UHND.com - Notre Dame Football, Basketball, & Recruiting

Keep pretending, it’s the only thing you’re capable of

Which is that members of a majority group or those somehow "in a position of power" by whatever tenuous moving definition they want to use somehow can't be victims of discrimination or racism. An idiotic group of liars has been trying to redefine these terms to reshape them in a way that allows them only to apply to the "majority" they want to attack.

"I can't be racist, I'm not white." "You can't be a victim of discrimination, you're a heterosexual, cisgendered man." "We can't commit Hate Crimes, because you're not on the protected list."

This is a critical step in relegating that idiocy to the waste bin.

(no message)

[Crucially, the court didn’t rule that Ames had been discriminated against. Instead, it sent the case back down to the lower court to be decided under the proper, equal standard.

Standing alone, the Ames case is relatively narrow in scope. It only holds that all employment discrimination plaintiffs have to meet the same test. Taken together with the court’s other recent cases, including most notably 2023’s Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard, which prohibits race preferences in university admissions, the lesson is plain: Any discrimination rooted in immutable characteristics, such as race, sex or sexual orientation, will automatically be legally suspect, regardless of whether the motivation for discrimination was malign or benign.

I don’t want to overstate the degree of judicial consensus here. Jackson was in the majority in the Ames case but dissented from the court’s Harvard ruling, as did the court’s two other liberals, Justices Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor. But the cumulative effect of all the court’s precedents — unanimous and otherwise — is still quite clear.

As a result, much of the political and cultural debate around efforts to increase diversity, equity and inclusion has been decided by the courts. The precedent is settling around a statement by Chief Justice John Roberts in a 2007 case called Parents Involved in Community Schools v. Seattle School District No. 1: “The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race.”

But if the law is going to require individualized decisions, does that eliminate the possibility of systemic change? Does it leave minority groups permanently behind?

No, it does not. The Ames decision didn’t raise the bar for nondiscrimination cases. It just placed everyone in the same legal position. And as Justice Clarence Thomas wrote in his concurring opinion in the Harvard case, schools may grant “an admissions preference to identified victims of discrimination.” It can also take into account their individual struggles with, say, income or health.]


Link: https://www.nytimes.com/2025/06/08/opinion/supreme-court-dei-racism-jackson.html?smid=nytcore-ios-share&referringSource=articleShare

choosing someone over someone else based on anything other than merit is discrimination. the actual issue is not discrimination but equal opportunity. if everyone has the same opportunity to perform in a specific way as everyone else, the playing field is level and selection based on merit becomes the default discriminator. the problem no one has been able to solve is how to level the playing field across the entire social spectrum. actually, socialism in its purest form comes closer to realizing this concept. but, alas, somebody has to be in charge, and in most cases that "somebody" only has his/her parochial interests in mind when making policy and is more than willing to use force to promote them.

there may never be real resolution, so the battle lines will persist.

Clearly the Court recognizes that schools or companies or institutions can look at other factors, many of which correspond with racial inequities.

and that that's exactly the issue that has not or cannot be solved. result: discrimination.

(no message)

(no message)

Coleman Hughes uses Obama's daughters as an example, they are the most privileged people in the world. And you want to tell poor white kids in the trailer park that they are privileged while also denigrating them for being in the situation they were born into.

I would also argue that the most privileged people are attractive females. They can get guys to do anything for them. It was funny a year or two ago when Victoria's Secret came to the realization that hot chicks sell more lingerie than the woke squad experiment.

There will always be disparities in talent, there's no way to correct for that without creating an Idiocracy. But we could and should level the playing field on education. Get rid of the legacy admissions to elite universities, that would be a good start. Provide a path for the kid in the ghetto or the trailer park to get in.

Income:

Black households have a significantly lower median income than white households.

In 2023, the median income for Black households was $56,490, while for white households it was $84,630.

This translates to a 33.3% income gap between Black and white households.

Black full-time workers' median weekly wages are also lower than those of white workers.

Wealth:

Black households hold a smaller proportion of total US wealth compared to white households.

Black Americans have $5.39 trillion in wealth, while white Americans hold $134.58 trillion.

Black wealth is concentrated in housing, while white households hold a wider range of assets, including business equity and financial investments.

Black households are also less likely to own their own businesses and have retirement accounts.

Homeownership:

Black households are less likely to own their own homes compared to white households, regardless of education or income.

From 2013 to 2017, only 41% of Black households owned their own homes, compared to 73% of white households.

Other Disparities:

Black Americans are more likely to carry high-interest debt, such as student loans and credit card debt.
They also have lower savings levels compared to white households.

Black households may also experience disparities in housing costs, property taxes, and home appreciation.

These disparities are exacerbated by systemic inequalities in education, employment, and housing, as well as historical legacies of discrimination.

One parent vs two parent household. School system. Neighborhood. Or of course, class.

Why do Jewish people and Asians do so well in society? Should we penalize them because other people like them are so successful?

Look at what David Robinson has done. This is the path to provide more opportunities for black youth.

Wealth brings “privilege.”

And wealth disparity among race is real and significant. Different safety nets.

As 67 points out, opportunity helps open doors for everyone to compete on equal footing. And it’s not always about college admissions. Look at bank loans for small businesses over our history.

The MAGA agenda to crush DEI is not about opportunity or equity or fairness. Quite the contrary.

I can provide links if needed. Punishing poor white straight males doesn't solve any problems. Get rid of the old boys network and then get back to me.

(no message)

But now, if Harvard overlooks a poor straight white kid in Indiana who deserves the scholarship in favor of a rich black judge’s son who doesn’t deserve it, they will pay through the nose……

….I fully expect the Harvard’s of the world to try to hide their discrimination while they continue their discrimination, but the ball has now started rolling downhill with this ruling.

(no message)

(no message)

anti-discrimination protection to all, even majority groups.

(no message)