go back and assist others, and that is usually what happens, but like salmon swimming upstream some folks just lay down and die after they reach their goals

[Fletch]

Yo, TAC,

Do you recall the name Charles Wynder? I believe he was Syracuse class of 86 (Student African American Society president while at SU). He went to UM Law School right after, and fought for changes in what was then UM's awful diversity policy. UM, after a whole lot of protest led by him, instituted some of the same admissions programs/goals which are the subject of the affirmative action issue.

If anyone remembers a 1989 PBS broadcast "Racism 101", that's what I'm talking about.

Looks like Chuck's stuggles at Michigan paid off. Shall we sing "Hail to the victors?" Peace.

[mhd]

Originally posted by JL:
You were right Mark, Sandra did vote well in the law school case. This is good news indeed.

On a somewhat related note, anybody here catch the article in last Friday's Washington Post about "Whiteness Studies"?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A14386-2003Jun19.html?nav=hptop_tb Sandy came through, but O'Connor, Breyer and Kennedy control the center, gotta give love to John Paul Stevens for fighting the good fight for so many years.
JL, I hope this inspires you to get your butt in law school, those Korean dry clean owners need you!

[JL]

Hahaha, Mark, got a 169 over the weekend on my latest practice test. Need to bump that shit up into the 70s consistently. I'm applying this fall.

Funny you should mention that. The local area Korean merchants all got together, hired some attorneys, and sued the shit out of dryclean depot. They found some statute on how big a dry cleaner could be, and forced da Depot to close down. Next up, in Annandale (Korea Town here in DC), Virginia ABC codes don't allow any alcohol over 15 proof or something to be served in it's bottle. Traditionally, and of high importance to our culture, we like to drink our Soju (about 40 proof liqour) from the bottle, taking turns pouring for each other and whatnot (there's respect, status, and other cultural values that are at play in these rituals), so that may be one of my first tasks when I get out.

[TAC]

Originally posted by einnod23:
Yo, TAC,

Do you recall the name Charles Wynder? I believe he was Syracuse class of 86 (Student African American Society president while at SU). He went to UM Law School right after, and fought for changes in what was then UM's awful diversity policy. UM, after a whole lot of protest led by him, instituted some of the same admissions programs/goals which are the subject of the affirmative action issue.

If anyone remembers a 1989 PBS broadcast "Racism 101", that's what I'm talking about.

Looks like Chuck's stuggles at Michigan paid off. Shall we sing "Hail to the victors?" Peace. Yea, yea, yea, I remember that kid. Natural born leader. I am not surprised that he was behind the whole thing. He was sort of the same way as an undergrad. Syracuse leading the way once again.

Peace
TAC

[ June 23, 2003, 12:49 PM: Message edited by: TAC ]

[mhd]

Originally posted by JL:
Hahaha, Mark, got a 169 over the weekend on my latest practice test. Need to bump that shit up into the 70s consistently. I'm applying this fall.

Funny you should mention that. The local area Korean merchants all got together, hired some attorneys, and sued the shit out of dryclean depot. They found some statute on how big a dry cleaner could be, and forced da Depot to close down. Next up, in Annandale (Korea Town here in DC), Virginia ABC codes don't allow any alcohol over 15 proof or something to be served in it's bottle. Traditionally, and of high importance to our culture, we like to drink our Soju (about 40 proof liqour) from the bottle, taking turns pouring for each other and whatnot (there's respect, status, and other cultural values that are at play in these rituals), so that may be one of my first tasks when I get out. actually, they are doing a great job of lobbying as well, victories in PG county in MD and Prince William county in VA, there was an article about it in the Metro section last week by Marc Fisher.

[JL]

nice, seaching for it now, thanks.

[Fletch]

Originally posted by TAC:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by einnod23:
Yo, TAC,

Do you recall the name Charles Wynder? I believe he was Syracuse class of 86 (Student African American Society president while at SU). He went to UM Law School right after, and fought for changes in what was then UM's awful diversity policy. UM, after a whole lot of protest led by him, instituted some of the same admissions programs/goals which are the subject of the affirmative action issue.

If anyone remembers a 1989 PBS broadcast "Racism 101", that's what I'm talking about.

Looks like Chuck's stuggles at Michigan paid off. Shall we sing "Hail to the victors?" Peace. Yea, yea, yea, I remember that kid. Natural born leader. I am not surprised that he was behind the whole thing. He was sort of the same way as an undergrad. Syracuse leading the way once again.

Peace
TAC </font>[/QUOTE]Natural born leader is an understatement! I debated Chuck once, and he intellectually put me on my ass!

