Supreme Court

[Low Rider]

I don't think the issue right now is that universities might not accept highly qualified minority candidates like Thomas. I think the issue now is that it is difficult for minority students to achieve those high qualifications to even be considered.

You're on to something there....might be called school choice???

How does school choice address the problem of racial inequality in the real world? If any parent can choose to put their kids in the best schools, who do you think is going to be in the best schools? Seems to me it will be the kids whose parents have the most money and influence, which is not likely to include a proportionate share of minorities.

Stop thinking wealthy privilege, and start thinking choice for everyone. There are many successful, highly desired charter schools in urban areas that have extremely high minority populations. These charter schools in many cases do what public schools have taken out - dress codes, discipline, core academics, work. There are waiting lists.

The cry from teacher unions is "You're just taking the good students and leaving us with the difficult ones, and taking the funding with them" "Slow learners, behavior challenged students, and others need to be intermingled and made to feel normal"

To which I have listened to for 30 years and now wonder if there is any sense in that. The corollary is "Screw the education of the motivated, want to learn students". There are students that are nearly unteachable. Should they have a right to infect the classroom learning environment? I don't think so. Let there be a school for hooligans who do not value their education, and a school for earnest young minds. There is likely an efficiency in teaching like abilities/behaviors, rather than thinking you can make progress in a disruptive classroom.

If parents want a child in a good school, they need to teach their children good social behavior and a curiosity to learn before they even get to the first day of school.

Sure there's some bad teachers out there. Talk to a good teacher, and what you find is the real problem is the parents. Good parents should be able to choose where to send their child, regardless of that parent's race, income or zip code. That's a real lack of discrimination.

And the kids with bad parents, kids that happened to be born into unthinkable socioeconomic situations - you know - the ones that are borderline unteachable - the hooligans who don't value an education - they get left behind - because of who they happened to be born to?

I'm sure that isn't what you mean, but it sure sounds like what you are saying and what the unintended consequences could be.

[Mister Moose]

And the kids with bad parents, kids that happened to be born into unthinkable socioeconomic situations - you know - the ones that are borderline unteachable - the hooligans who don't value an education - they get left behind - because of who they happened to be born to?

I'm sure that isn't what you mean, but it sure sounds like what you are saying and what the unintended consequences could be.

No, I'm fully aware of the consequences for those that you describe. They don't get left behind. They will continue to have the opportunity to receive an education to the extent they are able, they just will not be able to disrupt the classroom of the motivated learners. If you are seeking perfection, I don't have that answer. Do you prefer penalizing the involved parents by forcing them to accept an inferior education?


I don't.

[XtremeJibber2001]

There are students that are nearly unteachable. Should they have a right to infect the classroom learning environment? I don't think so.

This is how it works today. We had an issue in one of my child’s classes this year. Disruptive student … cursed at teachers, threw things, etc. but the laws prevented the student from being removed due to currents regulations.

Instead? They had the entire class learn in the hallway or join another class until the other student calmed down.

Best part? The school didn’t notify any of the parents what was happening. It wasn’t until we observed a change in our own child’s behavior that we started looking into it more.

This is the current state of education.

[easyrider16]

You either didn't read or didn't comprehend my post. What racial inequality are you [still] talking about? The upper stratosphere of uber private boarding schools? Forget about those, they do not educate the masses. Read through this website, and tell me how much racial inequality there is. Tell me what the minority percentage is. Look at their criteria and success rates.

https://www.achievementfirst.org/how-we ... /students/

I like their name, by the way. Achievement First.
"Our mission is to deliver on the promise of equal educational opportunity for all of America’s children."

Oh I read it, though maybe I didn't understand it. It seemed almost completely nonresponsive to my post. It looked to me like you built a strawman of someone opposing school choice when that wasn't really what I was talking about. As for that school web site that you posted, it sounds like a great program. I'm not sure what it has to do with anything I said? If your point is that we should create more publicly-funded charter schools like that in minority areas, then sure, I think that makes a lot of sense. I'm not sure that's what "school choice" means to most people, though. That school isn't something any parent can choose to get their kid into - it's a lottery system.

I'm also confused about you injecting this notion of unteachable kids into the conversation. We were talking about affirmative action and racial preferences. What does that have to do with unteachable kids? Are you trying to draw some sort of comparison between kids of certain race and being unteachable?

As for racial inequality, do you seriously believe there is no racial inequality in the U.S. today?

[daytripper]

The problem with schools is not a racial problem, it's a financial problem. These days most university's are extremely liberal. They aren't discriminating against race.

[easyrider16]

That might be true, but I think what liberals would argue is that there is a problem of systemic racism. Minorities, particularly black people, are historically disadvantaged, and therefore have a harder time competing with white kids for those university spots. Thus, the idea of using racial preference to correct that disadvantage.

