Apple backs Harvard on use of race in college admissions

In a legal battle that could shape the use of race in college admissions for decades to come, Apple, Intel, and Amgen are among more than a dozen companies supporting Harvard University which is fighting a challenge by Edward Blum, an opponent of affirmative action who seeks to stop the university from using race as a criterion in race in college admissions.

Patricia Hurtado for Bloomberg:

Harvard College freshman dormitories in Harvard Yard
Harvard College freshman dormitories in Harvard Yard
Having lost last year, he appealed in February and, if defeated again, is almost certain to seek a review by the newly conservative Supreme Court.

The stakes for business are laid out in a brief the companies have filed with the U.S. Court of Appeals in Boston. While they took no position on Harvard’s specific policy, they said they depend on diverse college student bodies in their hunt for “the next superb employee.” They cited a landmark 2003 decision by the high court that universities can use affirmative action to assemble a varied class if they treat race as one factor among many — the centerpiece of Harvard’s lower-court victory.

“As the Supreme Court recognized nearly twenty years ago, ‘the skills needed in today’s increasingly global marketplace can only be developed through exposure to widely diverse people,’” the companies wrote in a “friend of the court” brief, quoting the decision… The brief, filed on May 21, was the latest in a series of arguments posed to the court after U.S. District Judge Allison Burroughs rejected a lawsuit filed by Blum’s group, Students for Fair Admissions.

Blum said in an email… “Nearly 75% of U.S. citizens of all races oppose the use of race and ethnicity as a factor in college admissions,” he wrote, citing a Pew Research Center poll. “It’s bewildering to witness, yet again, how out-of-step these companies are with the vast majority of Americans.”

In a twist on the epic affirmative action battles of the past, Students for Fair Admissions also said Harvard favored white applicants, and the trial exposed embarrassing details of how far it will go to accommodate the relatives of the biggest donors.

MacDailyNews Note: More info about Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard via Wikipedia here.

Thoughtful commentary on this issue is welcomed below. Please keep the discussion civil and on-topic. Off-topic posts and ad hominem attacks will be deleted and those who post such comments will be moderated/blocked. Permanent loss of screen name could also result.

69 Comments

    1. Are all you people under the impression that race has NOT been used as a criterion for admission since Harvard College opened in 1636? It only seems to have become an issue when the university decided that it wanted a student body that was more diverse, rather than less so.

        1. STFU is such a mature approach to free speech. The President is at least consistent in his approach to democratic protests. From The Playboy Interview: Donald Trump, May 1990:

          Q. What were your other impressions of the Soviet Union?
          A. I was very unimpressed. Their system is a disaster. What you will see there soon is a revolution; the signs are all there with the demonstrations and picketing. Russia is out of control and the leadership knows it. That’s my problem with Gorbachev. Not a firm enough hand.

          Q. You mean firm hand as in China?
          A. When the students poured into Tiananmen Square, the Chinese government almost blew it. Then they were vicious, they were horrible, but they put it down with strength. That shows you the power of strength. Our country is right now perceived as weak … as being spit on by the rest of the world—

          Q. Why is Gorbachev not firm enough?
          A. I predict he will be overthrown, because he has shown extraordinary weakness. Suddenly, for the first time ever, there are coal-miner strikes and brush fires everywhere—which will all ultimately lead to a violent revolution. Yet Gorbachev is getting credit for being a wonderful leader—and we should continue giving him credit, because he’s destroying the Soviet Union. But his giving an inch is going to end up costing him and all his friends what they most cherish—their jobs.

            1. And aren’t you consistent too?
              Liars usually are.

              Take a quote here, a headline there, an opinion somewhere else, string them together out of context and make an alternate reality.

              Yes, you are VERY consistent.
              Isn’t this the same China you said was more effective in handling the Hunan Virus? How do you think they were able to do that?

              The same China that is the ONLY place where electronics can be built?
              This of course is only your opinion when the argument is to bring jobs here.
              How do you think they are able to be so efficient with workers?

