Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(USA Today)   In his dissent in today's affirmative action case, Justice Thomas rails against the program as he thinks it cheapened the meaning of his JD. Oddly he didn't feel like the degrees of his classmates, earned in a whites-only system, were similarly cheap   (usatoday.com) divider line 78
    More: Fail, Clarence Thomas, affirmative actions, friend of the courts, Texas High School, J.D., Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, Justice Stephen Breyer, lower courts  
•       •       •

1339 clicks; posted to Politics » on 24 Jun 2013 at 11:32 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



78 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-06-24 11:20:16 AM  
System to include minorities? Ruins the whole thing. System to exclude minorities? Still legit.
 
2013-06-24 11:36:05 AM  
Dear Justice Thomas, your rulings have done that better than anything.
 
2013-06-24 11:36:13 AM  
You know what cheapens the meaning of his JD?

His actions on the Supreme Court.
 
2013-06-24 11:38:52 AM  
And in doing so, he also insulted Justice Sotomayor. She was 3rd in her high school class and got into Princeton, while valedictorian was rejected.

Wonder what happened to him.
 
2013-06-24 11:39:09 AM  

Philip Francis Queeg: You know what cheapens the meaning of his JD?

His actions on the Supreme Court.


This. But at least we're judging him on the merits of his work/character, so I'm sure he'd be appreciative of that.
 
2013-06-24 11:39:39 AM  
He's got his white wife, so why should he care about the rest of his race?
 
2013-06-24 11:40:51 AM  
Instead, Kennedy said that affirmative action remains permissible, but only if the University of Texas at Austin could prove that there was "no workable race-neutral alternatives would produce the benefits of educational diversity."

You know, after California removed racial considerations/affirmative action  from the admissions process in universities, the Asian population of the UC system and other California universities skyrocketed. As I recall, UC San Diego and Irvine are something like 45-50% Asian/Pacific Islanders, while the minority acceptance rates plummeted.

Speaking as an Asian person, I think most universities can easily point to this as an example of why a race-neutral alternative might not produce the benefit of educational diversity - a school population that is 50% Asian and 45% white and 5% everybody else is not very diverse at all.
 
2013-06-24 11:44:45 AM  

RexTalionis: Instead, Kennedy said that affirmative action remains permissible, but only if the University of Texas at Austin could prove that there was "no workable race-neutral alternatives would produce the benefits of educational diversity."

You know, after California removed racial considerations/affirmative action  from the admissions process in universities, the Asian population of the UC system and other California universities skyrocketed. As I recall, UC San Diego and Irvine are something like 45-50% Asian/Pacific Islanders, while the minority acceptance rates plummeted.

Speaking as an Asian person, I think most universities can easily point to this as an example of why a race-neutral alternative might not produce the benefit of educational diversity - a school population that is 50% Asian and 45% white and 5% everybody else is not very diverse at all.


The solution is simple- priority admissions for the economically disadvantaged, since presumably kids from wealthier families have the means to pursue a much broader range of post secondary options anyways.

Of course, since there is currently a pretty significant correlation between race and economic status, it likely achieves the same diversity goals.  And when the economic imbalances change, so will the admissions from various minority groups.
 
2013-06-24 11:46:43 AM  
Here's a question to you white guys out there.  Do you feel stigmatized by your educations and jobs that were achieved in part from the de facto affirmative active given to white males in this country?
 
2013-06-24 11:46:57 AM  

RexTalionis: Instead, Kennedy said that affirmative action remains permissible, but only if the University of Texas at Austin could prove that there was "no workable race-neutral alternatives would produce the benefits of educational diversity."

You know, after California removed racial considerations/affirmative action  from the admissions process in universities, the Asian population of the UC system and other California universities skyrocketed. As I recall, UC San Diego and Irvine are something like 45-50% Asian/Pacific Islanders, while the minority acceptance rates plummeted.

Speaking as an Asian person, I think most universities can easily point to this as an example of why a race-neutral alternative might not produce the benefit of educational diversity - a school population that is 50% Asian and 45% white and 5% everybody else is not very diverse at all.


As an asian, are you saying that your ethnic group is not a minority in this country?
 
2013-06-24 11:48:13 AM  
The amazing part, as is with all of Justice Thomas's opinions, is his ability to appear to be speaking when Scalia is drinking a glass of water.
 
2013-06-24 11:48:55 AM  

Graffito: Here's a question to you white guys out there.  Do you feel stigmatized by your educations and jobs that were achieved in part from the de facto affirmative active given to white males in this country?


I do not, but I have a low opinion of meritocracy to begin with.
 
