The only difference is that you have some affirmative action legislation. I have no idea how that works though I doubt this case counts as that.

In the UK affirmative action is illegal because it's racist. Yet they're trying to sneak that in through the backdoor from the EU under the title "positive discrimination".

Might as well call it good racism. Pro plus racism. bad++. Double ungood racism (that's sure to melt a few brains).

I'd assume affirmative action, the Deluth model and other such things should be unconstitutional as it does not treat all equally under the law. Sort of messed up if AA is in the constitution. In the UK AA means things such as having racial (diversity) quotas.

From what I understand, up until 1978 cases on AA were constitutional. This century however a bunch of cases decided that somehow racial discrimination is lawful if it's partial. Ridiculous, you can avoid the legal requirement to being impartial by being partial. If you racially discriminate 100% then it's wrong but they seemed to have kept watering that down to what about 75%, what about 50%, what about 25%?

It seems that giving certain races a major handicap was legalised in 2003 in the US.

The only difference is that you have some affirmative action legislation. I have no idea how that works though I doubt this case counts as that.

In the UK affirmative action is illegal because it's racist. Yet they're trying to sneak that in through the backdoor from the EU under the title "positive discrimination".

Might as well call it good racism. Pro plus racism. bad++. Double ungood racism (that's sure to melt a few brains).

I'd assume affirmative action, the Deluth model and other such things should be unconstitutional as it does not treat all equally under the law. Sort of messed up if AA is in the constitution. In the UK AA means things such as having racial (diversity) quotas.

From what I understand, up until 1978 cases on AA were constitutional. This century however a bunch of cases decided that somehow racial discrimination is lawful if it's partial. Ridiculous, you can avoid the legal requirement to being impartial by being partial. If you racially discriminate 100% then it's wrong but they seemed to have kept watering that down to what about 75%, what about 50%, what about 25%?

The only difference is that you have some affirmative action legislation. I have no idea how that works though I doubt this case counts as that.

In the UK affirmative action is illegal because it's racist. Yet they're trying to sneak that in through the backdoor from the EU under the title "positive discrimination".

Might as well call it good racism. Pro plus racism. bad++. Double ungood racism (that's sure to melt a few brains).

I'd assume affirmative action, the Deluth model and other such things should be unconstitutional as it does not treat all equally under the law. Sort of messed up if AA is in the constitution. In the UK AA means things such as having racial (diversity) quotas.

The only difference is that you have some affirmative action legislation. I have no idea how that works though I doubt this case counts as that.

In the UK affirmative action is illegal because it's racist. Yet they're trying to sneak that in through the backdoor from the EU under the title "positive discrimination".

Might as well call it good racism. Pro plus racism. bad++. Double ungood racism (that's sure to melt a few brains).

I'd assume affirmative action, the Deluth model and other such things should be unconstitutional as it does not treat all equally under the law. Sort of messed up if AA is in the constitution. In the UK AA means things such as having diversity quotas.

The only difference is that you have some affirmative action legislation. I have no idea how that works though I doubt this case counts as that.

In the UK affirmative action is illegal because it's racist. Yet they're trying to sneak that in through the backdoor from the EU under the title "positive discrimination".

Might as well call it good racism. Pro plus racism. bad++. Double ungood racism (that's sure to melt a few brains).

I'd assume affirmative action, the Deluth model and other such things should be unconstitutional as it does not treat all equally under the law. Sort of messed up if AA is in the constitution.

The only difference is that you have some affirmative action legislation. I have no idea how that works though I doubt this case counts as that.

In the UK affirmative action is illegal because it's racist. Yet they're trying to sneak that in through the backdoor from the EU under the title "positive discrimination".

Might as well call it good racism. Pro plus racism. bad++. Double ungood racism (that's sure to melt a few brains).

I'd assume affirmative action, the Deluth model and other such things should be unconstitutional as it does not treat all equally under the law.

The only difference is that you have some affirmative action legislation. I have no idea how that works though I doubt this case counts as that.

In the UK affirmative action is illegal because it's racist. Yet they're trying to sneak that in through the backdoor from the EU under the title "positive discrimination".

Might as well call it good racism. Pro plus racism. bad++. Double ungood racism (that's sure to melt a few brains).