Quote from: Pseudo Nym on August 21, 2007, 09:40:05 AMQuote from: H4CS on August 21, 2007, 09:27:12 AMWhy has nobody brought up one of the biggest benefits of AA? The simple fact that it provides a substantial amount of information regarding the intelligence of its detractors? Do you know how hard it can be to figure out when a seemingly decently (but not great) qualified individual is really an idiot under the resume? Bam, we get threads like this. Think of the efficiency gains, people. I'm not sure why your glib non-answering of any substantiative arguments of the opposing position would suggest that people holding the opposing position are somehow intellectually defective.If those opposing AA in this thread aren't intellectually defective, then they are purposely intellectually dishonest.
Quote from: H4CS on August 21, 2007, 09:27:12 AMWhy has nobody brought up one of the biggest benefits of AA? The simple fact that it provides a substantial amount of information regarding the intelligence of its detractors? Do you know how hard it can be to figure out when a seemingly decently (but not great) qualified individual is really an idiot under the resume? Bam, we get threads like this. Think of the efficiency gains, people. I'm not sure why your glib non-answering of any substantiative arguments of the opposing position would suggest that people holding the opposing position are somehow intellectually defective.
Why has nobody brought up one of the biggest benefits of AA? The simple fact that it provides a substantial amount of information regarding the intelligence of its detractors? Do you know how hard it can be to figure out when a seemingly decently (but not great) qualified individual is really an idiot under the resume? Bam, we get threads like this. Think of the efficiency gains, people.
Quote from: Pseudo Nym on August 21, 2007, 09:24:46 AMAre universities that receive public funds private actors?yup.
Are universities that receive public funds private actors?
An unbounded conclusion like that one must have substantial proof behind it. Since I believe that the burden of proof is on the accuser, please provide it.
Quote from: Pseudo Nym on August 21, 2007, 09:51:18 AMAn unbounded conclusion like that one must have substantial proof behind it. Since I believe that the burden of proof is on the accuser, please provide it.Wow, you must be the only white person who opposes AA, thinks he/she is unique for it, and gets all snippy when someone dares challenge your intelligence. You should write about this for your personal statement. Beautiful snowflake and all.
Quote from: Pseudo Nym on August 21, 2007, 09:53:37 AMQuote from: #@$%^&*(^$!&*%$^&@!% on August 21, 2007, 09:49:33 AMQuote from: Pseudo Nym on August 21, 2007, 09:24:46 AMAre universities that receive public funds private actors?yup.So UC Berkeley, University of Michigan, and UVA are private actors?those are public universities, not private ones receiving public funds. the courts draw a distinction. (i'm not sure why, but they do.)
Quote from: #@$%^&*(^$!&*%$^&@!% on August 21, 2007, 09:49:33 AMQuote from: Pseudo Nym on August 21, 2007, 09:24:46 AMAre universities that receive public funds private actors?yup.So UC Berkeley, University of Michigan, and UVA are private actors?
well if a black person opposes AA, it MUST be wrong.
wait, so you're calling him a liar and a spin-doctor and then questioning his qualifications to be a lawyer? does that make any sense to you?
Quote from: Pseudo Nym on August 21, 2007, 10:04:31 AMDo you think the 14th amendment should apply to public universities?I've also heard that the feds often condition the eligibility of public funds by private institutions on those institutions conforming to federal antidiscrimination laws. Do you know anything about this topic? (I'm pretty ignorant about it, which is why I'm asking). Because if this is true, then it seems to me that those antidiscrimination laws should also prevent the application of affirmative action policies.BTW, I'm pretty sure my alma mater, Cornell, had a few colleges within it which were considered public, so not all "private" universities are fully private.well let's be honest for a second: the whole public/private distinction is a bit of a sham that the courts put in place to have some limit on the scope of the 14th amendment. public universities are just more obviously "public institutions" than private ones, and so it's convenient to put them on one side of the line.and the government can condition funds on whatever they want. but that doesn't make AA unconstitutional. the original challenge that i presented to blondie was to substantiate her claim that AA was unconstitutional and not merely a violation of antidiscrimination statutes (assuming that it is).and like i said, public-private line is a sham.
Do you think the 14th amendment should apply to public universities?I've also heard that the feds often condition the eligibility of public funds by private institutions on those institutions conforming to federal antidiscrimination laws. Do you know anything about this topic? (I'm pretty ignorant about it, which is why I'm asking). Because if this is true, then it seems to me that those antidiscrimination laws should also prevent the application of affirmative action policies.BTW, I'm pretty sure my alma mater, Cornell, had a few colleges within it which were considered public, so not all "private" universities are fully private.
Quote from: #@$%^&*(^$!&*%$^&@!% on August 21, 2007, 09:56:00 AMQuote from: Pseudo Nym on August 21, 2007, 09:53:37 AMQuote from: #@$%^&*(^$!&*%$^&@!% on August 21, 2007, 09:49:33 AMQuote from: Pseudo Nym on August 21, 2007, 09:24:46 AMAre universities that receive public funds private actors?yup.So UC Berkeley, University of Michigan, and UVA are private actors?those are public universities, not private ones receiving public funds. the courts draw a distinction. (i'm not sure why, but they do.)Okay, NOW we're getting into a juicy argument Do you think the 14th amendment should apply to public universities?I've also heard that the feds often condition the eligibility of public funds by private institutions on those institutions conforming to federal antidiscrimination laws. Do you know anything about this topic? (I'm pretty ignorant about it, which is why I'm asking). Because if this is true, then it seems to me that those antidiscrimination laws should also prevent the application of affirmative action policies.BTW, I'm pretty sure my alma mater, Cornell, had a few colleges within it which were considered public, so not all "private" universities are fully private.
A lawyer who can't get the facts straight won't be much of a lawyer.
and the government can condition funds on whatever they want. but that doesn't make AA unconstitutional. the original challenge that i presented to blondie was to substantiate her claim that AA was unconstitutional and not merely a violation of antidiscrimination statutes (assuming that it is).