Dumb Political Correctness

Mr. Deez said:
It was a stupid-*** comment, but if war breaks out (and I don't think it will), it's not going to be because of that comment.
Click to expand...

It was the equivalent of Obama's red line with Syria. If you're not willing to back it up and we clearly aren't then it's a "stupid-***" comment. By making it you've eroded America's credibility.
 
OrngNugz said:
Great putz remarks btw "someone who doesn't pay attention to anything going on; one who makes stupid remarks".

Instead of addressing 45 dumb *** fire and fury remarks and ignoring the fact his dumb *** bluff was called in less than 24 hours you choose to bury your head in the sand. Next time just call me a snowflake and leave it at that. 45 couldn't be more of a idiot as pres, his loyal followers are just as bad.
Click to expand...
Feel free to point out how Obama's foreign policy was better. Appeasement of dictators does not count. Oh I know, he personally shot Binny in the eye, then gave him a private funeral on the sea.

Trump will deal with NK one way of the other. Meanwhile, liberals will focus on calling everyone who disagrees with the stupid, but offer no solution to the situation.
 
Seattle Husker said:
It was the equivalent of Obama's red line with Syria. If you're not willing to back it up and we clearly aren't then it's a "stupid-***" comment. By making it you've eroded America's credibility.
Click to expand...
Wait, less than 24 hours after a dictator makes a threat, we kill millions? Good god, you guys are hilarious hypocrites.
 
Seattle Husker said:
It was the equivalent of Obama's red line with Syria. If you're not willing to back it up and we clearly aren't then it's a "stupid-***" comment. By making it you've eroded America's credibility.
Click to expand...

I didn't say it didn't hurt our credibility. It certainly did much like the Syrian red line comment. It's like claiming to be better hung than Ron Jeremy (and about that juvenile) but unwilling to drop your pants. At some point you have to prove that you're not stuffing a pair of socks or a roll of quarters in your pants.

I'm just saying his comment isn't going to be the reason we go to war.
 
OrngNugz said:
After 45s dumb assed fire and fury remark the dear leader of N Korea called his bluff by threatening Guam with detailed plan. I also heard there is a giant Trump chicken by the White house .. lmfao what a putz this 45 is, and all who voted for him

giant-trump-chicken.jpg
Click to expand...

Oh Great! All we need around here is Roger 35 coming back with his other name to complain about a blow up duck on the lawn of the White House.
 
Seattle Husker said:
That's pre-sexchange too. Mind blown. My least favorite movie of all time...the Crying Game. Chelsea might be able to pull that off.
Click to expand...
Had a roommate in grad school who was a fraternity brother. A guy who played QB with a neck roll. Homophobic to the core. We went and saw that cool IRA movie...not knowing what was coming. His discomfort was hilarious. He wanted to leave. :)
 
OrngNugz said:
Great putz remarks btw "someone who doesn't pay attention to anything going on; one who makes stupid remarks".

Instead of addressing 45 dumb *** fire and fury remarks and ignoring the fact his dumb *** bluff was called in less than 24 hours you choose to bury your head in the sand. Next time just call me a snowflake and leave it at that. 45 couldn't be more of a idiot as pres, his loyal followers are just as bad.
Click to expand...

Please get professional help.
 
OrngNugz said:
Still ignoring the fact that 45 puts his foot in his mouth and you say I need help?
Click to expand...

That's your opinion, not fact. The exact same trash was said about Reagan when he called the USSR the evil empire. How'd that work out? However, feel free to continue to parrot the media and follow liberal groupthink. That's better than learning to think for yourself.
 
Garmel said:
That's your opinion, not fact. The exact same trash was said about Reagan when he called the USSR the evil empire. How'd that work out? However, feel free to continue to parrot the media and follow liberal groupthink. That's better than learning to think for yourself.
Click to expand...

Dude your the one parroting your gop talking points buddy. 45 made a nuclear threat twice to NK then got his bluff called. I guess your not tired of all his winning, he is winning so much right, what a joke.
 
