Republican Party Depends On Racist Tactics, Editorial Says

Blacks are 12% of the population of the state of Texas and 4.5% of the student body of that university. Really sounds like the state is discriminating against white people really bad there. :rolleyes:

Just think of how many whites are being deprived of an education because state universities now have to accept blacks.

I dont know the race of the person who got her spot, or if she knows

but I do know if her skin color was black and she was denied, that would be state mandated discrimination

using Jim Crow to "justify" discrimination based on skin color while accusing opponents of racism :goodjob:
 
Perhaps some day whites can be treated the same way that blacks have historically been treated, especially in the South. Perhaps then they will finally be able to find their rightful places in American society.
 
Lots of black applicants get denied admission to UT.

if they're denied because of race they got the same gripe she has

It doesn't work that way - it's not as if she already had a spot. :hammer:

I imagine her argument is she would have qualified based on test scores

Perhaps some day whites can be treated the same way that blacks have historically been treated, especially in the South. Perhaps then they will finally be able to find their rightful places in American society.

and now you're trying to justify state mandated discrimination, Cutlass denied it even existed
 
if they're denied because of race they got the same gripe she has
They can claim they were denied because of race just like she has claimed (and lost to this point), but they will be in the same boat as her - on the outside, looking in because the failed to get an automatic qualifier (top 10% of their high school class). After that, the university makes clear that merit numbers (grades, SAT scores) are helpful, but not dispositive.
 
and now you're trying to justify state mandated discrimination, Cutlass denied it even existed
I'm not trying to "justify" anything. I am merely pointing out that things sure have changed since those Northern liberals forced Southerners to enroll blacks in their all-white state colleges.
 
The Supreme Court will probably appoint George Zimmerman as dean of the university to remedy this grave injustice.
 
It is just a shame that the Republicans couldn't place one more reactionary on the court so they would be assured they could roll back human rights back to the post Civil War era. If separate but equal is what some states want, who is the federal government to deny them their rights under our Constitution?
 
I'm not trying to "justify" anything. I am merely pointing out that things sure have changed since those Northern liberals forced Southerners to enroll blacks in their all-white state colleges.

you're trying to justify state mandated racial discrimination now by pointing to state mandated racial discrimination in the past...and you did it again right after denying it
 
Generally people who call affirmative action things like "state-mandated racial discrimination" have absolutely no idea how it works or what, actually, it even does.
 
you're trying to justify state mandated racial discrimination now by pointing to state mandated racial discrimination in the past...and you did it again right after denying it
I haven't said one word about supposed "state mandated racial discrimination". That is your straw man, not mine.

Generally people who call affirmative action things like "state-mandated racial discrimination" have absolutely no idea how it works or what, actually, it even does.
Not to mention that affirmative action doesn't even really exist anymore. It is just yet more hyperbole and fear mongering by over-privileged whites.
 
It's a bit like people who rail against unions despite union workers consisting of barely, what, 5% of the populace?
 
Generally people who call affirmative action things like "state-mandated racial discrimination" have absolutely no idea how it works or what, actually, it even does.

Dont mind me, I'm just translating ideological bs into reality... But feel free to explain how those words dont apply - I'm generally unimpressed and bored by people who post insults instead of substance
 
You pointed to state mandated racial discrimination in the past to defend state mandated racial discrimination today
You are correct about the former, but I certainly don't ever remember doing anything like the latter.

You can't seem to manage to discuss what I write instead of repeating this absurd phrase of yours.

Dont mind me, I'm just translating ideological bs into reality... But feel free to explain how those words dont apply - I'm generally unimpressed and bored by people who post insults instead of substance
That seems to be all you are trying to do in this thread. Repetitively using the phrase "State mandated racial discrimination" is an excellent example. It is much like supposedly discussing abortion while calling it "murder".
 
You are correct about the former, but I certainly don't ever remember doing anything like the latter.

You can't seem to manage to discuss what I write instead of repeating this absurd phrase of yours.

That seems to be all you are trying to do in this thread. Repetitively using the phrase "State mandated racial discrimination" is an excellent example. It is much like supposedly discussing abortion while calling it "murder".

So I'm correct about what you wrote but I cant manage talking about what you wrote? The rest of that is just hypocritical whining, Form... You of all people to :cry: about repetition. And dont BS me, you used Jim Crow to justify using the state to discriminate against people based on race today. You and Crezth dont like the words I'm using? So what? Do something about it, show how they dont apply...
 
Dont mind me, I'm just translating ideological bs into reality... But feel free to explain how those words dont apply - I'm generally unimpressed and bored by people who post insults instead of substance

Even an idiot child can see* that all that affirmative action does is mandate, perhaps hamfistedly, strongly that you cannot be shown to have discriminatory hiring practices. So take an aforementioned example where 11% of the state is black, but only 4% of the student body is black. All other things being equal - and yes the law does assume that whites and blacks are equal - these numbers should be the same, or you should make a compelling case for why you are enrolling a disproportionate quantity of whites. Many organizations do have good reasons - not enough are applying, the numbers are inflated due to non-racial implied biases in the process, etc. - and are capable of justifying this inequity thusly.

In other words, it is legislation against discrimination that takes it to its logical conclusion. You cannot discriminate, and we will know if you do because you should be hiring a proportional quantity of whites and blacks. It is not "state-mandated racial discrimination" so much as "enforced non-discrimination."

*Of course, it doesn't feed into the convenient whitey victimization complex to believe that affirmative action isn't just a law saying "Give jobs to blacks, not whites, under pain of government."
 
and now you're trying to justify state mandated discrimination, Cutlass denied it even existed


I've never denied that state mandated discrimination existed. But the states in the US have never discriminated against white people. And Texas did not do so in this case.
 
Top Bottom