              Is this the SAME China that leftist are pissed because we finally retaliated to their trade imbalance? Why do so many on the left argue against better trade positions for us? I’m kidding, we know.

              Yes, you are so very consistent in your lies and deceit.
              Off-topic subjects? You don’t mind changing it as long as you can throw in some lies.
              But ask you something YOU are to actually know something about, law and the Flynn case and scream like a little girl “Off topic”.

              Yes, you are a liar.
              AND a pussy….

            2. As I read all these comments, I realize that they illustrate a doctrine in the Catholic tradition of the Christian faith. Obviously, most of the world’s population holds beliefs that are incompatible with Catholic teaching. However, the church teaches that few of these are guilty of the sin of heresy. To be guilty, one must recognize the truth as being true, and reject it anyway. (There is a borderline case of those who deliberately refuse to consider evidence they know might be true; this is called “vincible ignorance.”)

              Most non-Catholics have factors in their background or environment (like growing up in a Hindu or Protestant household) that prevent them from recognizing Catholic truth even when it is presented to them as clearly as clear might be. That is known technically as “invincible ignorance.” While these souls share in Original Sin, they carry no personal sin for their unbelief and deserve no personal blame. All that can save them is direct intervention by the Grace of God, but that is true of us all. “Many are called, but few are chosen.”

              It appears obvious that many posters here have factors in their background, environment, or personal belief system that render them unable to process evidence or recognize truth in the realms of science or politics. They can watch bodies being laid in mass graves and deny there is a health crisis. They can watch a videotape of a black man being killed by a white officer so dispassionately that the killer keeps his hands in his pockets, or of a night torchlight parade by white nationalists chanting Nazi slogans in Charlottesville, and still claim that America has no remaining racism. They can watch peaceful protesters being beaten and deny that what they saw actually happened.

              They can accept literally anything that our President says without any evidence because they have faith in him, and “faith is the assurance of things not seen,” even if they are unseen because they are untrue.

              As The Christian Church teaches, there is no earthly remedy for invincible ignorance. I have long since given up trying. I try only to correct assertions of untruth that might mislead third parties. Even that is probably a waste of time, since the acrimony on this site has probably driven all the undecided away.

            3. “ Are all you people under the impression…” TXUser beckons from the hilltop like a righteous prophet pleading to the lost. I use the intro line from another post and add a bit because the ripe condescension is fitting to the “Catholic Traditions sermon” he delivered later.

              Wow! I have to say, you served up one very curious post that confirms thoughts I’ve had and posited for a long, long time.

              You do conflate. You do exaggerate. You do deflect. The topper though, that completely surprised me…you confirmed that you do think of yourself as an insider. Previously, “insider” applied to insider political info, but it’s apparent it’s much, much more. You have an inside scoop on the Truth…The Higher Truth. You’ve positioned yourself to “winnow the chaff,” in a way…at least in your own mind.

              “ They can watch bodies being laid in mass graves and deny there is a health crisis.“

              “They can watch a videotape of a black man being killed by a white officer so dispassionately that the killer keeps his hands in his pockets, or of a night torchlight parade by white nationalists chanting Nazi slogans in Charlottesville, and still claim that America has no remaining racism.”

              “They can watch peaceful protesters being beaten and deny that what they saw actually happened.”

              To all of your statements above:

              I didn’t, nor did I think and I know of no one that would confirm your statements. This would be true of my experience on this blog…but, with all in life, there’s always one or a few that are divergent and pervert cultural aspirations of goodness. Those that pervert/destroy, or diminish cultural goodness should be addressed (no conflation, please). Instead, you exaggerate, conflate and deflect…again. To top it off, you ride a high horse and you determine or “render” people “unable to process Truth.” You do this, befuddlingly, in a religious framework with existential implications. It causes me to vigorously ask, “who the H does this guy think he is?”

