ASAIK & IMHO, there is no requirement that anyone, President or otherwise, voluntarily release private information to anyone, let alone to those of bad faith who would use it against him and who have no qualms about twisting and spinning it beyond all recognition.
In the most recent “Star Trek” movie, Mr. Spock told people “F*** you” by saying “Live long and prosper.” Obama should tell anyone asking for his transcripts to so “Live long and prosper.”
In case you decide not to set it aside, the one you want to take this up with is Vinyl Turnip, who claimed “attended Harvard Law” as the first of Obama’s accomplishments.
Well maybe “any” is too strong a term. If Magna cum laude is strictly grade based, then it should probably be excluded.
Good point. I made this same point earlier, in post #127.
As an aside, though, I would note that GWB was also the “frickin’ President of the United States of America”. Do you apply the same logic to him?
So, we’ve established that What The… has no real reason to need the president’s college transcripts, and is just using the lack of them to support his vague suspicions of…something that he can’t or won’t reveal.
And that Fotheringay-Phipps feels that African-American accomplishments are diminished in meaning because of the existence of affirmative action, even though affirmative action can help someone get into college but doesn’t really relate to how well they do once they’re there. I don’t think magna cum laude status or the Harvard Law Review use affirmative action in their determinations of who’s accomplished enough to receive those honors.
But why automatically diminish/suspect any academic achievement (or acceptance into a particular school) because of race? Though it might indeed be possible that any particular African American student benefited in the selection process, why is it then fair to diminish/suspect all African American students in that school? Just because a particular white student might be a legacy, or have a father who made a big donation, does that make it fair to diminish/suspect all white students?
Why reuse the term “any”, and in italics no less, after I just finished saying “maybe “any” is too strong a term”?
Leaving that aside, “fair” has nothing to do with it. It’s a logical process.
If it’s commonly understood that in order to accomplish X you (generally) have to have done Y, then you can use the fact that someone has accomplished X to prove that she/he has probably done Y. If this is not true for certain groups, then you can’t use the proof for members of those groups.
The same would apply to legacy white students as well, of course. I believe the likelihood that any individual white student has benefited from being a legacy white student is significantly less than the likelihood that any individual minority member has benefited from AA. So it’s not as big of a factor.
Excellent. They did consider race and gender, after historically having neither non-whites or women as members. I am in support of conversations that at least begin the process of discussing why there are no non-whites and/or non-males in prestigious positions in certain institutions and organizations. If those conversations lead to policies that address those inequities, all the better.
Therefore, as far as I can tell, the outcry about Obama not releasing his college or law school transcripts is because the people whinging about it don’t have any actual proof that his accomplishments are meaningless, and they want that proof so that they can say “he only got into Columbia and Harvard because he’s black.” Without that proof, they can only insinuate.
Wonder how many of these same people said the same things about Clarence Thomas?
So, let this be a lesson, non-whites and women - if affirmative action exists, your accomplishments mean nothing, because the very existence of affirmative action negates any effort on your part. Why, Obama could have been a non-educated homeless bum, and would still have gotten into Columbia and Harvard due to affirmative action!
That’s a very long-winded way of saying “I was wrong”. But then, the best defense is a good offense.
I’ll be glad to admit I was wrong about my assumption that the Harvard Law Review didn’t take race or gender into account. And I’m glad I was wrong, for the reasons stated above.
That doesn’t negate the dismissive assumption that any non-white or female accomplishment can be automatically discounted because affirmative action exists.
So if graduating magna cum laude from Harvard Law is entirely based on one’s GPA, then there’s no sense to releasing his Harvard transcripts, right? Because all you’re going to find is a bunch of very high grades. Right? What’s going to be the big gotcha there?
There’s no sense to releasing them regardless. It’s a lose-lose proposition, as a mere handful or half dozen posters have already pointed out. We already saw this play out with the birth certificate issue: if you meet their pointless demands on Monday, they’ll say it’s not what they asked for and be back with another one Tuesday. It doesn’t end.
Bingo. What The… has already stated that he/she isn’t just asking for transcripts, but also for financial aid documents and other admission-related information. There’s no end to what these people demand. Once they get one thing, they’ll say it’s not enough and demand more. I’ve seen birthers demand Obama’s elementary school records.
And not only is it not enough, it’s an obvious forgery anyway and where’s the real document?
I think I’m using “any” in a different way this time.
But none of this necessitates diminishing/suspecting any random achievement just because of the student’s race. If you imagine that you’re an employer looking for a new employee, you don’t have to suspect/diminish an achievement (or acceptance into a school) of an individual- you can just treat them the same regardless of their race- if they turn out to be unqualified, then that will show later based on their performance (or based on their interview).
Basically (for a prospective employer or voter), I’m saying it is not logical to treat/judge any particular student/candidate differently based on race. If you get two resumes, one white and one black, it’s logical to totally disregard race when evaluating their suitability for the job.
FWIW, the OP refers to the Columbia transcripts, not the Harvard ones. (I’ve noted repeatedly that I personally don’t think the issue is relevant, but to the extent that we consider it, your point is moot.)
I don’t see it. I don’t maintain any form of “any”.
By contrast, you are using the term “logic” differently. What I’ve said is that from a logical standpoint the proof of Y from X is lessened for groups for which the association is not as strong. You did not address that at all.
What you’re saying instead is that as a practical matter, in a hypothetical employment situation (which we’ve not been discussing to this point) you feel that this logic should be overlooked in favor of relying on interview performance and/or just hiring them and firing them later. Even if I agreed with you, this does not relate to what I said, which is that the evidence of them having achieved certain scholastic accomplishments is lessened.
But I don’t agree with you anyway, and think an interview is a very imperfect tool, and hiring people only to find that they’re incompetant is very costly.
I do agree with not using race as a factor in hiring, but only as a matter of public policy, not because it’s illogical. IOW, I observed earlier that “fair” has nothing to do with the logic. But the hiring time is exactly when “fair” has everything to do with it.
You must understand, it is just enough that he is.
Do not question why or how.
You will be told all you need to know.
Consider yourself blessed to share the earth at the same time as him.
I see now that this was incorrect. My apologies.
I can’t tell, is this sarcastic or just silly?
Since people have provided the available information about his college performance and discussed the history of candidates’ grades being reported, I’m going with sarcastic and silly.
It’s the truth.
And the sooner you accept it the better off you’ll be.