patrick.net

LeonDurham says

Lots of Asians get into Harvard. If one doesn't make the cut, it's their own fault.

Especially if their GPA's and standardized test scores are much better than for individuals accepted to Harvard. They forgot to change their DNA and/or have the wrong mix of chromosomes, which is surely their fault.

dr6B says

LeonDurham says

Lots of Asians get into Harvard. If one doesn't make the cut, it's their own fault.

Especially if their GPA's and standardized test scores are much better than for individuals accepted to Harvard. They forgot to change their DNA and/or have the wrong mix of chromosomes, which is surely their fault.

No, their mistake was not to get a Mailboxes Etc address in Mexico (or some other South American, but not Brazil, as the Portuguese language doesn't count), and then, check off the Latino box on the application.

In fact, Asians living south of the border have done it for years w/o duress.

dr6B says

LeonDurham says

Lots of Asians get into Harvard. If one doesn't make the cut, it's their own fault.

Especially if their GPA's and standardized test scores are much better than for individuals accepted to Harvard. They forgot to change their DNA and/or have the wrong mix of chromosomes, which is surely their fault.

BTW, just to be fair minded, non-connected whites are also at a disadvantage.

I'm pretty sure that there are plenty of poor whites, who can pass law school, unlike Al Gore Jr.

And unlike him, many could also get B+'s to A's at Harvard undergrad, and thus, guarantee themselves a seat at places like Georgetown Law.

Rin says

BTW, just to be fair minded, non-connected whites are also at a disadvantage.

definitely, esp white fucking males

dr6B says

Rin says

BTW, just to be fair minded, non-connected whites are also at a disadvantage.

definitely, esp white fucking males

Well ... if they can pass law school's first year, unlike Harvard's great alum, Al Gore Jr ... then yes.

Quigley says

Do we have laws or don’t we?

Thank you. If we have laws, we should enforce them.

And if we have borders, we should defend them.

Otherwise, we have nothing at all, and "we" are not even we.

CovfefeButDeadly says

Reminder that this is what you are dealing with. One of the 3 MAJOR MSM networks, and this was their coverage:

All the coverage from CNN to ABC was pretty much the same as that.

Clinton's ground game, indeed! "Florida is her power center" hahahahahah

Sure, I should be in prison. And I should pay about 10,000 speeding tickets for all the times I exceeded the limit on the highway.

Even under Federal law, possession of small amounts of marijuana is a misdemeanor, though in theory the judge could put you in jail for up to a year. Up to him. Fortunately, that law looks likely to change pretty soon, given the trends.

So to be consistent, I should have said we should enforce our laws or change them. We should not have laws that are not enforced. That erodes respect for the law.

Common law is whatever is commonly enforced. There are thousands of laws on the books that are not enforced with any rigor.

Thus, if anti-discrimination laws are not enforced, then they are not common laws and may be easily ignored.
Which does happen in many cases, often in ways that disadvantage minorities. Just ask the police if they racially profile and they’ll say no way! But they do and everyone knows it. If you act, dress, drive, and look like a criminal, you’re going to get stopped ten times as much.

So do we have laws or not? Depends on if we enforce them. This Harvard case is about enforcing laws already on the books.