Having skimmed the posts you’re complaining of, denis, I have to say you’ve not made out your case. First off, Bricker is questioning your authorities, in a way that some find very irrititating. But it’s the mandate of these Boards to fight ignorance. One of the ways Bricker fulfills that mandate is by rigourous questioning of general statements. If you think of him as Professor Kingsfield, (“you come here with your minds full of mush; you leave here thinking like a lawyer”), it makes it a bit more understandable.
Second, I think his points are valid. First, you referred to a cite to Wiki that did not exist. He called you on that. Second, you gave a cite that only referred to the academic part of Clarence’s history, and extrapolated that to your personal views on the political appointments. Bricker called you on that as well. Both of those criticisms help to define the debate, in a Socratic fashion. That’s not to say it’s an enjoyable experience (See: Athens, pissed off citizens of, c. 399).
And finally, he’s challenged your assumption that an outreach program to increase diverstity is automatically a form of affirmative action. That’s a fair comment on his part, because part of the entire debate over affirmative action is to define the boundaries of when race can be taken into account, and when it cannot.
For example, if the Jesuits of Holy Cross had looked out at their classroom, saw a sea of white faces, and said to themselves, “We are not ministering to the entire population,” and then went on tours to a wider variety of junior schools to increase their catchment, without in any way changing their academic standards, then it would be hard to say it was affirmative action. They would simply be taking steps to make sure that as diverse a group of qualified students as possible got into their school.
If they did, however, change their admission standards for particular races, that probably would amount to affirmative action.
Bricker’s point is that your cite is vague on this key issue, which is essential to determining if Clarence did in fact benefit from affirmative action. That in turn is the major point of your thread. By challenging your reliance on this source, Bricker is forcing you to refine your argument, as a good Socratic.
(Perhaps I’m more accepting of this approach having gone through a few law degrees, and then standing up in court and facing judges trained in it - but believe me, though it can be unpleasant to be on the receiving end of it, it is a well-accepted way of probing assertions.)