I have heard that some Asian students banded together and sued Harvard for discriminating against Asian applicants


Ok, so what do the courts do? Explain it to me.

Affirmative action wasn't something that applied to every business.



You bring up slaves and then say the government doesn't give you rights. I think you should meditate on that for a minute, and ask yourself why those slaves didn't have rights until the government granted them.

Rights are something that exists between equals. When you are unequal your rights only exist so far as the superior expects them. Governments are superior to individuals because they are sovereign entities. If tomorrow we rewrote the constitution to take away a right that would mean that right is gone, and the only reason it exists now is because the governing authorities respect the constitution.

Why should he explain it to you? You have the internet. Take it upon yourself to learn for once.

The courts typically review whether a college's affirmative action policies violate Title VI or the 14th Amendment's Equal Protection Clause v. if the affirmative action considerations they use meet the scrutiny of a compelling interest (typically the benefits of a diverse student population) and are therefore permissible.

The Harvard case has more to do with subjective personality ratings compared to objective measurements (SAT scores) for admission--and the potential for racial discrimination by explicit or implicit invoking of racial stereotypes in those subjective personality sections (i.e. Asians are good at math, but not particularly charismatic, etc.)

This post was edited by Handcuffs on Sep 8 2021 03:37pm

I thought exactly as you did on the bolded and it turned out i was wrong. The vaccine supposedly lowers your odds of dying significantly but it isn't in itself a cure. Afaik measles is making a come back precisely because of anti vax rhetoric https://elemental.medium.com/what-you-need-to-know-about-measles-a6ddd01b8285

coronovirus/polio/measles/rotavirus/rubella are viruses that are part of a global pandemic that is largely unavoidable and vaccine mandates serve as a means towards eliminating them - that is ofcourse if we achieve the desired numbers. See measles comeback above. It's a no brainer to mandate something that is a net positive for society which also has support from the majority. aside from some incredibly rare side effects, society at large benefits from vaccine mandates.

Alcohol by comparison does not have purely detrimental effects, and consumed in moderation it can do some good. You can also opt out from drinking as i do. This is why it wouldnt make sense to try banning alochol outright despite it's higher death toll although we do have laws moderating alcohol consumption to lower the negative impact to society - you can't operate motorized vehicles while drunk as an example.

And this supposedly makes it better?

So, you yourself are admitting that affirmative action exists and the government forces some (though not all) businesses to hire a certain number of minorities, roughly speaking. If the government can do this, then it can compel businesses to not fire the un-vaccinated.

My point: either the government can tell privately owned businesses what to do, or it cannot. You cannot have it both ways.



I think we are talking about different things. You are talking about how rights are applied, which I do not disagree with. But what I am trying to get across is how rights should be. IMHO, they should be something that's inherent. Not something that's granted to an individual by an outside entity like the government.

For example, lets say your government tomorrow re-wrote the constitution to remove the freedom of speech (technically not a right, but just bear with me for argument's sake). And indeed, us as regular people could not do shit about it. But I would say that the government is merely trampling on our rights. I would not say that now I don't have the freedom of speech anymore just because the government disregarded it. In fact, I would likely say, "Let's claim our right (or freedom, as the case might be) back!" as a rallying call to get others to overthrow such a government. And the fact a lot of people would follow me is testament that people believe that they have freedom of speech, it's something that's inherent to them, not something that can simply be taken away by a government.

This post was edited by JessiWan on Sep 8 2021 04:08pm

Are you talking about the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment? Because I believe that only applies to governments. The clause is saying that the government shouldn't discriminate. It doesn't say that private entities cannot discriminate.

I am laughing at you seizing every single opportunity to slight me. I must have really hurt your butt.

This post was edited by JessiWan on Sep 8 2021 03:49pm

Both the 14th and Title VI have been at the crux of affirmative action cases in the US depending on the type of college, with the most notable case being Regents of the University of California v. Bakke. The 14th is a higher concern for public universities, whereas Title VI is more applicable for private universities that receive federal funding.

This post was edited by Handcuffs on Sep 8 2021 03:57pm

Not sure what you are trying to get at, to be honest. Can the equal protection clause of the 14th compel private entities to not discriminate? Yes or no.

And let's say there are colleges that are entirely privately funded. Do you believe they should be allowed to discriminate however they want?

This post was edited by JessiWan on Sep 8 2021 03:59pm