EPTTL Scavenger Hunt #2 - Page 45
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
Earthgrowth
United States3 Posts
| ||
|
Terranesque
119 Posts
http://www.mediafire.com/?yzugy4czout | ||
|
theresistor
6 Posts
![[image loading]](http://www.cs.washington.edu/homes/owen/photo2.jpg) Crap, did it wrong the first time. | ||
|
Pengu1n
United States552 Posts
http://img85.imageshack.us/img85/8581/0419002215c.jpg | ||
|
Insanious
Canada1251 Posts
After deliberating upon the testimonies of both parties. I Judge Insanious, have found in favor of the defendant, TeamLiquid.net. While the fourteenth amendment protects against unfair treatment, this situation does not fall definitively under this definition. As TeamLiquid was trying to alleviate the inequalities in its admissions between men and women. The act of affirmative action, Executive Order no. 10925, demonstrated by TeamLiquid is in fact the reason this right is in place, in order to put all members of society on equal footing in order to give them all the same chance to succeed, or fail. As well, by not setting aside seats for admission to women in TeamLiquid, this university would be violating executive order Numbers 11246 and 11375 which state that all organizations in the United States of America must do their best to reach complete equality by promoting the employment, or enrolment, of minorities. As TeamLiquid is simply trying to reach true equality in enrolment, they cannot be punished for that. As well cases similar to this, such as Regents of The University of California vs. Bakke in 1978 have already been turned down by the US Supreme Court. In which affirmative action programs have been rules constitutional. As such mr. T.Dot Crazy, I Judge Insanious Rule in favour of TeamLiquid. | ||
|
Tandyman
United States3 Posts
If a school is genuinely private, it isn't covered by Title IV. But if it received federal funds, it's subject to the federal statutes prohibiting discrimination by federal fund recipients - Title VI, Title IX, Section 504. Private schools are also covered by Title III of the ADA. Ruling in favor of TeamLiquid University | ||
|
YoonHo
Canada1043 Posts
| ||
|
silentguy
99 Posts
| ||
|
MinoMino
Norway1103 Posts
 . | ||
|
VelociReptar
Canada3 Posts
| ||
|
RAUS
210 Posts
![[image loading]](http://sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-ash1/hs480.ash1/26306_10150182706145641_852450640_11944132_1801049_n.jpg) ![[image loading]](http://sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-ash1/hs480.ash1/26306_10150182706150641_852450640_11944133_1957195_n.jpg) | ||
|
ella_guru
Canada1741 Posts
On April 20 2010 11:21 YoonHo wrote: Lots of people doing under the traffic light photos. hey! : ) | ||
|
legrogdelight
Canada5 Posts
There are a couple important affirmative action cases to reach the Supreme Court - Adarand Constructors v. Peña (1995) and City of Richmond v. J.A. Croson Co. (1989). The most famous that dealt with affirmative action as practiced by public universities: Regents of the University of California v. Bakke (1978), and two companion cases decided by the Supreme Court in 2003, Grutter v. Bollinger and Gratz v. Bollinger. In Bakke, the Court held that racial quotas are unconstitutional, but that educational institutions could legally use race as one of many factors to consider in their admissions process. In Grutter and Gratz, the Court upheld both Bakke as a precedent and the admissions policy of the University of Michigan law school. In dicta, however, Justice O'Connor, writing for the Court, said she expected that in 25 years, racial preferences would no longer be necessary. In Gratz, the Court invalidated Michigan's undergraduate admissions policy, on the grounds that unlike the law school's policy, which treated race not as one of many factors in an admissions process that looked to the individual applicant, the undergraduate policy used a point system that was excessively mechanistic. In these affirmative action cases, the Supreme Court has employed, or has said it employed, strict scrutiny, since the affirmative action policies challenged by the plaintiffs categorized by race. The policy in Grutter, and a Harvard College admissions policy praised by Justice Powell's opinion in Bakke, passed muster because the Court deemed that they were narrowly tailored to achieve a compelling interest in diversity. On one side, critics have argued—including Justice Clarence Thomas in his dissent to Grutter—that the scrutiny the Court has applied in some cases is much less searching than true strict scrutiny, and that the Court has acted not as a principled legal institution but as a biased political one.[30] On the other side, it is argued that the purpose of the Equal Protection Clause is to prevent the socio-political subordination of some groups by others, not to prevent classification; since this is so, non-invidious classifications, such as those used by affirmative action programs, should not be subjected to heightened scrutiny.[31] Footnotes are from Wikipedia. | ||
|
DenyMe
Romania6 Posts
| ||
Kinky
United States4126 Posts
On April 20 2010 11:20 theresistor wrote: Crap, did it wrong the first time. Sadly, many people did this before you  | ||
|
Barnabas
United States74 Posts
![[image loading]](http://i997.photobucket.com/albums/af95/bmccurl/DSC00529.jpg) ![[image loading]](http://i997.photobucket.com/albums/af95/bmccurl/DSC00528.jpg) and ![[image loading]](http://i997.photobucket.com/albums/af95/bmccurl/DSC00527.jpg) With teamliquid.net phone shopped in hahah. Lol. And i had to get a diff hosting site, AND I had to use three pictures cause i couldn't old my camera and get everything in the angle. Challange fail! Fun though. | ||
|
Zortch
Canada635 Posts
| ||
|
Samilitary
United States2 Posts
| ||
|
KiLL_ORdeR
United States1518 Posts
| ||
|
Keynote
United States21 Posts
I know this has been answered, but you asked polar coordinates, not Cartesian coordinates. (Cartesian coordinates is (x,y), while polar coordinates is (r, theta) edit: I need to work on my math =_= | ||
| ||