OUBubba said:
Why be a d!ck? I said it was a paper in grad school 26 years ago. The point was that successful and large companies hire a diverse workforce because they want to not because they have to.
Click to expand...
not to put words in your mouth, but it seemed to me that you were implying that they "want to" because it somehow made them more productive. I don't dispute that they want to, I dispute that they want to because it MAKES THEM MORE PRODUCTIVE.

IMO, They "want to" because they are afraid of PC police. They are afraid of being singled out as not being diverse enough(which happens everyday). They are afraid of lawsuits because they didn't appear to be doing enough to promote social justice and diversity. They aren't doing so because their engineering got better or because their accountants are able to process more numbers. Targeted recruiting of minorities and women is not about unleashing some imagined talent pool that's been untapped for decades, it's about C.Y.A.

That's not to say there aren't individuals that are women and/or minorities that are talented. There certainly are many of them but the banks and IT companies of the world are not trying to specifically recruit African Americans, Hispanics, etc because they raise the bar on work performance. They are recruiting them to stay out of the cross hairs of EEO compliance issues.

Recruiting for diversity is almost exclusively a Social Justice effort. It is not a productivity/efficiency/performance effort.

If you believe this country owes women and minorities a catch up mulligan because they were squashed for so long, I wouldn't argue too much. But let's quit trying to pretend that they somehow increase our corporate capacities just because they have a different perspective.
 
BrntOrngStmpeDe said:
Recruiting for diversity is almost exclusively a Social Justice effort. It is not a productivity/efficiency/performance effort.
Click to expand...

I have to disagree. That may be why some companies are advancing their diversity agenda but that's not my experience from working for major companies in the Pacific Northwest. I'd run away from any company who is just giving lip service to the value of diversity.
 
Seattle Husker said:
I have to disagree. That may be why some companies are advancing their diversity agenda but that's not my experience from working for major companies in the Pacific Northwest. I'd run away from any company who is just giving lip service to the value of diversity.
Click to expand...
BrntOrngStmpeDe said:
not to put words in your mouth, but it seemed to me that you were implying that they "want to" because it somehow made them more productive. I don't dispute that they want to, I dispute that they want to because it MAKES THEM MORE PRODUCTIVE.

IMO, They "want to" because they are afraid of PC police. They are afraid of being singled out as not being diverse enough(which happens everyday). They are afraid of lawsuits because they didn't appear to be doing enough to promote social justice and diversity. They aren't doing so because their engineering got better or because their accountants are able to process more numbers. Targeted recruiting of minorities and women is not about unleashing some imagined talent pool that's been untapped for decades, it's about C.Y.A.

That's not to say there aren't individuals that are women and/or minorities that are talented. There certainly are many of them but the banks and IT companies of the world are not trying to specifically recruit African Americans, Hispanics, etc because they raise the bar on work performance. They are recruiting them to stay out of the cross hairs of EEO compliance issues.

Recruiting for diversity is almost exclusively a Social Justice effort. It is not a productivity/efficiency/performance effort.

If you believe this country owes women and minorities a catch up mulligan because they were squashed for so long, I wouldn't argue too much. But let's quit trying to pretend that they somehow increase our corporate capacities just because they have a different perspective.
Click to expand...
In 1991 the research indicated that teams were more creative and successful when they were diverse, gender, age, race, education, etc. When I find the 3.5" floppy I'll know more. I didn't realize a liberal putting out a basic Libertarian idea would be so controversial...
 
Mr. Deez said:
if war breaks out (and I don't think it will), it's not going to be because of that comment.
Click to expand...

It's been amazing to watch people who couldn't have cared less about Korea and Russia two years ago all of a sudden freaking out. Kim has been posturing for years and there's no reason to think he'd be behaving one bit different if Hillary were in the White House. There's also not one reason to think that Trump getting into a schoolyard name-calling fight is what will make Kim decide to launch.
 
OUBubba said:
In 1991 the research indicated that teams were more creative and successful when they were diverse, gender, age, race, education, etc.
Click to expand...

