SENATE BILL: End Affirmative Action for the Rich Act (Law'd

[TNF]

NAY

[Fmr. Pres. Duke]

Are we going to add a punishment to this or merely leave it up to the courts to decide if someone violated the statute?

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

Nay

[tmthforu94]

Aye

[President Tyrion]

Nay

Are we going to add a punishment to this or merely leave it up to the courts to decide if someone violated the statute?

It's hard to see what an appropriate punishment might be, so I'm trending to the latter. Someone else could talk me out of that position, however.

[Fmr. Pres. Duke]

I'd agree with you, Tyrion. I'd prefer we not include a penalty.

[DC Al Fine]

Aye

[Goldwater]

AYE

[Talleyrand]

NAY

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

We appear to have a tie.

This ends Monday morning.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Vote on Amendment 59:58 by Tmth:

Aye (5): DC Al Fine, Goldwater, NC Yankee, shua and Tmthforu94
Nay (5): Bore, X, Talleyrand, TNF and TyrionthEImperialist
Abstain (0):

Didn't Vote (0):

With a 5-5 vote and time having expired, the vote is tied and needs to be split by the Vice President.

[President Tyrion]

Hello?

[Sopranos Republican]

NAY

[tmthforu94]

This won't have my support. We shouldn't be infringing on the decisions of private institutions like this.

[TNF]

This won't have my support. We shouldn't be infringing on the decisions of private institutions like this.

Translation: rich people should have it easier than everyone else.

[bore]

Would an amendment making this apply only to non profits be acceptable as a compromise? Because I don't think any non profit which favours alumni and donors is worthy of the status of a charity.

[Fmr. Pres. Duke]

Would an amendment making this apply only to non profits be acceptable as a compromise? Because I don't think any non profit which favours alumni and donors is worthy of the status of a charity.

Most colleges are non-profits, technically, so it wouldn't really be useful language.

Like I said earlier, I don't even know if this bill is necessary anymore given this practice isn't really used as it once was. Schools are more about keeping their SAT and GPA stats high so they can increase their ranking in the US News and World Report, which is where they make their money. Admitting Jonny because his dad went there is a thing of the past. If Jonny is an idiot, he isn't going to Yale.

We could still pass this, but I just fear it will be tossed out in a few months when we purge our statute book. Just my two cents. Carry on, Senators.

[bore]

Would an amendment making this apply only to non profits be acceptable as a compromise? Because I don't think any non profit which favours alumni and donors is worthy of the status of a charity.

Most colleges are non-profits, technically, so it wouldn't really be useful language.

That's true, but the point of the amendment wouldn't be to get a significant number of colleges off the hook, but to deal with the principles of the bill. Frankly, if a for profit college wants to admit only people who can buy their way in, I'm fine with that. However, I think that being a non profit entails certain things, and one of those is that you shouldn't favour one group of people over another on an arbitrary basis, like the wealth of their family,

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

Would an amendment making this apply only to non profits be acceptable as a compromise? Because I don't think any non profit which favours alumni and donors is worthy of the status of a charity.

Most colleges are non-profits, technically, so it wouldn't really be useful language.

Like I said earlier, I don't even know if this bill is necessary anymore given this practice isn't really used as it once was. Schools are more about keeping their SAT and GPA stats high so they can increase their ranking in the US News and World Report, which is where they make their money. Admitting Jonny because his dad went there is a thing of the past. If Jonny is an idiot, he isn't going to Yale.

We could still pass this, but I just fear it will be tossed out in a few months when we purge our statute book. Just my two cents. Carry on, Senators.

[Fmr. Pres. Duke]

Would an amendment making this apply only to non profits be acceptable as a compromise? Because I don't think any non profit which favours alumni and donors is worthy of the status of a charity.

Most colleges are non-profits, technically, so it wouldn't really be useful language.

Like I said earlier, I don't even know if this bill is necessary anymore given this practice isn't really used as it once was. Schools are more about keeping their SAT and GPA stats high so they can increase their ranking in the US News and World Report, which is where they make their money. Admitting Jonny because his dad went there is a thing of the past. If Jonny is an idiot, he isn't going to Yale.

We could still pass this, but I just fear it will be tossed out in a few months when we purge our statute book. Just my two cents. Carry on, Senators.

Every so often, we go through and repeal laws that are useless and just clogging the books, or we have in the past. I am trying to avoid passing laws that will only serve to be one of the ones we remove in some ominous bill in the future.

[bore]

Would an amendment making this apply only to non profits be acceptable as a compromise? Because I don't think any non profit which favours alumni and donors is worthy of the status of a charity.

Most colleges are non-profits, technically, so it wouldn't really be useful language.

Like I said earlier, I don't even know if this bill is necessary anymore given this practice isn't really used as it once was. Schools are more about keeping their SAT and GPA stats high so they can increase their ranking in the US News and World Report, which is where they make their money. Admitting Jonny because his dad went there is a thing of the past. If Jonny is an idiot, he isn't going to Yale.

We could still pass this, but I just fear it will be tossed out in a few months when we purge our statute book. Just my two cents. Carry on, Senators.

Every so often, we go through and repeal laws that are useless and just clogging the books, or we have in the past. I am trying to avoid passing laws that will only serve to be one of the ones we remove in some ominous bill in the future.

In fact, one incredibly handsome and wise senator has proposed such a bill that is in the queue as we speak

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

The amendment has failed. WE done now?

[Fmr. Pres. Duke]

Would an amendment making this apply only to non profits be acceptable as a compromise? Because I don't think any non profit which favours alumni and donors is worthy of the status of a charity.

Most colleges are non-profits, technically, so it wouldn't really be useful language.

Like I said earlier, I don't even know if this bill is necessary anymore given this practice isn't really used as it once was. Schools are more about keeping their SAT and GPA stats high so they can increase their ranking in the US News and World Report, which is where they make their money. Admitting Jonny because his dad went there is a thing of the past. If Jonny is an idiot, he isn't going to Yale.

We could still pass this, but I just fear it will be tossed out in a few months when we purge our statute book. Just my two cents. Carry on, Senators.

Every so often, we go through and repeal laws that are useless and just clogging the books, or we have in the past. I am trying to avoid passing laws that will only serve to be one of the ones we remove in some ominous bill in the future.

In fact, one incredibly handsome and wise senator has proposed such a bill that is in the queue as we speak

See, I just see this as something that will be purged in a few months given the practice is no longer widely used. We're basically late to the party, and we'll have this removed by another handsome senator in a few months.

[President Tyrion]

Would an amendment making this apply only to non profits be acceptable as a compromise? Because I don't think any non profit which favours alumni and donors is worthy of the status of a charity.

Most colleges are non-profits, technically, so it wouldn't really be useful language.

Like I said earlier, I don't even know if this bill is necessary anymore given this practice isn't really used as it once was. Schools are more about keeping their SAT and GPA stats high so they can increase their ranking in the US News and World Report, which is where they make their money. Admitting Jonny because his dad went there is a thing of the past. If Jonny is an idiot, he isn't going to Yale.

We could still pass this, but I just fear it will be tossed out in a few months when we purge our statute book. Just my two cents. Carry on, Senators.

This is not quite true. Although schools are concerned with stats like average SAT score and average GPA, they also like to maximize their yield rate. Harvard, for example, still has a third of its class as legacy students, which is obscene. And their ranking remains high because their yield rate is high; legacy students are actually more likely to accept a collegial offer than otherwise.

So, the stats argument actually goes both ways; you can maximize a statistic by accepting a great deal of legacy students.

[TNF]

I'm ready for a final vote.