U’s that want fed funds will need to submit detailed admissions data.
This is in the aftermath of many instances of major university admissions workers openly admitting that they are still using racial filters using different terms to accomplish what the SCOTUS has ruled illegal.
When faced with the SCOTUS ruling citing the Equal Protections Clause in 2023, most universities chose to find ways around it rather than comply.
Over years, university leadership and staff have become overwhelmingly liberal, and they didn’t like the ruling. The natural response for these liberals was to not comply.
This ought to hit them hard in the gender nuts at a time when they can’t afford it.
In other words, they will comply out of fear of losing important money.
When dealing with terrorists (and liberals), you deal through strength, not appeasement.
Link: https://www.newsmax.com/us/trump-college-admissions-race-based-criteria/2025/08/07/id/1221656/
Replies to: U’s that want fed funds will need to submit detailed admissions data.
This obsession with race is silly... on both sides. It only generates unnecessary tensions.
The races are getting along better than ever. Why stir up animosity?.
You didn’t even know it was unconstitutional. “What’s the big deal?” Guess what?
The Equal Protections Clause applies to white people the same as all others.
I know that you are not used to seeing that. I know that it is so ingrained with you that you have just accepted it.
I also know that you are horribly out of touch about the state of race relations since the Great Divider Obama rended apart growing peace between races in our country.
But your choice of appeasement (tolerance of ingrained discrimination) never works with terrorist nor with liberals.
ALL people need ti be treated equally - you are quite a strong liberal on this issue.
The decision you rely upon reversed decades of precedent upheld by SCOTUS in countless decisions.
Con law is not math.
I mean, Dred Scott was a SCOTUS interpretation of the Constitution.
Or are you still of the same mind as Chief Justice Taney?
Link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dred_Scott_v._Sandford
Title VII also prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion ...
Not just for non-whites. There is no such thing as reverse discrimination. There is only discrimination.
Next up, hate speech laws need to go.
Title VII is not the Constitution and the admission of qualified black folks is not discrimination.
I personally feel disappointed that Notre Dame has so few black students, although I get that they are rarely Catholic and are more frequently less economically advantaged. I had a couple close black friends there back in the late 1960's and I seriously benefited from our interactions.
The admission of less qualified black people over more qualified others is discrimination.
And Title VII is the law of the land.
Taking edge cases is not a smart practice because it calls into question from the outset whether the people are appropriately qualified in the first place.
UCLA's Medical School is ranked very highly...and its average MCAT/GPA stats did not go down during
Dr. Lucero's program to increase diversity...and that cuts the legs out from the Racist attack on her and the program.
btw, since you're still posting on the OF...I'm not hearing any response from you regarding the very relevant abortion question I posed during our earlier discussion...i.e. while a woman CAN reproduce, MUST she carry every pregnancy to term , regardless of how the pregnancy occurred? Note that you were the one to bring the usject
Define "qualified."
(no message)
Highest GPA and Test Scores with well-rounded extra-curriculars.
(no message)
The 14th Amendment IS the Constitution. Specifically here, the Equal Protection Clause within it…
and the SCOTUS reconfirmed this with its 2023 ruling.
I’ve told you this a few times, but you don’t like it. Thus, being the liberal that you are (but don’t want to admit), you won’t accept it.
Luckily, you and other racists have lost this battle.
This is the answer ti the previously unanswered question of “When does Affirmative Action ever end?”
Now. Race, gender, religion, sexual orientation discrimination ends now.
Justice Roberts in the opinion you referenced:
"Nothing in this opinion should be construed as prohibiting universities from considering an applicants discussion of how race affected his or her life."
I read this to mean that someone from a challenging background WHO IS QUALIFIED can be given extra consideration for overcoming his or her environmental limitations.
You have to admit that a black student growing up in Detroit has not had the resources to perform to his or her optimal ability as compared to a white child growing up in a rich Detroit burb.
I have opposed affirmative action, quotas and DEI for a long time. I feel they devalue ALL BLACK PEOPLE in the eyes of society, even the super qualified.
I don't know why you labeled me a liberal. Our board progressives would strenuously disagree. I lean more libertarian.
HOWEVER, I remain sympathetic to the plight oi the less advantaged in the world and root for their lot in life to be improved. I just oppose using government to do so at the expense of others.
That’s just a snippet out of context. The ruling was clear. And more importantly, the
constitution is the constitution.
Your snippet, even out of context, in no way says that is one to use race as a criteria for admission.
