Trump administration rolls back racial diversity guidelines for U.S. colleges

[atyclb]

18 minutes ago, Opl said:

34 minutes ago, atyclb said:

 

i read the url story. my question was did ben carson need affirmative action, since the topic we are discussing is about that.

 

what exactly is an alibi nomination?

 

 

YES.

and for "alibi nomination" : " To many whites who live in the closet of racism but want to be good Christians, Carson is their nominee being the right winged alternative to President Barack Obama. " 

http://www.alibix.co/carson-may-be-skin-but-he-aint-kin/

 

 

interesting. based on his speeches and interviews i would think he is not intellectually disadvantaged and would have been a strong academic contender. it is highly uncommon to become chief of neurosurgery at age 33, regardless of ethnicity and family status.

 

if he had made it on the ballot i would have have voted either for him or rand paul.

 

the "may be skin but he aint kin" seems like it could also be applicable to rapper eminem.

[9KPhalak]

19 hours ago, bristolboy said:

True. No matter how low you think he might go, he'll go still lower.

Trump is simply stopping discrimination of whites and Asians and allowing a level playing field when it comes to college admissions.  You call that low?  Where are you from?  Because I want to be sure not to go there.

[simple1]

27 minutes ago, 9KPhalak said:

Trump is simply stopping discrimination of whites and Asians and allowing a level playing field when it comes to college admissions.  You call that low?  Where are you from?  Because I want to be sure not to go there.

Got empirical data to backup your claims; especially for whites? To me sounds like yet another red meat bait endeavour by Trump.

 

A highly regarded economist, David Card, from the University of California, Berkeley, had the same access as the plaintiff to Harvard’s admissions data and created a more accurate model of the process using a fuller pool of those data. His report found no negative effect of Asian-American ethnicity in the processes and no statistical evidence of discrimination.

[Matt96]

affirmative action = reverse discrimination.  colleges and university should be let to decide themselves who they want to admit.

 

this is a real freedom.

[Matt96]

14 hours ago, sirineou said:

On a sinking ship  when they say "women and children first" at the lifeboats . will you complain discrimination? 

yes i would. if someone considers woman's life more precious than man's one it's definitely a blatant discrimination.

 

and if I would be in a Titanic I would fight for a seat on a boat.

[Matt96]

13 hours ago, sirineou said:

Helping those less powerful (be it ethic, or any other social group) is not discrimination .

no, it is a discrimination. everyone should have exactly the same rights. no one should be helped on expense of others.

[Berkshire]

47 minutes ago, Matt96 said:

no, it is a discrimination. everyone should have exactly the same rights. no one should be helped on expense of others.

How do you feel about legacy admissions? 

[Matt96]

6 hours ago, Berkshire said:

How do you feel about legacy admissions? 

if a university or college is a private entity - it's up to the management to decide who they want to admit. if they get taxpayer's money - it's absolutely unacceptable.

[sirineou]

7 hours ago, Matt96 said:

yes i would. if someone considers woman's life more precious than man's one it's definitely a blatant discrimination.

 

and if I would be in a Titanic I would fight for a seat on a boat.

Do you want more to survive or less? do you want a country where more prosper or less? would you cut off your nose to spite your face?

 No one considers a woman's life more precious, You simply help those less able to help themselves first. so that more than otherwise would survive. it is really a very simple proposition.

 

[Matt96]

3 minutes ago, sirineou said:

Do you want more to survive or less? do you want a country where more prosper or less? would you cut off your nose to spite your face?

I want to have exactly the same rights as anyone else. its much more important for me then prosperity of the country or overall survival rate.

 

3 minutes ago, sirineou said:

You simply help those less able to help themselves first

it's a lie. on Titanic for example almost no one survived who were not on a boat. so it's a very simple choice - live or die. And I want to have the same rights to live as woman or kid.

and on titanic I would kill as many people as necessary to get a seat on a boat. it's better to be a murderer than dead.

[sirineou]

2 minutes ago, Matt96 said:

I want to have exactly the same rights as anyone else. its much more important for me then prosperity of the country or overall survival rate.

