Affirmative Action Is Racist and Therefore Wrong

If activists want to help young people, they should start before college.

The left is angry because the Supreme Court ruled race-based affirmative action unconstitutional. President Joe Biden says he "strongly disagrees."

But Chief Justice John Roberts was right to say, "Eliminating racial discrimination means eliminating all of it."

It's a victory for Students for Fair Admissions, the group that sued, thereby forcing Harvard to admit that Asians had to score 22 points higher on the SAT than whites, 63 points higher than blacks.

How did Harvard justify that? They said Americans of Asian descent score lower in personal attributes, like "likability."

"Asian Americans are boring little grade grubbers," complains the Asian American Legal Foundation's Lee Cheng, in my video on race-based admissions. "That's bullshit," he adds.

Economist Harry Holzer, who defended Harvard, says the school did the right thing.

"Asians are not interesting?" I ask. "They don't have interesting qualities?"

"Personal ratings reflect a wide range of characteristics," Holzer responds. "It's possible that some of that is anti-Asian bias, but you certainly can't prove that…. When you have a long history of discrimination based on race, you have to take race into account."

"There are many, many different ways to achieve diversity without discriminating against Asian Americans," Cheng responds. "Race-focused affirmative action helps rich people. Seventy percent of the students of every ethnic group at Harvard come from the top 20 percent of family income."

But Asians already do well in America, earning more money, on average, than other ethnic groups. Blacks have faced more discrimination. "Isn't it Harvard's job to try to make up for some of that?" I ask Cheng.

"The right path out of the history of discrimination based on race is not more discrimination," he replies.

Cheng is right. Affirmative action is racist, and therefore wrong.

I once tried to make that point by holding a racist bake sale. I called it an "affirmative action bake sale." I sold cupcakes at a mall. My sign read:

Asians—$1.50

Whites—$1.00

Blacks/Latinos—50 cents

People stared. Some got angry. One yelled, "What is funny to you about people who are less privileged?" A black woman called my sign "very offensive, very demeaning!" "You got to be out of your gosh darn mind, boy!" said another. One man accused me of poisoning the cupcakes.

But after the initial anger, when people let me explain the reasoning behind my racist sign, many expressed second thoughts about affirmative action. "I guess it is unfair," said one black student.

I modeled my bake sale on what a student group at Bucknell University did to call attention to the racism of affirmative action. Bucknell officials shut down the students' experiment. Schools that practice affirmative action don't like to be confronted with the reality of affirmative action.

Now that affirmative action is illegal, universities will still discriminate by race. They'll just hide it better. One tactic is to become "test-optional." Over 1,800 schools, including Harvard, no longer require students to submit SAT scores.

Already, schools practice legacy admissions, meaning that they favor the children of alumni. That's clearly unfair. It helps mostly rich people, who are mostly white people.

The problem with both "test-optional" schools and affirmative action is that ultimately it harms black students. Those admitted with lower standards often struggle or drop out. Had they attended other schools, they might have done well.

And of course some people look at even the smartest black students and wonder, is she really smart? Or did she just get in because of her race?

If activists want to help young people, they should start before college. Promote school choice. It allows all kids to escape bad public schools.

That will help more kids than rigging college admissions.

COPYRIGHT 2023 BY JFS PRODUCTIONS INC.

Comments

[SMP0328]

Most, if not all, colleges/universities that practice AA will take the Andrew Jackson route: John Roberts made his decision, now let him come and enforce it.

[TheReEncogitationer]

This time, those who say that will be at a considerable disadvantage, namely with their racist, elitist intentions fully exposed to the public and fewer people either willing or able to join them. Harvard may go the way of Woolworth's...Whither Woolworth's?

[AngliaJames17]

Great article, Mike. I appreciate your work, I’m now creating over $35,910 dollars each month simply by doing a simple job online! I do know You currently making a lot of greenbacks online from $28,910 dollars, its simple online operating jobs.
.
.
Just open the link———————————————>>> http://Www.OnlineCash1.Com

[Liberty_Belle]

Isn't not having any rules how colleges were allowed to racist in the first place ? Aren't you just going back to the beginning of the circle ? Isn't the supposed definition of insanity doing the same thing and expecting a different outcome ?

[Social Justice is neither]

It's always good to have the leftists here explicitly demanding racism as one of their defining characteristics they cannot do without.

[Smith1]

That really is an ignorant take. There was not a rule prohibiting discrimination on the basis of race (so some schools discriminated on the basis of race and limited black enrollment. Then there was a rule prohibiting discrimination on the basis of race. But schools did still discriminate on the basis of race and instead limited Asian enrollment. Now the court says, we mean it, no discrimination on the basis of race. The rule implemented to stop discrimination still applies. It is now just being enforced.

[Zeb]

So you think that colleges are just dying to be racist and waiting for a chance to start explicitly discriminating against blacks again? I don't know how you can consider yourself any kind of supporter of liberty if you take that view of things.
You really think nothing has changed except for affirmative action in the past 60 years?

[hosati]

★start earning $90/hourly for operating online from your house for few hours each day... Get everyday fee on a weekly foundation... All you want is a laptop, internet connection and a litte loose time.......www.salary49.com

[hosati]

Making Cash more than $15k to $18k consistently just by doing basic online work. I have gotten $18376 a month ago just by working on the web. Its a simple and basic occupation to do from home and its profit are greatly improved than customary office work. Each individual can join this activity now just by pursue this link……..go to this site home media tech tab for more detail support your hear Here══════❥❥❥www.salary49.com

[Mickey Rat]

Colin Kaepernick, supported by Marxist academics writes that African Studies must be radical. The College Board's proposed AP African Studies course should be revolutionary in nature, not a mere attempt to teach history.

https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/kaepernick-leads-team-marx-against-desantis-gets-sacked/

"The core message of Our History Has Always Been Contraband is that “the entire American enterprise” is “illegitimate.” Given that, the purpose of black studies is to expose the “mythologies and lies that the United States has been built around.” “Black studies,” we are told, “honors a tradition of resistance and struggle” designed to “unravel” America’s “social order.” In building their book around this openly radical — even revolutionary — political agenda, Kaepernick and his collaborators are making DeSantis’s point."

"A piece on the Haitian revolution from Marxist scholar and revolutionary C. L. R. James is meant to convince students that liberal democracy offers no hope of racial progress — only revolutionary organizing can work. Comparative material on Britain’s abolition of the slave trade, or the prohibition on slavery in America’s Northwest Ordinance, might have set up an interesting debate on racial progress within representative democracies. That sort of debate, however, is precisely what Kaepernick and his collaborators hope to avoid."

"... CRT theorists will tell you that race is “socially constructed,” that racial categories are neither fixed nor biological, and that claims to the contrary are misguided “essentialism.” But look at the treatment of “Whiteness” by leading CRT-based education theorist Bettina Love in her book We Want to Do More Than Survive. Love may seem to talk about “Whiteness” as a mindset, rather than a racial classification — a mindset that can be internalized even by non-whites. But then she adds this: “White folx cannot lose their Whiteness; it is not possible.” All whites can do, in Love’s telling, is try to extirpate and atone for a condition they can never truly escape."

