• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Are you smarter than The Obama?

Are you smarter than The Obama?

  • Total voters
    33
Status
Not open for further replies.
What if...? said:
Just to be clear, what I am referring to is descendents of slaves. And lingering effects of selective breeding from that period.
Click to expand...

That's fine. Recent immigrants from Africa and from the Caribbean outperform native born African-Americans but that's due to selection effect - it's the brain drain from Africa to America - we're getting African physicians, engineers and scientists, so of course this small select group does better than the population as a whole.

African immigrants do very well in the US, so that pretty much blows the discrimination theory all to shreds:

African immigrants in the United States are generally more educated and earn larger salaries compared to people from other continents, but their success depends on what country they come from, according to a new report.

The study was conducted by Kefa M. Otiso, a professor of Geography at Bowling Green State University in Ohio. Otiso said the project, which draws data from the 2000 U.S. Census, began “just out of curiosity” by comparing Kenya and Ghana. During the Kenyan Diaspora investment forum in Atlanta, Ga., in March, Otiso presented his findings in a report on how Kenyan immigrants were doing economically. They did surprisingly better when compared to the general U.S. population, the report showed then.

It was out of that realization that Otiso decided to examine immigrants from other African countries to see how they compared against each other and the U.S. general population, he said. The data showed that 75 percent of African immigrants come from 12 of 54 countries namely, Nigeria, Egypt, Ghana, Ethiopia, South Africa, Kenya, Liberia, Somalia, Morocco, Cape Verde, Sierra Leone and Sudan.

“The more I learned, the more I realized that although we come from the same continent and have a lot of similarities, we are very different,” Otiso said.

Overall, Africans immigrants performed better than the rest of the U.S. population in education and employment, the report shows. For instance, the rate of Africans with an undergraduate degree and above was 43 percent, compared to 24 percent among general U.S. population.
​

In fact, liberals in academia who are so caught up in the facile reputation game embedded within the whole diversity fad purposely seek out such students in order to bolster their institution's statistical profiles and earn bragging rights:

Study #1

A new study has found that among high school graduates, “immigrant blacks” -- defined as those who immigrated to the United States or their children -- are significantly more likely than other black Americans to attend selective colleges. In fact, immigrant black Americans are more likely than white students to attend such colleges.​

Study #2:

While about 8 percent, or about 530, of Harvard's undergraduates were black, Lani Guinier, a Harvard law professor, and Henry Louis Gates Jr., the chairman of Harvard's African and African-American studies department, pointed out that the majority of them — perhaps as many as two-thirds — were West Indian and African immigrants or their children, or to a lesser extent, children of biracial couples.

Globally, as far as I know, genetic differences are environmentally explainable and statistically neutral.
Click to expand...

Nice qualification there. You're wrong on both points. I guess what you don't know is really limiting your understanding.

The only actual genetic factor that I think is statistically relevant is intellect. The difference between the very smart and the least smart is FAR more significant than any racial variance.And I think geniuses pop up pretty evenly dispersed amongst the various racial subsets, allowing for external factors (inbreeding for instance).
Click to expand...

Sweet Jaysus, is this what's it's like to walk around in a liberal bubble where reality has been so deformed by liberal propaganda that you actually end up believing the agitprop?

Do you have an inkling of how small the Jewish population is in terms of the world population? The following is an astounding falsification of your creationist belief-set:

At least 181 Jews and people of half- or three-quarters-Jewish ancestry have been awarded the Nobel Prize,1 accounting for 22% of all individual recipients worldwide between 1901 and 2010, and constituting 36% of all US recipients2 during the same period.3 In the research fields of Chemistry, Economics, Physics, and Physiology/Medicine, the corresponding world and US percentages are 26% and 39%, respectively. Among women laureates in the four research fields, the Jewish percentages (world and US) are 38% and 50%, respectively. Of organizations awarded the Nobel Peace Prize, 25% were founded principally by Jews or by people of half-Jewish descent. (Jews currently make up approximately 0.2% of the world's population and 2% of the US population.)​
 
TurtleDude said:
Obama got into harvard law because he was black.
Click to expand...
It would be easier to believe you if he didn't go on to become President of the HLR and then a professor for 12 years at UofC where he was offered tenure multiple times.
 
Thunder said:
My work is FULL of African immigrants who are engineers, PEs, etc. Much fewer African-Americans with long American history.

clearly, centuries of slavery and then segregation has had an effect on the abilities of African-Americans..but has NOT effected their brethren born in Africa.

could 500 years of slavery and segregation effect the genes of these people? doubt it. but it sure can effect their traditions, upbringing, culture, etc etc.

in high school I remember hearing about black kids insulting their black friends for doing well on tests. they were accused of trying to "be white".

this is a cultural thing, not a genetic thing. and it seems to not effect their native-African brethren.
Click to expand...

The four hundred years of slavery is plenty to have a genetic impact where people are bred like animals.

Personality traits like ambition would be selected out. Docility, complacency would be selected in. I can't imagine a slave owner wanting a genius new slave to breed. Or a natural engineer. Anyone he might tend to find equal or superior to himself. Easier for him to convince himself he's superior in order to justify owning slaves.
 
Thunder said:
Some black scholars have argued that the term "African-American" should refer strictly to the descendents of West or Central African slaves and free people of color who survived the slavery-era, and not the sons and daughters of black immigrants who lack that ancestry.[151] The argument being that grouping all blacks together regardless of their unique ancestral circumstances would inevitably deny the lingering effects of slavery with in the American slave descendent community, in addition to denying black immigrants recognition of their own unique ancestral backgrounds.

In the book The End of Blackness published by author Debra Dickerson, she warned against drawing favorable cultural implications from upwardly mobile black immigrants who are not the sons and daughters of American slavery and racial segregation. She used the political rise of President Barack Obama, who is the son of a Kenyan immigrant, a result of "Lumping us all together,"[152] Dickerson claimed it, "erases the significance of slavery and continuing racism while giving the appearance of progress." On the liberal website Salon Dickerson wrote, "African-American", in our political and social vocabulary, means those descended from West African slaves".
African American - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

looks like I'm not alone in my view.
Click to expand...

it's a normative belief. It's just an opinion. Barack Obama isn't not an African-American simply because some black scholars decided that the term should be redefined. Barack obama is an American. He is also of African descent through his father. That's African-American enough for me.
 
What if...? said:
The four hundred years of slavery is plenty to have a genetic impact where people are bred like animals.

Personality traits like ambition would be selected out. Docility, complacency would be selected in. I can't imagine a slave owner wanting a genius new slave to breed. Or a natural engineer. Anyone he might tend to find equal or superior to himself. Easier for him to convince himself he's superior in order to justify owning slaves.
Click to expand...

at the same time, one must be very strong and have a strong will to live to survive the northwest passage.

and the same qualities to survive the hard-labor of slavery.

so yes, intelligence was not a required trait for slavery.

is it possible slavery, segregation, single-parenthood, and even welfare has helped breed a sub-set of Africans that are very strong but on average less intelligent?

what a horrible thought. :(
 
theplaydrive said:
It would be easier to believe you if he didn't go on to become President of the HLR and then a professor for 12 years at UofC where he was offered tenure multiple times.
Click to expand...

..some would have us believe that this was all out of sympathy for his being half-black.
 
Thunder said:
prove it.

what was his LSAT score? what was his undergrad GPA?
Click to expand...

well to graduate with honors at columbia he needed a 3.3 or higher and he didn't make that. Thus we can conclude without any contradiction he had below a 3.3. To graduate with distinction in his major he would need 2/3 As with a A on the final paper or exam or 3/4 As with a B on the final test or paper and he didn't achieve that either.

Even with a perfect LSAT score his chances of getting into Harvard Law as a white male with a sub 3.3 GPA and no significant extra curricular activity (like a Medal of Honor, a Rhodes scholarship or say an olympic gold medal) was essentially zero
 
theplaydrive said:
It would be easier to believe you if he didn't go on to become President of the HLR and then a professor for 12 years at UofC where he was offered tenure multiple times.
Click to expand...


how you do at Harvard really had no relevance as to your application when you applied

I mentioned that my first year roommate was the highest scoring applicant to yale the year I went there

perfect SAT scores valedictorian at one of the oldest prep schools in the USA with the highest scores in the history of that place plus he took a national math test and cleaned it-first time ever. He flunked out of Yale because he had become a coke fiend. Using your tortured logic, Yale should not have let him in because he later flunked out
 
RiverDad said:
That's fine. Recent immigrants from Africa and from the Caribbean outperform native born African-Americans but that's due to selection effect - it's the brain drain from Africa to America - we're getting African physicians, engineers and scientists, so of course this small select group does better than the population as a whole.

African immigrants do very well in the US, so that pretty much blows the discrimination theory all to shreds:

African immigrants in the United States are generally more educated and earn larger salaries compared to people from other continents, but their success depends on what country they come from, according to a new report.

The study was conducted by Kefa M. Otiso, a professor of Geography at Bowling Green State University in Ohio. Otiso said the project, which draws data from the 2000 U.S. Census, began “just out of curiosity” by comparing Kenya and Ghana. During the Kenyan Diaspora investment forum in Atlanta, Ga., in March, Otiso presented his findings in a report on how Kenyan immigrants were doing economically. They did surprisingly better when compared to the general U.S. population, the report showed then.

It was out of that realization that Otiso decided to examine immigrants from other African countries to see how they compared against each other and the U.S. general population, he said. The data showed that 75 percent of African immigrants come from 12 of 54 countries namely, Nigeria, Egypt, Ghana, Ethiopia, South Africa, Kenya, Liberia, Somalia, Morocco, Cape Verde, Sierra Leone and Sudan.

“The more I learned, the more I realized that although we come from the same continent and have a lot of similarities, we are very different,” Otiso said.

Overall, Africans immigrants performed better than the rest of the U.S. population in education and employment, the report shows. For instance, the rate of Africans with an undergraduate degree and above was 43 percent, compared to 24 percent among general U.S. population.
​

In fact, liberals in academia who are so caught up in the facile reputation game embedded within the whole diversity fad purposely seek out such students in order to bolster their institution's statistical profiles and earn bragging rights:

Study #1

A new study has found that among high school graduates, “immigrant blacks” -- defined as those who immigrated to the United States or their children -- are significantly more likely than other black Americans to attend selective colleges. In fact, immigrant black Americans are more likely than white students to attend such colleges.​

Study #2:

While about 8 percent, or about 530, of Harvard's undergraduates were black, Lani Guinier, a Harvard law professor, and Henry Louis Gates Jr., the chairman of Harvard's African and African-American studies department, pointed out that the majority of them — perhaps as many as two-thirds — were West Indian and African immigrants or their children, or to a lesser extent, children of biracial couples.



Nice qualification there. You're wrong on both points. I guess what you don't know is really limiting your understanding.



Sweet Jaysus, is this what's it's like to walk around in a liberal bubble where reality has been so deformed by liberal propaganda that you actually end up believing the agitprop?

Do you have an inkling of how small the Jewish population is in terms of the world population? The following is an astounding falsification of your creationist belief-set:

At least 181 Jews and people of half- or three-quarters-Jewish ancestry have been awarded the Nobel Prize,1 accounting for 22% of all individual recipients worldwide between 1901 and 2010, and constituting 36% of all US recipients2 during the same period.3 In the research fields of Chemistry, Economics, Physics, and Physiology/Medicine, the corresponding world and US percentages are 26% and 39%, respectively. Among women laureates in the four research fields, the Jewish percentages (world and US) are 38% and 50%, respectively. Of organizations awarded the Nobel Peace Prize, 25% were founded principally by Jews or by people of half-Jewish descent. (Jews currently make up approximately 0.2% of the world's population and 2% of the US population.)​
Click to expand...

Ok, I SPECIFICALLY qualified for inbreeding. And considering environmental pressures on European Jews, it makes perfect sense that that population would have a disproportionate percentage of really smart people because they're te descendants of those who managed to SURVIVE.

You have all this info at the tips of your fingers, so you obviously know more about the subject than I do.

Your stridence in regard to what can only be a difference of opinion about DEGREE of genetic difference, as well as the language you use is disturbing.

I think there are significant differences between people that are genetic and not often discussed. I think what I refer to as the "Peasant Mind" is a real thing. The result of millenia of people living as peasants. Differing from populations that did not do so in significant ways.

I would love to kick this idea around with someone who is knowledgeable on the subject, but you're really beginning to sound like a sophisticated racist.
 
Thunder said:
at the same time, one must be very strong and have a strong will to live to survive the northwest passage.

and the same qualities to survive the hard-labor of slavery.

so yes, intelligence was not a required trait for slavery.

is it possible slavery, segregation, single-parenthood, and even welfare has helped breed a sub-set of Africans that are very strong but on average less intelligent?

what a horrible thought. :(
Click to expand...