 

it's a lie. on Titanic for example almost no one survived who were not on a boat. so it's a very simple choice - live or die. And I want to have the same rights to live as woman or kid.

and on titanic I would kill as many people as necessary to get a seat on a boat. it's better to be a murderer than dead.

 Ok Ok , you convinced me.

When you are on the Titanic you can have the same rights as the women. Heck I will even go as far and treat you as a woman all the time. 

[Matt96]

Just now, sirineou said:

Heck I will even go as far and treat you as a woman all the time. 

wonderful. some men are brainwashed that "men are strong therefore don't need equal rights. if you ask for rights it means your are weak. and it's a shame for a man to be weak"

 

this manipulation does not work with me. it's not a shame for a man to be treated as a woman. it's a shame to think you don't deserve equal rights.

[sirineou]

1 minute ago, Matt96 said:

wonderful. some men are brainwashed that "men are strong therefore don't need equal rights. if you ask for rights it means your are weak. and it's a shame for a man to be weak"

 

this manipulation does not work with me. it's not a shame for a man to be treated as a woman. it's a shame to think you don't deserve equal rights.

 Women are certainly physically weaker than men.

But I believe we have taken this analogy as far as it could go for the purposes of this Tread .

How about we get back to Affirmative action,

[bristolboy]

8 hours ago, Matt96 said:

yes i would. if someone considers woman's life more precious than man's one it's definitely a blatant discrimination.

 

and if I would be in a Titanic I would fight for a seat on a boat.

And the civilized people would throw you overboard.

[Matt96]

1 minute ago, bristolboy said:

And the civilized people would throw you overboard. 

because"civilized people" want me dead because I was born with inferior gender? lol

[Matt96]

9 minutes ago, sirineou said:

Women are certainly physically weaker than men.

every person is born different. someone weaker in something, someone stronger in something. it's normal.

but it's not a responsibility of the government to compensate someone's weakness on expense of others.

 

this is about affirmative action too.

[bristolboy]

30 minutes ago, Matt96 said:

I want to have exactly the same rights as anyone else. its much more important for me then prosperity of the country or overall survival rate.

 

it's a lie. on Titanic for example almost no one survived who were not on a boat. so it's a very simple choice - live or die. And I want to have the same rights to live as woman or kid.

and on titanic I would kill as many people as necessary to get a seat on a boat. it's better to be a murderer than dead.

And the civilized people would throw you overboard.

[stevenl]

5 minutes ago, Matt96 said:

every person is born different. someone weaker in something, someone stronger in something. it's normal.

but it's not a responsibility of the government to compensate someone's weakness on expense of others.

 

this is about affirmative action too.

Yes, it is. It is the duty of the government to protect the weaker in society.

[Matt96]

1 minute ago, bristolboy said:

And the civilized people would throw you overboard.

you wrote this already. run out of medicine, pal?

[Matt96]

Just now, stevenl said:

Yes, it is. It is the duty of the government to protect the weaker in society.

no, it's not. stronger people dont owe anything to weaker ones. toilers dont owe anything to parasites.

 

the responsibility of government is enforcement of rules under with people have a possibility to archive what they want.

 

communists already tried to feed parasites on expense of toilers. and the result was that in any new generation percentage of parasites soared. no one want to work to make others happy.

 

same now happens in semi-socialist countries of Europe. Business runs away from high taxes for parasites, amount of people on welfare,  rapes and other violent crimes  soar.

[stevenl]

2 minutes ago, Matt96 said:

no, it's not. stronger people dont owe anything to weaker ones. toilers dont owe anything to parasites.

 

the responsibility of government is enforcement of rules under with people have a possibility to archive what they want.

 

communists already tried to feed parasites on expense of toilers. and the result was that in any new generation percentage of parasites soared. no one want to work to make others happy.

 

same now happens in semi-socialist countries of Europe. Business runs away from high taxes for parasites, amount of people on welfare,  rapes and other violent crimes  soar.

Better take the medicine you forgot this morning now.

[stevenl]

16 minutes ago, Matt96 said:

you wrote this ad hominem instead of even trying to refute any of my arguments? pathetic))

What arguments, nonsense about " Business runs away from high taxes for parasites, " or " rapes and other violent crimes  soar.  "? Or are you going to prove that?

And let's just say I differ from you on the responsibilities of government.