Barry, I can't comment on what's in your research paper because I haven't read it. However, you do understand that if this is true, then simply as a matter of logic, on a job-by-job basis it should be legal and even encouraged to discriminate on the basis of race, gender, age, etc.
 
ProdigalHorn said:
It's been amazing to watch people who couldn't have cared less about Korea and Russia two years ago all of a sudden freaking out. Kim has been posturing for years and there's no reason to think he'd be behaving one bit different if Hillary were in the White House. There's also not one reason to think that Trump getting into a schoolyard name-calling fight is what will make Kim decide to launch.
Click to expand...

That's not entirely fair. North Korea has been a thorn in our side and a pain in our *** since the early '50s, and it hasn't been from a lack of caring as much as it has been from a lack of political resolve and commitment from the public. It started with Truman not wanting to finish the job (for understandable political reasons), and presidents from both parties have been farting around with the issue and taking half-assed action ever since. In retrospect, the best time to get into a war with North Korea probably would have been in the early '90s. The Soviet Union had just collapsed, and China didn't have anywhere near enough economic or military power to challenge the US, whose military was still at Cold War-level strength. We could have gone in and kicked Kim Il-Sung's *** with little regard for what anybody in the world thought. However, who among the public was interested in fighting some nasty war in Korea just after the Cold War had ended? Nobody, so we let the problem keep fester.

You have a much stronger point on Russia. They laughed at Mitt Romney, and they've come around and admitted Mitt was right, but that's mostly because Putin targeted them. If he had targeted the GOP or just not done anything, they'd be FAR less hostile. They wouldn't be his buddy either way though, because Putin doesn't like gays, and that's only OK if you're Muslim.
 
Seattle Husker said:
I have to disagree. That may be why some companies are advancing their diversity agenda but that's not my experience from working for major companies in the Pacific Northwest. I'd run away from any company who is just giving lip service to the value of diversity.
Click to expand...
Your biased observation and anecdotal experience has no relevance to the actual truth regarding the benefits of racial diversity.
 
Phil Elliott said:
Justice Scalia asked the same question of UT - on what basis to you deduce that diversity in admissions is a good thing for UT? They had no answer.
Click to expand...

In case you care, this is the rationale they follow. Personally, I don't care, because the Constitution requires "equal protection," not "equal protection unless we decide that diversity is more important." Accordingly, I don't care if "diversity in admissions" is a good thing or not. If achieving diversity is done by race-based admissions, it's illegal, whether it's good or bad. That's called knowing how to read. But some might care to know why the Court thinks following the Constitution should take a back seat to another agenda.

The Law School's educational judgment that such diversity is essential to its educational mission is one to which we defer. The Law School's assessment that diversity will, in fact, yield educational benefits is substantiated by respondents and their amici. Our scrutiny of the interest asserted by the Law School is no less strict for taking into account complex educational judgments in an area that lies primarily within the expertise of the university. Our holding today is in keeping with our tradition of giving a degree of deference to a university's academic decisions, within constitutionally prescribed limits. See Regents of Univ. of Mich. v. Ewing, 474 U. S. 214, 225 (1985); Board of Curators of Univ. of Mo. v. Horowitz, 435 U. S. 78, 96, n. 6 (1978); Bakke, 438 U. S., at 319, n. 53 (opinion of Powell, J.).

We have long recognized that, given the important purpose of public education and the expansive freedoms of speech and thought associated with the university environment, universities occupy a special niche in our constitutional tradition. See, e.g., Wieman v. Updegraff, 344 U. S. 183, 195 (1952) (Frankfurter, J., concurring); Sweezy v. New Hampshire, 354 U. S. 234, 250 (1957); Shelton v. Tucker, 364 U. S. 479, 487 (1960); Keyishian v. Board of Regents of Univ. of State of N. Y., 385 U. S., at 603. In announcing the principle of student body diversity as a compelling state interest, Justice Powell invoked our cases recognizing a constitutional dimension, grounded in the First Amendment, of educational autonomy: "The freedom of a university to make its own judgments as to education includes the selection of its student body." Bakke, supra, at 312. From this premise, Justice Powell reasoned that by claiming "the right to select those students who will contribute the most to the 'robust exchange of ideas,' " a university "seek to achieve a goal that is of paramount importance in the fulfillment of its mission." 438 U. S., at 313 (quoting Keyishian v. Board of Regents of Univ. of State of N. Y., supra, at 603). Our conclusion that the Law School has a compelling interest in a diverse student body is informed by our view that attaining a diverse student body is at the heart of the Law School's proper institutional mission, and that "good faith" on the part of a university is "presumed" absent "a showing to the contrary." 438 U. S., at 318-319.