              Like I started, this post absolutely confirms thoughts I’ve had for many months and maybe years and adds a “nugget” on top. Not only do you visit the site to correct us with your truth, you see yourself as a bit of a savior…but because of our “invincible ignorance,” you’ve become a tired savior…“I have long since given up trying…” We are sorry O’ TX,…something in our lives has “render them unable to process evidence or recognize truth”

              Bottom line; you don’t have a corner on the truth and are in no position to speak with such implications on The Truth…esp in this context. May I remind you…you put your shoes on in the morning just like all of us here and it’s someone else’s responsibility to do the “Rendering.”

      1. The longer term of using skin color for admission, doesn’t magically confirm its validity, does it?

        Is the “other” not able to be a part of the university as a matter of policy? If so, change the policy. Or, are they not able to be a part of the university because of achievement/merit and the university needs to lower standards to achieve diversity? I know the answer, but when laid out, it seems ridiculous….IF the university seeks academic excellence. For decades we’ve become ashamed of excellence because it “segregates.” You get an “A” and you a “C.” Some deserve and “F” but we’ve “evolved” to see that is too limiting and harsh and often such an unqualified student passes. That is what should cause us real shame.

        As noted below, of the Identity Politics crowd, “freedom/advancement for all,“ (or, for diversity sake—“white“ is ALWAYS the population that needs dilution) is their claim, but it’s ALWAYS at someone else’s expense and lack of freedom/opportunity.

        Because you’re prone to conflation and assumption (“all you people” with a down-speaking voice he starts his post) please don’t assume, because I hold these views, I’m racist, nor heartless. There’s got to be another way that doesn’t erode excellence…that’s all. Excellence should never be exchanged for someone’s social engineering that limits someone else.

        1. Academic excellence is not an end in itself. Graduates are expected to use their education in real-world settings. The real world is not occupied exclusively by upper-class Americans with an Asian or Northern European background. If the universities based admissions just on test scores and high school rankings, that is what they would get—students with a narrow outlook that would not be broadened at the university by contact with anyone from a different background.

          When you are talking about exclusive schools, those that receive hundreds of applications for each available slot, there is no question of admitting unqualified applicants. After weeding those out, there are still dozens remaining who are fully qualified for that one slot. The question then becomes, “Which of these applicants has the most to offer the university community?”

          In 1967, I entered what was, at the time, arguably the most exclusive university in the country. There were about 1200 undergraduates, of whom five or six were black and 235 were women. The academic pressure was such that 12 to 15 students committed suicide per year. One of my classmates became the Chairman of the largest American investment bank and another is still America’s leading venture capitalist. One of my roommates headed the National Endowment for the Arts for awhile. Most of us did quite well after college, but I have never met anyone who did not regret how totally isolated we were from real life for those four years.

          All of us would have welcomed Harvard’s approach to admissions.

      2. Probably it has, but is that the future you want for academia? What about other areas such as sports, music, etc … Is there nothing where people can compete as humans?

    2. The Ivy league has always used RACE AND RELIGION, (1910 thru 1960) how many Jewish people will be let in? and who came in for that personal interview?

    3. Does this explain Apple’s quality-deterioation in it’s OSs…?

      How about we do this – best grades get in!

      Of course, no one in his right mind would want to go to a Leftist indoctrination unless they were already a Marxist….

  1. “I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the colour of their skin but by the content of their character. “

  2. If they do this, just make schools free because that’s what a degree will be worth at that point.
    There no doubt needs to be a rebuilding of school infrastructure all over this country, and poorer areas are hurt the most. But to take away standards is a big mistake.
    Also, need to start pushing trades again and bring back some form if industry here to the USA.
    If Covid-19 has taught us anything, it’s that outsourcing most of America was a huge mistake.
    Educate here, employ here, make here. We all win.

    1. If Covid-19 has taught us anything, it’s that outsourcing most of America was a huge mistake.

      Agree 100%. After Clinton granted China PNTR, we lost over a third of our manufacturing base to mostly China, the greatest loss ever of US manufacturing jobs in recorded history.

