Should colleges give preferential treatment to athletes?

Status
Not open for further replies.

Morrischiano2

All-American
Dec 3, 2019
5,956
7,718
0
Or socio economics which usually but not always aligns with zip code

80% of the average Harvard class in the last ten years has been wealthy - top quintile.

I’m 100% in to the US Government putting policies in place that no school is eligible for their students to get federally insured student loans or Pell grants (or other federal grants) unless a set number (maybe 1/3rd) of their students come from the bottom quintile (poverty).

That would sure change things fast.
I have Black friends who are wealthy and their kids go to Poly Prep, an overrated $50K private school in Brooklyn. There’s no way those kids should get preferential treatment over a White kid growing up in Appalachia if their SAT/ACT scores are close.

Economics of growing up should be the primary consideration going forward.
 

brgRC90

Heisman
Apr 8, 2008
34,957
15,859
0
Did you miss the tattoo parlor in TN that posted the sign he would not take work from Trump voters and conservatives? There have been quite a few other examples as well. At the end of the day I think those are outliers on both sides so not fair to label one side or the other.
I did miss it. It's relevant how? For my entire life conservatives have been pushing and organizing at the highest levels and whining for the right to discriminate. They have campaigned for decades and spent millions on it. They desperately want to be able to do it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Kbee3

brgRC90

Heisman
Apr 8, 2008
34,957
15,859
0
It's not really about wanting to discriminate. It's also not about hating equality.

For most conservatives, the problem is the make-it-up-as-you-go legal approach that is favored by some on the left.

For example your statement:

"When you're in business you do the same service for anyone willing to pay for it."

isn't exactly true. There are a variety of reasons whereby you may choose to not perform a service for someone who is willing to pay it, and this would be completely legal
There are a variety of reasons unrelated to turning away entire groups of people. What part of merely treating everyone equally and with dignity is it that bothers you so much?
 

Section124

Heisman
Dec 21, 2002
16,829
18,442
96
I did miss it. It's relevant how? For my entire life conservatives have been pushing and organizing at the highest levels and whining for the right to discriminate. They have campaigned for decades and spent millions on it. They desperately want to be able to do it.
Discrimination is wrong and both sides do it. Pointing out that just one side does it is also wrong (see the history of the current President). Are you advocating for reverse discrimination? You have to realize that from Gen X and on, all those generations have always lived in post-Civil Rights era, integrated schools, have gay family/friends, etc. There will always be some but we live amongst the most tolerant generations ever.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Caliknight

brgRC90

Heisman
Apr 8, 2008
34,957
15,859
0
Discrimination is wrong and both sides do it. Pointing out that just one side does it is also wrong (see the history of the current President). Are you advocating for reverse discrimination? You have to realize that from Gen X and on, all those generations have always lived in post-Civil Rights era, integrated schools, have gay family/friends, etc. There will always be some but we live amongst the most tolerant generations ever.
Repeat: my entire life it has been conservatives fighting all the way to the top of the Republican party to legalize discrimination not just some tattoo parlor in Tennessee. They're desperate to be able to post that sign "______ not allowed here."
 
  • Like
Reactions: NotInRHouse

ashokan

Heisman
May 3, 2011
25,325
19,686
0
American civil rights platform has gone from being virtuous to being a bad joke to being genocidal. Anti-discrimination became permissiveness and sanctification of even bizarre things like the current "men can have babies too." Common sense people know the line between fairness and mutant ideologies.

CRT is Marxist/neo-Marxist in origin and teaches kids that white people are born bad and cant be fixed - the have to be dealt with by force.

That sort of thinking is right off the shelf occupied by Nazism, Maoism, Stalinism, Khmer Rouge, Committee of Union and Progress, Hutu Power and other genocidal movements.



Princeton University professor Allen C. Guelzo, to explain CRT and why it is so dangerous.

"Critical race theory, Guelzo says, is a subset of critical theory that began with Immanuel Kant in the 1790s. It was a response to — and rejection of — the principles of the Enlightenment and the Age of Reason on which the American republic was founded. Kant believed that “reason was inadequate to give shape to our lives” and so he set about “developing a theory of being critical of reason,” Guelzo says.