2013-06-24 11:49:42 AM  

Saiga410: As an asian, are you saying that your ethnic group is not a minority in this country?


We are, sure. But a population that is 50% Asian and 50% white isn't diverse by any means.
 
2013-06-24 11:52:27 AM  
I didn't have to rely on the color of my skin to gain admission to a prestigious university. I got in the old fashion way: by being a 3rd generation legacy.

/not really
 
2013-06-24 11:53:15 AM  

DamnYankees: System to include minorities? Ruins the whole thing. System to exclude minorities? Still legit.


I'm sympathetic to AA and I don't generally have a problem with it for policy reasons. However, the Constitution doesn't have a clause that says "unless your laudable goal is to redress generational and institutionalized problems that have disadvantaged various minority populations." It's possible to recognize both sides of this without everyone dredging up the same tired Thomas criticisms.
 
2013-06-24 11:56:27 AM  
Don't be so hard on yourself, Justice Thomas, you earned your GED in Law.
 
2013-06-24 11:56:34 AM  

Graffito: Here's a question to you white guys out there.  Do you feel stigmatized by your educations and jobs that were achieved in part from the de facto affirmative active given to white males in this country?


Mostly I'm embarrassed by the fact that it's very easy for me to get a job in my field because I'm white, and minority Americans have to work way harder for less pay at worse jobs because of racism.

I'm an English teacher, and it's shameful how many Asian parents don't think someone who is black is capable of teaching their child.
 
2013-06-24 11:56:54 AM  

unyon: RexTalionis: Instead, Kennedy said that affirmative action remains permissible, but only if the University of Texas at Austin could prove that there was "no workable race-neutral alternatives would produce the benefits of educational diversity."

You know, after California removed racial considerations/affirmative action  from the admissions process in universities, the Asian population of the UC system and other California universities skyrocketed. As I recall, UC San Diego and Irvine are something like 45-50% Asian/Pacific Islanders, while the minority acceptance rates plummeted.

Speaking as an Asian person, I think most universities can easily point to this as an example of why a race-neutral alternative might not produce the benefit of educational diversity - a school population that is 50% Asian and 45% white and 5% everybody else is not very diverse at all.

The solution is simple- priority admissions for the economically disadvantaged, since presumably kids from wealthier families have the means to pursue a much broader range of post secondary options anyways.

Of course, since there is currently a pretty significant correlation between race and economic status, it likely achieves the same diversity goals.  And when the economic imbalances change, so will the admissions from various minority groups.


The problem with that it brings up the question of whether the school should admit based on absolute performance, or based on performance as adjusted for opportunity.   Students from wealthier backgrounds are likelier to have had significant advantages such as better schools, more stable home lives, parents who value education and who have attained higher levels of education themselves, and more outside-of-school tutoring and learning opportunities.  However, though access to those things aren't universal to all students, having access to them can prepare someone to be a better student than someone who didn't have access to those things.  Is it the place of the school to level the playing field, or to admit the best students they can regardless of any leg up those students may have had to start the race?
 
2013-06-24 11:57:33 AM  

kronicfeld: DamnYankees: System to include minorities? Ruins the whole thing. System to exclude minorities? Still legit.

I'm sympathetic to AA and I don't generally have a problem with it for policy reasons. However, the Constitution doesn't have a clause that says "unless your laudable goal is to redress generational and institutionalized problems that have disadvantaged various minority populations." It's possible to recognize both sides of this without everyone dredging up the same tired Thomas criticisms.


This is all fine, but direct it towards Thomas, not me. I'm just responding to his argument which was on this topic. I didn't broach it.
 
2013-06-24 11:57:46 AM  
Thomas's whole trip is that he has spent the majority of his career thinking that m,any people say he only got where he is because he is black.  Truth be told, he is generally right - lots of people do say this.  Now i personally think he is the weakest link on the present court - but i can ubnderstand to a point where a guy who has lived much of his professional career being snickered at as an affirmative action case might go the route of being really, really anti-affirmative action.

His dissents in the Bollinger cases really cemented this for me - he is desperate to show that he got here not because there are quotas.  I man shiat, he is "the black guy" on the bench and many court watchers, conservative and liberal, discuss how he was "only nominated because he is the rate conservative black jurist"
 
d23 [TotalFark]
2013-06-24 12:01:44 PM  

DamnYankees: Graffito: Here's a question to you white guys out there.  Do you feel stigmatized by your educations and jobs that were achieved in part from the de facto affirmative active given to white males in this country?

I do not, but I have a low opinion of meritocracy to begin with.