[Homer Thompson]

is there another country where being a brand ambassador for marxism is so lucrative? toxic whiteness indeed

[Earth-based Human Skeptic]

Sigh. The return of universities as religious institutions, each promoting doctrine above actual scholarship. I guess it was this way for at least 1000 years so why not again?

[n00bdragon]

For the vast majority of its existence over the last few thousand years the church (and most religions in general) have been the intellectual firmament of humanity, nurturing education and knowledge in societies that otherwise were extremely preoccupied with farming and/or killing the people on the other side of the mountain/river. It's through religion that we developed and maintained writing, astronomy (from which a great deal of mathematics and physics was built upon), biology, art, and so on. For every Galileo getting cross with the pope there's a hundred Gregor Mendels who were toiling away at scientific pursuits under the idea that understanding the universe is understanding god's creation. We've sadly moved away from that in the last hundred years or so and religion has become less of an avenue to understanding what is and more of a way of aligning with this group or that.

[Philadelphia Collins]

"How The Irish Saved Civilization", a fascinating book, concurs.

[soldiermedic76]

Yes. Religion founded western Universities. Monks and priests were the literate class, who wrote the histories, governmental documents, preserved the teachings of Ancient Rome and Greece, translated the teachings of the Arabic world and Chinese into Western languages, etc. Also, it was largely the religious class that helped spawn the Renaissance. Edward the 1st was probably the first noble to be able to read in England, Edward the III the first able to write, also likely the first post 1066 who was fluent in English. Their ministers were all clergy. The Renaissance rediscovery of the writings of Aristotle, Plate, Pythagoras etc were directly the result of the religious class (additionally, that knowledge had never really been lost and had always been available, but it was the founding of universities like Oxford, University of Paris and the different Universities of the Italian republics that, when opened to non-clerical students allowed that information to be widely disseminated, and that started occuring during the 13th and 14th century, the end of the high Middle Ages and the early Renaissance.

[Earth-based Human Skeptic]

But ultimately all religions have sacred ideas that are not be be questioned, and readily suppress intellectual activity that even starts to challenge orthodoxy. The modern academy, especially in science, struggled for centuries to throw off doctrinal shackles, and the result is more objective data and analysis--and knowledge of the universe--generated in the past 200 years than in the previous 2000.

My point is that new-age progressive doctrine is becoming just as stifling as all classic religions, and maybe more so.

[TheReEncogitationer]

Sic 'em, Skeptic! I got your back in my post below! 🙂

[soldiermedic76]

You have his back by claiming facts that are actually common myths long debunked by actual historians? And by completely misunderstanding the economics of the Middle Ages? Good job there.

[soldiermedic76]

If you think the church hasn't constantly questioned those traditional core beliefs, how do you explain the Gnostics, the Schism between Rome and Greek churches? The period of multiple popes and anti-popes? The Protestant reformation? Etc? In fact, questioning core beliefs is a long and cherished tradition in even the Orthodox and Catholic churches. Some of the most popular literature of the Middle Ages were treatise discussing why the pope or some other high ecclesiastic notary was wrong in their beliefs. Or the reprinting of Diets, which were giant theological debates between church leadership.

[soldiermedic76]

Hell, until the ninth century, the pope was just another bishop, and it wasn’t until the 13th century that the Bishop of Rome, e.g. the pope, was recognized by the majority of the Western Church as it’s head. And then during the 14th century and fifteenth century he wasn’t even in Rome for most of the time, and there were several different popes at once. The nature of the Trinity wasn’t widely accepted as church doctrine until the 14th century, and several notable denominations, the LDS being the largest, reject the common definition of the nature of the Trinity. Also communion, is it the literal blood and body of Christ or just figuratively? Ask two different Christians from different denominations and you’ll get two different answers. Is masturbation a sin? Theologians and cleric still debate this. When God condemned the spilling of seed on barren soil it was in a very specific case, and may not apply to anything but that specific case (it has to do with a broken promise if you read the entire section). The same with the camel through the eye of the needle. The parable of the prodigal son. Etc etc. Also no, knowledge in the last two hundred years isn't more than in the past two thousand years. That's another myth created in the 19th century. The amount of innovation during the period leading up to the 19th century, in agriculture, metallurgy, navigation, ship design, animal husbandry, architecture etc is mind boggling and largely unknown because of a myth created by Victorians to show why they were superior to everyone before them (and closely related to why they thought the English Empire was a good thing). We think of the Middle Ages as a period of stagnation, but this couldn't actually be further from the Truth. Also, for most of that time, written knowledge was hugely expensive. Not until the 15th century, and Guttenberg, was there the method necessary to write down knowledge and share it with the masses. And even after Guttenberg, it still was largely cost prohibitive for most people. The weaving loom, the watermill, the windmill, these all were as groundbreaking as computers and AI. Gunpowder (13th century CE). Matchlocks, then Snaphauses and then flintlocks, each was as transformative to warfare and daily life as the tank or the airplane. Clinker built ships, plank ships, lanteen sails, mechanical clocks, rudders all were as transformative to travel as steam ships (which the Greeks actually built the first ones before Rome was founded, BTW) as steam ships, locomotives (which were also an ancient invention, just the engine changed and the first steam powered engines started showing up at the end of the 18th century but were perfected during the 19th, so also predates your two hundred years). Computers, just fancier versions of ancient calculating systems, that are largely successful because of a better understanding of electricity, which was based on knowledge acquired in those two thousand proceeding years.

Also, the change in agrarian to urban only happened because of inventions like the horse collar and the deep chisel plow, which were adopted across most of western Europe in under a single generation. A whole change in how society fed itself, and the labor needed, in less than twenty years. As big as the green revolution. The Hereford, Angus, Holstein cows, all first appeared through selective breeding during the Middle Ages (all major contributing factors to ability to produce three to four times the meat and milk today as we did in 1947, with half the number of head of cattle than in that year.

Revolvers? The first revolvers were being experimented on in the 14th century. Magazine fed guns, the first I'm aware of is from the 15th century. The difference as to why Colt is famous and those other revolvers were left in the dustbin, manufacturing changes, most of which were pioneered in those periods of so called slow growth, the so called dark ages. Crop rotation, 14th century, again the evidence suggests less than twenty years to completely change how farming was conducted. Buttons changed in less than a generation how clothing was made. The foot powered loom changed how weaving was conducted in less than a generation. Iron smelting, steel manufacturing, armor? When Edward the 1st launched his first war, almost every one of his knights were armored in iron mail. By the middle of his reign, every knight was armored in steel plate armor. Da Vinci designed tanks, helicopters, internal combustion engines, but with the metallurgy of the time, they weren't practical at scale.