      Why did Clinton grant China PNTR? He said he thought it would lead to them opening up. Instead, they’ve gone more closed than before.
      I think he gave it to them for the following two reasons:
      1) Its a Communist country and he likes socialism and Communism.
      2) He and the DNC were caught taking illegal contributions from the communist Chinese government and later, had to return the funds. To me, this was payback for their thoughtfulness.

      By the way, Republicans in congress also approved PNTR but there were no news articles of them being influenced by foreign donations. So why did they sell out America? Probably some received corporate contributions. Some also might have thought that if US manufacturers couldn’t go there to produce goods much more cheaply, then they might go out of business when other companies produce goods there and ship them here to sell.

      Bottom line is, we need to get a manufacturing base back here in the USA. Fuck this interdependent viewpoint put forth by an influential and extremely wealthy foundation/family and other wealthy fucks that don’t give a shit about America but just want a world that is safe so they can continue to enjoy their wealth. They wouldn’t give a rip if we were locked down and monitored/tracked 24/7/365, whatever it takes to make the world safe so they can enjoy their billions and billions of dollars.

      I’m a staunch Republican and I want to FUCK the rich out of their wealth so they can stop buying the world they want.

  3. Make admissions blind. NO race. NO photos. NO gender. NONE of that.

    But, then, uh, oh, applicants will have to get in purely on merit. Can’t have that now, can we, Timmy?

    1. But, then I can’t virtue-signal and assuage my subconscious guilt at being gay after having been brought up Christian in Alabama or because I sold out my country for cheap Chinese slave labor!

      So, no, we must apply race to everything (which, of course makes me a racist, but I ignore that unpleasant fact like a good little “progressive” while I pretend to be “inclusive”).

    2. They do get in on merit. But merit isn’t solely defined by scores on the SAT, it includes about 7 other categories. One of those categories is a sort of hardship score. Naturally, those students that have a disadvantaged background get a high hardship score, and those that have an advantaged background get a low hardship score.

      I strongly support it, even though, Affirmative Action has hurt my family’s chances to get into the top universities like Harvard. That’s fine, since top students will still get into a good school, regardless. They just might not get into their first choice. Not every Asian kid can go to Harvard, or should go.

      1. I suppose it depends on your area of study. The idea of preferring disadvantaged students to investigate abstract math, or other similar areas, over more capable students seems really odd. In many casing of hiring admissions, etc… you find no significant advantage between students. At that point you can tilt the scale towards those in need. It is perhaps a harder task in more subjective areas. However, there are human activities where you can more easily measure ability. To deliberately choice the less able will eventually lead to mediocrity. The question is whether you would prefer fairness in diversity to excellence. Academic diversity is what adds to the strength of the tools to solve problems. Rarely is this related to race or class.

        1. The point KenC was making is that the selective colleges have never measured “more able” and “less able” by SAT and GPA alone. They look at a wide range of factors, including extracurricular activities, athletic ability, community involvement, alumni connections, disabilities that cannot be accommodated, personal interviews, geographic diversity, financial situation, and much more. I doubt that race is ever a determining factor, merely one that might serve as a tie-breaker between two candidates that are equally “able” when all the other factors have been considered. To repeat, universities and employers like Apple see diversity as a win-win for the majority and the institution as much as for the minority.

          1. I still think it depends on the area one wishes to study. There’s a big difference between a goal of a well rounded liberal arts education and areas such Medicine, mathematics, etc… Certainly at a graduate level excellence should be goal. At a general undergraduate level I agree with you regarding the various factors that go into entrance decisions. In cases where you have candidates of equal able you then have an interesting option to select differently. I have no problem with that though I do not feel it should be codified as I don’t believe in quotas.

  4. Here’s hoping that everyone supporting this gets brain surgery performed by a doctor who’s main qualification for college was the color of their skin.

