Justice Scalia Thinks Black Students Belong In 'Slower-Track' Schools

[The Tradition]

That's one way we redistribute to the upper classes.

Huh? Explain, please.

 

[naturalmwa]

They definitely lack the work ethic.


Can you tell me ANY education and economic systems where the majority of blacks are successful? I am trying to help you my brotha.


Pick a system, ANY system where blacks will be successful and you can stop making excuses for failing.

You're writing your thesis, you tell me. Share your knowledge brotha because I sure have not studied "afronomics" like you have. But if your theory is sound, taking money away should produce better results, right? Can you point to that data for us. You must have that handy if you are "writing your thesis" on this topic.

 

[naturalmwa]

Huh? Explain, please.

College educated people inhabit the upper classes. If we tax everyone including the lower classes to pay for a thing that benefits those in (or soon will be in) the upper classes, that is upward redistribution, right?

 

[The Tradition]

But if your theory is sound, taking money away should produce better results, right?

That's what the socialists want to do... take money away.

 

[The Tradition]

College educated people inhabit the upper classes. If we tax everyone including the lower classes to pay for a thing that benefits those in (or soon will be in) the upper classes, that is upward redistribution, right?

Not if you make a college degree the new high school diploma. You'll just end up with lots more educated people, but now their poor because there's too many of them.

 

[naturalmwa]

That's what the socialists want to do... take money away.

You're not following along.

 

[Kenneth Griffin]

WASHINGTON -- Do black students matter to Justice Antonin Scalia?

During oral arguments on Wednesday in Fisher v. University of Texas, a contentious affirmative action case, the conservative justice seemed to call their abilities into question.

"There are those who contend that it does not benefit African-Americans to get them into the University of Texas, where they do not do well," Scalia said, "as opposed to having them go to a less-advanced school ... a slower-track school where they do well."

Scalia was engaging former U.S. Solicitor General Gregory Garre, who is now representing the University of Texas at Austin as the school defends its ongoing consideration of race as one of many factors in its admissions program.

Pointing to a brief the court received before oral arguments, Scalia noted "most of the black scientists in this country don't come from schools like the University of Texas."

Garre tried to interject, but the justice continued. "They come from lesser schools where they do not feel that ... they're being pushed ahead in classes that are too fast for them," Scalia said.

Again, Garre tried to respond as Scalia added that he was "just not impressed" by arguments that UT Austin suffers from lower minority enrollment. "I don't think it stands to reason that it's a good thing for the University of Texas to admit as many blacks as possible," the justice said.

By then, Garre's time at the podium was almost up, but he closed his rebuttal to the justice by emphasizing the importance of diversity on campus.

"Frankly, I don't think the solution to the problems with student body diversity can be to set up a system in which not only are minorities going to separate schools, they're going to inferior schools," Garre said. "I think what experience shows -- at Texas, California and Michigan -- is that now is not the time and this is not the case to roll back student body diversity in America."

A decision in Fisher v. University of Texas is expected by the end of June.

I wonder if Scalia was referring to Clarence Thomas?

 

[The Tradition]

I wonder if Scalia was referring to Clarence Thomas?

Thomas graduated near the middle of his Yale law school class. He was clearly qualified to be there.

 

[naturalmwa]

Thomas graduated near the middle of his Yale law school class. He was clearly qualified to be there.

You seem to know the facts, where did he rank when he was admitted? Because that is what we are discussing.

 

[zwick99]

You're writing your thesis, you tell me. Share your knowledge brotha because I sure have not studied "afronomics" like you have. But if your theory is sound, taking money away should produce better results, right? Can you point to that data for us. You must have that handy if you are "writing your thesis" on this topic.

There is NONE. That is the problem brotha. THe system with the most successful blacks is probably capitalism/Reaganomics. The funny thing is the liberals complain about success. Dems love to expand failure.

MLK did not dream about working at Mcdonalds.

 

[naturalmwa]

There is NONE. That is the problem brotha. THe system with the most successful blacks is probably capitalism/Reaganomics. The funny thing is the liberals complain about success. Dems love to expand failure.

MLK did not dream about working at Mcdonalds.

Where is the reaganomics school system. Link their results and that of the American school system so we can compare. Let's get into this.

 

[theIowaHawk]

Not too bright. Must be a liberal. Once they are taxed they will have less to spend. The increased taxes will simply replace the student debt.

That was exactly what I posted, you simply repeated me. The difference is you are adding taxpayers. The simple idea that two separate taxpayers shouldering the tax allows for more spending, more income.

 

[theIowaHawk]

Not to mention there's no way to tax only the people who might go to college. The burden would be on everyone instead of only those who benefit from it.

What? By necessity you wouldn't be taxing the people who might go to college. That is the point. The people who are working, earning an income, shoulder the taxes to educate the young before they enter the market.