I am not convinced that racial preferences in higher education are the best way to combat the problem, but I think it's pretty hard to deny that there is some level of systemic racism inherent in the system.

[Bubba]

I don't think the issue right now is that universities might not accept highly qualified minority candidates like Thomas. I think the issue now is that it is difficult for minority students to achieve those high qualifications to even be considered.

You're on to something there....might be called school choice???

How does school choice address the problem of racial inequality in the real world? If any parent can choose to put their kids in the best schools, who do you think is going to be in the best schools? Seems to me it will be the kids whose parents have the most money and influence, which is not likely to include a proportionate share of minorities.

Stop thinking wealthy privilege, and start thinking choice for everyone. There are many successful, highly desired charter schools in urban areas that have extremely high minority populations. These charter schools in many cases do what public schools have taken out - dress codes, discipline, core academics, work. There are waiting lists.

The cry from teacher unions is "You're just taking the good students and leaving us with the difficult ones, and taking the funding with them" "Slow learners, behavior challenged students, and others need to be intermingled and made to feel normal"

To which I have listened to for 30 years and now wonder if there is any sense in that. The corollary is "Screw the education of the motivated, want to learn students". There are students that are nearly unteachable. Should they have a right to infect the classroom learning environment? I don't think so. Let there be a school for hooligans who do not value their education, and a school for earnest young minds. There is likely an efficiency in teaching like abilities/behaviors, rather than thinking you can make progress in a disruptive classroom.

If parents want a child in a good school, they need to teach their children good social behavior and a curiosity to learn before they even get to the first day of school.

Sure there's some bad teachers out there. Talk to a good teacher, and what you find is the real problem is the parents. Good parents should be able to choose where to send their child, regardless of that parent's race, income or zip code. That's a real lack of discrimination.

I grew up through the NYC school system and my mother taught high school so I've both heard from a number of teachers and experienced the system myself. Way back when, the school system separated classes by ability - good and excellent students were in separate classes from those of lesser ability or aptitude. Many of those "lesser aptitude" and poorer performing (at least academically) ended up going to vocational high schools where they learned a trade and became productive members of society. Those of greater academic ability, regardless of race (and I went to schools with plenty of minorities) went on to college - CCNY, SUNY, private colleges or even Ivy League schools.

Then there were the students who were continuously disruptive, disinterested in learning, They were eventually taken out of the regular system and placed in what were called "600 Schools". They were called that because in NYC schools had numbers - PS 117, JHS 217 - until high school, where schools were named. I have no idea what eventually happened to those kids but I assume many went on to productive careers making license plates. I went to Jamaica HS, a pretty good school that drew from both predominantly white and predominantly minority areas. Classes, even the best, were mixed race and everyone was expected to perform, and they did.

The point is that good students should not be penalized for being good students, average students should continue to receive an education at a level commensurate with their ability, and disruptive students should taken out in order to let everyone else succeed to the best of his or her ability.

[Mister Moose]

You either didn't read or didn't comprehend my post. What racial inequality are you [still] talking about? The upper stratosphere of uber private boarding schools? Forget about those, they do not educate the masses. Read through this website, and tell me how much racial inequality there is. Tell me what the minority percentage is. Look at their criteria and success rates.

https://www.achievementfirst.org/how-we ... /students/

I like their name, by the way. Achievement First.
"Our mission is to deliver on the promise of equal educational opportunity for all of America’s children."

Oh I read it, though maybe I didn't understand it. It seemed almost completely nonresponsive to my post*. I expanded on fancypant's comment. You're not the only one in the discussion. It looked to me like you built a strawman of someone opposing school choice when that wasn't really what I was talking about. As for that school web site that you posted, it sounds like a great program. I'm not sure what it has to do with anything I said? It's an example of great education opportunites to inner city youth. If your point is that we should create more publicly-funded charter schools like that in minority areas, then sure, I think that makes a lot of sense. I'm not sure that's what "school choice" means to most people, though. Yes it is. That school isn't something any parent can choose to get their kid into - it's a lottery system. Of course it's a choice. So many parents choose it, there isn't enough spaces and they lottery off the openings.

I'm also confused about you injecting this notion of unteachable kids into the conversation. We were talking about affirmative action and racial preferences. What does that have to do with unteachable kids? Are you trying to draw some sort of comparison between kids of certain race and being unteachable? It's an offshoot of school choice, which is one solution to better education of urban and/or minority students that want to learn.

As for racial inequality, do you seriously believe there is no racial inequality in the U.S. today?

Of course there is racial inequality in places, and there is racism in places. I'm not so sure about systemic racism.

That might be true, but I think what liberals would argue is that there is a problem of systemic racism. Minorities, particularly black people, are historically disadvantaged, and therefore have a harder time competing with white kids for those university spots.

How are they disadvantaged today? Please be specific.

I am not convinced that racial preferences in higher education are the best way to combat the problem, but I think it's pretty hard to deny that there is some level of systemic racism inherent in the system.

