Separate but not even close to equal

The government should not give money to college but should tax them trust me you don't need collage.

The matching issue of the 1890s you bring up is a strawman argument. The article you posted refers to the years 1987-2020 If the matching issue still persists why didn't democrats fix it?
I'm making nothing up and I'm not your kid.
And you still won't admit you were wrong about who I refered to.
I'll ask you straight up. When I wrote "That guys posts are garbage. I've seen enough that I don't even read them let alone post on them. Not worth my time." was I refering to you or Ho Hound? Originally Posted by Ducbutter

Clearly you again fail to understand. The 1865 and 1890 are designations for the type of institution. 1865 would be LSU which is the type of drawdown from the Dept of Ed and Dept of Agriculture which remains through today. They get all or nothing drawdown.

The 1890 institutions ie SU is subject to the state choosing their match level for drawdown. Hence, see my earlier comment about the state opting to take the minimum match rather than taking the full available match during the time period in question.

Again, you've no clue what you're talking about and making up stuff to try to sound smart, and failing miserably.

However, when you want to have an adult conversation on this and are willing to learn and understand, I'm willing to provide some clarity as needed.

As for you statement about garbage posts you were referring to HoHound Charlie. And I agree. Though I'm sure since he's banned, we will get another version soon enough.

As to the rise in college administrators:

Why Are Campus Administrators Making So Much Money?
Americans committed to better living for bosses can take heart at the fact that college and university administrators -- unlike their faculty (increasingly reduced to rootless adjuncts) and students (saddled with ever more debt) -- are thriving.
Lawrence Wittner
By
Lawrence Wittner, Contributor

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/why-a...stra_b_5604091

From the Huffington Post no less. Originally Posted by Ducbutter

I know nobody offered shit to pay off my loans, and when Biden offered to assist, the GOP lost their fucking minds. I get it, nobody wants there to be preferential treatment- especially for no-good socialists, left leaning Dems, but what I think should happen for student loans, is that you don't forgive them, but you also make the interest subsidized, so that you can still go for a degree, and not be over-burdened by paying back a bank or lender who declares the rate of interest that is punitive by intent or nature.

I actually think that if Joey B and the rest of his team would have done that; nobody would have cried wolf and the majority of loans in default would be paid back.

Is it a burden to society to do that? Perhaps slightly, but in reality, a smarter more educated society is a benefit in itself in general. I like smart deductive thinkers, vs. uneducated folks who are told what to think. Originally Posted by eyecu2

The only proper response is to let the market work. If colleges are turning out degrees that are useless (unemployable gender studies Baristas come to mind) and they default on their loans, the Colleges should assume the cost of reimbursing the financial institutions. That would put a stop to all of the BS of having unqualified students attend because of some popular political theory.

My education was "free"... 200K shoved up my ass a nickel at a time. I had to pay back my degree in other ways...? Originally Posted by texassapper

Excellent points gentlemen. Across-the-board student loan forgiveness is a regressive form of welfare. People who hold college degrees on average make more money that those who don't.

And yes the colleges and universities are largely at fault. It's a vicious circle. They spend more money on administrators, educators, facilities etc., and raise tuition, often without offering a better quality education that will give students the skills they need in the workplace. So the students go out and borrow more money to pay the tuition. Then the colleges spend more and increase tuition more. Ad infinitum.

Sorry for the hijack Blackman. This is a pet peeve of mine. Next post will be on topic.

Clearly you again fail to understand. The 1865 and 1890 are designations for the type of institution. 1865 would be LSU which is the type of drawdown from the Dept of Ed and Dept of Agriculture which remains through today. They get all or nothing drawdown.

The 1890 institutions ie SU is subject to the state choosing their match level for drawdown. Hence, see my earlier comment about the state opting to take the minimum match rather than taking the full available match during the time period in question.

Again, you've no clue what you're talking about and making up stuff to try to sound smart, and failing miserably.

However, when you want to have an adult conversation on this and are willing to learn and understand, I'm willing to provide some clarity as needed.

As for you statement about garbage posts you were referring to HoHound Charlie. And I agree. Though I'm sure since he's banned, we will get another version soon enough. Originally Posted by 1blackman1

This thread has been about institutional racism perpetuated by Republicans from the jump.

"Though many here and generally the Republican Party claim racism doesn’t exist and also claims there is definitely not institutional racism, this article pretty clearly shows an example of state instituted continuation of disparate treatment which surely had some disproportionate impact on blacks"

"Republicans claim racism doesn't exist. What are talking about? They surely claim that it doesn't continue in any meaningful way and that there's no such thing as institutional racism."

Do those ring a bell?
You've made no mention of the draw down issue until post #27, nor does the article you posted. If that practice exists to this day it should be rectified. However, to try to pin the blame on Republicans when the Dems have had exclusive control of the purse to a greater extent in the last 30 years is beyond ludicrous. And the points I made are completely valid. You just don't like them as they're counter to your claim that it's all about systemic/institutional racism. Like most things it's not that simple
And let's please dispense with the patronizing and disingenuous concern about my "unbecoming" response to your rude retort. What a crock. I give it like I get it and you started the shit (right?) so either deal with it or keep a civil tongue in your response. The same goes for your veiled comments about my intelligence. If I want to have an adult conversation about anything I won't be looking in any of your threads.

Just because you didn't understand about the method of drawdown doesn't really mean anything. You went on for paragraphs of nonsense and made up shit for rationales. It's all good though.