If you stiIl doubt it, consider that if Roberts in any way were making it ok to skirt the ruling, why was the Left so upset, and why were they not ballyhooing it?
No snippet in any Scotus opinion is inconsequential. They frequently open the door to subsequent
de facto reversals.
SCOTUS has a long history of rationalizing its reversals of precedents.
The Justices do not waste their precious words... and they are masters at leaving hidden trap doors in their opinions.
Roberts was clearly open minded to allowing institutions to make their own reasonable decisions.
No matter what I say or show you, your mind is fixed. Even the constitution (of which you were not
aware having addressed this issue) was not enough to sway you when it was pointed out to you.
You may consider yourself neutral, but you are most certainly a liberal:
Liberalism Rule. # 14 “ You’ll have to show us a lot more than rock solid, irrefutable evidence”.
BaronVonZemo's Rules of Liberalism:
Liberalism Rule #1 - accuse others of that which you are/do.
Liberalism Rule #2 - the rules apply to thee and not me
Liberalism Rule #3 - We know what is best, thus the ends justify the means.
Liberalism Rule #4 - We believe ourselves to be smarter thus, we cannot admit that we are wrong.
i) Admitting mistakes undermines the premise of being smarter, ergo self correction is not possible.
Liberalism Rule #5 - What didn’t work last time, will work next time (see 4 i.)
Liberalism Rule #6 - When we lose, change the rules.
i) Whenever convenient, change the definition to suit our goal.
Liberalism Rule #7 - Appeasement (using other people's money - usually taxpayers) is the best deterrent to conflict.
Liberalism Rule #8 - Totally Differentism - when we do something that we don’t like others doing, it is always “totally different”.
Liberalism Rule #9 - Equity through inequity (any difference must be equalized by pulling down the
unaffected party. Vengeance is preferable).
Liberalism Rule #10 - We support our representative speaking regardless of the truth (in contrast to
conservatives who support the truth regardless of the representative speaking it).
Liberalism Rule #11 - We vote on personality over policy.
Liberalism Rule #12 - Genetics are selective. We believe that sexuality and guilt are genetic, but gender is not. Scientific proof is not required.
Liberalism Rule #13 - Do SOMETHING! When a crisis happens, do SOMETHING! It doesn't have to have to work, but it must: a) make us feel better which is more important than actually solving the crisis, and b) advance the liberal agenda.
Liberalism Rule #14 - "You’ll have to show us a lot more than rock solid, irrefutable evidence”.
Liberalism Rule #15 - There are no universal truths. The truth changes to fit our needs.
Liberalism Rule #16 - The Expert Threshold. If a false narrative has enough “experts” backing it, it becomes truth regardless of evidence to the contrary. “Experts” are defined as those who support the narrative, and they can be conjured if necessary (because of Liberalism Rule #3).
Liberalism Rule #17 - Charity ends at home. It is accomplished through the government with other people’s money.
Liberalism Rule #18 - When failure or bad behavior is completely undeniable, distance yourself from complicity to salve your guilty conscience.
Liberalism Rule #19 - Guns don’t kill people, liberals with guns kill people. Violence comes from the Left.
Liberalism Rule #20 - Only guilty life is precious. Innocence makes us uncomfortable and thus must be eliminated.
Liberalism Rule #21 - "I'm a moderate". We are not liberal, we are "moderates" politically - despite supporting every liberal tenant. This is because we consider ourselves to be the fairest and also because we care too deeply about what others think of us to just admit what we really are (See Rule #22).
Liberalism Rule #22 - “We care too deeply about what others think of us.” (This is why we feel the constant need to virtue signal and try to buy foreign approval with handouts).
Liberalism Rule #23 - Make it about race! "Whenever we are losing an argument, make it about race".
New Rule #24 - “Both sides do it.” Guilt from our bad behavior is best tolerated when diluted to all, and no one can point a finger.
You are correct! My mind is set on the belief that all human beings are equal!
AND that out species projects its own problems onto other who “appear” different. But this id stupidly blind and needs to be overcome for the benefit of all.
It's also just wrongheaded thinking - you can't fix a supply problem by increasing demand
(no message)
All this will just be undone by the next Democrat administration.
Congress needs to endorse some of these EO's.
True. In the mean time, real Americans at least feel empowered to speak up.
It's amazing to watch the return to performance management at work. For a while there, only white males were being performance managed. We're returning to a state where everyone is held accountable.
My question is: Who still wants this racist policy?
I can't imagine anyone getting elected.on this as a part of their platform.
The benfactors of it, of course. And which party has that group as it’s key demographic?