What types of systemic racism?

*You said

How does school choice address the problem of racial inequality in the real world? By allowing a choice of better education to inner city youth. If any parent can choose to put their kids in the best schools, who do you think is going to be in the best schools? Seems to me it will be the kids whose parents have the most money and influence Again, see the example charter school I posted the website to. Are you saying only wealthy kids go there?, which is not likely to include a proportionate share of minorities. Again, not the case. Charter schools in inner cities have high minority student bodies.

[easyrider16]

Moose, I think you're right about charter schools in inner cities if they are run like the one you cited. It seems like they can have a very positive impact on racial inequality in education. However, I think there's a distinction between putting some charter schools in inner city districts and allowing school choice generally, e.g. providing some kind of voucher-like system that allows everyone to choose where to go.

As to the notion of systemic racism and how it has historically disadvantaged certain minorities, the first page of this document describes it pretty well:
https://www.usccb.org/issues-and-action ... racism.pdf

[easyrider16]

I know this probably goes on for most of the judges who serve on the Supreme Court in the modern era, but I find this kind of thing disgusting and borderline unethical:

The Times reported that just months after Thomas joined the bench in 1991, he was welcomed into the Horatio Alger Association, a nonprofit scholarship organization, where he forged relationships with a select group of largely wealthy conservatives. This organization granted him access to wealthy friends who gifted Thomas with vacation retreats and V.I.P. tickets to sporting events, as well as invited him to parties, according to The Times.

The Times’s investigation discovered that Thomas received benefits from the members of the association and large donors to conservative causes. Among many of the contacts he made through the group was David Sokol, an investor and former executive at Berkshire Hathaway, who hosted Thomas and his wife Ginny at their ranch in Montana and property in Florida.

The investigation said that Thomas did not disclose many of the gifts and trips over the last two decades reported by the Times. Thomas used to report the personal gifts and travel benefits he received, but the Times reported that after a 2004 investigation by The Los Angeles Times came out about his disclosures, he largely stopped disclosing them.

The Times noted that Sokol, along with other members of the association, also funded the marketing for an HBO film about Anita Hill’s allegations of sexual harassment brought against Thomas. Thomas has also been a speaker at the Horatio Alger Association’s annual inaugural reception and ceremony, which he has hosted at the Supreme Court, according to the investigation.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/inves ... r-AA1dDHaL

I get it. In the U.S., this is how you get to the Supreme Court. You find the right people, who know the right people, and shmooze. That's the only way your name gets selected out of the hundreds of other judges to be put on the short list for a high appointment. The same thing happens in state appointments. But it still makes me uncomfortable.

[deadheadskier]

My company policy on customer gifts is the value can't exceed $50. The SC and all government jobs should have a similar policy.

[XtremeJibber2001]

My company policy on customer gifts is the value can't exceed $50. The SC and all government jobs should have a similar policy.

Yes, there's even limits on meals of ~$135 for HCPs. Should be the same for the gov't.

[Coydog]

I also know that ironically, if Yale did not affirmatively seek to diversify its law school student body in the 1970s, the chances are there would be no Justice Thomas today.

That assumes Justice Thomas would not have still gone to some other law school, and done equally well without the Yale pedigree.

With no affirmative action quotas in place, do you think top colleges today would turn down a top tier black applicant whose credentials would otherwise be accepted to the college? One, a few, or all top colleges?

Racial quotas for college admissions were ruled unconstitutional in 1978 (Regents of the University of California v. Bakke). Note this was several years after Thomas was admitted to Yale which at the time set a specific racial quota of 10% for people of color. Thomas essentially admits he benefited from this policy. Given that 8 of the 9 current Justices graduated from Ivy League law schools and Thomas was confirmed by the slim margin of 52 to 48, it’s difficult to imagine Thomas being confirmed or even nominated had he gone to a second tier law school.

It’s curious many believe affirmative action implies an admitted minority student almost necessarily displaces a more qualified white student – just not in the case of Clarence Thomas.

Without some form of affirmative action valuing diversity, it seems virtually certain a significant number of universities would turn down a fully qualified minority applicant if the admission meant turning down an equally or even lesser qualified white legacy or donor applicant.

[G-smashed]

What's more important now is how do we get rid of Justice Thomas. He is a disgrace!

[daytripper]

[quote=Coydog post_id=690026 time=1689189286 second tier law school.



Without some form of affirmative action valuing diversity, it seems virtually certain a significant number of universities would turn down a fully qualified minority applicant if the admission meant turning down an equally or even lesser qualified white legacy or donor applicant.
[/quote]

I disagree with that. Most top tier universities politically lean far to the left these days and would still take the same amount of minorities as they would if it wasn't required by affirmative action. That may have not been the case in the 70's, 80's and 90's but the times they are a changing and in this case at least, for the better.