All those huge advances you brag about was because of the huge advances that proceeded them, which you largely pretend didn't happen. Could the industrial revolution, which was largely the result of looms, have occurred without the deep chisel plow, the horse collar, three field rotation, sheep husbandry, plank built ships, mechanical clocks, astrolabes, steel, the printing press, lanteen sails? Most of our new knowledge is just a perfection of old knowledge. Darwin didn't come up with evolution. Evolution was largely accepted for centuries before Darwin by intellectuals. Darwin simply proposed the best method for how evolution occurs. Also, animal breeders had been using sexual selection for ten thousand years before Darwin proposed survival of the fittest and sexual selection as the mechanism of evolution (also that evolution wasn't widely accepted pre Darwin is another myth, largely created by anti-theists post Darwin). Hell,for that matter, a thousand years ago, sheep were largely slaughtered in order to collect wool. Shears changed that in a generation (which meant more wealth,as sheep farmers could collect wool every year from the same sheep, which meant more wool, changing society in, again less than a generation, as transformative and coal powered steam engines were, but not as flashy). The thing is all of these huge advances were often the most mundane tasks that changed in the historical blink of an eye, which allowed the next huge technological leap forward. Ask many technology historians what the most transformative technology of the past two thousand years? The horse collar and the stirrup almost always come out on top. Not the semi-conductor. Not the internal combustion engine. Not airplanes. Two things most people would consider today as mundane, jejune. But they changed society faster than computers did. Two others often listed in the top five are the printing press and gunpowder. No, you're completely off base with that assertion.

[mtrueman]

“how do you explain the Gnostics, the Schism between Rome and Greek churches? The period of multiple popes and anti-popes? The Protestant reformation?”

Disputes over dogma. The host IS Christ vs the host merely represents Christ. Churches don’t fall into dispute over matters of scientific scrutiny.

Science also has its dogma. The laws of thermodynamics goes back to Aristotle and was not science but metaphysics, ie beyond physics, ie philosophy rather than anything backed by experiments and the scientific method. Science also has some gaping holes that religions readily fill. What is life, time, consciousness, virtue, beauty?

[soldiermedic76]

Dogma means beliefs. Their literally the same thing.

[mtrueman]

Scientists typically demand that beliefs are backed up with observation and experimentation. Not always though, as in the thermodynamics trinity.

[soldiermedic76]

My point is that contrary to his assertion, religions, especially during the Middle Ages, was not static, but a constant kinetic debate. If you read the Bible, you realize that the Abrahamic religions have never been about settled theology and principles it's always been a kinetic debate. Cain and Abel, which offering was most pleasing to God. John calls Jesus God's begotten son, but the gospels also have Jesus state 'I am He, the Alpha and the Omega'. So, what is Jesus, the son, God, or both? The disciples, according to the Gospels couldn't even decide. And what is more sacred to Christianity than the nature of Christ? But it's been a constant debate, a constant matter of friction. The words of the sacrament, during the last supper, this is my body, do this for the remembrance of me. Is he saying this is actually his body, or is he saying it's symbolic? What is usury? Yes, it isn't debating the existence of dark matter but it's no more a singular, unified, static core system of beliefs. To an atheist or agnostic it may seem like splitting hairs, we (Christians) basically all believe the same thing, but to a theist the difference is huge. To an outsider, the debates of scientists often appear to minor, with a core set of beliefs, backed by observation etc, but to the scientists they often are huge schisms that's it's difficult for the non-initiate to understand. God is the creator of heaven and earth. Gravity is the attraction of two masses towards each other. So far, so good. Now ask how God created the universe (BTW the big bang theory was first proposed by Catholic theologians). Ask why does mass attract towards other mass. You'll likely get as many differing hypothesis for both questions from experts in either respective field.

Science and religion are not contrary, they both are methods of better understanding the nature of existence and for most of our history have been inseparable. Rather then contrarian views they were symbiotic. Science to better understand God and I know many, especially in the biological fields that still view science from this view (I happen to be one of them). Maybe not a majority but still a large number. Even some very noted physicist and Chemists fall into this category. It's a modern conceit that has religion vs science. Even Darwin rejected this framing. Even Einstein rejected it, while still struggling with the question if God existed. The modern problem is trying to place modern definitions and categories, often arbitrary on past peoples and events. And quite often, when you examine it further you see these categories, these conflicts, are implemented by a minority trying to exert power over others for their own gain. Creating controversy is an easy way to control others. Finding someone else to blame is a way to get people under your control. Blaming religion as anti-knowledge, anti-science creates is very little removed from Stalin blaming the Kulaks. And it's gotten so bad, that many today, with a rudimentary understanding of basic science that most lay people have, treat science as a religion. They've simply replaced Yahweh with Darwin. And are barely separated from inquisitors rooting out heretics in southern France during the 13th century. Or accusing Jews of blood libel. Oh you're a Christian, do you believe the earth is only 5000 years old?
No, I don't, the science says the earth is a little over 2 billion years old.
Haha, then how do you call yourself a Christian? Note the Bible doesn't give the Earth's age and the word in Genesis 1 and 2 for day can also be interpreted as ages, and the word year did not necessarily mean 365 days but had several different meanings. Or that Genesis is viewed as allegorical in many major denominations. Which they call a cop out, as dogmatically as some Christians insist the Earth is only 5000 years old. BTW the young earth theological view was a fringe view of Christianity (and according to polls of Christians still a minority view) for most of the history of the Christianity. It has never been a majority view, and really until the latter 19th century was not official dogma of any denomination.

[mtrueman]

"Science and religion are not contrary, "

I agree. The idea that they are in opposition is crass and simplistic. I think a lot of post structural critical theorists would also agree. That's where the whole 'non binary' thing arises from. Male vs. female, reason vs, emotion, science vs. religion. It's a modern Western way of looking at the universe in which religion, emotion, females etc end up on the shitty side of the equation.

[TheReEncogitationer]

All those Schisms, splits, Reformations, and Counter-Reformations were accompanied by rivers of blood and whole chunks of nations exterminated, as in The Thirty Years War.

And they allowed so much questioning at the Council of Nicea that Saint Nicholas gave Arius a beat-down over the Trinity.

If that motherfucker St. Nick was up on my rooftop, I'd be going *Click! Click! Click!*

[TheReEncogitationer]

So what explains all the gaps in knowledge in between? And what about the Alexandria Library, which was burned multiple times by Pagan Roman, Christian, and Islamic arsonists and vandals?

And if the Church was so pro-learning, why didn't they print their works for popular distribution from the get-go in the first place? Why did they persecute those who did print and distribute The Holy Bible such as Peter Waldo and the Waldensians, Jean Wycliffe, and William Tynsdale?

You are a master of all subjects militaria, but you really need to restudy and reconsider the role of religion in human history and culture.

