f**********n
发帖数: 29853 | 1 索维尔再出雄文！是谁在帮助那些被迫在申请材料里抹去自己传承的华裔子弟？是谁在
让我们华裔子弟骄傲地地写下自己的姓赵钱孙李？不是那些所谓的华裔政客，不是吴仙
标，不是赵没心，是这位黑人思想家！
他是美国第一思想家，毛毛虫是美新第一思想家，俩人一时瑜亮，不服來战。
http://www.lenconnect.com/opinion/20160711/thomas-sowell-affirmative-action-fraud-goes-on
Last month, the Supreme Court of the United States voted that President
Obama exceeded his authority when he granted exemptions from the immigration
laws passed by Congress.
But the Supreme Court also exceeded its own authority by granting the
University of Texas an exemption from the Constitution’s requirement of “
equal protection of the laws,” by voting that racial preferences for
student admissions were legal.
Supreme Court decisions in affirmative action cases are the longest
running fraud since the 1896 decision upholding racial segregation laws in
the Jim Crow South, on grounds that “separate but equal” facilities were
consistent with the Constitution. Everybody knew that those facilities were
separate but by no means equal. Nevertheless, this charade lasted until 1954.
The Supreme Court’s affirmative action cases have now lasted since 1974
when, in the case of “DeFunis v. Odegaard,” the Court voted 5 to 4 that
this particular case was moot, which spared the justices from having to vote
on its merits.
While the 1896 “separate but equal” decision lasted 58 years, the
Supreme Court’s affirmative action cases have now had 42 years of evasion,
sophistry and fraud, with no end in sight.
One sign of the erosion of principles over the years is that even one of
the Court’s most liberal judicial activists, Justice William O. Douglas,
could not stomach affirmative action in 1974, and voted to condemn it,
rather than declare the issue moot.
But now, in 2016, the supposedly conservative Justice Anthony Kennedy
voted to uphold the University of Texas’ racial preferences. Perhaps the
atmosphere inside the Washington Beltway wears down opposition to
affirmative action, much as water can eventually wear down rock and create
the Grand Canyon.
We have heard much this year about the Supreme Court vacancy created by
the death of the great Justice Antonin Scalia — and rightly so. But there
are two vacancies on the Supreme Court. The other vacancy is Anthony Kennedy.
The human tragedy, amid all the legal evasions and frauds is that, while
many laws and policies sacrifice some people for the sake of other people,
affirmative action manages to harm blacks, whites, Asians and others, even
if in different ways.
Students who are kept out of a college because other students are
admitted instead, under racial quotas, obviously lose opportunities they
would otherwise have had.
But minority students admitted to institutions whose academic standards
they do not meet are all too often needlessly turned into failures, even
when they have the prerequisites for success in some other institution whose
normal standards they do meet.
When black students who scored at the 90th percentile in math were
admitted to MIT, where the other students scored at the 99th percentile, a
significant number of black students failed to graduate there, even though
they could have graduated with honors at most other academic institutions.
We do not have so many students with that kind of ability that we can
afford to sacrifice them on the altar to political correctness.
Such negative consequences of mismatching minority students with
institutions, for the sake of racial body count, have been documented in a
number of studies, most notably “Mismatch,” a book by Richard Sander and
Stuart Taylor, Jr., whose sub-title is: “How Affirmative Action Hurts
Students It’s Intended to Help, and Why Universities Won’t Admit It.”
When racial preferences in student admissions in the University of
California system were banned, the number of black and Hispanic students in
the system declined slightly, but the number actually graduating rose
substantially. So did the number graduating with degrees in tough subjects
like math, science and engineering.
But hard facts carry no such weight among politicians as magic words
like “diversity” — a word repeated endlessly, without one speck of
evidence to back up its sweeping claims of benefits. It too is part of the
Supreme Court fraud, going back to a 1978 decision that seemingly banned
racial quotas — unless the word “diversity” was used instead of “quotas.”
Seeming to ban racial preferences, while letting them continue under
another name, was clever politically. But the last thing we need in
Washington are nine more politicians, wearing judicial robes. | f**********n
发帖数: 29853 | 2 索维尔其实不地道，这篇文章个把月前他贴过了，结果他把第一句“上星期“改成“上
个月“又贴了一遍。
所以，讲起人品來，还是美新版第一思想家要略胜一筹。 | T*********I
发帖数: 10729 | | t*******d
发帖数: 12895 | | T*********I
发帖数: 10729 | 5 真敢说真话呀。diversity就是quota种族配额制度。 |
|