You know, the entire educational system model? If only the people who are going to college paid for college we wouldn't have a single college.

 

[The Tradition]

What? By necessity you wouldn't be taxing the people who might go to college. That is the point. The people who are working, earning an income, shoulder the taxes to educate the young before they enter the market.

You know, the entire educational system model? If only the people who are going to college paid for college we wouldn't have a single college.

Free college has never been the educational system model. And if we're really going to go down that road, college will radically need to change. No more six year plans, no more "undeclared" majors, no taking classes just because they interest you, and it certainly better be a lot harder to get admitted if it's going to be free.

 

[theIowaHawk]

Free college has never been the educational system model. And if we're really going to go down that road, college will radically need to change. No more six year plans, no more "undeclared" majors, no taking classes just because they interest you, and it certainly better be a lot harder to get admitted if it's going to be free.

Ayayay. I didn't say it was. Free education has been the educational system model. A model where taxes for people not attending public school to pay for those who were. This would simply extend it to college.

You can attack that idea for many reasons, to somehow pretend it is a new burden is silly.

We get it, you've posted many times about this, you think colleges are terrible, the students are lazy and everyone gets a "painting circles 101" degree.

 

[The Tradition]

Ayayay. I didn't say it was. Free education has been the educational system model. A model where taxes for people not attending public school to pay for those who were. This would simply extend it to college.

You can attack that idea for many reasons, to somehow pretend it is a new burden is silly.

We get it, you've posted many times about this, you think colleges are terrible, the students are lazy and everyone gets a "painting circles 101" degree.

I have? News to me. I quite enjoyed my time in college and derived great benefit from my studies.

And yes, extending it to college is a new burden. The amount of tax revenue that would need to be collected for that is mind-boggling.

 

[zwick99]

That was exactly what I posted, you simply repeated me. The difference is you are adding taxpayers. The simple idea that two separate taxpayers shouldering the tax allows for more spending, more income.

Wrong. THe second group of taxpayers probably already went to school and paid the cost of college on their own. They will now either have MORE burden or their cost of college will get eliminated and simply switched to taxes which then means the costs are still going to be the same.

Silly Dems.

Ever notice that the liberals solution for their problems is always for someone else to provide?

 

[zwick99]

I have? News to me. I quite enjoyed my time in college and derived great benefit from my studies.

And yes, extending it to college is a new burden. The amount of tax revenue that would need to be collected for that is mind-boggling.

We spend about 200k educating the ghettocrats K-12 and all they can do is flip burgers.

 

[theIowaHawk]

I have? News to me. I quite enjoyed my time in college and derived great benefit from my studies.

And yes, extending it to college is a new burden. The amount of tax revenue that would need to be collected for that is mind-boggling.

As usual you are confused. Carry on.

 

[zwick99]

College educated people inhabit the upper classes. If we tax everyone including the lower classes to pay for a thing that benefits those in (or soon will be in) the upper classes, that is upward redistribution, right?

Sure. Let us know when you will support eliminating welfare programs paid for by the upper class that don't benefit.

 

[naturalmwa]

Sure. Let us know when you will support eliminating welfare programs paid for by the upper class that don't benefit.

Why do you think they don't benefit? Welfare programs are how that poor could afford to pay for the tattoo and smart phone and whatever else you listed. It turns them from beggars into consumers and that helps the wealthy a lot. It also keeps them from rioting in the street and that helps them even more. Welfare is sort of a good deal for the rich.

 

[Kenneth Griffin]

 

[zwick99]

Let us know when you will agree to eliminate both.



Do you have a job? If so then YOU benefit from the subsidies. What happens when the corporation leaves the country?


You will be the first one crying when your company decides to offshore the jobs.

 

[zwick99]

Why do you think they don't benefit? Welfare programs are how that poor could afford to pay for the tattoo and smart phone and whatever else you listed. It turns them from beggars into consumers and that helps the wealthy a lot. It also keeps them from rioting in the street and that helps them even more. Welfare is sort of a good deal for the rich.

Why do you think you don't benefit from corporate subsidies? Do you work? Do you eat food produced by those corporations? What happens when the corporation decides to leave?



I have an offer. WE will let you pick what types of welfare you want to eliminate but we will get rid of it for EVERYONE including the poor. THis is where the typical ghettocrat flips on the issue.

 

[naturalmwa]

Why do you think you don't benefit from corporate subsidies? Do you work? Do you eat food produced by those corporations? What happens when the corporation decides to leave?



I have an offer. WE will let you pick what types of welfare you want to eliminate but we will get rid of it for EVERYONE including the poor. THis is where the typical ghettocrat flips on the issue.

Why would you think I was against corporate subsidies? I would have expected you to be, but I favor industrial policy and redistribution.