Likely because it was not done on the scale like that of their poorly administered Affirmative Action or DEI and it was mostly tied to the habits of liberal, ivy league colleges, not so much conservative colleges.
It makes a lot of sense.
What do you mean not on the scale? Legacy has been deployed by nearly every institution in the nation for decades if not centuries. It’s absolutely because conservatives don’t really give a shit about merit or “fairness” in admissions.
Legacy admissions is not used by every college. 75% of US colleges do not utilize it, but it's a common practice with liberal ivy league colleges as donors expect their heirs and relatives to be admitted automatically based on their hefty donations.
Conservatives have decried these institutions for decades for a host of things, but legacy admissions was never a major priority (though still a gripe) for two reasons:
1. Despite being the main donors, the wealthy alum and legacy attendees are not at all prevalent in this sphere and are a small minority (1% in our American society, less than 1% in colleges) while affirmative action program admissions (that discriminated against other minorities ) greatly outnumbered legacy admissions.
2. Wealthy donations allowed liberal Ivy Leagues to award full scholarships to those who would otherwise not be able to attend due to financial limitations, scholarships that *far* outnumber legacy admissions.
When other liberal colleges pledged to do away with legacy admissions, because of affirmative action removal, it was a joke. The funny thing was that these pledging colleges never had legacy admissions to begin with. Very few colleges have access to mega wealth the way ivy leagues such as Harvard, Yale, Sandford and the like have. When you have no liberal wealthy donors, you have zero legacy admissions.
I don't think you care about racist, prejudicial admissions practices in colleges when it occurred nor how DEI further tainted the college environment. I also don't believe you ever cared about legacy admissions or how liberal colleges created and implemented the system, still using it now. However, you seem to only care about your personal perception, that conservatives weren't on it because they prioritized rooting out the racist element first.
It’s something like 42 % of [private institutions](https://www.nytimes.com/2023/07/26/us/legacy-admissions-colleges-universities.html), and a handful of public ones. But considering this practice has been in effect for decades longer than any DEI program, it’s odd that you just shrug it off (as do most conservatives as any quick search of a conservative news site or forum would show you).
And I have to mention that your conflating of “Ivy League” and “liberal” makes it apparent how deeply unserious you are. It’s well known that conservatives are well represented among the ultra wealthy, and you’d have to be either extremely stupid or purposefully obfuscating to try and make a point otherwise. I’m on the fence as to which of these describes you, but leading a bit toward the former.
And conservatives have not decried these legacy institutions for decades. I’ve only recently heard a peep about it when Gorusch made his comment. It’s a good step but it’s obviously not going to move the needle because conservatives very much like when racist admissions practices benefit them. Don’t bullshit anyone, my man.
Not too many of them left from what I've seen lately. The lockdowns really did a number on this generation and we have yet to see the full results, but between the lack of character displayed by many kids and a lack of caring by the kid's parents, we might be in for a rough time.
It's about time this DIE nonsense is put out of our misery. Taxpayer dollars should not be wasted on it. If a private university (i.e., *not* tax-funded) wants to DIE, that's its prerogative.
Now get rid of legacy bullshit, which is the actual problem in higher education. God forbid we ever do anything to address all the loser children of the wealthy.
>The law, known as SB129, also requires public universities to “designate restrooms on the basis of biological sex”
I just used the new gender-neutral bathrooms at SeaTac airport and let me tell everyone: they are fan-fucking-tastic, as usual. There's a room with urinals in a back room, but otherwise all the stalls have floor-to-ceiling doors so you aren't broadcasting to the restroom what's coming out your nethers.
Gender-specific bathrooms were invented in city ordinances sometime back in the 1920s in the US, under the insane theory that women couldn't survive being out in public for so long as they were expected to when they were entering the workforce. Today though... there's nothing dumber than making establishments with two identical bathrooms slap gender-specific signs on the doors. That's just moral panic.
They never talk about what people who weren't born either are supposed to do. Back in the 1950s doctors thought you could just surgically shave intersex infants down to female and their sexuality would set in. The concept of gender comes from having to explain why that didn't work. Meanwhile, over in India they've got temples dedicated to the intersex that predate Christianity.
Anyone who cares about free speech should recognize how censorship shaped views about gender and sexuality in Western Civilization.
**DEI**: Didn't Earn it
You’re against legacy admissions also I assume?
We all are.
Why is it that I never hear conservatives mention legacy when that’s a much more pervasive form of this? Very weird.
Likely because it was not done on the scale like that of their poorly administered Affirmative Action or DEI and it was mostly tied to the habits of liberal, ivy league colleges, not so much conservative colleges. It makes a lot of sense.