    1. Do you know how hard it is to become a surgeon, let alone a neurosurgeon? The color of one’s skin isn’t going to get you there. You have to first get into a top college. From there, a top medical school. And from there, you have to apply to a surgical, then neurosurgical residency.

      For example, Johns Hopkins produces one new heart surgeon a year. When I went in 1980, there were 600 freshmen, and 400 of those were in my intro chem class, meaning all 400 wanted to be doctors. At the top of the medical pyramid is heart surgery, not brain surgery, contrary to the popular mythology. Then add in all the other pre-meds in the country, and you realize that to become one of the chosen few to qualify to become a neurosurgeon or cardiothoracic surgeon is infinitesimally small. You can’t do it primarily based upon the color of your skin.

      Even if someone were to get a leg up into college, they still have numerous steps that winnow out the wheat from the chaff along the way to becoming a surgeon. You needn’t worry that your neurosurgeon got to be one because his main qualification for college was the color of their skin. It just doesn’t happen.

      And no, I didn’t even make it to the next step of medical school, but my older brother did, and is now a Hopkins-trained heart surgeon. Yes, he’s a person of color, but I can assure you, his color did not help in any way, seeing as he’s Chinese.

      1. But before 1960 it would have mattered, he wouldn’t have gotten by the in person interview (his grades would not have helped) The Jewish hospitals for exist by in large because the newly qualified doctors could not get a job at the non merit based hospitals of the time. America started to change for the better after 1945 and didn’t git rolling until after 1954.

  5. “I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.”

    Bernice King says her father is asking us “to get to a place – we’re obviously not there – but to get to a place where the first thing that we utilize as a measurement is not someone’s external designation, but it really is trying to look beyond that into the substance of a person in making certain decisions, to rid ourselves of those kinds of prejudices and biases that we often bring to decisions that we make.”

    Meanwhile, Asians have a solid record of being deterred from admission to Harvard, despite having stellar qualifications. The “identity politics” advocates embrace a form of racism, but philosophical gymnastics enable them to see it proper—because they’ve deemed it so—even though King’s words get put in the back of the bus.

    For the identity politics crowd, freedom/advancement for all is their claim, but it’s ALWAYS at someone else’s expense and lack of freedom/opportunity. They’ve deemed someone else’s loss; right and due. MLK’s words aren’t possible, I guess?

  6. Can I get into the Special Forces, NBA or NFL? I’m a 5’6” white dude I hat can’t shoot, jump, or run fast. It’s only fair right?

    1. For 450+ years, African-Americans were denied equal educational opportunities, which has had obvious consequences on their descendants. That isn’t fair either. We can’t do much about your height, but we can do something about the lack of diversity in elite colleges.

      1. There is a set number of students that each school is prepared to admit each year. Therefore, if you admit one based on the color of their skin, you are by necessity excluding another who doesn’t fit your race quota.

        That’s the very definition of racism (not the Dem/Lib/Prog/Antifa definition of “racism” which, of course, is anything with which they don’t agree).

        Instituting new racism against one group doesn’t make up for past racism against another.

      2. One need only look at the extraordinary success of Africans attending universities in Sub-Saharan Africa to see what could have been for these poor lost souls in America.

        With a 50,000 year head start on American universities, Sub Saharan African universities have been turning out leaders in medicine, science and technology for millennia.

        Graduates of Sub Saharan Africa schools now enjoy a quality of life unsurpassed in the Western world. No poverty. No disease. Long lifetimes. Utopia on Earth.

      3. Per the years of hardship African-Americans have experienced, shall we call the programs being spoken here as a form of reparations, or punishment for the wrongs?

        If yes, how long will the people of today be responsible for atrocities of the past? Because you use “450+ years,” I assume the clock of consequences is still accruing and “you and I” are currently still paying a penance? When does this clock stop?