(no message)
Agreed.
(no message)
Interesting that the Newsmax article references the debunked argument against UCLA’s Med School…
Check out my earlier link to the L.A. Times review.
I read both articles. The LA Times article fails to address a number of key arguments
made in the Free Beacon. Probably because it was inconvenient to their narrative...an M.O. you're well familiar with.
What specific issues do you have with the LAT article?...maybe I can shed some light on them.
btw, it's not uncommon for applicants to Med School to get rejected...even if they have superior GPAs and MCAT scores...the attached article, meant for aspiring Med Students outlines the top reasons....from talking with our family Docs, it often boils down to them being Super Test Takers...but lacking in interpersonal skills...poor communication skills and difficulty working with others...after all, Docs need to work with other Docs, Nurses, Staff...and Patients! Have you ever met a Doc you didn't want to see again?
Again...Grades and Test Scores are NOT enough to get accepted...be sure to read the attached link to get a better understanding of why.
Link: https://medschoolinsiders.com/pre-med/reasons-youll-be-rejected-from-med-school/
Try this
"Though only 5 percent of students fail each test nationally, the rates are much higher at UCLA, having increased tenfold in some subjects since 2020, according to internal data obtained by the Free Beacon."
The LA Times article bashes the Free Beacon for interviewing"only" eight doctors, but how many more do you need? They can't interview everyone, and most probably wouldn't want to be interviewed, anyway. And this is the same LA Times that is part of a mainstream media that will gush over what one person says (one person who claims Trump called dead servicemen suckers and losers) over 19 people who were there at the time who said he never said that.
"When an admissions officer voiced concern about the candidate, the two people said, the dean of admissions, Jennifer Lucero, exploded in anger.
'Did you not know African-American women are dying at a higher rate than everybody else?' Lucero asked the admissions officer, these people said. The candidate's scores shouldn't matter, she continued, because 'we need people like this in the medical school.'" She either said this or she didn't. If she did she should immediately be fired. The Times article didn't address this, either.
Mark, are you still there?...did you read that UCLA's Med School acceptance stats for MCAT and GPA
scores didn't go down as the School got more diverse? Be assured that I'll remind you later.
Did you see where only about 25% of admitted students are white? When they make up 61%
of the population. Discrimination is alive and well at UCLA medical school.
The quality of admitted Medical Students at UCLA did not go down...and UCLA is still one of
best sources of outstanding doctors in the country. Btw, the demographics of America are inexorably changing such that people of color will be the majority citizens, so it's right and proper for UCLA...and other institutions to provide Doctors that intrinsically understand the health needs of all current...and future...Americans.
Once again...the claim that UCLA's Medical School was "Failing" is proven to be false.
It's about results...read the LAT article again...the quality of admitted students didn't go down
under Dr. Lucero's efforts to have a more diverse student body....here's an excerpt...
--------------------
It’s true that the entering medical school class at UCLA has become more diverse over time. Figures issued by UCLA and published by the Beacon show that from 2019 through 2022, the number of whites in the 173-member class declined to 46 from 49, the number of Black students rose to 25 from 22, Hispanic students rose from 25 to 37, a catchall “other” category grew to 20 from eight, and American Indians, Hawaiians and other Pacific Islanders went from zero to three. The number of Asian students declined to 55 from 84.
Does this validate the article’s assertion, voiced by an anonymous source (of course), that “a third to a half of the medical school is incredibly unqualified”?
The math doesn’t pencil out. As blogger and statistics maven Kevin Drum notes, given that the number of nonwhite and non-Asian students increased by only 30 in three years, even if “every single one of these students was woefully unqualified, that’s about 17% of the class. How do you get from there to ‘a third to a half’?”
By the way, the median grade-point averages and scores on the Medical College Admission Test of accepted applicants haven’t declined at all since 2020 — the MCAT average in 2023 was the same as in 2020, and the GPA rose by a hair.
In emails to the medical school class, Dubinett and his fellow deans have reinforced their commitment to merit-based admissions and diversity training. “Students and faculty members are held to the highest standards of academic excellence,” they wrote. “Highly qualified medical students and trainees are admitted ... based on merit in a process consistent with state and federal law.” That said, “we are enriched by the diverse experiences each of you brings to our community.”
UCLA, then, is standing firm against the right wing’s drive to pretend that racial and ethnic discrimination doesn’t exist in our society and to undermine efforts to wipe it out. Would that more institutions took that stand, instead of capitulating to a dishonest, braying mob.
---------------------
The Free Beacon is just supporting Racism...