[soldiermedic76]

There wasn't really a gap, that is a common myth. Read more on the so called Medieval or Dark Ages as it was labeled. Turns out that was a myth created in the 19th century. That knowledge was never lost. Some of it fell out of use, largely because of political upheaval following the fall of Rome. But the knowledge was still there, and often utilized and added on to. Rome was an urban society. Following the migration period, at the end of the Roman era, society returned to a much more agrarian society. Much of the knowledge of urban Rome was underutilized, because it wasn't practical. London was completely abandoned. Then resettled but in a slightly different location, with a different economical and social system. Most of London say in the 13th century, to take an example, was to the east of the Roman city of London and had grown up as a market town along the wharf. It was also much smaller. Then in the 14th century, the Little Ice Age and the great famine killed off one in ten people in England. Then towards the middle of the century, the plague killed fifty percent. Then returned for the next two centuries about every twenty years, killing off 25-50% of the population every cycle. Add in the 100 years war. And despite these setbacks, and you try and blame the church using a myth that has been widely discredited by almost every single historian who studies the era (lost knowledge), and you say I need to study harder. Like I've pointed out to you, you don't understand religion and obviously you don't understand the history of the Middle Ages. And you tell me I need to study. I suggest you read Ian Mortimer's Time Travelers Guide to Medieval England for a start. Or any of Dan Jones books on the Plantagenet England. Or Marc Morris. Or Adrian Goldworthy's book on Caesarian Rome. Gabrielle and Perry's The Bright Ages is another book that totally destroys your thesis.

As to your question about printing books, when was Gutenberg born? Books were luxury items until Gutenberg, because they all had to be hand written. The average cost was like Ten pounds for a bible, when the average person made 4 shillings a month, and a wealthy noble 200 pounds a year. The Duke of Lancaster, the wealthiest noble in England, made like 2500 pounds a year at the end of the 14th century. That's a stupid question and obviously one made by someone not at all familiar with the socioeconomics of the period you are talking about. As for the excommunications etc of Wycliffe et al, yeah, it wasn't their printing the Bible etc, it was the fact they taught that the papacy was false that got them in trouble. Jones and Mortimer goes into this considerably in their books. It was about the power of the pope (which BTW there were three different people claiming to be Pope at the same time and a huge schism in the church when Huss was condemned, and the Emperor really went along with his condemnation as part of the process to end the schisms). Mortimer discusses this at length in his book on Henry the V and the year 1415.
What your problem is, as I've pointed out, is your bias against religion makes you accept common myths, rather than actual evidence. I suggest you read the books and historians I suggested, because you really don't understand the Middle Ages by this post above.

[mtrueman]

“And if the Church was so pro-learning, why didn’t they print their works for popular distribution from the get-go in the first place? ”

They did just that. On papyrus scrolls. Cheap and easily reproducible with a large literate audience. When Rome lost its ready supply of papyrus, the rot set in and literacy plummeted. The church was the only institution to retain its literacy after the fall of the empire, though at a reduced level thanks to the disadvantages of parchment.

https://libgen.is/fiction/296AC8607E97D5A76D07D1F34ED80529

That’s an excellent book on the rediscovery of Lucretius’ materialist philosophical treatise in verse, The Nature of Things, which arguably kicked off the Renaissance.

[soldiermedic76]

Another good point. Parchment was time consuming to make, expensive and hard to write and preserve. When you are making 4 shillings a week, and a book costs ten pounds to purchase, how many books do you think you could buy, in a lifetime? Vellum, the best form of parchment was even worse for costs.

We simply can't understand how disruptive the migration period was, or the Justinian Plague, the black death, the great famine. Because most knowledge was passed down not through writing but through master to apprentice. And when one out of ten, or 25% or fifty percent of your population dies off in a matter of two or three years, it disrupts that knowledge transfer. But new knowledge was created from necessity. And what knowledge was preserved was largely due to the monasteries (we simply cannot grasp in today's society what the importance of monastic societies were during the Middle Ages, as a source of literacy, knowledge preservation, scientific experimentation, often of a very practical, day to day variety) or from master to apprentice, father to son, often unwritten.

In today's world were you can Google anything, we don't understand how vital these two institutions were, and how much they contributed to our current society, technology and science. A 12th century farmer may not have known that nodules on legumes fixed nitrogen from the air in a symbiotic relationship with the microbiota in the nodules but he knew if he grew winter wheat after pulses (because pulses are harvested earlier than grains it made planting winter grains easier that fall, which also reduces weeds because of competition) but he knew they when he planted pulses then winter grains then spring grains than fallow, he produced more of all three and also had a place for his sheep, pigs and cattle to graze (which in turn enriched the soil). BTW, the three field rotation wasn't actually three fields but strips of the same field which wouldn't have worked with the Roman system, as they planted whole fields to the same crop, generally wheat year after year. It was the destruction of the large Roman estates, to feed a large urban population, and the rise of an agrarian, feudal system, where you were alloted parcels out of a common field that drove the conditions to observe how crops next to each other behaved and to develop crop rotations that remain largely unchanged today, except for scale.

In fact, some of the most cutting edge research in agriculture today is reexamining middle ages farming techniques such as intercropping, cover crops, etc and adapting them to modern agriculture.

Ensiling was largely unpracticed at the beginning of the twentieth century but is fast becoming a major form of forage preservation. We understand anaerobic fermentation (or have a better understanding of it, though since this is what I did my mastes thesis on it, much of it we still don't understand the mechanisms of, but we know the products of it better). But this isn't new knowledge. Egyptians knew that if you stored wet forage, tightly packed in an air tight container, it was preserved. Iron Age Germanic tribes knew this also. It's not new knowledge just building on old knowledge. Ancient Greeks were experimenting with steam propulsion (although copper wasn't the best metal for this application, with some disastrous results). What is a modern graphing calculator but a refinement of the abacus, which was a refinement of the counting stick?

[mtrueman]

"For every Galileo getting cross with the pope there’s a hundred Gregor Mendels who were toiling away at scientific pursuits under the idea that understanding the universe is understanding god’s creation."

Churches have traditionally provided intellectually gifted men with a living without requiring much effort. A Sunday sermon, for example. The rest of the time could be devoted to non religious pursuits. Growing peas in the case of Gregor Mendel, or fox hunting and dog breeding with Jack Russell.

[TheReEncogitationer]

Churches have traditionally provided intellectually gifted men with a living without requiring much effort.

With wealth provided by whom? Blank out, Watermelon Rickshaw Boy!

[mtrueman]

Grants from the Crown and rents. They were landlords, big time. Much the same as the aristocracy with whom they were peas in a pod.

[soldiermedic76]

But what paid those rents? Oh yeah agriculture. But they had to feed the serfs and have enough left over to sell for profit. And how did they achieve that? With using superior agronomy, which they often pioneered and taught to others, thus growing more, with fewer workers, and therefore more surplus. Since society was largely agrarian at the time, the knowledge and research was largely agrarian in scope, and therefore the practical knowledge was almost exclusively agrarian. As agriculture became less labor intensive, monasteries and bishoprics turned towards manufacturing goods from the surplus in grains and wools, helping drive inventions (and the adoption of inventions) such as the foot powered loom (one of the direct causes of the industrial revolution according to the majority of historians). Pop history is as insidious as Pop Science and just as imbecilic. Alchemy was the precursor to chemistry. It was necessary to develop the scientific method (as astrology lead to astronomy). Science as we know it is simply a refinement of old methods made new. There could be no microbiology without the invention of the microscope, but their could be no microscope without the refinement of glass making, often pionered by monks. What was Darwin's major at University? Theology. As was Newton's. The quest to better understand God drove some of the most prolific scientists. Galileo, Da Vinci, Newton etc. It was all a quest to better understand God, sponsored by the church most often (Galileo's patron was the Pope the same one who excommunicated him not for his scientific thesis but because of his attacks on his patron, the Pope). The Anglican church was a huge patron of Newton. We stand on the shoulders of Giants, most of whose name we will never know, and quite often these giants were either monks, or patronized (in its original meaning) by monasteries. The amount of food preservation technology and knowledge and brewing and vinterculture alone that monasteries created , well the modern world couldn't exist without them. Wine making leads to vinegar production, which leads to pickling which allowed preservation of meats and vegetables to be preserved pre-refrigeration.