        What is to be said of those African Americans that succeed and are actually perturbed by these measures? Perhaps they’re not really Black…as some on the pro-reparation side often believe? It’s worth noting there are numerous examples of such African Americans that were poor and, by all accounts, destitute, but they advanced to “high places,” educationally, professionally and economically. Are such examples supernatural, or freaks of nature? Except for black athletes and musicians, why is it these people aren’t held high as change agents? They’re often curiously diminished and proactively overlooked…esp if their a conservative. I guess there needs to be a law promoting diversity here?

  7. “While they took no position on Harvard’s specific policy, they said they depend on diverse college student bodies in their hunt for “the next superb employee.” I have never understood how diversity gets you a superb engineer. There really is no “point of view” or “life experience” involved in the understanding of engineering.

    1. Many of the great minds in math who were women were not allowed in the IVY league math departments in the 1920’s it simply was not allowed. It has never been about merit.

      1. Well it is now. Unless we use racism as an admissions mechanism. Nothing could be more stupid. Black people and hispanic people and women are not mentally handicapped. The assumption that they are makes you racist and sexist.

    2. As I said earlier, it is never about merit when they are benefitting from non-merit criteria. It suddenly changes when somebody else is benefitting. Same with free speech. Their freedom is constitutionally sacrosanct, but when they don’t like the message it is STFU and call in the military to Red/Tienanmen/Lafayette Square.

  8. I am black. In the past, as recent at yesterday and as far back as the beginning of human kind, my ancestors have done horrible, unimaginable things to their fellow human beings.

    GUESS WHAT? I DON’T FEEL ONE SHRED OF GUILT FOR IT. I DID NOT DO IT. NO ONE I KNOW DID IT.

    Did black people destroy your store over the weekend? Don’t come to me looking for reparations… I DIDN’T DO IT.

    You cannot fix racism by basing your society on racism!!!!! THAT’S JUST FUCKING DUMB.

    Race must be removed from all aspects of society as a criteria for anything. Everyone must compete on a level field.

    Helping people to prepare to compete is fine. Go into the K-12 system and prepare people for life, jobs, and college. Let them decide the directions they want to take. Make sure they understand the consequences of their decisions. Make them understand the endless opportunities ahead of them then get the hell out of the way.

    You cannot follow people around all their lives and creating “diversity programs” for them. IT DOESN’T WORK. it is not fair. It discriminates against people who are not at fault for anything.

    1. You are still missing the point, Thelonius. Harvard and other schools that seek diversity aren’t doing it for the minority. This isn’t some form of charity for the colored folks. As Harvard’s administrators and lawyers expressly explain, it is to benefit the majority. Let me repeat that more clearly…

      THE POINT IS TO BENEFIT STUDENTS WHO MIGHT NOT OTHERWISE ENCOUNTER STUDENTS WITH DIFFERENT BACKGROUNDS AND DIFFERENT POINTS OF VIEW.

      Even if Harvard didn’t give a s**t about minority students, it would still try to find some way to benefit its white elite constituency by providing them with a complete education that prepares them for the real world.

      1. You are contradicting yourself. First itt was 450+ yrs of hardship…denied equal edu opportunities and now it’s for the whities; to encounter people of other backgrounds.

        Get straight your story(s).

          1. He claims to be the guardian of facts for the readers (I pretty sure he sees it as a service to the minions/dumb axes) here, but I’ve long perceived him as a conflator, an exaggerator and very talented with dramatic hyperbole.

            One of his very best was associating the people that resisted the Covid lockdown as like the lawless in Somalia. That’s just top-notch hyperbolic-istic and so much so, it brings a little chuckle. Trump, as a Russian agent is pretty good too…but a little generic during this time of craziness when the vast majority of Democrats still think The fraudulent “Dossier” warranted what the country went through the last 3 years.

            The changing story in this post was a little surprising, though, as the contradiction was so apparent and on one page.

      2. This makes NO sense at all. Affirmative Action was put in place during my lifetime. I have witnessed the WHOLE thing. It was put into place to benefit the minorities that had been discriminated against. It was NOT put in place to benefit white people by exposing them to a wider culture. Your comment is the first time I have heard this. You just invented this.