I don't really think they'd select for a lack of intelligence, as it would lower utility. Just culling the blazing intellects would have a negative effect for generations. Everywhere they have killed all the smart people there are lingering effects.

Personality traits like curiosity and ambition would more likely be selected away from.
 
What if...? said:
I don't really think they'd select for a lack of intelligence, as it would lower utility. Just culling the blazing intellects would have a negative effect for generations. Everywhere they have killed all the smart people there are lingering effects.

Personality traits like curiosity and ambition would more likely be selected away from.
Click to expand...

its not too much of a stretch to suggest that for centuries, slaves & their descendants were bred to improve the strength and physical stamina of the "herd", while things like intelligence & logical skills were totally ignored.

however, the cultural factor simply cannot be ignored. generations of blacks have been tought that they have no right or place being smart of being intellectual. this has continued through a horrific cultural attitude of self-hatred and putting down fellow blacks who srtive to achieve academically.

put it all together, and we have a society that feels destined to fail and might even prefer it. its a terrible thing.
 
TurtleDude said:
how you do at Harvard really had no relevance as to your application when you applied

I mentioned that my first year roommate was the highest scoring applicant to yale the year I went there

perfect SAT scores valedictorian at one of the oldest prep schools in the USA with the highest scores in the history of that place plus he took a national math test and cleaned it-first time ever. He flunked out of Yale because he had become a coke fiend. Using your tortured logic, Yale should not have let him in because he later flunked out
Click to expand...
/cool story bro

Obama didn't go straight from Columbia to Harvard, he had several years of real-world experience before he applied where he was the director of an organization and started several projects within the organization in addition to being a consultant for another organization among other things. This, in combination with his LSAT (which you don't know) and whatever else impacted their decision (and yes, elite schools do consider more than grades) is more than enough to get him in without your interpretation of affirmative action. I know that you think you have the monopoly on elite education, but unless you can provide statements from all those who supervised his admission, then you're just passing off conjecture as fact and from what I remember, that's not rewarded in elite higher education institutions.
 
theplaydrive said:
/cool story bro

Obama didn't go straight from Columbia to Harvard, he had several years of real-world experience before he applied where he was the director of an organization and started several projects within the organization in addition to being a consultant for another organization among other things. This, in combination with his LSAT (which you don't know) and whatever else impacted their decision (and yes, elite schools do consider more than grades) is more than enough to get him in without your interpretation of affirmative action. I know that you think you have the monopoly on elite education, but unless you can provide statements from all those who supervised his admission, then you're just passing off conjecture as fact and from what I remember, that's not rewarded in elite higher education institutions.
Click to expand...

hmm..sounds like Obama might have actually EARNED the right to go to Harvard.

but its much easier to just chaulk it up to affirmative-action.

;)
 
Thunder said:
its not too much of a stretch to suggest that for centuries, slaves & their descendants were bred to improve the strength and physical stamina of the "herd", while things like intelligence & logical skills were totally ignored.

however, the cultural factor simply cannot be ignored. generations of blacks have been tought that they have no right or place being smart of being intellectual. this has continued through a horrific cultural attitude of self-hatred and putting down fellow blacks who srtive to achieve academically.

put it all together, and we have a society that feels destined to fail and might even prefer it. its a terrible thing.
Click to expand...

Of course. It always nature AND nurture when its all said and done.
 
theplaydrive said:
Actually, I'm perfectly correct on all three points.
Click to expand...

No, you're wrong on all 3 points.

1.) No scientist who studies population issues, defines race as "unambiguous, clearly demarcated, biologically distinct groups." Like I told you before, when you, and the writers with a beef who write Wikipedia entries, define racial groups as platonic ideals, then you're arguing a false definition. Here's Jan Klein, a founder of immunogenetics and Naoyuki Takahata, a theoretical population geneticist address this issue in their book. Here is an excerpt:

The proposal to scrap the concept of race altogether is currently only one extreme in a range of views. It is certainly not shared by all anthropologists and is by no means the majority opinion of the public at large. It appears to be a conclusion reached more on the basis of political and philosophical creeds than on scientific arguments. Correspondingly, anthropologists who do hold this opinion often attempt to shout down their opponents rather than convince them by presentation of facts. Their favored method of argumentation is to label anybody who disagrees with them as racist. The public, however, seems unimpressed by their rhetoric. It refuses to believe that the differences they see are a mere figment of their imagination. A lay person can tell with a high degree of accuracy where individuals come from just by glimpsing their features…

Except for some anthropologists, everybody else seems to be able to distinguish people from different parts of the world at a glance by their outward appearance. This, apparently, is also the view of some governmental administrators in countries with programs designed to fight racial discrimination. Obviously, there is a credibility gap on this issue between some anthropologists on one side and the public, as well as the governments of some countries, on the other.

One way to settle the arguments among anthropologists and to reconcile anthropologists with the public might be to move away from physical characters and focus on the genes. If races are real, they should have a genetic basis separable from environmental and cultural influences.​

2.) If intelligence is subjective then it would be impossible for tests which purport to measure intelligence to have any predictive validity. Wouldn't you agree? If what those tests are measuring is all over the map and loosely defined, then those tests would be useless, would they not?

A Study of Human Intelligence: A Review At The Turn Of The Millennium

Studies carried out in the US on the level of prediction of intelligence tests indicate that they are valuable instruments: "psychometric tests are the best predictors of success in school and in the world of work. And what’s more, they are no mean predictors of failure in everyday life, such as falling into poverty or dependence on the state (…). To say that other things are important, apart from intelligence, is not really a challenge until you say precisely what those other things are." According to the APA, standardised measures of intelligence correlate at levels of .50 with school performance, .55 with years of schooling, .54 with work performance, and –.19 with juvenile delinquency. No other psychological variable is capable of producing these correlations.​

Damn, those IQ tests sure seem to correlate well to real world outcomes. In fact, there are no other measures which have greater predictive ability. How on earth can an IQ test predict outcomes if it's measuring subjective gobbledygook?

How can the US Army find these results from administering IQ tests?

Some may wonder: So what? Can't someone who scores low on an aptitude test, even very low, go on to become a fine, competent soldier, especially after going through boot camp and training? No question. Some college drop-outs also end up doing very well in business and other professions. But in general, in the military no less than in the civilian world, the norm turns out to be otherwise.

In a RAND Corp. report commissioned by the office of the secretary of defense and published in 2005, military analyst Jennifer Kavanagh* reviewed a spate of recent statistical studies on the various factors that determine military performance—experience, training, aptitude, and so forth—and concluded that aptitude is key. A force "made up of personnel with high AFQT [armed forces aptitude test] scores," Kavanagh writes, "contributes to a more effective and accurate team performance."

The evidence is overwhelming. Take tank gunners. You wouldn't think intelligence would have much effect on the ability to shoot straight, but apparently it does. Replacing a gunner who'd scored Category IV on the aptitude test (ranking in the 10-30 percentile) with one who'd scored Category IIIA (50-64 percentile) improved the chances of hitting targets by 34 percent. (For more on the meaning of the test scores, click here.)

In another study cited by the RAND report, 84 three-man teams from the Army's active-duty signal battalions were given the task of making a communications system operational. Teams consisting of Category IIIA personnel had a 67 percent chance of succeeding. Those consisting of Category IIIB (who'd ranked in the 31-49 percentile on the aptitude test) had a 47 percent chance. Those with Category IV personnel had only a 29 percent chance.

The same study of signal battalions took soldiers who had just taken advanced individual training courses and asked them to troubleshoot a faulty piece of communications gear. They passed if they were able to identify at least two technical problems. Smarts trumped training. Among those who had scored Category I on the aptitude test (in the 93-99 percentile), 97 percent passed. Among those who'd scored Category II (in the 65-92 percentile), 78 percent passed. Category IIIA: 60 percent passed. Category IIIB: 43 percent passed. Category IV: a mere 25 percent passed.

The pattern is clear: The higher the score on the aptitude test, the better the performance in the field. This is true for individual soldiers and for units. Moreover, the study showed that adding one high-scoring soldier to a three-man signals team boosted its chance of success by 8 percent (meaning that adding one low-scoring soldier boosts its chance of failure by a similar margin).

Smarter also turns out to be cheaper. One study examined how many Patriot missiles various Army air-defense units had to fire in order to destroy 10 targets. Units with Category I personnel had to fire 20 missiles. Those with Category II had to fire 21 missiles. Category IIIA: 22. Category IIIB: 23. Category IV: 24 missiles. In other words, to perform the same task, Category IV units chewed up 20 percent more hardware than Category I units. For this particular task, since each Patriot missile costs about $2 million, they also chewed up $8 million more of the Army's procurement budget.​

Over and over and over again we see that IQ tests have very good predictive ability in terms of a wide-range of human activities. Why on Earth do you think that the liberals in the US Government have legally prohibited private sector employers from using IQ tests in job interviews? Because they work.

3.) Anything that relies on the American Anthropology Association is pretty much easy to discount. The whole field is becoming a joke to those in actual science departments. Here is the New York Times reporting on how the AAA chose to deal with science issues which conflicted with their mission of proselytization:

Anthropologists have been thrown into turmoil about the nature and future of their profession after a decision by the American Anthropological Association at its recent annual meeting to strip the word “science” from a statement of its long-range plan.

The decision has reopened a long-simmering tension between researchers in science-based anthropological disciplines — including archaeologists, physical anthropologists and some cultural anthropologists — and members of the profession who study race, ethnicity and gender and see themselves as advocates for native peoples or human rights.​

Your position amounts to nothing more than an appeal to authority. "See, the American Anthropological Association says this . . " and it utterly fails because the AAA is an organization riddled with post-modern hacks who want to be "advocates" instead of scientists.

This is going to be my last comment in this thread because we've gone far afield from the OP topic and I don't want to get locked out of this thread for derailing it.

It was an interesting discussion, so thanks to all participants. If anyone wants to carry the debate forward I'd be happy to join in in a new thread where the debate would be on-topic.
 
theplaydrive said:
/cool story bro

Obama didn't go straight from Columbia to Harvard, he had several years of real-world experience before he applied where he was the director of an organization and started several projects within the organization in addition to being a consultant for another organization among other things. This, in combination with his LSAT (which you don't know) and whatever else impacted their decision (and yes, elite schools do consider more than grades) is more than enough to get him in without your interpretation of affirmative action. I know that you think you have the monopoly on elite education, but unless you can provide statements from all those who supervised his admission, then you're just passing off conjecture as fact and from what I remember, that's not rewarded in elite higher education institutions.
Click to expand...
so it is your opinion that a GPA below 3.2 was sufficient to get white men into Harvard at that time even though hundreds of men with 3.7 or better GPAs were turned down

and no, Obama didn't do much special in those "years off"
 
TurtleDude said:
so it is your opinion that a GPA below 3.2 was sufficient to get white men into Harvard at that time even though hundreds of men with 3.7 or better GPAs were turned down

and no, Obama didn't do much special in those "years off"
Click to expand...
Yeah, that's what I'm saying and I disagree about his years off. I'm still waiting for those testimonies from the admissions department.
 
theplaydrive said:
Yeah, that's what I'm saying and I disagree about his years off. I'm still waiting for those testimonies from the admissions department.
Click to expand...


well I can tell you my brother was an admissions officer for yale-though not the law school and he admitted what we all knew. blacks with substandard grades and test scores routinely were accepted into top colleges because there were so few who had the grades to meet the normal standard

the fact is blacks were given huge breaks on LSAT and GPAs for merely being black

130 on the LSAT (no I don't know how that translates to the test scores when Obama applied though the policy remained if the test scoring changed) and .5 on the GPA meaning Obama's 3.0-3.2 equalled a white Columbia student's 3.5-3.7

so when I applied to law school (since my senior GPA was a 4.0 my graduating GPA was higher than the one I applied to law schools with) I had a 782, and a 3.55 plus I was a two time All American and had I had won several debating and oratory prizes. Now that meant a Yale black with a 652 and a 3.05 would have been as having the same "numbers" as I had
 
TurtleDude said:
..the fact is blacks were given huge breaks on LSAT and GPAs for merely being black..
Click to expand...

which huge break made him President of the Harvard Law Review?

which huge break made him a law Professor at U of C Law School?

damn..that's a lot of breaks he got. how did he pull this all off?
 
Phys251 said:
Denial of racism is a form of racism.
Click to expand...

so if you denied being say "stupid" that means you are?

or do you mean that someone who denies that racism exists is a racist?

racism is all over the place

affirmative action is a form of racism
 
Thunder said:
which huge break made him President of the Harvard Law Review?

which huge break made him a law Professor at U of C Law School?

damn..that's a lot of breaks he got. how did he pull this all off?
Click to expand...

uh that is irrelevant and he was not a professor at U of Chicago

those of us who actually went to top law schools understand that "professor of law" means a tenured professor. Obama was a Lecturer which is below an associate professor or even an "adjunct professor"
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom