DescentBB

seriously, if he does not recuse himself for this case, he should be considered eligible for impeachment.

Scalia was appointed by an Alzheimers-addled Ronald Reagan. Like minds think alike. 'Nuff said.

One should never speak the truth when it comes to certain people.

Spidey wrote:One should never speak the truth when it comes to certain people.

really? And what part was 'truth' and who are 'certain people'?

You first…

I don’t see any evidence presented here that the judge hasn’t done his homework.

Spidey wrote:You first…

I don’t see any evidence presented here that the judge hasn’t done his homework.

The fact he likes to throw temper tantrums when decisions don't go his way tells me volumes about his maturity, or lack thereof.

http://broadstreetreview.com/cross-cult ... nce-artist

EDIT: Had to add a couple of more.

http://www.robeprobe.com/vote_details.p ... in__Scalia

http://www.vanityfair.com/news/2015/06/ ... uling-2015

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions ... story.html

it runs completely counter to the Constitution to suggest relegating an entire group of people to 'lesser' institutions, especially when you have ZERO evidence presented to support that claim. It isn't as if he said that certain students(no mention of race or gender or anything) were not capable of success at premier universities. He singled one out. As such, he is in direct violation of his sworn duties, should he continue to participate in a ruling about admission standards, because his words have given the lie to any inpartiality.

He didn’t say a damn word about relegating an entire group to a lesser institution, the comment was in context to affirmative action, not restricting any particular group to anything.

Meaning if you can meet the standards without affirmative action you could attend, therefore no group is being relegated to lesser institutions, unless you believe no minority could possibly meet the standards without help.

Spidey wrote:He didn’t say a damn word about relegating an entire group to a lesser institution, the comment was in context to affirmative action, not restricting any particular group to anything.

but, he limited the discussion to one race. He really did, read it again.

Meaning if you can meet the standards without affirmative action you could attend, therefore no group is being relegated to lesser institutions, unless you believe no minority could possibly meet the standards without help.

which neatly overlooks filling the role with less qualified (intellectually) legacy students, a practice EVERY major university engages in.

Spidey wrote:He didn’t say a damn word about relegating an entire group to a lesser institution, the comment was in context to affirmative action, not restricting any particular group to anything.

Meaning if you can meet the standards without affirmative action you could attend, therefore no group is being relegated to lesser institutions, unless you believe no minority could possibly meet the standards without help.

lol.

Justice Antonin Scalia surprised the Supreme Court and the public during Wednesday’s oral arguments in a case challenging affirmative action when he suggested that black students do better in “less-advanced schools” that are on “slower tracks.”

UT’s attorney Gregory Garre rejected Scalia’s comments, saying sending minorities to separate, inferior schools is not a solution to the problem of student body diversity.

Aaaaaand, no response to Ferno's gotcha from Spidey.

those pesky facts, again!

So does someone have the facts on how well blacks do in more rigorous curiculum schools? And it is OK to regulate other races to lesser schools because affirmative action took their spot at a better school?

The first part of your question woody, can be summed up in there words. Neil Degrasse Tyson.

The second part? No one takes spots. They're given them.

tunnelcat wrote:Aaaaaand, no response to Ferno's gotcha from Spidey.

There is no “gotcha” to respond to…

His interpretation of what the man said is obviously different from mine.

Besides I’m trying my best to ignore Ferno.

Spidey wrote:

tunnelcat wrote:Aaaaaand, no response to Ferno's gotcha from Spidey.

There is no “gotcha” to respond to…

His interpretation of what the man said is obviously different from mine.

Besides I’m trying my best to ignore Ferno.

Spidey, clearly Scalia has the same preconceived notions that blacks aren't smart enough to be teachers, pilots, doctors, scientists or even football quarterbacks and coaches either. If a judge has preconceived notions about a certain group of people, how can that person rule fairly on laws which affects those people?

You got all of that from his quote?

See, this is a perfect example of different interpretation, I got from what he said that black people do better in some environments than others, and you got that black people are stupid.

Now you're just being a denialist for the sake of denial, Spidey.

Spidey wrote:You got all of that from his quote?

See, this is a perfect example of different interpretation, I got from what he said that black people do better in some environments than others, and you got that black people are stupid.

Yes, I did. Scalia distinctly said "black students" and the way he said it lumps them together as a whole the race of blacks, not some blacks, not poor blacks, not a few blacks, not disadvantaged blacks.

I’m not arguing he didn’t mean all black students…but he was speaking in context of students with lower test scores…IE: affirmative action, context is important…but I will give you that one anyway.

Well whatever…I’m just not buying he’s the big bad racist you guys are making him out to be, I think he has seen some data that suggests that black students do better in a less competitive environment, and made some stupid statement based on it.

Hell, for all we know all students can do better in a less competitive environment, Japanese students kill themselves because of the stress that culture places on them.

But anyway, I'm done because we all have our minds made up, so there is no further point.

Spidey wrote:..l think he has seen some data that suggests that black students do better in a less competitive environment, and made some stupid statement based on it.

I'll agree with this.

Let's not forget the influence of cultural factors on education. Here is where I think the problem lies (one I have not thought of a solution for): A person's success can be stimulated by both their intellectual peers and their cultural peers. The challenge is having an environment where those two variables exist simultaneously and compliment each other. This goes for all non-white races in the US. School at every level is a social exercise as much as a learning exercise. I still have close friends from every school I attended, many years later. Some of these people have even offered me work. This kind of experience appears to be more difficult for non-whites in higher education.

Anecdote: I currently work in a lab where most people have PhDs. Everyone works well at their job, but you can easily see how bonds are made along racial lines.

I think once "success in higher education" becomes a part of African-American identity it will get easier, but suggesting we "pull up the ladder" that allows Blacks to get into better schools goes in the wrong direction, regardless of how well they perform.

So the women I listened to the other night about diversity for its own sake is correct? So if a student doesn’t perform as well in a particular school, that’s ok, even if it will affect the earning potential for the rest of that persons life, just so we can have diversity for diversity’s sake? That was actually her take, because somehow the benefits of diversity outweigh the needs of the student.

Should we at least advise a student with lower scores that they may have a better chance of graduating if they choose another school instead?

No…the problem here is affirmative action is designed wrong, you don’t get diversity by lowering standards, which causes all kinds of problems, you raise the test scores instead.

Here in Philadelphia they have done a lot of dumb things in the name of affirmative action…like lowering the test score requirements, so people now believe that the black cops are dumber and less qualified than the white cops. (didn’t have much affect on numbers, because it seems being a cop is not what black kids aspire to, but it has stigmatized the ones that did)

There has to be a better way than institutionalizing inequality…there has to be. (ironic how a program designed to combat inequality, has actually made it acceptable)

Ok, I’ll shut up now because I know this thread wasn’t actually about affirmative action.

Spidey wrote:So if a student doesn’t perform as well in a particular school, that’s ok, even if it will affect the earning potential for the rest of that persons life, just so we can have diversity for diversity’s sake?...There has to be a better way than institutionalizing inequality…

I don't think many of us here think affirmative action is the best solution, but it at least recognizes a problem. Definitely needs an overhaul.

As far as school goes, that is becoming a more complicated question because the very nature of education has been turned on it's head thanks to both technology (the Internet, automation, etc) and the future job landscape. It seems these days higher education is less about performance and more about job networking and exposure to some kind of training where students can acquire practical skills.

Diversity for diversity's sake might be reasonable in a future school paradigm. We just don't know what that looks like yet. It's a moving target.