As part of its goal of "assembling a class that is both exceptionally academically qualified and broadly diverse," the Law School seeks to "enroll a 'critical mass' of minority students." Brief for Respondents Bollinger et al. 13. The Law School's interest is not simply "to assure within its student body some specified percentage of a particular group merely because of its race or ethnic origin."Bakke, 503 U. S. 467, 494 (1992) ("Racial balance is not to be achieved for its own sake"); Richmond v. J. A. Croson Co., 488 U. S., at 507. Rather, the Law School's concept of critical mass is defined by reference to the educational benefits that diversity is designed to produce.

These benefits are substantial. As the District Court emphasized, the Law School's admissions policy promotes "cross-racial understanding," helps to break down racial stereotypes, and "enables [students] to better understand persons of different races." App. to Pet. for Cert. 246a. These benefits are "important and laudable," because "classroom discussion is livelier, more spirited, and simply more enlightening and interesting" when the students have "the greatest possible variety of backgrounds."Id., at 246a, 244a.

The Law School's claim of a compelling interest is further bolstered by its amici, who point to the educational benefits that flow from student body diversity. In addition to the expert studies and reports entered into evidence at trial, numerous studies show that student body diversity promotes learning outcomes, and "better prepares students for an increasingly diverse workforce and society, and better prepares them as professionals." Brief for American Educational Research Association et al. as Amici Curiae 3; see, e.g., W. Bowen & D. Bok, The Shape of the River (1998); Diversity Challenged: Evidence on the Impact of Affirmative Action (G. Orfield & M. Kurlaender eds. 2001); Compelling Interest: Examining the Evidence on Racial Dynamics in Colleges and Universities (M. Chang, D. Witt, J. Jones, & K. Hakuta eds. 2003).

These benefits are not theoretical but real, as major American businesses have made clear that the skills needed in today's increasingly global marketplace can only be developed through exposure to widely diverse people, cultures, ideas, and viewpoints. Brief for 3M et al. as Amici Curiae 5; Brief for General Motors Corp. as Amicus Curiae 3-4. What is more, high-ranking retired officers and civilian leaders of the United States military assert that, "ased on [their] decades of experience," a "highly qualified, racially diverse officer corps ... is essential to the military's ability to fulfill its principle mission to provide national security." Brief for Julius W. Becton, Jr. et al. as Amici Curiae 27. The primary sources for the Nation's officer corps are the service academies and the Reserve Officers Training Corps (ROTC), the latter comprising students already admitted to participating colleges and universities. Id., at 5. At present, "the military cannot achieve an officer corps that is both highly qualified and racially diverse unless the service academies and the ROTC used limited race-conscious recruiting and admissions policies." Ibid. (emphasis in original). To fulfill its mission, the military "must be selective in admissions for training and education for the officer corps, and it must train and educate a highly qualified, racially diverse officer corps in a racially diverse setting." Id., at 29 (emphasis in original). We agree that "t requires only a small step from this analysis to conclude that our country's other most selective institutions must remain both diverse and selective." Ibid.