      3. I think you are missing the point. Why do people think that you have to lower your standards to achieve diversity of thought? You don’t. Lowering your standards to achieve diversity of skin color and genitals is ridiculous. This crap has to end and people must be looked at and evaluated as individuals, not disgusting intersectionality points.

      4. One problem is that these schools must have an endowment to keep (increasing). They want folks from families who have and promote generational wealth. Follow the $$$.

        1. Bite me asshole. Washington rightfully believe that blacks should excel through hard work and achievement. He didn’t want to directly fight demonstrable oppression. The difference is, THERE IS NO DEMONSTRABLE OPPRESSION TODAY. Blacks are screaming foul at the invisible boogieman racist. There are no slaves. There are no Jim Crow laws. The only systemic racism is that which is used against blacks by the left to keep the brainwashed, braindead, and feeling victimized.

          1. And IIRC, Africa is the world leader in slavery at the moment (I’m sure there are a few Muslim countries and China that come close). Funny how the leftists don’t take the time to scold any of these countries into wokeness

          2. On June 6, Mercedes Schlapp, who is the Senior Advisor on minority issues for the Trump Campaign, re-tweeted (and later deleted) a video with the caption “That’s the way to do it!”

            The video shows one Daniel Pena of McAllen, Texas, descending from his truck with a chainsaw to confront a group of apparently peaceful (and mostly white and Hispanic) demonstrators on the sidewalk. He winds up the saw and chases them, shouting “Go home! Don’t let the f—-g n—s lie to you!” Mr. Pena was subsequently arrested, but that didn’t stop several pro-Trump groups–and Ms. Schlapp–from tweeting it as a model of how to handle dissent.

            Roughly a dozen of the 254 Republican County Chairs in Texas are also in trouble for their tweets. Besides retweeting the chainsaw incident, at least two have suggested that the George Floyd homicide was faked. Another paired a quote from President Obama with a picture of a banana. I am sure that those who think racism is a thing of the past in America will try to convince us that “f—-g n—r” is a term of endearment.

            https://www.kens5.com/article/news/local/texas/man-in-custody-after-allegedly-chasing-mcallen-protesters-with-chainsaw/273-e225bec4-e81c-47a1-9d28-9bf0f50237f6

            1. You conclude from a report involving a small percentage of foolish people (please, no conflation…I didn’t say it was acceptable, regardless of the number accused) to your last statement—that’s nothing but a hyperbolic stretch of rhetoric—that we will be convinced by some that “nigr” will soon be a term of endearment. How ridiculous. You should be ashamed of the anti-intellectual and vacuous deduction. Of course, unless “some” means one of the reprobates that will always be a part of our world…but I’ll wager that wasn’t your thinking.

              The dozen (approx) of county chairs amounts to less than 5% of the total # chairs in TX. Is that # acceptable? No, it’s 5% too high…but using such a percentage to prove anything of such importance to a field of professionals would dismissed and ridiculed.

              By your writing, I would never come to the conclusion that you aim to be a solution to the problem. Your words are full of conflation and exaggeration and the end result; to incite for your own self-driven bias.

              Stay on topic if you reply…no deflection, exaggeration or conflation, please.

        2. Danox, I seem to remember you lean left. If true, should I be surprised at your racially acerbic comment? I’m not. I happen see see dogmatic hypocrisy pretty commonly in the minds of the left.

          Advocating for equality and fairness “works” if people agree with the/your plan, but those that don’t agree, are denigrated or shamed.

          That’s a great plan…very fair and conciliatory to all.

  9. There’s an old saying that covers these sort of situations very well… “Two wrongs don’t make a right.” If racism is wrong, and I agree it is and doubt any sane person would argue otherwise… then using racism to end racism will not work. Regardless of who benefits from it.

Reader Feedback

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.