Hello Associate Justice Brett Kavanaugh

@Bill_Coley said:

"stupid." It's a one-size-fits-all put-down, most sensibly at home in junior high school yards, but sadly active in the vocabularies of people of all ages and political passions.

Other times it is a very real, adult and applicable term that is Correct-Size-Fits-One.

@reformed said:
Your own quote that you just submitted contradicts that. You said "During his testimony, Kavanaugh claimed that he had "no connection" to Yale that could have helped him get into its law school." That is different than just claiming no connection. So I ask again, because YOU DID move the goalpost. What connection did he have to help him get in. So his grandfather went, how did that help him get in?

I am the person who wrote the sentence to which you referred. If there is ANYONE who should know what that sentence meant, it is I. I am telling you as I have told you several times now: My claim was simply that Kavanaugh claimed he had "no connections" at Yale, but the fact is he DID have a connection at Yale. That's what I meant by the sentence to which to referred.

Once again, I can't believe I have to do this, but....

• Consider the sentence, "I have a hammer that could be used to nail shingles to the roof." Does that sentence claim that the hammer I have HAS or WILL be used to nail shingles to the roof? No. It claims only that I have a hammer, one of whose uses could be to nail shingles. The definitive claim of that sentence - the guarantee it makes - is that I have a hammer. It does NOT assert that my hammer has or will nail shingles.
• Informed by the rhetorical analysis just completed, consider the sentence, "During his testimony, Kavanaugh claimed that he had no connection to Yale that could have helped him get into its law school." Does that sentence claim that the connection Kavanaugh had helped him get into Yale? No. It claims only that Kavanaugh had a connection to Yale, one of whose uses could have been to help him get into Yale. The definitive claim of that sentence - the guarantee it makes - is that Kavanaugh had a connection to Yale. It does NOT assert that his connection helped him get in.

So in other words, you assume that someone who had a family member automatically has a connection to help get him in?

No. They're called "legacy" admissions. The practice exists, it has impacts, and it sometimes extends to the grandchildren of alumnae.

But for the zillionth time I remind you that I am NOT saying his grandfather's legacy helped Kavanaugh get into Yale! I am saying ONLY that he HAD a connection to Yale - his grandfather - even though he testified under oath that he had "no connections" there.

I made NO claim that his connection actually helped him get in; I claimed only that he had one, when he had testified he had none.

You can't say that with absolute certainty.

Of course I can say with certainty that 1) I made NO claim that his connection actually helped him get in, and 2) that I claimed only that he had a connection, when he had testified he had none.

You can also find definitions for those same terms giving the definitions that Kavanaugh and the people involved gave.

And you can find people who say Neil Armstrong never walked on the moon. That you can find people who say that doesn't make it true. The massive preponderance of the evidence is that ALL of those words were sexual terms.

You didn't address the example I gave: Do you think Kavanaugh in his yearbook entry asked Judge whether he had farted ("boofed") yet?

Or a previous example I cited: "Renate Alumnius," a phrase NOT just used by Kavanaugh in his entry, but used in at least 14 different places in the yearbook, including with a a picture of nine football team members, who all claimed to be "Renate Alumnae." Kavanaugh claimed under oath that the phrase was "clumsily intended to show affection and that she was one of us." Do you seriously believe THAT is what those football team members meant by attaching the phrase to their yearbook picture?

We can play this game of rhetorical/grammatical whack-a-mole for a hundred more posts, but it won't change the fact that Brett Kavanaugh lied under oath before the Senate Judiciary Committee.

@reformed said:
You have to establish that a family member who went to Yale could be a connection that would help him get in in order to reasonably say he lied. You have not met that burden of proof.

The whack-a-mole continues.

No. I have to establish that Kavanaugh had a connection to Yale. He did. His grandfather. As you know from reading about legacy admissions, grandchildren of alumnae sometimes receive special admission consideration, so even though I didn't have to, I HAVE established that "a family member who went to Yale could be a connection that could help him get in."

BUT MY POINT WAS NOT THAT HIS CONNECTION HELPED HIM GET IN. It was that he HAD a connection.

Actually you said he tesitifed that he had no connection that helped him get in. You still haven't proven that to be a lie.

I think I know where the confusion is coming from... at least I hope I do. At his hearing Kavanaugh said ONLY "I had no connections there (Yale)." THAT'S IT. The phrase "...that could have helped him get into its law school" was MY add-on phrase, essentially to identify the importance of connections to Yale in the context Kavanaugh testified about them. Kavanaugh said NOTHING about any connection's help. In my view, the potential of such assistance is implied in Kavanaugh's language, BUT IT DID NOT APPEAR IN HIS LANGUAGE.

Ok, can we get an actual transcript of what Kavanaugh said please? That should help clarify.

You've said you can't access YouTube. Are you also not able to access Google or any other prominent search engine? If so, what kind of Internet provider are you with?

HERE'S A LINK to the transcript, in which you'll find the following exchange: (emphasis added)

HIRONO: … Senator Coons noted …

KAVANAUGH: OK.