As for me blaming Republicans alone, maybe you should reread my post as that's not what I said at all. Maybe carefully read rather than assume and you might understand my point. Or not, it's up to you. I think my statement is clear that the issue - what resulted in underfunding of the HBCU - was a result of the institutional racism that's part of disparate treatment. Ultimately the choice to not equally drawdown full amounts for both LSU and Southern continues the racism in an institutional manner.

As I said, when you want to have an adult conversation and learn something I'm more than willing to provide you information. I might not even refer to you as kid, unless you don't Mk us the rudeness.

Even Tiny called you out for politicizing the issue in his first post.
You can call me Ducbutter or sir. Otherwise you're invited to keep any semblance of my name out of your mouth or keyboard.
Cya.

Ok Butters. Bye bye.

fyi, HBCUs are exempt from DIE protocols.

This thread has been about institutional racism perpetuated by Republicans.... Originally Posted by Ducbutter

Ducbutter, More than once you've pointed out errors in my thinking and vice versa. I appreciate it when you do that, and you have changed my mind from time to time.

I honestly think we've modified Blackman's thinking somewhat here. He shouldn't be as convinced as before that Republicans are responsible for the funding differences. He's reluctant to admit it, perhaps because of his background as a litigator and in politics. You have to stick with your story when you're engaged in those pursuits.

Double post

If you read what I wrote I never said the issue was repubicans alone. That was an incorrect assumption. What I did point to was the belief on the repubican side that 1) rascism in anything but a few individuals is non-existent and 2) that institutional racism is not a thing.

The application of drawdowns between LSU and SU would be an example of institutional racism as its generally called. The process itself, when applied as intended or just mechanically, has a racist outcome even where the people involved weren't necessarily acting with raciat intent. As I explained, because the mechanism for LSU’s drawdown from the DoE and DoA required a full amount or no amount, LSU always got its full amount (the legislature would never not fund LSU with a drawdown any given year). However, SU’s mechanism allowed the state legislature to choose a lesser amount than the full drawdown so the state legislature chose to allocate fewer funds that the max allowed, so SU ended up underfunded.

Was that racism per se, no. Did every legislator have some racist intent, unlikely. Was the result disparately affecting minorities, I think that's obviously a yes.

Be assured, my views haven't changed.

Ducbutter, More than once you've pointed out errors in my thinking and vice versa. I appreciate it when you do that, and you have changed my mind from time to time.

I honestly think we've modified Blackman's thinking somewhat here. He shouldn't be as convinced as before that Republicans are responsible for the funding differences. He's reluctant to admit it, perhaps because of his background as a litigator and in politics. You have to stick with your story when you're engaged in those pursuits. Originally Posted by Tiny

Tiny, you are without question the most diplomatic poster on this board.
I promise to take your suggestion under advisement when I return from my road trip.

I’d agree with your post if you hadn’t made it political. The Democratic Party created the mess in the first place. The claim by many Democrats (not necessarily you) that the racists switched parties in 1965 is disingenuous.

Separate is inherently unequal. Black universities should desegregate. And yes from reading your link, I realize it’s government policies, including less financial support for black universities, that result in segregation. That needs to be corrected. Originally Posted by Tiny

My main man Tiny, here is little history lesson for you. Southern democrats who were racists like "Strom Thurman" (The segregationist who had a child with a Black woman) started to leave the democratic for the republican party as far back as 1948 when Northern democrat Hubert Humphey was giving speeches about civil rights for black people. Not much happened as a result of those speeches. President Truman integrated the military for WW2. The bulk of the party switching happened after 1965 when LBJ signed the Civil Rights Act into law. Southern democrats left the democratic party for the Republican Party. A
perfect example, Senator Strom Thurman. Baseball player Jackie Robinson, did the reverse. He left the Republican party for the democratic party.

Regarding your statement that HBCU's should desegregate. White Students can attend an HBCU if they want to. Last years Jackson St football team that was coached by Dion Sanders (who is now at Colorado Univ) the starting tight end was a white player. He is 100% Caucasian. No AA mix like some of the providers put in their ads (LOL).

Tiny, you are still tied for first place as the Best Amateur Virologist on Eccie.Net. You do know how to hobby too. Madison May is a top tier girl.

My main man Tiny, here is little history lesson for you. Southern democrats who were racists like "Strom Thurman" (The segregationist who had a child with a Black woman) started to leave the democratic for the republican party as far back as 1948 when Northern democrat Hubert Humphey was giving speeches about civil rights for black people. Originally Posted by adav8s28

How many D Congressman changed their party to R from 1947 on? Should be easy to tell us...Show us how this big party switch happened with some facts.

We'll wait...lol

How many D Congressman changed their party to R from 1947 on? Should be easy to tell us...Show us how this big party switch happened with some facts.
Originally Posted by texassapper

I wrote "southern democrats" switched parties. Not just the ones that held office. The switch did not happen in one particular year. It started in 1948 when Northern Democrat Hubert Humphrey in speeches at political conventions started talking about Civil rights for black people. The bulk of the "Switch" occurred in after 1965 (The year LBJ signed the Civil Right Act into Law).

Southern Democrats (the voters) left the democratic party for the republican party after the leaders in the democratic party worked to get the Civil Rights Act passed. Why do you think almost the entire "Deep South" votes for the Republican candidate in most presidential elections from say after 1965. Of course slick Willie "Bill" Clinton was an exception.

The only fact you need is Northern Democrat Hubert Humphrey was the first (with name recognition)to start talking about Civil rights for black people back in 1948.