It was a much more practical application of science, very empirical much less methodological but still science. Learning how one yeast is better for brewing, while another is better for wine making, and yet another for bread making, learned through patient observation, trial and error, plus a couple serendipitous chance findings would lead to microbiology and to eventually germ theory, public sanitation, pasteurization, sterile technique etc. They may not have known of the exact mechanism but they knew that if you mixed an alcoholic beverage, say beer, with water, you were less likely to develop dysentery and other stomach ailments. Eating things such as sauerkraut in the winter prevented scurvy.
The problem is we do better understand the mechanisms (although not as well as we think we do). So we look back at them with derision without understanding that it wasn't the discovery of vitamin C that started it, but because a monk, most likely, discovered how preserve cabbage through the winter, and thus reduced scurvy that lead to the discovery of vitamin C.

Until recently, science and religion were basically inseparable. Philosophy and science were inseparable. And there isn't any reason they should be separated. Who cares if the reason we discovered Mendelian inheritance was because a monk was trying to better understand God and his creation? Does this make the science less scientific, less worthy?

[mtrueman]

“Oh yeah agriculture.”

Agriculture wouldn’t have been possible without the guilds to run the markets or the smiths who made the tools. Two areas of knowledge that focus not on the heavens but bringing life to the elements from the depths of the earth. Two fields which are entirely secular and unconnected with the church.

[soldiermedic76]

Try again. Monasteries both preserved metallurgical knowledge of the Romans and Greeks, and improved upon it. Also, the merchant guilds developed out of agriculture, not on their own. They developed out of farmers fairs, many of which were originally founded by monasteries. To sell their wares. But farmers fairs tended to only sell local goods, and if it wasn't manufactured locally, it had to be brought in by outside traders, who took the agricultural goods and then and sold it to others, eventually these evolved into the merchant guilds. So, no the guilds didn't evolve independently of religion. Neither did smithing. If we leave aside the fact that every metal working culture has a god/gods of smithing, we see that the Bible mentions and utilizes metallurgy in a number of it's versus. There were also a number of monasteries that owned and operated mines. Monks who were smiths. Not to mention the warrior monastic orders, like the Brotherhood of the Sword, the Teutonic Knights, the Templars etc. Also, God, in the Abrahamic sense, is God of Heaven and Earth. All things above and below. The sky and the depths. Metal is as much to view God as gazing at the stars. I used agriculture because the Middle Ages were predominantly an vegetarian society, even the urban centers largely evolved to service and trade agricultural goods. London was refunded because it was a farmers market to sell wool to traders from the continent. Well into the sixteenth century, London's largest export was wool. And then goods manufactured from wool. Oxford is just what it's name infers, a ford that was suitable to drive oxen across. Yorkshire, a trading post for northern grains. The major urban centers of Rome, including Rome itself, were largely depopulated. Paris, the Seine was the best way to ship grains and wines from central France to the North Sea. The same with the Rhine cities. The great merchant barons of the Northern Italian Markets, almost all started out as commodity brokers for the church.

[mtrueman]

You're giving too much credit to the church. Metal working and market places have been around longer than any organized religion. The guilds had a fair degree of independence from the Crown and the church, as did the smiths of the middle ages.

"Also, the merchant guilds developed out of agriculture, not on their own. They developed out of farmers fairs, many of which were originally founded by monasteries."

I think the guilds came about due to their location on trade routes. Though holy days and religious festivals must have played a part. Something like 150 days of the year were religious holy days during the middle ages, and merchants would set up shop on the roads OUTSIDE the monasteries. Also, OUTSIDE the walled cities, again evidence for distance and separation between merchants and state/church authorities.

[soldiermedic76]

I'm not saying the one created the other, but that neither was divorced from the other. Religion was all pervasive in the Middle Ages. A denizen from the 14th century England or France wouldn't even be able to comprehend, not because of ignorance but because of how alien a concept it would be, a world that separates religion from every day life. And I think I mentioned the fact that all religions of metal working people had a God of the forge or incorporated fire and metal into their deities. Yahweh and Allah both were associated with fire and metal working, long before Christ and Mohammed (Allah was worshipped by a small cult for centuries before Mohammed was born). From a strictly anthropological view, both Yahweh/Jehovah and Allah are forge and fire gods. As much as Vulcan or Brokkre. I was stating you are wrong when you say smithing is of the Earth and therefore not something a clergy would study is wrong on both an historical, and a theological basis. Yahweh, God, Jehovah is God of everything, the heavens and the earth. The skies and the depths in the Judeo-Christian pantheon. The concept of heaven above and hell below is really a superimposition of Greco-Roman pantheons onto Judeo-Christian pantheon during the Renaissance by artist such as Dante. There are some references, such as the ascension of Christ and Elijah, or the reference in Revelations to casting the serpent into the pit but these aren't definitive. Besides Revelations is probably the hardest and most misunderstood books of the Bible, followed closely by Genesis. And most argued over books. Does Jesus' ascension mean heaven is only above, or that when he was taken to Heaven God raised him above the on lookers? Or was it even a physical ascension or rather a spiritual ascension? Is Heaven even able to be physically placed in this universe or is it outside, a different realm. To say the skies are God's but not the Earth is to totally misunderstand Christianity. Which is of God to a Christian, Heaven or Earth? To which most will reply 'Yes'. Especially a Middle Ages monk.

[TheReEncogitationer]

One, the Church hasn't lived a few thousand years, only two thousand max, depending on when rock-head Peter got the blessing, assuming Jesus and the Disciples actually even existed.

Two, False causation Fallacy. Just because science and learning occured in institutions ran by religion doesn't mean religion is the cause of science and learning.

That equally goes for Islam and it's vaunted support of math and science, much of which were done by the Freethinkers and Apostates of their part of the world, such as Abu Sina, Ibn Rushd (a.k.a. Averroes,) Ibn Warraq, Omar Khayyam, and Ar-Razr (a.k.a. Rheses in Chaucer's works,)

And, in fact, Pre-Socratic Science, the Empiricism and Rationalism of the Charvaka/Lokayata School of India, the Socratic Method of Rational Inquiry, Aristotle's Laws of Logic and his explorations of natural phenomenon all took place without religion. And in both India and Greece, these great things occured against the prevailing climate of religion.

Three, religion, by attributing the cause of Life, The Universe, and Everything to the Supernatural, was not an explainer, but rather asserted the futility of explanation. The very institution that has always been on the ass-end of new discoveries and new innovations has always been religion.

Lest anyone forget, the Christian Church just in recent times trashed lightning rods, street lamps, contraceptives, anesthetics, In-Vitro Fertilization, and are to this day railing against Transhumanists, Imortalists, Extropians, and Singularitarians in their quest to move beyond the physical and biological limits of the human condition.

Stick to your homely homilies and let the grown-ups do their thing in what the Late, Great Walter E. Williams called "pushing back the frontiers of ignorance."

[soldiermedic76]

Socrates and Aristotle didn't take place outside religion. The both were devoted Athenians and prescribed to the cult of Athenia, and neither viewed their work outside the framework of the Greek Pantheon. Another myth. Also, your view of religion as creating the futility of understanding creation is completely backwards. The Abrahamic religions for example, teaches us to better understand God and his creation. To seek a better understanding of how and why, to understand the who.
And not the Christian church, certain sects of it. Those were never universal, or even popular, movements. In fact, some of the first places Franklin installed lightening rods on were churches, because they often were the tallest buildings in town, and thus were more prone to be struck by lightening, thus the church administrators had an incentive to protect their property against lightening.
You paint all Christians all 2 billion of us by the beliefs of a small minority. Who the majority of us have loudly proclaimed multiple times don't represent us or our beliefs. You ascribe atheism to people who wouldn't even comprehend the concept of atheism. And those apostates and freethinkers were often devout Muslims, who ran afoul of one of the clerics, and thus were labeled apostates (it should be noted Shi'a and Sunni both accuse the others of being apostates, but both are undoubtedly Muslims). Luther was excommunicated and accused of heresy, but was undeniably Christian. Your entire post is ignorant of history and theological beliefs of the major Abrahamic religions. We get it you hate religion, but it is also obvious you don't understand it,but still try and lecture on it and overgeneralize. As I've pointed out multiple times in the past. You also take the most obscure examples to damn the whole. This is neither enlightened or insightful but ignorant and ethnocentric.
Next you'll be saying all Christians believe in snake handling. And by Christian Church which church? Which denomination? Was it official dogma? Or was it certain clergy? Certain congregations? Did the Roman Catholics and Eastern Orthodoxies and Lutherans and Anglicans and Baptists and Methodists etc all protest lightening rods? Street lamps, etc? Was it even widely held. Remember 80+% of 19th Century Americans and Europeans routinely attended church and identified as Christians and if every Christian church denounced lightening rods and street lamps how did they ever succeed? It isn't even logical. If all those Muslim intellectuals were apostates, why did Muslims from the Caliphate of Baghdad, to the Caliphates in Spain and Portugal spread their knowledge? Because Apostotary is punishable by death in the Koran and anyone spreading the work of apostates is equally guilty. Again, it's simply not logical. And I doubt they would have agreed with your label. Also, was Luther not a freethinker? Wycliffe? Hus? Granted the latter two were executed and all three excommunicated, by one sect, but their work created new sects. And many spoke out against their treatment, many high ranking clergy. It wasn't universal. In fact,during Hus trial several Cardinals left in protest over his treatment. Actually, before mass communication, congregations tended to have much more freedom because a monk in Scotland may not know the pope had died for up to a year, and that a new pope had been elected or what his edicts were. Even a bishop or archbishop's sees were way to large to control any individual church. The archbishop of Canterbury's see in the 14th century covered two thirds of England. And large portions of Wales and Cornwell. Do you think he knew what the priest in Devonshire was preaching? Or the priest and the slum church in Sussex? Do you think that priest in the church in the slums of Sussex knew what the popes latest edict was, or even who the pope was?
There are hundreds of Lutheran denominations and two major governing 'universal' Lutheran bodies, neither of which recognizes the other and both claim to be the true Lutheran governing body. The LCMS and ECLA disagree on almost everything, and the LCMS won't allow members of the ECLA to take communion or be confirmed in the LCMS, or to be clergy (but the ECLA practices open communion, so all can partake, their worthiness is between them and God). So how can you use a term like Christians condemned with a straight face? It's just an ignorant statement to make. Surprising for someone who claims to be pushing back ignorance.
As for your last paragraph, how many peer reviewed scientific articles do you have published? I'm betting I have more. So which of us needs to sit down and let the grown ups talk.

[soldiermedic76]

How many national and international science conferences have you spoken at? I'm betting not as many as I have. Or how many articles have you peer reviewed? Can you explain the difference in cellulose and amylose without looking it up on Google? And explain how the difference in bonding impacts digestion in the mammalian digestive tract? And it's importance in the foraging behavior of the herbivore? Should we discuss microbiology? Pathology? Immunology? Developmental biology? Maybe biochemistry? You want to have a dick measuring contest on the sciences to determine who is the adult? Really? One can, and often are, both a theists and a scientists. The two are not contradictory, except to the small minded, both atheist and theist. My major professor, probably one of the most brilliant scientists in his field, who has been headhunted by the best universities in our field, is a devout Muslim. Gee, how can he be a world recognized expert in his field and religious?

[TheReEncogitationer]

Look, I'm sorry to be The loose horseshoe nail in yours and Mtruman's Gish Gallop, but you haven't refuted a damn thing about my original post.

Humans pursued, systematized, communicated, and institutionalized knowledge long before Paganism, Judaism, Christianity and Islam and even before Hinduism and even to lesser degrees before religions prior to that.

And they did so frequently despite and against the beliefs and practices of these religions.

And, barring an extinction event that includes our species, humans--and whatever we may become--will continue to pursue, systematized, communicate, and institutionalize knowledge after religion.

[Chumby]

Carry on bitter dingers.

[TheReEncogitationer]

Hey, Harvard! There’s a new Sheriff in town! And the Sheriff is a *Wind-Chime!*
🙂

[rbike]

In high school I hung out with the Asians. They were often the sons or daughters of the STEM professors at the local state university. This included the class valedictorian. This was a total different culture than this redneck farmer raised kid was used to, but it was a good thing for me. I couldn't compete on raw intelligence or parental support but willingness to work hard did prove successful for me.

[Earth-based Human Skeptic]

But you were more likable, right?

[Marshal]

/How did Harvard justify that? They said Americans of Asian descent score lower in personal attributes, like "likability."

It's revealing that left wingers suddenly don't believe disparate impact proves racism. It's even more revealing that they continue to assert it does in contexts where they dislike the outcomes even as they deny it when they support the results.

[Nazi-Chipping Warlock]

Well, after all, "logic" is racist. They truly do not care about being consistent.

[Social Justice is neither]

They are consistent though, if it gives them power it's permitted, if it doesn't it must be crushed.

[sarcasmic]

Know what else is revealing?

You guessed it! Magic tricks!

[TheReEncogitationer]

By Hitler?

[Kungpowderfinger]

"It's possible that some of that is anti-Asian bias, but you certainly can't prove that….“

We’ll see about that, britches.

Let the law suits roll.

[BigT]

Harvard: Systemic racism good!

SCOTUS: Systemic racism illegal.

This ruling removes a very rare example of real systemic racism, racism that is independent of the people involved and is baked into the system.

[Earth-based Human Skeptic]

Get woke! Good racism is good, bad racism is bad. Why can't you understand?

[sarcasmic]

Racism is only racist when it adversely effects black people. And if racism benefits blacks then it's justice, not racism. Don't you people know anything?

[Spiritus Mundi]

And if racism benefits blacks then it’s justice, not racism.

I believe the kids call that anti-racism.

[sarcasmic]

Hey Dick Hole. You demanded that I put you on mute. That means that any replies to my posts are nothing but a performance for your troll buddies, since I will neither read nor reply at your request. So if you had something thoughtful to say and wanted me to reply, it's not happening. Stick it.

[Chumby]

Where does Spiritus Mundi rank on the list?

[Spiritus Mundi]

"It's possible that some of that is anti-Asian bias, but you certainly can't prove that…. When you have a long history of discrimination based on race, you have to take race into account."

I know the ... means those points didn't follow each other. But wow, how oblivious can you be?

[hpearce]

"Affirmative Action Is Racist and Therefore Wrong"

Totally ANTI-LIBERTRAIAN. !!!

Freedom of Association supports racist associations too

[TheReEncogitationer]

Freedom of Association at your own expense!

If Harvard wants to pull this stupid shit with Asians, just like they did with with their stupid shit with quotas on Jews 100+ years ago, then let Harvard do so without Gummint Cheez from DOE-backed subsidies, student loans, and Pell Grants!

Otherwise, their Ivy-covered Ivory Towers need to come down and join the Kentucky Fescue ranch house set.

[Earth-based Human Skeptic]

"It's a victory for Students for Fair Admissions, the group that sued, thereby forcing Harvard to admit that Asians had to score 22 points higher on the SAT than whites, 63 points higher than blacks."

Asian scores up only 22 points on whites and 63 points on blacks? These youngest asians are slacking.

[mtrueman]

Asian is rather vague. Israel is part of Asia, so is Cambodia. Are their SAT scores remotely comparable? Whites and blacks, too. Wales and Finland, Nigeria and Jamaica. Is there a national breakdown available instead of the one used in the article? A breakdown of parental income and education level might be useful as well. If the goal is to give disadvantaged but otherwise gifted students a leg up, focusing on racial features may not be the best way to go about it.

[JasonT20]

I agree. Affirmative action based on race is entirely a creation aimed at correcting for a century of open discrimination against Black people that followed two centuries of slavery. At this point, it is unlikely to be effective at doing that, even aside from legal questions. What might be effective are policies that look to reduce the gaps in opportunities for a disadvantaged child of any race, national origin, gender, etc. compared to those that have wealthy and connected parents.

Stossel's suggestion along these lines:

If activists want to help young people, they should start before college. Promote school choice. It allows all kids to escape bad public schools.

That is hammer that libertarians want to use to solve every problem with education. Everything looks like a nail to them, since they are ideologically wedded to school choice as the solution.

[mtrueman]

I've said before, Americans have always had the ability to choose what school to send their kids. When Reason uses the words 'school choice' they mean subsidizing private schools with public money. That Stossel is reduced to vague euphemism and tired boilerplate when it comes to offering an alternative solutions speaks volumes.

[Truthfulness]

This isn't true. While private school was always available, many lower-income families couldn't afford to pay for such education, and thus get assigned to a public school by the government. The teacher unions want to keep it that way too, despite the terrible performances of many of these schools.

The vouchers are a step in the right direction where the tax money goes directly to the student, which in turn can decide what school to attend.

The best solution is to eliminate government involvement altogether, and let families keep the tax money and give their children the education they deem best for them.

[TJJ2000]

John Stossel is so good. +1000000000000000.

Of course racism / sexism is what [Na]tional So[zi]alists do because their very base ideology requires classification of people to determine those who will be ENSLAVED (taxpayers) and those who will be *ENTITLED* (special people). It is literally a pure cancellation of Individual Liberty and Justice for *all*.

People who ignore history are bound to keep repeating it.

[mtrueman]

"People who ignore history..."

Are probably studying STEM fields and will make lots of money after graduating.

[TJJ2000]

The Nazi's will fix that success with Gov-Gun Wealth distribution.
Why it's that darn STEM market adding-value to their lives they curse the most.

[mtrueman]

Say what you want about the Nazis, but they were quite happy to let those who were unhappy with their regime to leave the country and set themselves up elsewhere.

The Bolsheviks early on encouraged dissidents to leave - their "philosopher's steamers." That ended in 1922 and after emigration was strictly controlled.

[TJJ2000]

Bolshevik Russia, later renamed the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR). The Russian Social-Democratic Workers' Party.

Yep; That's exactly what this nation is being conquered by. The socialist ideology that destroyed the USSR. The Conquer and Consume ideology. The same ideology that killed Venezuela not even a decade ago. The same ideology of the German Nazi's. Now the USSR-fans (hut hum: Bernie Sanders) is off to conquer the USA now that they ate and destroyed the USSR. Thank goodness that 'socialist' nightmare was ended before they started to execute by gas-chambers those "quite happy to let those who were unhappy with their regime to leave the country" in a body bag.

...because that's what Nazi's do.

Those that set themselves up here were the founders of the USA (the greatest nation in history) so anyone who hates the USA here and pushes to create a Nazi-Empire should be charged with treason not elected as politicians.

[mtrueman]

“The socialist ideology that destroyed the USSR.”

It was thanks to socialist ideology that USSR became the first nation to launch ICBMs, successfully land on Venus, Mars and the Moon, sweep the medals at the Olympics, and many similar achievements you don’t find being accomplished by destroyed countries. The USSR was destroyed by opening up and letting the population see the great gap in the creature comforts between them and the West. That and Chernobyl made it clear that it was time for a change of regime. To its credit, the communist party under Gorbachev was willing to accept the judgement of history.

"anyone who hates the USA here and pushes to create a Nazi-Empire should be charged with treason not elected as politicians."

You've got your work cut out for you there. Good luck.

[Chumby]

The low oil prices due to the Saudis flooding the market and thousands of cargo 200 returning from Afghanistan also helped spell the end for the CCCP. Propping up other socialist nations hurt them as well.

[mtrueman]

"Propping up other socialist nations hurt them as well."

Good points about oil and Afghanistan. They gave a lot of support to Vietnam, supplying them with materiel to chase out the Americans and later to defeat Pol Pot. (The most lively market in Phenom Penh is called 'The Russian Market.) Looking at it from an economic point of view, over the long run, it's not a bad investment. Vietnam today has a relatively a strong vibrant economy, and, at the same time, according to my communist friend who gave up on China, is the most socialist of the countries that call themselves socialist. For what it's worth, it scores among the highest in the world when it comes to COVID response.

[Chumby]

They also propped up much of eastern Europe and the puppet regime in Afghanistan. That didn’t work out so well. I’m not sure Moscow was subsidizing HMC after the US was kicked out.
I think Vietnam was going to do ok once the western imperialists left. Had an online friend there but lost touch after the govt banned an app and she couldn’t afford a VPN. She was a happy person though never commented on covid restrictions.

[mtrueman]

"They also propped up much of eastern Europe"

I'm not sure of that. All the best consumer goods available in the USSR came from Eastern Europe. Think Zeiss lenses. Eastern European goods were always in great demand and seen universally as being superior to Russian counterparts.

[Chumby]

The DDR was an exception though I wouldn’t use cherry-picked Zeiss as the measuring stick. A Trabant, Lada, Zastava or Dacia…meh. I don’t know Skoda.

[TheReEncogitationer]

Bullshit! Tell that to all the Nazi victims who couldn't turn the train cars away from the death camps under Nazi occupation!

And at that time before 1922, the Communists didn't have complete control of Russia and the other lands that became Soviet "Republics."

Why don't you do your Nazi "pose" on a rotten plank over the Danube!

Fuck Off, Watermelon Rickshaw Boy!

[mtrueman]

Read about the voyage of the St. Louis, a German ship sailing from Hamburg months before the war started.
WIkipedia:
"Under the command of Captain Gustav Schröder, St. Louis set sail from Hamburg to Havana, Cuba on May 13, 1939, carrying 937 passengers, most of them Jewish refugees[4][5] seeking asylum from Nazi persecution in Germany.

Captain Schröder was a German[6] who went to great lengths to ensure dignified treatment for his passengers.[7] Food served included items subject to rationing in Germany, and childcare was available while parents dined. Dances and concerts were put on, and on Friday evenings, religious services were held in the dining room. A bust of Hitler was covered by a tablecloth. Swimming lessons took place in the pool. Lothar Molton, a boy traveling with his parents, said that the passengers thought of it as "a vacation cruise to freedom".[8] "

It didn't end well and some 30% of the passengers were eventual murdered by the Nazis. But the Captain did his utmost not to return with the passengers to Germany, even contemplating running the ship aground of Florida to force to issue.

[TheReEncogitationer]

I know all about the Good Ship St. Louis and you made my point for me. The passengers, because of both U.S. immigration policy and German ownership of the ship weren’t free to leave the grips of Nazism and you should still strike your “pose” on a rotten plank over the Danube.

[mtrueman]

"I know all about the Good Ship St. Louis and you made my point for me. "

My point is that Nazis allowed people to come and go until the war started. Bolsheviks, with the exception of the 1922 Philospher's Steamers, didn't.

[TheReEncogitationer]

People can do both, Dummy!

[JasonT20]

Those admitted with lower standards often struggle or drop out.

This could be true, but it is an assertion that should be backed up with data.

John Stossel states that Asian students had to score 63 points higher than Black students to gain acceptance to Harvard and 22 points higher than whites. Sounds like a lot. But the average SAT score of those admitted to Harvard is 1520, according to PrepScholar, a website for prospective college students. Assuming that white students were scoring around the overall average, that would put Asian students admitted at about 1540 and Black students at around 1480. These Black students admitted under "lower standards" are thus still in the top 4% of all students that take the SAT. I am skeptical that any of the students that are accepted to Harvard based on academics struggle due to affirmative action.

I would think that only students that can get in without even a 1400 would be the ones that would struggle. That is why I want to see Stossel back up his claim that 1480 isn't good enough to do well at Harvard.

[mtrueman]

" I am skeptical that any of the students that are accepted to Harvard based on academics struggle due to affirmative action. "

The struggling students I imagine are those that sailed through high school without effort, without developing good study habits, where they stood head and shoulders above their classmates. Once in Harvard, among their intellectual equals, lack of good study habits takes its toll.

[JasonT20]

Totally. That is something that can happen to students with or without affirmative action.

[Honest Economics]

For sound economic perspective go to https://honesteconomics.substack.com/

[TheReEncogitationer]

Unless you have an economic impact statement on the loss to the economy caused by Affirmative Action, no!

[drisco304]

A lot of it is elitist conceit. University administrators say that only they can prepare the perfect diversity environment for their students and who are these miserable peons on the Supreme Court to say we're not doing it right.

[MWAocdoc]

I think it's interesting that neither side in the legal case tried to claim that preferential treatment for black students actually improved the outcomes for black people or society or achieved the goals they were aiming for. Is this because preferential admissions failed to achieve those goals and might have damaged the narrative of white institutional guilt?

[JasonT20]

Cases that revolve around the constitutionality or legality of policies almost never examine whether the policy actually works as advertised. It isn't a court's job to look at that. It is only the court's job to examine whether the policy goals and methods of trying to achieve them are consistent with the Constitution and other laws.

[mtrueman]

"Is this because preferential admissions failed to achieve those goals and might have damaged the narrative of white institutional guilt?"

More likely that during the period of preferential admissions, society expectations, regardless of race, for each generation to outperform the previous have been eroded. The context of white institutional guilt, the war on drugs, poor school performance etc has likely overwhelmed any positive effects of preferential admissions to university.

[yiginim]

online job from home. Last month i have earned and received $16650 from this job-home- by giving this only 3 hrs a a day.Every person can now get this job and start earning online by follow details.Click the link————>>> GOOGLE WORK

[IceTrey]

Why is racism wrong? Racism is a state of mind. Thoughts and feelings are amoral. Morality deals solely with actions. The only objectively immoral action is coercion. Harvard is a private business and should be able to discriminate however they choose. Of course they should receive no government funding.

[TheReEncogitationer]

Although initiating coercion is wrong, it is the reason why it is wrong that says that other things are obviously immoral actions besides just initiating coercion.

Initiating coercion is wrong because in negates and destroys Man The Rational Animal's ability to act upon his Reason in service of his life.

This presupposes and implies that brazen, willful Irrationality is also immoral and Racism is one form of Irrationality. And a Government that dictates the Irrationality of Racism via law, regulation, and the control and perverse incentives of subsidy is Irrationality piled on top of Irrationality.

[Earth-based Human Skeptic]

" Single parent households. Criminal records. Below-average IQ. Below-average income."

Great. Once Harvard celebrates these "virtues" as desirable traits we can certify the success of the Great Society, and all Democratic social initiatives since the 1960s.

[debo10]

As a black man I couldn’t agree more! Affirmative action has done more harm to black progress than racism. We became entitled, lazy, and non-competitive.

[SoniaKaley]

Google is by and by paying $27485 to $29658 consistently for taking a shot at the web from home. I have joined this action 2 months back and I have earned $31547 in my first month from this action. I can say my life is improved completely! Take a gander at it what I do.....
For more detail visit the given link..........>>> http://Www.SalaryApp1.com

[Thenterage]

I am creating an honest wage from home 1900 Dollars/week , that is wonderful, below a year agone i used to be unemployed during a atrocious economy. I convey God on a daily basis i used to be endowed these directions and currently it's my duty to pay it forward and share it with everybody, Here is I started.....
HERE====)>))> http://www.dailypro7.com