HIRONO: … that James Roche said, your roommate, “Although Brett was normally reserved, he was a notably heavy drinker, even by the standards of the time. And he became aggressive and belligerent when he was drunk.” So is your former college roommate lying?

KAVANAUGH: I would refer you to what I said in the sealed or redacted portion about his relationship with the other two roommates, and I’m going to leave it at that. I will say – Senator, you were asking about college.

I got into Yale Law School. That’s the number one law school in the country. I had no connections there. I got there by busting my tail in college.

HIRONO: I feel insulted, as a Georgetown graduate.

(LAUGHTER)

KAVANAUGH: Excuse me?

HIRONO: But go on._

And plenty of evidence that they are not as well.

/

Yep because there are similar entries in my high school yearbooks. Apparently you weren't as immature as the rest of the world.

/

I have no reason to believe otherwise.

/

You have yet to prove that actually. Your arguments are weak at best, dishonest at worst.

So be it.

@reformed said:
Ok so even with the transcript he didn't necessarily lie and I would say he didn't lie. Was his grandfather at Yale at the time? I doubt it.

You've moved from accusing me of offering possibly dishonest arguments, to contending Kavanaugh "didn't necessarily lie." I take that as a win.

"Was his grandfather at Yale at the time"? That's NOT how legacy admissions work, reformed. You might want to revisit the links I offered earlier. Legacy admissions are affected by the fact that the candidate has a parent (and sometimes grandparent) who is an alumnus of the school. The fact that the parent or grandparent would be an alumnus BY DEFINITION means he or she wouldn't be there at the time of the child's/grandchild's admission application.

@reformed said:

No but read the actual quote. I didn't have any connections there. At that point it depends on what he meant. Does he have any connections at all? Or does he have any connections physically there at the time?

You can't know which he meant without asking a followup question so you can't say with certainty that he lied.

This reads like a re-statement of your previous conclusion that Kavanaugh "didn't necessarily lie." For a second consecutive post, you offer no more than a timid defense of his honesty. I take THAT as a win, too.

And with the legacy admissions do you even have evidence that is practiced at Yale Law School?

According to the first of the two links I provided you in an earlier post...

"Yale says it admits 20 to 25% of legacy applicants. It admitted 6.7% overall this year."

So yes, legacy admissions ARE practiced at Yale.

E-mails show how donors are considered in Harvard admissions
By Deirdre Fernandes -- GLOBE STAFF OCTOBER 18, 2018

When Harvard University admitted several applicants tied to influential donors in 2013, including one who had promised to pay for a building, the Kennedy School dean fired off an e-mail calling the head of admissions “my hero.”

“Once again you have done wonders. I am simply thrilled by all the folks you were able to admit,” David T. Ellwood, who then headed up the university’s Kennedy School of Government, wrote to William Fitzsimmons, the dean of admissions.

Ellwood lauded Fitzsimmons on “big wins,” including applicants connected to an unnamed donor who “has already committed to a building,” and two others who had “committed major money for fellowships before the decision from you.”

The congratulatory e-mail exchange between university administrators was among several internal documents presented on Wednesday in the trial over Harvard’s admissions practices While the case in Boston federal district court centers on whether Harvard’s admissions process hurts Asian-American applicants, it has also highlighted the advantages enjoyed primarily by white applicants. And the trial has offered a rare glimpse into how wealth and longstanding connections, sometimes built over generations, play into admissions at the country’s oldest and richest university, known for educating presidents and power players.

“A white admissions advantage is a problem,” said Genevieve Bonadies Torres, an attorney with the Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, which is representing several minority students who will testify later this month in support of race-conscious admissions at Harvard.

The university has increased its diversity over the years, Bonadies Torres said. But about a third of last year’s incoming freshman class had parents who attended Harvard, according to a survey by the student newspaper, and a vast majority of those students are white.

Over a six-year period, Harvard admitted almost 2,680 white students who were athletes, connected to a donor, a child of a graduate or staff member, according to documents presented in the lawsuit. That’s more than all Asian students admitted during that period (2,460) and slightly less than all the black and Latino students combined (2,693).

“We’re talking about a longstanding, entrenched system of wealth and privilege,” Bonadies Torres said.

Harvard defended its admissions practices in court Wednesday, arguing that most students whose parents attended the university are academically on par with the rest of their class and that the group is growing more diverse as the university’s enrollment changes. Athletes and students whose parents work at Harvard also help boost community spirit and ensure that the university is able to attract top staff, officials said.

Harvard points out that donors fund scholarships and financial aid to its low-income students and help pay for research and the university’s other academic endeavors.

And giving money doesn’t guarantee admission, university officials said.

“There are some [children of] donors who get in and some that won’t,” William Lee, an attorney representing Harvard, said in an interview with reporters. “If you get focused on things, no one claims that the admission of donors or donors’ children or donors’ relatives on the dean’s list has any effect on Asian-Americans. No economist claims this.”

Students for Fair Admissions, the group representing Asian-American students in the lawsuit, presented the e-mails in court on Wednesday. The organization has sued Harvard alleging that its race-conscious admissions process caps the number of Asian-Americans it admits every year.

The landmark case is likely to eventually be decided by the Supreme Court in the coming years and could upend affirmative action in college admissions more broadly.

The trial has drawn global attention for both its potential to upset legal precedent and because it lifts the curtain on Harvard’s secretive admissions process — one that pits more than 42,000 students a year against each other for just 1,600 seats.

Students for Fair Admissions backs race-blind admissions and has suggested that Harvard eliminate some of the preferences for children of graduates and other insiders and focus instead of socioeconomic factors if it wants to increase diversity.

Harvard has argued that race-blind admissions would significantly decrease the number of black and Hispanic students on campus.

Harvard has never been shy about giving special consideration to “lineage,” or students whose parents attended the university. And Harvard, like many universities, aggressively woos donors.

But many of the e-mails shown in court Wednesday illustrate just how pragmatic Harvard officials can be about the process.

In considering a student who had no parental connection to Harvard, but whose late grandfather had donated $8.7 million to the university over his lifetime, Fitzsimmons consulted the officials in the fund-raising office.

The grandfather was a “generous donor,” an official in Harvard’s development office wrote. “Going forward, I don’t see a significant opportunity for further major gifts.” The official noted that the donor, whose name was redacted, “had an art collection which conceivably could come our way, more probably it will go to the [redacted] museum.”

The official suggested that the student earn the second-best rating in admissions consideration.

Another e-mail from the Harvard men’s tennis coach to Fitzsimmons in 2014 highlighted a recruit whose family also had the attention of one of the school’s deans. The coach noted that the student’s family had donated to two professorships and given $1.1 million over four years.

The student had visited the campus, and “we rolled out the red carpet and we’re all delighted that [the student] had a great time,” the tennis coach wrote. He added, “It would mean a great deal” for him to be at Harvard.

Fitzsimmons told the coach that the student would be considered for likely admissions in October, a special notification Harvard offers to students it wants and who are being recruited by other universities.

On the stand Wednesday, Fitzsimmons stressed that all of Harvard’s applicants go through the same rigorous admissions process.

And, he noted, applicants are given special consideration or a “plus-factor” for many reasons, not limited to athletics, race, family, or financial connections.

Harvard also offers an advantage to applicants from Boston and Cambridge, low-income students, and those from more rural states, Fitzsimmons said.

“The moment you’re admitted to Harvard,” said Fitzsimmons, who graduated from Harvard and has been the head of admissions for more than 30 years, “you’re part of our community forever.”....
https://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2018/10/17/mails-show-how-donors-are-considered-harvard-admissions/gGH0wQoZG80jC6sUVdP5HI/story.html

Is it fair? CM

@GaoLu said:
Can you give us the readers digest version of your beef? Up above is a too-long stack of nonsense for me.

It's not my "beef" (I'm a vegetarian ) just exposing a practice: "The E-mails show how donors are considered in Harvard admissions, is it fair to the middle-class and the poor/minorities in America? CM

@C_M_ said:

@GaoLu said:
Can you give us the readers digest version of your beef? Up above is a too-long stack of nonsense for me.

It's not my "beef" (I'm a vegetarian ) just exposing a practice: "The E-mails show how donors are considered in Harvard admissions, is it fair to the middle-class and the poor/minorities in America? CM

I don't know about all that. I haven't thought it all through.

My second son wanted to go to Harvard and didn't get in, with no good reasons except he was a white male and I wasn't a rich donor. He had absolute top grades, awesome international life experience, speaks 2 languages, engaged in international humanitarian work and had medical-field work experience plus ground-breaking, journal-published neurophysiology research. He ended up taking a Caribbean School to get into med school early. That has turned out great, but it isn't Harvard. Harvard is a private school. Like it or not they can do what they want.

I was principal of 2 Christian schools for 9 years. We were very selective in whom we accepted. Not everyone liked it, but that is what we did. You got a problem with that?

Curious notion. We benefited from libraries and roads and fire departments. Yet we intentionally discriminated. On the other hand, we turned down a truckload of freebies the state wanted to give us such as free milk, curriculum, etc. Why? Because to get the freebies all we had to do was agree to teach the State requirements for sex ed (which included orientation choice issues down to first grade and was the biggest issue at that time), have state inspections, and a long list more.

Keep in mind this was a state whose Super. of Public Instruction told me, "We hate what you are doing and will put you out of business." They didn't. But oh, that camel wanted its nose in the tent door. We just said NO. By 4th grade, our kids averaged nearly 2 years ahead of grade level on annual CAT tests.

We were private. We enjoyed some government benefits but not others. We selected who could attend our school very carefully and turned out a premium result. As far as I know, every single student is a solid Christian and some are substantial church and business leaders. If Harvard or Yale does the same, that is their business.

Hold your donkey cart.

Actually, I am open to criticism of our choice and would value your input. I was never totally comfortable with how we did. I just didn't have a solution to the multitudes who wanted to attend. That seemed like another work and a good one.