Posted on 07/10/2018 7:12:38 PM PDT by Enlightened1
Asians should list their race a Caucasian, a little photoshop on the picture to look Hispanic, do a name change, and send in the application. You can always undo the name change after you get that huge scholarship offer.
Cut off their aid. In fact, if you have at least $50 million and at leat 500 students, you should have your aid stopped.
They’ve been trying for a half a century and it doesn’t work; expect more of the same with the recent push to diversify “STEM”. Handing unqualified tokens meaningless papers doesn’t move them up the socio-economic ladder; it leaves them in low-level jobs which destroys their pampered egos. This is especially true in fields with certification testing (lawyers, engineers, doctors, etc.); they just hit that wall and that’s it - they end up as glorified secretaries and such because they don’t know the work.
Here in NJ they’re quietly removing Hispanics from the “preferred hire” list for government jobs (especially cops) because they do well without the “leg up” - and take all the seats from blacks and white women.
Then let them do it without federal money.
Before I’d hire any “preferred minority” with a college degree, I’d have them write a simple essay so I can at least determine if they are literate - I kid you not. You’d be amazed at how many of them write at a first- or second-grade level (at best); many have never read anything “recreationally”.
Force Yale and Harvard to use their endowments.
I know. I learned to do exactly that. I learned the hard way.
While I agree with Vos on the error of ALL race-based decisions, whether in education or otherwise, there are two other aspects Conservatives should pay attention to.
My own Constitutional view is that the modern idea (since the 60s) of what is and is not permissible under the Constitution is an error in which the understanding went from the concept that GOVERNMENT could not discriminate to government making the individual a de facto government agent, vis a vis dicrimination, and against their will.
Of course GOVERNMNENT - as law, as policy, as police, prosecutor, judge, eligibility to be elected, eligibility to serve cannot discriminate because it is the government and it is everyone’s government.
The “public accomodation” concept morphed the law from preventing GOVERNMENT from discriminating to government forcing you in your personal affairs to carry out a government “non-descrimination” policy for the government.
Yet such a concept was never the intent of the founders understanding of Liberty. For instance, freedom of speech. That applies to a mandate against government restricting freedom of speech. As a private person or private entity it does not apply to you and how you are willing or not willing to allow what is yours to be used by others. Yes, you can control the speech of others using your property. The Constitutional mandate against government stands, but you have Liberty the government does not have, you can control the application of speech when it comes to your own property.
That is clear, and it was once clear regarding discrimination, until the “civil rights” era made you no longer a free person with Liberty but an agent of the government, by force of government telling you you must by law be its agent.
Along with that morphing of Constitutional meaning came its application under the growing behemoth known as the federal government and its expansion into every aspect of life, with federal purse strings attached. That brought the federal power of the purse into further insuring private persons and privaste entitites could be forced to be agents of federal social policies. Vos is right in one sense, but I would prefer she, the government, did not have that power.
While I can applaud Vos for going after the Liberal/Left hypocrisy and their selective discrimination, sold as “diversity”, as a Constitutionalist I would argue that as private entitties they should in the first place not be compelled by law to be part of any federal social policy.
And as a Constitutionalist politician, while I agree with Vos on one level, I would prefer to eliminate her job and her whole department and end federal meddling in education altogether. It can surely not be said that education has gotten better in the U.S. since the federal department of education was created.
You see folks we still have what we have been fighting against. We want to tear down the progressive ediface of the regulatory state, and the GOP establishment still operates in the notion that all that is needed is to run it “better” under GOP management.
That idea is not, and has not been working when it comes to ANY part of the federal bureaucracy.
I had a triple major, 4.0 GPA from Rutgers who spells atrociously and writes grammatically incorrect sentences. Comments in delivered source code required adding a spell checker to avoid embarassment.
Same here; learned the hard way - and still dealing with a semi-literate who thinks the degree is an entitlement to free money (while never learning the real work/concepts).
Yes, I learned quickly that people who speak poor English don’t speak a “dialect”; they just speak poor English.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.