There is no way you can look at Congress, the Supreme Court, the Presidency (especially under GWB), the state legislators and Governors, the CEOs of the largest corporations, and just any person in power in general right now and believe in meritocracy.  The cream is clearly heading towards the bottom as we're seeing it's more important to be a loudmouthed asshole than it is to actually know anything.
 
2013-06-24 12:10:24 PM  
Thomas was also heard to remark that the entire law school admissions process is going down the pubes. Then someone asked if he just said pubes and Thomas said "You're lynching me!"
 
2013-06-24 12:11:19 PM  
Clearly, the most important aspect of this decision is Thomas's whining dissent.
 
2013-06-24 12:14:34 PM  

Nabb1: Clearly, the most important aspect of this decision is Thomas's whining dissent separate concurrence.


That's what I get for relying on submitter instead of reading the article first.  Nice work, subby.  Maybe while you are having that Law GED you got in this week's box of Cap'N Crunch, you could learn the difference between a dissent and a concurrence.
 
2013-06-24 12:16:28 PM  

Nabb1: Clearly, the most important aspect of this decision is Thomas's whining separate concurrence.


Yes, but it was also equal.
 
2013-06-24 12:18:46 PM  

Nabb1: Clearly, the most important aspect of this decision is Thomas's whining dissent concurrence.

 
2013-06-24 12:19:23 PM  
I imagine that the rhetoric by every side on affirmative action will change drastically when whites become a minority in the us. I'm betting that everyone will adopt the exact opposite opinion they held when whites were the majority.
 
2013-06-24 12:20:53 PM  
TuteTibiImperes:

The solution is simple- priority admissions for the economically disadvantaged, since presumably kids from wealthier families have the means to pursue a much broader range of post secondary options anyways.

Of course, since there is currently a pretty significant correlation between race and economic status, it likely achieves the same diversity goals.  And when the economic imbalances change, so will the admissions from various minority groups.

The problem with that it brings up the question of whether the school should admit based on absolute performance, or based on performance as adjusted for opportunity.   Students from wealthier backgrounds are likelier to have had significant advantages such as better schools, more stable home lives, parents who value education and who have attained higher levels of education themselves, and more outside-of-school tutoring and learning opportunities.  However, though access to those things aren't universal to all students, having access to them can prepare someone to be a better student than someone who didn't have access to those things.  Is it the place ...


Even with your limitation of "likelier" - I must object to your characterization of wealthier families (as opposed to poorer families).  Students' bad behavior becomes more problematic at either end of the 'household wealth' scale - examine the demographics of young people in drug rehab, for example.   Those parents are more likely to be less involved in their children's schools, whether they're too busy working 3 jobs or too busy partying in 3 time zones.
 
2013-06-24 12:21:26 PM  

kronicfeld: Nabb1: Clearly, the most important aspect of this decision is Thomas's whining dissent concurrence.


I already addressed that.
 
2013-06-24 12:22:32 PM  

Nabb1: Nabb1: Clearly, the most important aspect of this decision is Thomas's whining dissent separate concurrence.

That's what I get for relying on submitter instead of reading the article first.  Nice work, subby.  Maybe while you are having that Law GED you got in this week's box of Cap'N Crunch, you could learn the difference between a dissent and a concurrence.


Exactly ... the paraphrased quote from Thomas is from some article he wrote ... not from any opinion in today's decision, dissenting, concurring (as here) or otherwise.

FTA: "Two other members of the court were being watched closely in this case: Justice Thomas, the lone black justice, who has written that his Yale Law School degree was devalued by racial preferences ...;"

Reading comprehension ... how does it work?
 
2013-06-24 12:24:51 PM  

Teiritzamna: Thomas's whole trip is that he has spent the majority of his career thinking that m,any people say he only got where he is because he is black.  Truth be told, he is generally right - lots of people do say this.  Now i personally think he is the weakest link on the present court - but i can ubnderstand to a point where a guy who has lived much of his professional career being snickered at as an affirmative action case might go the route of being really, really anti-affirmative action.

His dissents in the Bollinger cases really cemented this for me - he is desperate to show that he got here not because there are quotas.  I man shiat, he is "the black guy" on the bench and many court watchers, conservative and liberal, discuss how he was "only nominated because he is the rate conservative black jurist"


He absolutely got on the Supreme Court because he was black.  When Thurgood Marshall died, it was assumed that his replacement would have to be black.  I wish they would have found a better qualified candidate though.
 
2013-06-24 12:33:37 PM  

Teiritzamna: Thomas's whole trip is that he has spent the majority of his career thinking that m,any people say he only got where he is because he is black.  Truth be told, he is generally right - lots of people do say this.  Now i personally think he is the weakest link on the present court - but i can ubnderstand to a point where a guy who has lived much of his professional career being snickered at as an affirmative action case might go the route of being really, really anti-affirmative action.

His dissents in the Bollinger cases really cemented this for me - he is desperate to show that he got here not because there are quotas.  I man shiat, he is "the black guy" on the bench and many court watchers, conservative and liberal, discuss how he was "only nominated because he is the rate conservative black jurist"


Hmm.   Sort of like the preacher whose "pray the gay away" ministry admitted he's struggled with his own same-sex attractions?

You might be on to something there.
 
2013-06-24 12:38:51 PM  

Jaicu: TuteTibiImperes:

The solution is simple- priority admissions for the economically disadvantaged, since presumably kids from wealthier families have the means to pursue a much broader range of post secondary options anyways.

Of course, since there is currently a pretty significant correlation between race and economic status, it likely achieves the same diversity goals.  And when the economic imbalances change, so will the admissions from various minority groups.

The problem with that it brings up the question of whether the school should admit based on absolute performance, or based on performance as adjusted for opportunity.   Students from wealthier backgrounds are likelier to have had significant advantages such as better schools, more stable home lives, parents who value education and who have attained higher levels of education themselves, and more outside-of-school tutoring and learning opportunities.  However, though access to those things aren't universal to all students, having access to them can prepare someone to be a better student than someone who didn't have access to those things.  Is it the place ...

Even with your limitation of "likelier" - I must object to your characterization of wealthier families (as opposed to poorer families).  Students' bad behavior becomes more problematic at either end of the 'household wealth' scale - examine the demographics of young people in drug rehab, for example.   Those parents are more likely to be less involved in their children's schools, whether they're too busy working 3 jobs or too busy partying in 3 time zones.


At the extreme end of the wealth scale, sure.  I don't know if trust fund kids are a statistically significant group however.  And sure, there is plenty of drug use amongst middle class kids, but drug use doesn't automatically make someone a behavior problem or a bad student, and lack of drug use doesn't automatically make someone a good student or well behaved.

One of the biggest factors in educational attainment is the education level of your parents.

media.tumblr.com

Parents that have achieved higher levels of education tend to be more active in the education of their children:

www.childtrends.org

Higher levels of education correlate to higher socioeconomic status:

soc101.files.wordpress.com

So, kids from wealthier families have a leg up, but that also means they are going into college more prepared, and by pure achievement alone, are more deserving of the spots for admissions.  While we should do something to help break the cycle of generational poverty, I don't think that watering down the admitted student base is the way to do it.  More programs to help students from lower income families achieve at the same level of those from higher income families seems like the way to go - don't lower the bar for certain people, help those that are starting out with trouble so that they can get over the same bar as everyone else.
 
2013-06-24 12:41:22 PM  

Sudo_Make_Me_A_Sandwich: I'm an English teacher, and it's shameful how many Asian parents don't think someone who is black is capable of teaching their child.


To be fair, many Asian parents don't think someone who is Asian is capable of teaching their child English, either.
 
d23 [TotalFark]
2013-06-24 12:46:10 PM  
Thomas once again shows himself to be a selfish asshole that doesn't have the intellectual ability to be in such an important position.
 
2013-06-24 12:47:35 PM  
The majority opinion is basically saying "affirmative action is OK, as long the justification is that it also benefits whites".
 
2013-06-24 12:47:38 PM  
Letting people who can afford go to college cheapens it too, because it has smarter poor people unable to attend while letting richer dumb people attend, so he is against that being a criteria for letting people in too?
 
2013-06-24 12:50:51 PM  
One of the great benefits of UT and it's law school, is if you go to work for the University, your chances are arguing before the US Supreme Court go up.

img.fark.net
Why this ad was next to the article is beyond me, but I'm getting buttered up as we speak.
 
2013-06-24 12:52:43 PM  
You passed the required coursework.  You passed the bar.  You worked your way up to sitting on the Supreme Court.

If you think all that work is devalued because you may have gotten a slight edge at the admissions office - which was meant to offset things like being born in pre-civil war Georgia - then you are officially an idiot.
 
2013-06-24 01:00:05 PM  

Karac: You passed the required coursework.  You passed the bar.  You worked your way up to sitting on the Supreme Court.

If you think all that work is devalued because you may have gotten a slight edge at the admissions office - which was meant to offset things like being born in pre-civil war Georgia - then you are officially an idiot.


I believe any person born in pre-Civil War Georgia should be allowed automatic admission to any school he or she wishes to attend.
 
2013-06-24 01:03:24 PM  

Nabb1: I believe any person born in pre-Civil War Georgia should be allowed automatic admission to any school he or she wishes to attend.