But one problem with all of this. 5-4 does NOT make enough of a statement.

If you think about Brown (1954), a 9-0 vote meant that ending segregation was the correct thing to do. Chief Justice Warren understood the importance of a 9-0 vote.

With the Michigan matter, 5-4 says that all you need to do is appoint some judges that will go your way. Even 6-3 (or 7-2) would have been a bit better.

Don't be surprised if your next group of Supremes are now all from the ultra-conservative 4th Circuit.

[TAC]

Originally posted by einnod23:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by TAC:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by einnod23:
Yo, TAC,

Do you recall the name Charles Wynder? I believe he was Syracuse class of 86 (Student African American Society president while at SU). He went to UM Law School right after, and fought for changes in what was then UM's awful diversity policy. UM, after a whole lot of protest led by him, instituted some of the same admissions programs/goals which are the subject of the affirmative action issue.

If anyone remembers a 1989 PBS broadcast "Racism 101", that's what I'm talking about.

Looks like Chuck's stuggles at Michigan paid off. Shall we sing "Hail to the victors?" Peace. Yea, yea, yea, I remember that kid. Natural born leader. I am not surprised that he was behind the whole thing. He was sort of the same way as an undergrad. Syracuse leading the way once again.

Peace
TAC </font>[/QUOTE]But one problem with all of this. 5-4 does NOT make enough of a statement.
</font>[/QUOTE]I picked this up. I was like, damn. I guess it was Justice O'Connor who realized that there is such a need. This is not a dead issue.

Peace
TAC

[mhd]

i see what you guys are saying, but we are fortunate to get 5-4, i would have loved to have had a 5-4 decision on the election controversy

[falko]

you are right that a 5-4 vote does not bode well (esp. since bush2 could be choosing justices for the next 5 yrs...), but i was pleasantly surprised by this outcome.

but man, clarence thomas... i know this is old news and everyone is aware of his politics, but this just hurts... check out his statements following the decision:

Justice Thomas explained his dissent in part by quoting Frederick Douglass: "What I ask for the Negro is not benevolence, not pity, not sympathy, but simply justice."

The justice went on, "Like Douglass, I believe blacks can achieve in every avenue of American life without the meddling of university administrators."

[The Buddy Love Show]

Originally posted by mhd:
"Stripped of its 'critical mass' veil, the law school's program is revealed as a naked effort to achieve racial balancing," Rehnquist wrote.

of course, we can't have that didn't he fight for Jim Crow laws back in the day?

[The Buddy Love Show]

THe irony of this case...given who the plaintiff was...is that WHITE WOMEN have been the BIGGEST beneficiaries of affirmative action....their per capita income has soared as compared to all blacks over the past 25 years


AND THATS THE DOUBLE TRUTH RUTH

[The Buddy Love Show]

Originally posted by your idol, Buddy Love:
THe irony of this case...given who the plaintiff was...is that WHITE WOMEN have been the BIGGEST beneficiaries of affirmative action....their per capita income has soared as compared to all blacks over the past 25 years


AND THATS THE DOUBLE TRUTH RUTH thats why ya need a good white woman in yer life...can you spell p-a-i-d


boooooom

[The Buddy Love Show]

p.s....in a perfect world Clarence Thomas would catch a bullet....

why not?

we kill peeps for political expediency every day...usually trade unionists, land reformers and other pinko commie leftists

...heres to more right wing assassinations

[Dolemite73]

Originally posted by your idol, Buddy Love:
p.s....in a perfect world Clarence Thomas would catch a bullet....

why not?

we kill peeps for political expediency every day...usually trade unionists, land reformers and other pinko commie leftists

...heres to more right wing assassinations To think...his black ass benefitted from the same policies that he is trying to do away with.... graemlins/cussing.gif

[mhd]

Originally posted by your idol, Buddy Love:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by mhd:
"Stripped of its 'critical mass' veil, the law school's program is revealed as a naked effort to achieve racial balancing," Rehnquist wrote.

of course, we can't have that didn't he fight for Jim Crow laws back in the day? </font>[/QUOTE]yep, apparently he still is

[The Buddy Love Show]

Originally posted by mhd:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by your idol, Buddy Love:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by mhd:
"Stripped of its 'critical mass' veil, the law school's program is revealed as a naked effort to achieve racial balancing," Rehnquist wrote.

of course, we can't have that didn't he fight for Jim Crow laws back in the day? </font>[/QUOTE]yep, apparently he still is </font>[/QUOTE]you can take off the pointy white hats but ya can't hide the pointy head

that scumbag