That only works if there's equality in lower/mid level education, giving all students a reasonable opportunity for quality education before that SAT testing, and there is not.
Low income district schools are at a distinct disadvantage in funding, facilities, and availability of assistance, as are low income students. Female students have, historically, been discouraged from pursuing science and math, especially at high levels.

Equality of opportunity at least to a reasonably competent base level of education is considered a civil right. Because we are still far from reaching that ideal, rolling back programs designed to address the continued shortfalls IS a rollback of civil right protections in the same way rolling back civil right protections in our election system was a rollback of the voting rights for a large, specifically targeted population which led instantly to attempts to return to old, clearly discriminatory practices designed to deny voting rights.

From the outside looking in though, requiring diversity of genders and races by law is the issue.

If we simplify student quality down to only their SAT scores, what is the fair and equitable method of picking the 100 students that get admitted for the upcoming year?

Here's what I think a color-blind non-racist equal opportunity minded admission process looks like. Sort the students by SAT score and admit the top 100.

Looking at the comments from the left, by example the Daily Show video jabs above, the process I described is considered a rollback of hard fought civil rights.

???

Question from Canada. Affirmative action isn't something we would normally consider synonymous with civil rights. Is this different in the US across the board?

Up here we generally view laws around equality and civil rights as one issue, and restitution for past injustices as a related but separate issue. It is not simple accepted here that admission, acceptance and hiring practices must meet specific demographic benchmarks although it happens to a lesser and softer degree.

I guess I don't really understand the notion of discrimination based upon race as a solution to civil rights, even more so to here let leaning folks stating it as a matter of course that should be done.

Blinded by truth and you own ignorance.

Every generation is to try to make their next generation better. Every generation takes a step forward.

So Every color in America strides for this. But only 1 seem not to get ahead. Go figure. Last 50 years there have been great strides for the Blacks that are being depressed by Democrats. Once they figure that out then freedom will be obtained.


post-depression America FDR American Housing ACT.. Democrat policy that lent money to whites but not blacks. Yea Democrat party is the friend to the black. NOT.

Civil Rights ACT of 58 and 64. Zero Democrat support but push through to the Democrat POTUS and forces to pass it.

No, BLM did that with the Minneapolis / St Paul Pride parade in Minnesota last year as well. I've had to stop and have some real thinks about some of the tactics employed by BLM over the last few years, as frequently my gut reaction has been "well that seems excessively antagonistic towards people who likely already support them." Things like blocking a pride parade, or shutting down sections of highways and such. Ultimately, these actions aren't aimed at the people who are immediately affected by them, they're done to generate publicity for the group when they might otherwise have difficulty getting any sort of media attention paid to their message from more typical, "polite" protests.

Civil rights organizers have had over 60 years of experience in determining how to effectively protest, or longer if you look at examples like women's suffrage. At this point I think they have a pretty good idea of what forms of protest are useful vs counter-productive. I support what BLM is trying to accomplish, and as someone who to date has not personally helped that cause in any direct manner, I'm opting to trust that they have an idea what they're doing and that if I'm reacting negatively to their approach I should probably question / sit with that reaction before saying something foolish.

"How easy it was for the government to totally suspend civil rights".

Should be: "How easy it was for the Democratically controlled state government to totally suspend civil rights".

There is no useful parallel between the movie's show host and the president of the United States and the fact he hosted a TV show. Entertainers have made it to the position of president or governor well before this point in time. It's just a useless coincidence that has no bearing on anything.

The Running Man basically got nothing right about 2017.

When it finally gets to the middle, maybe it will, but it hasn't been close, ever.

It's still less than a 100 years when women had to fight for the right to vote. I'm sure if men were ever denied the right to vote base on how they were born, you'd see some type of civil rights movement.

Oh, wait.

If it is an absolutely true fact, one would think you could provide supporting evidence, but you never do when asked. Unsupported claims are unverified argument, not accepted fact. I've never claimed you're wrong, but you've failed to prove you're correct repeatedly.

The judge used the sentencing guidelines for murder 2, which was part of the plea agreement, so the results were exactly the same. He may be in federal prison, which IS a much nicer place than the state pen. Is that how it falls short, or is your issue the specific charge no matter the sentence? Would it be better if he was convicted of murder 2 but was only sentenced to 5 years?

Avoid getting caught on camera, totally agree, but don't plead guilty?...he was facing life in State prison with a pretty hostile jury pool on top of up to decades in club fed for civil rights violations.. I think he made a good choice.

Thanks for the answer though...which I gather was "no, this does not satisfy".

A statement about something that is absolutely true is a fact and not an argument.

Separate but equal has already failed the test of time. So being convicted of murder verses pleading guilty to violating a person's civil rights may have yielded similar results, but it still falls short.

The only lessons cops learned from this is to avoid getting caught on camera and don't ever plead guilty.

$40-$60 million more in undisclosed payments to Manafort surfaced last week....but Trump has nothing to do with the Trump for president campaign, does he?....and did I say collusion, or even Trump? Nope, but a guilty conscience hears accusations that never happened.
The Russians today are doing exactly what you do, pretending to be right wing nutjobs on left leaning sites, and lefty snowflakes on right leaning sites, pushing the narrative to all that the other guy is a total nut by making ridiculous, ignorant claims like you do. If you aren't being paid by Putin, you're working for him for free.

Jesus fucking Christ, Bob. Can you be more deluded and ignorant? Once again, your Russian text book of American history is 100% ass backwards.

Southern strategy: In American politics, the southern strategy was a Republican Party electoral strategy to increase political support among white voters in the South by appealing to racism against African Americans.[1][2][3] As the Civil Rights Movement and dismantling of Jim Crow laws in the 1950s and 1960s visibly deepened existing racial tensions in much of the Southern United States, Republican politicians such as presidential candidate Richard Nixon and Senator Barry Goldwater developed strategies that successfully contributed to the political realignment of many white, conservative voters in the South to the Republican Party that had traditionally supported the Democratic Party.[4] It also helped push the Republican Party much more to the right.[4]
Not Nixon courting the black vote.

Troll: Internet slang, a troll (/ˈtroʊl/, /ˈtrɒl/) is a person who sows discord on the Internet by starting quarrels or upsetting people, by posting inflammatory,[1] extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community (such as a newsgroup, forum, chat room, or blog) with the intent of provoking readers into an emotional response[2] or of otherwise disrupting normal, on-topic discussion,[3] often for the troll's amusement.
Definitely you, Dimitri. It's almost time to have lucky investigate your ip address to see if you're in Kiev or Moscow.

You've got to be kidding, you know the judge isn't a DOJ employee, right?
You understand the concept that ignoring a judges direct legal orders is a crime no matter what your politics, right?
He wasn't convicted of the civil rights violations, (for pulling over Hispanic looking people and demanding they show their papers) but he was ordered to stop them, and he continued. He was convicted of criminal contempt.
It wasn't the DOJ, it was a federal judge he ignored and the constitution he violated after being ordered to stop it.
EDIT: But yeah...ignoring the constitution, judges, fairness, civility, the Geneva convention, and the rule of law certainly does make him the a America's best sheriff, doesn't it? I hope you and your family gets pulled over at gunpoint by black sheriffs at least once a week for life to check your papers, perhaps you'll eventually learn it's wrong.

If Obama abused that power as you suggest, why weren't there constantly DOJ investigations of elected Republicans and talking heads? It seems insane to even suggest that he reserved it for one evil sheriff.

Also, how do you explain all the charges and lost lawsuits from before Obama? Arpaio's legal troubles didn't suddenly start 8.5 years ago, you know. Was Bush's thumb on that scale against him too?

The statues are part of our history...the part where racist whites quickly erected statues to celebrate a racist past in response to civil rights movements..."to remind the darkies of their place" to quote a relative.

He seems totally ignorant of the fact that these are not new groups of racists....of course, admitting they've existed for over 150 years in some cases destroys his claims that the far left has created this monster, so he can't.

It's funny how he says the left's actions naturally created this grouping of hate, but can't apply the same logic when the hate groups actions create a climate where statues are removed....and removing the statues does not verify the fear behind shouting "Jew will not replace us".

Gave him 10 minutes...9 1/2 too long.

Oh Bob. If his tactics were used primarily against whites or if he was black or a democrat, you would say he's the worst monster in American history.
$140 million to pay for his illegal actions, with dozens of multi million dollar claims still in litigation....that's a great sheriff? 160 deaths in his jail that he gleefully calls a concentration camp, many if not most from undetermined causes....that's a great sheriff?
Yes, under Obama, the DOJ was interested in people abusing their power in ways that were clearly unconstitutional, like pulling people over because they looked Hispanic for no other reason than to check if they were legal citizens...a clear violation of civil rights....but yeah...fuck that constitution thing if it's in the way of fucking with beaners, huh? Wow.

Trump has set a precedent that you and yours will regret when power swings the other direction. You constantly seem to forget that it will.
There are far more democrats than republicans in America, so again, not sure where you get this idea besides wishful thinking....similar to wishing you could equate the radicals with the liberals. good luck with that.

@bobknight33, because you probably don't know, none of those listed was pardoned before sentencing, or without accepting their guilt and being publicly remorseful.

Arpaio has been defiant from day one when he decided to ignore a federal judge who told him to stop using his office to harass Latinos, violating their civil rights by stopping them for illegal illegal immigration status checks (most were citizens, btw, not immigrants). Arpaio called his own prison a concentration camp, proudly, where the ratio of prisoner death and injury are the highest in the nation, as are suicides and undetermined/uninvestigated deaths. At least 160 have died under Arpaio's supervision, and over $140 million paid to his victims so far, with dozens of lawsuits still pending.
If ever there was a person who deserves prison, and to have to live on rancid balogna in a 115 degree tent, it's Joe.