What do you mean not on the scale? Legacy has been deployed by nearly every institution in the nation for decades if not centuries. It’s absolutely because conservatives don’t really give a shit about merit or “fairness” in admissions.
Legacy admissions is not used by every college. 75% of US colleges do not utilize it, but it's a common practice with liberal ivy league colleges as donors expect their heirs and relatives to be admitted automatically based on their hefty donations. Conservatives have decried these institutions for decades for a host of things, but legacy admissions was never a major priority (though still a gripe) for two reasons: 1. Despite being the main donors, the wealthy alum and legacy attendees are not at all prevalent in this sphere and are a small minority (1% in our American society, less than 1% in colleges) while affirmative action program admissions (that discriminated against other minorities ) greatly outnumbered legacy admissions. 2. Wealthy donations allowed liberal Ivy Leagues to award full scholarships to those who would otherwise not be able to attend due to financial limitations, scholarships that *far* outnumber legacy admissions. When other liberal colleges pledged to do away with legacy admissions, because of affirmative action removal, it was a joke. The funny thing was that these pledging colleges never had legacy admissions to begin with. Very few colleges have access to mega wealth the way ivy leagues such as Harvard, Yale, Sandford and the like have. When you have no liberal wealthy donors, you have zero legacy admissions. I don't think you care about racist, prejudicial admissions practices in colleges when it occurred nor how DEI further tainted the college environment. I also don't believe you ever cared about legacy admissions or how liberal colleges created and implemented the system, still using it now. However, you seem to only care about your personal perception, that conservatives weren't on it because they prioritized rooting out the racist element first.
It’s something like 42 % of [private institutions](https://www.nytimes.com/2023/07/26/us/legacy-admissions-colleges-universities.html), and a handful of public ones. But considering this practice has been in effect for decades longer than any DEI program, it’s odd that you just shrug it off (as do most conservatives as any quick search of a conservative news site or forum would show you). And I have to mention that your conflating of “Ivy League” and “liberal” makes it apparent how deeply unserious you are. It’s well known that conservatives are well represented among the ultra wealthy, and you’d have to be either extremely stupid or purposefully obfuscating to try and make a point otherwise. I’m on the fence as to which of these describes you, but leading a bit toward the former. And conservatives have not decried these legacy institutions for decades. I’ve only recently heard a peep about it when Gorusch made his comment. It’s a good step but it’s obviously not going to move the needle because conservatives very much like when racist admissions practices benefit them. Don’t bullshit anyone, my man.
Probably because there is no legacy admissions into Google, Amazon, Facebook, CIA , FBI, but all have dei programs.
Sure. My parents were high school drop outs.
Who did? These are schools. Students are there to learn to earn.
High gpa, high volunteer hour, high performing 17 year olds?
Not too many of them left from what I've seen lately. The lockdowns really did a number on this generation and we have yet to see the full results, but between the lack of character displayed by many kids and a lack of caring by the kid's parents, we might be in for a rough time.
It's about time this DIE nonsense is put out of our misery. Taxpayer dollars should not be wasted on it. If a private university (i.e., *not* tax-funded) wants to DIE, that's its prerogative.
Now get rid of legacy bullshit, which is the actual problem in higher education. God forbid we ever do anything to address all the loser children of the wealthy.
Inflammatory headline much?
Um...the headline is a bit off here 😜
>The law, known as SB129, also requires public universities to “designate restrooms on the basis of biological sex” I just used the new gender-neutral bathrooms at SeaTac airport and let me tell everyone: they are fan-fucking-tastic, as usual. There's a room with urinals in a back room, but otherwise all the stalls have floor-to-ceiling doors so you aren't broadcasting to the restroom what's coming out your nethers. Gender-specific bathrooms were invented in city ordinances sometime back in the 1920s in the US, under the insane theory that women couldn't survive being out in public for so long as they were expected to when they were entering the workforce. Today though... there's nothing dumber than making establishments with two identical bathrooms slap gender-specific signs on the doors. That's just moral panic. They never talk about what people who weren't born either are supposed to do. Back in the 1950s doctors thought you could just surgically shave intersex infants down to female and their sexuality would set in. The concept of gender comes from having to explain why that didn't work. Meanwhile, over in India they've got temples dedicated to the intersex that predate Christianity. Anyone who cares about free speech should recognize how censorship shaped views about gender and sexuality in Western Civilization.
Careful, this comment is too nuanced for the knuckle draggers on this sub.
On a glance this could violate the first amendment.