Lawsuit Against Discrimination Against Asians at Harvard Fails, Rejected by Female Judge Reviewing this now. I side with Harvard. Institutions should be able to associate with anyone they want. I think the 1st Amendment protects this right. I imagine this case will be appealed but someone must allow the case to appealed.
Well, I agree with you in some regard. I think an institution should be getting the best talent possible. Is the school is full of Asians because that is the best talent, then it's not the fault of the students for being Asian or their work ethic. I've never been a fan of quota's nor will I ever be.
Two questions immediately jumped to my mind here; 1) What does the gender of the judge have to do with anything (and isn’t it a little ironic to make an issue of it in this context)? 2) Why do we need a video of someone reading an online and telling us what to think about it when we could just read ourselves and reach our own conclusions? I’d always favour getting as close to the primary source as possible.
This was a copy paste from the source (re: female judge), though, yes, I'll try to get further towards the primary sources. This is the 1st I'm hearing of a ruling in the matter. I think Mr. Obvious believes women behave and make judgements over run by emotion. I'll be interested in if it is accepted upon Appeal. I think if they choose quotas over not simply whoever is best, that is within their rights as well. They pay the price if they did wrong (though the Government/Education complex is supported with our tax dollars, even to the extent that a mult billion dollar institute calls itself a non-profit and pays no tax).
I think it's always instructive to watch the racism that the left actually does tolerate and their justifications for it. It shows you exactly what they really think and what they then expect government to both allow them and protect them from....
More from Reuters https://www.reuters.com/video/2019/...S&feedName=LatestVideosUK&videoChannel=117759 And https://www.bostonglobe.com/busines.../story.html?p1=SectionFront_Feed_ContentQuery “'In 2003, the Supreme Court articulated its expectation that in twenty-five years, it would not be necessary to use racial preferences to achieve a diverse student body,” Burroughs wrote. “As time marches on and the effects of entrenched racism and unequal opportunity remain obvious, this goal might be optimistic and may need to change.' In other words, America isn’t ready to roll back affirmative action. We have a long way to go." No. I think a Private organization should have the right to have no diversity. Or a lot. Whatever they want.
"""I think Mr. Obvious believes women behave and make judgements over run by emotion.""" Then whoever "Mr. Obvious " is he must be living on another planet or in the 19th century. …. it is the sexist's "go-to" when they don't like something a woman did...
You have a right to housing. But give up your gun rights to live in it. You have the right to health care. But you'll receive what government is willing to give you. You right to free speech. But our government will take money from you to push their positions. It's enough to make one think small government is important to liberty.
You mean like all male or all white clubs which aren't allowed to exist anymore? Discrimination is good, only if you discriminate against the right people.
Freedom includes the freedom to be wrong. I think diversity has it's positive side but people have to have the freedom to lose out on that if it is what they want. Otherwise, are you really free?