I'm ok with that. Any 155-year old who wants to make his dreams can true I will help.
 
d23 [TotalFark]
2013-06-24 01:04:02 PM  

Nabb1: Karac: You passed the required coursework.  You passed the bar.  You worked your way up to sitting on the Supreme Court.

If you think all that work is devalued because you may have gotten a slight edge at the admissions office - which was meant to offset things like being born in pre-civil war Georgia - then you are officially an idiot.

I believe any person born in pre-Civil War Georgia should be allowed automatic admission to any school he or she wishes to attend.


Anyone living in CURRENT DAY Georgia ought to be given safe passage and a refugee stipend so they can start a new life somewhere that values sanity.
 
2013-06-24 01:04:55 PM  

Karac: You passed the required coursework.  You passed the bar.  You worked your way up to sitting on the Supreme Court.

If you think all that work is devalued because you may have gotten a slight edge at the admissions office - which was meant to offset things like being born in pre-civil war Georgia - then you are officially an idiot.


As noted above, I honestly think he has the constant fear that the bolded part is untrue, that he got his first job, his first judgeship, and his position on the bench due to at least some form of "affirmative action."
 
2013-06-24 01:05:24 PM  

Nabb1: Karac: You passed the required coursework.  You passed the bar.  You worked your way up to sitting on the Supreme Court.

If you think all that work is devalued because you may have gotten a slight edge at the admissions office - which was meant to offset things like being born in pre-civil war Georgia - then you are officially an idiot.

I believe any person born in pre-Civil War Georgia should be allowed automatic admission to any school he or she wishes to attend.


Georgia remains pre-Civil War.
 
2013-06-24 01:06:57 PM  

Graffito: Here's a question to you white guys out there.  Do you feel stigmatized by your educations and jobs that were achieved in part from the de facto affirmative active given to white males in this country?


Quite the opposite.  White males have it easy in the US, especially if they are (or appear) middle-class, straight, and Christian.  Nobody has ever considered me "suspicious looking" just because of my skin color[1].  No teacher or potential employer ever assumed that I was incapable of performing the assigned work, or evaluated my performance with additional scrutiny, based solely on my appearance.  I am well aware of white privilege and I know I have benefited from it.  I'm a bit embarrassed and saddened by that, but not at all stigmatized.

[1](my clothing and hairstyle when I was a teenager, sure, but not my skin.)
 
2013-06-24 01:07:54 PM  

Corn_Fed: Nabb1: Karac: You passed the required coursework.  You passed the bar.  You worked your way up to sitting on the Supreme Court.

If you think all that work is devalued because you may have gotten a slight edge at the admissions office - which was meant to offset things like being born in pre-civil war Georgia - then you are officially an idiot.

I believe any person born in pre-Civil War Georgia should be allowed automatic admission to any school he or she wishes to attend.

Georgia remains pre-Civil War.


Atlanta was a Southern city before the Civil War.  You have to work pretty hard to find anyone in Atlanta who was actually born in the South these days.
 
2013-06-24 01:08:50 PM  

Teiritzamna: As noted above, I honestly think he has the constant fear that the bolded part is untrue, that he got his first job, his first judgeship, and his position on the bench due to at least some form of "affirmative action."


What's interesting is that this fear would exist with or without any official AA policies. It's just society. He would always have the fear that he was put there because of his race.
 
2013-06-24 01:09:28 PM  

Nabb1: Karac: You passed the required coursework.  You passed the bar.  You worked your way up to sitting on the Supreme Court.

If you think all that work is devalued because you may have gotten a slight edge at the admissions office - which was meant to offset things like being born in pre-civil war Georgia - then you are officially an idiot.

I believe any person born in pre-Civil War Georgia should be allowed automatic admission to any school he or she wishes to attend.


Sorry.  Typo.  Pre civil-rights Georgia.
I believe any black man born in 1948 Georgia, whose father ran off, whose mother had trouble putting food on the table, was at one point homeless, and grew up working on a farm - and still got good enough grades to even be able to apply to Yale shouldn't be granted admission.  For that matter, any student white or black who put that down on his admission essay should get in.
 
2013-06-24 01:09:31 PM  

DamnYankees: Nabb1: I believe any person born in pre-Civil War Georgia should be allowed automatic admission to any school he or she wishes to attend.

I'm ok with that. Any 155-year old who wants to make his dreams can true I will help.


Screw that; I'm not having zombies or vampires in my intro courses!

...OK, the online courses, maybe.
 
2013-06-24 01:10:37 PM  
Will someone please take subby's submission privilege away?  That headline is like shining strobe lights on an epileptic.
 
Displayed 50 of 78 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report