We have repeatedly acknowledged the overriding importance of preparing students for work and citizenship, describing education as pivotal to "sustaining our political and cultural heritage" with a fundamental role in maintaining the fabric of society. Plyler v. Doe, 457 U. S. 202, 221 (1982). This Court has long recognized that "education ... is the very foundation of good citizenship." Brown v. Board of Education, 347 U. S. 483, 493 (1954). For this reason, the diffusion of knowledge and opportunity through public institutions of higher education must be accessible to all individuals regardless of race or ethnicity. The United States, as amicus curiae, affirms that "[e]nsuring that public institutions are open and available to all segments of American society, including people of all races and ethnicities, represents a paramount government objective." Brief for United States as Amicus Curiae 13. And, "[n]owhere is the importance of such openness more acute than in the context of higher education."Ibid. Effective participation by members of all racial and ethnic groups in the civic life of our Nation is essential if the dream of one Nation, indivisible, is to be realized.

Moreover, universities, and in particular, law schools, represent the training ground for a large number of our Nation's leaders. Sweatt v. Painter, 339 U. S. 629, 634 (1950) (describing law school as a "proving ground for legal learning and practice"). Individuals with law degrees occupy roughly half the state governorships, more than half the seats in the United States Senate, and more than a third of the seats in the United States House of Representatives. See Brief for Association of American Law Schools as Amicus Curiae 5-6. The pattern is even more striking when it comes to highly selective law schools. A handful of these schools accounts for 25 of the 100 United States Senators, 74 United States Courts of Appeals judges, and nearly 200 of the more than 600 United States District Court judges. Id., at 6.

In order to cultivate a set of leaders with legitimacy in the eyes of the citizenry, it is necessary that the path to leadership be visibly open to talented and qualified individuals of every race and ethnicity. All members of our heterogeneous society must have confidence in the openness and integrity of the educational institutions that provide this training. As we have recognized, law schools "cannot be effective in isolation from the individuals and institutions with which the law interacts." See Sweatt v. Painter, supra, at 634. Access to legal education (and thus the legal profession) must be inclusive of talented and qualified individuals of every race and ethnicity, so that all members of our heterogeneous society may participate in the educational institutions that provide the training and education necessary to succeed in America.

The Law School does not premise its need for critical mass on "any belief that minority students always (or even consistently) express some characteristic minority viewpoint on any issue." Brief for Respondent Bollinger et al. 30. To the contrary, diminishing the force of such stereotypes is both a crucial part of the Law School's mission, and one that it cannot accomplish with only token numbers of minority students. Just as growing up in a particular region or having particular professional experiences is likely to affect an individual's views, so too is one's own, unique experience of being a racial minority in a society, like our own, in which race unfortunately still matters. The Law School has determined, based on its experience and expertise, that a "critical mass" of underrepresented minorities is necessary to further its compelling interest in securing the educational benefits of a diverse student body.
Click to expand...
See Grutter v. Bollinger, 539 U.S. 306 (2003). (Click the citation if you're bored and want to read the full opinion.)
 
Last edited:
Mr. Deez said:
............You have a much stronger point on Russia. They laughed at Mitt Romney, and they've come around and admitted Mitt was right, but that's mostly because Putin targeted them........
Click to expand...
Not sure who they are, but most of the people who laughed at Obama's dismissal of Romney "The 80's called and they'd like their foreign policy back" have never and will never admit Romney was right. They pretend that Russia has always been an enemy to them. "Restart" never happened.
 
Mr. Deez said:
In case you care, this is the rationale they follow. Personally, I don't care, because the Constitution requires "equal protection," not "equal protection unless we decide that diversity is more important." Accordingly, I don't care if "diversity in admissions" is a good thing or not. If achieving diversity is done by race-based admissions, it's illegal, whether it's good or bad. That's called knowing how to read. But some might care to know why the Court thinks following the Constitution should take a back seat to another agenda.


See Grutter v. Bollinger, 539 U.S. 306 (2003). (Click the citation if you're bored and want to read the full opinion.)
Click to expand...
Diversity is great unless your name is Clarence Thomas.

The law school's and SCOTUS' rationalization for violating the Constitution has zero empirical evidence they can point to substantiate their claims. The reasons offered are all subjective.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

NEW: Pro Sports Forums

Cowboys, Texans, Rangers, Astros, Mavs, Rockets, etc. Pro Longhorns. The Chiefs and that Swift gal. This is the place.

Pro Sports Forums

Recent Threads

Back
Top