 

And you accusing others of 'ad hominem attack' and 'being pathetic' is a bit rich after you wrote " you wrote this already. run out of medicine, pal? ".

[metisdead]

Some inflammatory posts and the replies have been removed. 

 

Off topic posts about rapes in Sweden and Netherlands have been removed as well as the replies.

[Gecko123]

Trump is:

 

1. Doing incalculable damage to American social cohesion. (Trump 'average Joe' supporters are going to be on the front lines when these social tensions boil over.)

2. Undermining trust in almost all American institutions.

3. Damaging America's stature around the world. (Don't tell me you haven't noticed as an expat how America's stature has declined here in Thailand since he took office? Imagine being an expat in Mexico these days.)

4. Inflicting incredible damage to America's fiscal health with a deficit funded tax cut which went largely to the rich, and greatly increased the chances the 'average Joe's' social security and medicare net will be cut.

5. Gutting environmental protection regulations to favor corporations over 'average Joe's' health.

6. Rapidly accelerating income inequality, damaging 'average Joe's' standard of living and social class mobility.

7. Running a chaotic, poorly staffed executive branch which have emboldened the West's enemies, and encouraged autocratic and dictatorial governments around the world, ultimately making the world more unstable and dangerous for all of us, including 'average Joes' most likely to fight the wars which are triggered by Trump's poor leadership.

8. Imposing tarrifs which are going to be passed directly on to 'average Joe' consumers.

 

How foolish can 'average Joe' Trump supporters be by ignoring the ruinious damage Trump is doing to the interests of the very people who voted for him? And this blind support willing to overlook his glaring character flaws (philandering, dishonesty, narcissism, lack of empathy, shallow grasp of issues) is because...?

 

More and more, his appeal seems to stem from being a demented real estate salesman/con man selling time-share condos in a fictitious racial utopia in the sky; a sense that 'he's one of us.' People, tribalism and nativism is not going to 'Make America Great Again.' As Abraham Lincoln said in 1858,  'A house divided cannot stand.' Trump's supporters seem to be determined to be retaught this lesson from 160 years ago. I pray they open their eyes before that fast approaching day arrives.

 

 

 

[stevenl]

10 minutes ago, Gecko123 said:

Trump is:

 

1. Doing incalculable damage to American social cohesion. (Trump 'average Joe' supporters are going to be on the front lines when these social tensions boil over.)

2. Undermining trust in almost all American institutions.

3. Damaging America's stature around the world. (Don't tell me you haven't noticed as an expat how America's stature has declined here in Thailand since he took office? Imagine being an expat in Mexico these days.)

4. Inflicting incredible damage to America's fiscal health with a deficit funded tax cut which went largely to the rich, and greatly increased the chances the 'average Joe's' social security and medicare net will be cut.

5. Gutting environmental protection regulations to favor corporations over 'average Joe's' health.

6. Rapidly accelerating income inequality, damaging 'average Joe's' standard of living and social class mobility.

7. Running a chaotic, poorly staffed executive branch which have emboldened the West's enemies, and encouraged autocratic and dictatorial governments around the world, ultimately making the world more unstable and dangerous for all of us, including 'average Joes' most likely to fight the wars which are triggered by Trump's poor leadership.

8. Imposing tarrifs which are going to be passed directly on to 'average Joe' consumers.

 

How foolish can 'average Joe' Trump supporters be by ignoring the ruinious damage Trump is doing to the interests of the very people who voted for him? And this blind support willing to overlook his glaring character flaws (philandering, dishonesty, narcissism, lack of empathy, shallow grasp of issues) is because...?

 

More and more, his appeal seems to stem from being a demented real estate salesman/con man selling time-share condos in a fictitious racial utopia in the sky; a sense that 'he's one of us.' People, tribalism and nativism is not going to 'Make America Great Again.' As Abraham Lincoln said in 1858,  'A house divided cannot stand.' Trump's supporters seem to be determined to be retaught this lesson from 160 years ago. I pray they open their eyes before that fast approaching day arrives.

 

 

 

You forgot 'and blaming democrats for everything', happily believed and accepted by his believers.

[tigermoth]

Regardless of race or colour surely admittance should be based solely on acedamic standard.