But the critique of reason ended up justifying “ways of appealing to some very unreasonable things as explanations — things like race, nationality, class,” he says. Critical theory thus helped spawn totalitarian ideologies in the 20th century such as Marxism and Nazism, which taught that all human relationships are relationships of power between an oppressor class and an oppressed class. For the Marxists, the bourgeoisie were the oppressors. For the Nazis, the Jews were the oppressors. And today, in 21st century America, critical race theory teaches that Whites are the oppressors.

In CRT, “all White people are instinctively white supremacists,” Guelzo says...CRT rejects democracy as a “relic of Enlightenment reason,” Guelzo says, and argues that White people “use tricks like democracy and the search for truth … to exploit and oppress and dominate people of color.” Richard Delgado and Jean Stefancic, authors of “Critical Race Theory: An Introduction,” state that “critical race theory questions the very foundations of the liberal order, including equality theory, legal reasoning, Enlightenment rationalism, and neutral principles of constitutional law.”

Because critical theory rejects reason, it cannot be questioned. “if you believe, as the Nazis did, that the Jews are responsible for all political and economic events, then my pointing out that the overwhelming majority of political leaders are not Jews merely shows that I am either a dupe of the Jews or that I’m in on the fix.” Similarly, if you question whether all White people are oppressors, “the questioning itself is an example of how you’re in on the oppression.”

Boomers inherited a mostly fair society (Dems still being the problem) and have let it devolve into a toxic transmogrification while patting themselves on the back. Pandora's box is opened.

 
  • Like
Reactions: Caliknight
Jul 25, 2001
53,200
35,895
0
Lol no. When you're in business you do the same service for anyone willing to pay for it. Nothing more, nothing less. That's equality. A cake maker is not being asked to do anything but make a cake, web designer is just being asked to design a (fictional apparently) web site. What is it about conservatives that they so desperately still want to discriminate against people? What do they hate about equality?
So anybody owning a business can be forced to engage in activity that puts them in direct conflict with their religious views or freedom of speech.

That’s discrimination via creed qnd freedom of speech. Your creed isn’t important and the state imposes their law against it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Caliknight
Jul 25, 2001
53,200
35,895
0
I have Black friends who are wealthy and their kids go to Poly Prep, an overrated $50K private school in Brooklyn. There’s no way those kids should get preferential treatment over a White kid growing up in Appalachia if their SAT/ACT scores are close.

Economics of growing up should be the primary consideration going forward.
Yet they would in Harvard admissions as demonstrated in the data supporting the case.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Caliknight
Jul 25, 2001
53,200
35,895
0
There are a variety of reasons unrelated to turning away entire groups of people. What part of merely treating everyone equally and with dignity is it that bothers you so much?
That a nice story bro. Too bad Harvard and NC weren’t doing that.

The uh we’re blatantly discriminating by race and the ten years of data proved it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Caliknight

brgRC90

Heisman
Apr 8, 2008
34,957
15,859
0
So anybody owning a business can be forced to engage in activity that puts them in direct conflict with their religious views or freedom of speech.

That’s discrimination via creed qnd freedom of speech. Your creed isn’t important and the state imposes their law against it.
By your logic if someone wants to sell slaves or daughters they should be able to do it and telling them they can't is discrimination based on religion.
 

ashokan

Heisman
May 3, 2011
25,325
19,686
0
^^^ Reminds me of that Steely Dan tune "Only A Fool Would Say That"

Even a fool is wiser than a crackpot (all around theses days).
In 1960 black crime and illegitimacy was basically the same as whites.
Most prison inmates were white.

The problems were with southern Dems.
They were party of slavery and KKK - they invented Jim Crow
70& of citizens polled by Gallup in 1935 wanted anti-lynching laws but FDR wouldn't allow them - didn't want to lose those Dem voters in the South.

First civil rights bill was from Eisenhower in 1957 (and it was Eisenhower who forced military integration after Truman's exec order was ignored). The 1964 bill was passed with more GOP votes than Dems.

Dems been pretending to be saviors ever since.
Currently they are burying black people under millions of illegals being sent to their areas and jacking rents, taking benefits/jobs/healthcare.
Secret is many black people and "immigrants" dont like each other.
Dems wrecked black family paying single mothers for babies and sending dad out to recreate the scene



 
Last edited:
  • Love
Reactions: Caliknight

topdecktiger

All-Conference
Mar 29, 2011
35,696
1,310
0
Only gay men and lesbians but they don't count. Well, fictional ones in this case but freedom!
Gay men and lesbians aren't bring discriminated against. The Supreme Court ruling just says that people making products involving speech can't be forced to express something with which they disagree.

For example, the lady making the websites. If a gay couple came in and wanted a website about stamp collecting, she would build them the website.
 

mdk02

Heisman
Aug 18, 2011
26,130
18,479
113
Gay men and lesbians aren't bring discriminated against. The Supreme Court ruling just says that people making products involving speech can't be forced to express something with which they disagree.

For example, the lady making the websites. If a gay couple came in and wanted a website about stamp collecting, she would build them the website.

Shhhhhhh........... You're spot on
 

Kbee3

Heisman
Aug 23, 2002
43,724
35,255
0
Even a fool is wiser than a crackpot (all around theses days).
In 1960 black crime and illegitimacy was basically the same as whites.
Most prison inmates were white.

The problems were with southern Dems.
They were party of slavery and KKK - they invented Jim Crow
70& of citizens polled by Gallup in 1935 wanted anti-lynching laws but FDR wouldn't allow them - didn't want to lose those Dem voters in the South.

First civil rights bill was from Eisenhower in 1957 (and it was Eisenhower who forced military integration after Truman's exec order was ignored). The 1964 bill was passed with more GOP votes than Dems.

Dems been pretending to be saviors ever since.
Currently they are burying black people under millions of illegals being sent to their areas and jacking rents, taking benefits/jobs/healthcare.
Secret is many black people and "immigrants" dont like each other.
Dems wrecked black family paying single mothers for babies and sending dad out to recreate the scene



You can't see that today's Republican party is in no way similar to Eisenhower's ?
 
  • Like
Reactions: NotInRHouse

brgRC90

Heisman
Apr 8, 2008
34,957
15,859
0
Gay men and lesbians aren't bring discriminated against. The Supreme Court ruling just says that people making products involving speech can't be forced to express something with which they disagree.

For example, the lady making the websites. If a gay couple came in and wanted a website about stamp collecting, she would build them the website.
Huh? Selective, limited discrimination is still discrimination. She can't turn away Muslims or Jews, or Russians or Japanese, looking to get married. And the ruling is so vague, free speech, who knows how much it could be expanded. I just don't get why some people are so in love with the idea of refusing service to some people, although actually I do get it. There is nothing in Christian theology that says a Christian can't participate this way in a wedding, or treat someone based on their beliefs, or do anything else some people say they object to. This web designer participating in a second heterosexual marriage has more reason to not do THAT since that IS mentioned.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: NotInRHouse

T2Kplus20

Heisman
May 1, 2007
30,444
18,432
113
Huh? Selective, limited discrimination is still discrimination. She can't turn away Muslims or Jews, or Russians or Japanese, looking to get married. And the ruling is so vague, free speech, who knows how much it could be expanded. I just don't get why some people are so in love with the idea of refusing service to some people, although actually I do get it. There is nothing in Christian theology that says a Christian can't participate this way in a wedding, or treat someone based on their beliefs, or do anything else some people say they object to. This web designer participating in a second heterosexual marriage has more reason to not do THAT since that IS mentioned.
The bottom line of the case is this......a custom website or cake is essentially that person's work of art and is protected by freedom of speech, expression, and probably religion. Other products that are sold to multiple customers are not. The constitution is here to protect everyone, even in ways that you may or may not agree with. One person's rights end where another person's rights begin. It may seem like a silly decision for someone to refuse business, but in this narrow situation, the owner has the right to do so.
 

