Harvard lawsuit has gone to trial

Crap like this could easily be solved if affirmative action programs for college admissions focused on economic situation and not race. Nearly every academic disadvantage black and hispanic students in the US experience is primarily the result of economic situation/environment and not the color of their skin.

Most current AA programs do not address the actual problem, which is likely another reason it fosters mild animosity.

I think a preferable solution would be to completely remove race/ethnicity as a factor and come up with a system that instead awards points for criteria such as graduation rate of the high school the student graduated from, median income of the city/district the student lived in for most of his/her life, and the household income of the student's family.

That way, if a student came from a poor, shitty neighborhood and graduated from a poor, shitty school, it wouldn't matter what color they are, they'd get the same points as every other student who came from the same type of disadvantaged academic and economic circumstances.

This might also help balance out the fact that, no matter one's race, they still basically have to be rich and/or a legacy to even get in to a place like Harvard in the first place.

Yale.  Not rich. Not a legacy.  Actually, quite a number of people wandering about campus were and are not from privileged backgrounds.

Of course, there are plenty of privileged kids there. But surely they need some people to pay full freight, right? So what else would one expect? Just saying, I think the ivies make a pretty decent effort to let less privileged kids in, too, and help them financially.

And to be clear, I think that's a good thing.

The thing is, finding a diverse (racially, economically) class that also hack it at an ivy is not easy. I'm not talking IQ-wise-- I'm talking skills and knowledge level. That's on us as a nation.  We need to start much earlier to make our schools better so that kids from poor backgrounds are not at such an extreme disadvantage. Public schools should be our great equalizer, IMO, and I'm all for my tax dollars paying for it.  No excuse at all, IMO, that there should be such disparities in our elementary and high schools.

Meanwhile, to the extent you have a less privileged kid whose grades  grades and test scores are not as shiny as a rich kid's, but they are still at a level where they can contend with ivy league work, I'm all in favor of giving them a boost at admissions and elevating them above yet another rich white or Asian kid. I'm also not inclined to whine that there are still privileged kids there, however.

Would you regard it the same way if the boosts were to those who were specifically non-white?


(ETA: To note, I'm not at all sure Harvard is going about this the right way, so I don't necessarily disagree with you. And I agree with Opty's main point about focusing on economic disadvantage to give boosts.  But that said, I'm on board with a more diverse class (racially, geographically, etc.), and I think it's fine to take into account factors beyond grades and test scores.)

The DOJ has now singled out Yale for discrimination (I'm adding to this thread since Yale was brought up and this is pretty much the same sort of thing, though without the lawsuit): www.cbsnews.com/news/yale-accused-of-discrimination-asian-white-applicants-department-of-justice/

Actually, to my knowledge, Biden was at the forefront of pushing that nonsense. And it has been noted that if he were held to the standard that he insists students (male students anyway) are held to, he'd have been expelled, not just for Tara Reid, but for all the Creepy Uncle Joe stuff. (Keep in mind, many have been suspended/expelled even if the 'victim' insisted there was no misconduct, but a 3rd party had filed an anonymous complaint. And he's already stated he'll return to it.

One mom told me she was on a conference call with Biden. She recorded it. I haven't heard it, but she said Biden was practically frothing at the mouth and called anyone who wanted due process a Nazi.  (For the record, she hates Biden. Her son nearly killed himself after his ordeal. He was accused of assault, outed by being moved in the middle of the night and the school announcing there HAD BEEN an assault. Not allowed to have his own lawyer or advisor, only the school appointed one. His Mom demanded a meeting and they said they didn't know the charge (clear lie) and it could be rape or just putting his tongue in someone's ear. Her story changed massively, he wasn't allowed to bring that up. A drunk girl came on to him, he said no. There were eye witnesses and text messages. His witnesses were not called. They said the witnesses refused to testify. That was a lie, but he couldn't ask them until he was expelled because of gag order. If he spoke to anyone, he could be expelled regardless of guilt. (That's happened. I spoke to someone who was found not guilty of the charge, ton of evidence. It was 9 months later. He was expelled for speaking of it at same time he they decided he didn't do it. Happened in U mass. Her accusation was that she initiated oral, never asked. He didn't mind. Got interrupted by phone call, went back but felt uncomfortable. She never told him she was uncomfortable. She just felt she should stop. After months of isolation, not allowed to leave his dorm except for class, he asked a group for help. Same day they finally said not guilty, he was expelled.) For the record, the accusers can and in the case of my friend's son, did tell everyone. But he couldn't talk, deny it, or use the fact that the accusations changed daily. He wasn't allowed to use the fact that she said he violated the no contact order on a weekend when he was out of state with the family and they could prove it. One of her witnesses, the only one who was there, told the truth and that he never touched her. Her testimony was stricken from the record. They didn't care about his polygraph. He was expelled. He sued and asked for an injunction to prevent the expulsion from being put on his record. The judge agreed. 2 days later, the girl admitted on court record she'd lied. The family could have ruined her financially, but the son said he wanted to try and forgive her. The school settled. I don't know how much, but they had them over a barrel. Also, the mom has said while the dean in charge never apologized, he was forced to write a letter of recommendation whenever they asked. He had to at least 3 times. Student went to a small local college but kept dropping classes and having panic attacks. By the time he should have been a junior, he had just  gotten enough credits for his sophomore year.  He went to another good school once he felt like he could. That would be after his suicide attempt, months AFTER the lawsuit. I have been told he's doing much better today, but when he graduated, he didn't want to walk the stage. This is what Biden wants to return to. 

