Hi @MelissaSantos1 You omitted the case laws Yvonne provided in your article , here you go... https://reject88.com/about-referendum-measure-88/r-88-would-allow-quotas/ … Case law says goals == quotas
@WA_Silenced_Maj @WAStateRublican @jasonrantz @jewels2889 @Mynorthwest @apseattle @Crosscut @realchrisrufo @TheImpactTVW
-
You can find the links to Yvonne’s brief in the article here:https://crosscut.com/2019/09/legal-experts-say-affirmative-action-measure-wouldnt-permit-use-racial-quotas …
It requires Olympics-caliber mental gymnastics to believe that "goals + timetables ≠ quotas." If the total number of admissions spots is fixed, "goals + timetables" will lead to a pre-determined recomposition, which is a de facto "quota."
-
-
And this
@MelissaSantos1 from crosscut "handily" forgot to mention the case law ruled that identified by "goals + timetables = quotas" our attorney Yvonne Ward. She also used the biased title that only mention the opinions of professors who do not practice law at all!#biased -
Law professors' opinions are as biased as @melssaSants1's because they are all hired by some organizations eager to implement racial quotas in college admissions and hiring. Shame on them!
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Bingo! In short, just bcuz they say “there will be no quotas” doesn’t make it so. Goals + timetables strictly enforced can be the functional equivalent of a quota.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Comparison: if I am on a diet that requires no more than 500 calories/daily, but I consume 501 today and 499 tomorrow and 502 the next day doesn’t mean I was not dieting on those 501 & 502 di
- End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.