brgRC90

Heisman
Apr 8, 2008
34,957
15,859
0
The bottom line of the case is this......a custom website or cake is essentially that person's work of art and is protected by freedom of speech, expression, and probably religion. Other products that are sold to multiple customers are not. The constitution is here to protect everyone, even in ways that you may or may not agree with. One person's rights end where another person's rights begin. It may seem like a silly decision for someone to refuse business, but in this narrow situation, the owner has the right to do so.
An extremely weak justification. For one thing, I'm willing to bet such websites are routinely made according to the CUSTOMERS wishes. Real works of art aren't done that way. This could be expanded to so many things, like landscape design. "I won't design a backyard for this gay couple--or any gay person. My design is free speech "
 
  • Like
Reactions: NotInRHouse
Oct 17, 2007
69,704
47,620
0
Did you miss the tattoo parlor in TN that posted the sign he would not take work from Trump voters and conservatives? There have been quite a few other examples as well. At the end of the day I think those are outliers on both sides so not fair to label one side or the other.

Political viewpoint isn't and never has been a protected class.

Sexual orientation is, as per the same judge that wrote the website ruling.

It would be more akin to refusing someone because of their race or faith. For example, a sign saying "no infidels." I doubt people would have the same opinion.
 
Oct 17, 2007
69,704
47,620
0
Gay men and lesbians aren't bring discriminated against. The Supreme Court ruling just says that people making products involving speech can't be forced to express something with which they disagree.

For example, the lady making the websites. If a gay couple came in and wanted a website about stamp collecting, she would build them the website.

The fun starts when it's an interracial or interfaith marriage. Though Crooked Clarence did write of course that a right to gay marriage should be reviewed, but interracial not. Mysterious, that.

I guess we'll have to wait and see if it a Muslim turning down the interfaith business or Evangelical doing so to know how it will land.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Kbee3

brgRC90

Heisman
Apr 8, 2008
34,957
15,859
0
^^^ Reminds me of that Steely Dan tune "Only A Fool Would Say That"
Boomers grew up in a world where black people were being pushed to the back of the bus, women couldn't even apply for a whole host of jobs (they were even turned away doing stand up comedy) and many states were telling people the allowable skin color of prospective spouses, among a whole host of other barriers. Of course to a flaming bigot that's fair.
 
  • Like
Reactions: NotInRHouse

T2Kplus20

Heisman
May 1, 2007
30,444
18,432
113
An extremely weak justification. For one thing, I'm willing to bet such websites are routinely made according to the CUSTOMERS wishes. Real works of art aren't done that way. This could be expanded to so many things, like landscape design. "I won't design a backyard for this gay couple--or any gay person. My design is free speech "
SCOTUS disagrees with you. Besides you are jumping to nonsensical conclusions since objections still need to be rooted to something tangible.....like gay marriage and religion. You can't refuse a service just because you don't like a type of person. That likely crossed the line for SCOTUS into real discrimination.
 
Oct 17, 2007
69,704
47,620
0
Great poll. 73% of Americans are right and the rest are crazy libs. LOL!

What's the current SCOTUS' approval rating?

Surely they were buoyed by the massive wave you promised at the polls, right there champ?

How did your predictions fair? Anyone know?
 
Oct 17, 2007
69,704
47,620
0
Boomers grew up in a world where black people were being pushed to the back of the bus, women couldn't even apply for a whole host of jobs (they were even turned away doing stand up comedy) and many states were telling people the allowable skin color of prospective spouses. Of course to a flaming bigot that's fair.

And it's a world they so desperately want to bring back. Thankfully, every November from 2017 on was a massive rejection.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Kbee3

brgRC90

Heisman
Apr 8, 2008
34,957
15,859
0
The fun starts when it's an interracial or interfaith marriage. Though Crooked Clarence did write of course that a right to gay marriage should be reviewed, but interracial not. Mysterious, that.

I guess we'll have to wait and see if it a Muslim turning down the interfaith business or Evangelical doing so to know how it will land.
The Book of Mormon has some choice things to say about dark-skinned people. Thanks to Crooked Clarence they can turn away non-whites, including him.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.