The DCL 11 by the way had no force of law since it was passed without public comment. New ones will be harder to override, I'm told. The new rules took effect yesterday. There were a few attempts to block them in blue states. They failed pretty massively. They were pretty disingenuous. If anyone is at all interested in this, you should follow KC Johnson on Twitter. He's very much not a Trump fan. Has mostly voted D and can hardly be considered extreme. He's the most well informed on this. Cases he reports on can be shocking, but he'll also talk about very weak cases. (1 student sued for lack of cross, but he had admitted he didn't have consent, probably hoping for leniency.) The new rules aren't perfect, but they're an improvement. And despite the fact that many paint them as being written by MRA's they have the backing of due process advocates, many law professors. FIRE included. 

Also, a guy named Mark Perry has been filing hundreds of Title IX complaints at colleges for programs and/or scholarships that are also 1 way. Examples range from a gym with hours dedicated to woman only but no hours for men only. Or programs where high school kids go to a camp for STEM, but it was marketed and exclusive to women and no male version. Or have anywhere from a few extra to hundreds of extra scholarships for women. I think 1 college had over a hundred for women, and a few for all genders. In many cases, the colleges have entered into agreements with OCR to make these programs open to all, or have versions available for men to even it out. In some cases, like the camp, they put that in small print, left pictures of the girls on the brochure, with no boys, so an new complaint was filed. 

Also, free speech is a big issue. 1 kid is facing charges because during a zoom class, there was a Trump poster on his wall visible. 

Also, see this. 



Colleges are out of control, and what becomes the norm on campus can become the norm off. Sorry for the long ass post. 

I would say there's more than enough evidence to say that is not only a valid theory, but could be called fact.

I'm gonna use title ix again as that has been around longer and I'm more familiar with it.
Affirmative consent policy. It's not good enough that no means no. 


Now if they push that, normalize it, and make it acceptable to the right people, those people who graduate and stop caring about college policies will move on to legal policies for all. I can avoid being expelled by a college by not going to college. (I can't avoid being expelled for violating a sexual assault policy at a college by simply not breaking it because A) innocence is irrelevant and B) they can stretch it to mean what they want.)

Ask yourself a question. You're being charged with rape. If convicted, you can face decades in prison, and a lifetime on the registry where you can't be near children, even taking your own to school, can't live in 85% of places in cities, can be sent back to prison for failing to tell them you went on vacation, got a new car, changed addresses. If you're homeless, you're not allowed in shelters even in massive storms, blizzards, or even covid. 

Now, do you want a jury trial, or a bench trial where they have to convict 1 person who may be an activist, you can't object to their being there like a juror? Do you think that should be your right?

Now stretch that into all the cult of wokeness you've seen.

It's logical to an extent. 

If A is wrong, where people are being hurt, but A is still legal, should we not change the law so A is illegal?

That's how slavery became illegal. That's how same sex marriage became legal. 

But if A is displaying a poster of Trump during a Zoom class is an offense that can be punished, if A is white woman starting a taco business in a truck, if A is a Professor closing their eyes during a video conference on diversity and that means she's a racist so she must be fired, than that's what those who truly believe A will do. 

I've harped on Title IX for years. This is why. It started there. Because we're all against sexual assault. (even if it not includes a black kid with autism, cerebral palsy and a shunt to relieve fluid pressure on his brain, for consensual selfies and fist bumps.) It's moved on. It will keep moving.

I've noticed that SJW's seem to only be able to focus on one oppressed group at a time, at the expense of all others (and at the expense of evidence and reason). Multi-tasking just ain't their thing.

A few years ago it was anti-Muslim discrimination (and so many of those turned out to be hoaxes), then it was anti-trans (that one is still around a bit), and now it's anti-black. Currently, mostly due to bullshit Critical Race Theory, they seem to think that blacks are the ONLY non-white group in existence. If there's another group out there that is non-white but has it rough, well they don't count if they kinda look white. Or, they don't count if they're actually overcoming the hardships and obstacles that life throws their way.

That's why Jews/Asians/Hispanics/etc. are only "oppressed, racialized people of color^TM" when it aligns with or is otherwise convenient for whatever narrative the SJW/CRT lunatics are trying to spin at the time. When it doesn't fit the narrative? Fuck 'em, they kinda look white therefore they are white therefore they're the enemy because "something something white supremacy/fragility."

Regardless, it's always the fault of whitey, though, in every situation because whitey has set up these "institutionalized structures" that "perpetuate systemic racism" blah blah blah.

Yes, white people have for generations set up a system that, economically, puts them in 17th place in terms of median income, behind a bunch of different groups of black, brown, and Asian people. Those bastards.


Therefore, since Asians (among many other non-white groups) are higher than whites in the list of economic achievement, that means they're basically white. So, fuck them, amirite?: