A recent review conducted by a group showed that legacy students have a better chance of getting into Harvard than the average Joe or Sue. It was reported: “Expert analyses of Harvard’s data, prepared by both parties in the lawsuit, disagree on many counts; but both say legacy preference can make a big difference.”
My initial thoughts on the issues of legacy (and other admissions issues) is the college or university should be able to do whatever it wishes when it comes to the make-up of its student body. What would be wrong if Harvard decided it would only accept students whose parents were willing to pledge millions of dollars to the school? Shouldn’t it be in charge of its own destiny?
I suppose that it isn’t totally in charge because it takes government funds which gives the government some say into how it operates. Thus you have situations where our schools are not totally free of all restraints. Will the government in the disguise of a judge decide legacy considerations are verboten?
That would fit perfectly with schools such as Boston College that have no concerns for legacy. It will consider students with relatives who have attended the school but only after checking to see what monetary contributions the former graduates have given to the school.
I always wondered about that. At some point the idea of an education at a Jesuit college like BC was to encourage its graduates to go into public service to better the lives of people. Here is one statement of its purpose:
” Boston College and its law school are rooted in the Jesuit tradition of service to God and others. In that tradition, we believe that the purpose of higher education is both the search for knowledge and the preparation of women and men who are moved to a constructive, responsible, and loving use of their knowledge.”
It is unlikely that those who follow its alleged tradition will become part of the money class but will gain their satisfaction in helping others. Yet, those who the school usually honors with positions on its board of trustees and with graduate degrees are people, aside from members of the clergy, who have done very well in business or investment banking. Few, if any, who have labored among the great unwashed are welcome.
I suppose that’s a wise decision from s financial point of view. As for comporting with its mission, if it still has one beyond getting rich, it has gone astray. Which brings me back to the legacy question.
Recently I talked to a BC grad whose grandson lives in Chicago. Her father graduated from BC, as did her son. Her grandson who was well qualified for BC would have represented a fourth generation. He was not accepted.
A year or so ago I knew of a woman who applied to BC Law school. She was qualified, was put on the waiting list, but would not get in. Her brothers, father, uncles, aunt and grandfather all attended BC Law. She went elsewhere and worked in a major NY City law firm.
Trying to figure it out it seemed that what both had in common was their BC relations were donors but far from big donors to BC, having gone into public service for the most part, which they were taught to do but penalized for doing by the entity that taught them.
I suppose BC can use examples like that to demonstrate that unless you are a generous donor your legacy claim is for naught. It probably should also tell of the great disadvantage of following its teachings.
“James Earl Ray pleaded guilty to King’s assassination. Pepper, who was Ray’s last attorney, has postulated that Ray was framed by the FBI, the CIA, the military, the Memphis police, and organized crime figures from New Orleans and Memphis.”
Sounds legit. They forgot the Girl Scouts of America, The Salvation Army and the Visiting Nurse Association of Lubec, Maine.
Sedate Freeh ? .. . Unruffled by Holiday circumstance Freeh ? ….Matty … The Cat has finally dragged itself in .
Deeeeee- Lightful Fresh Freeh
Oh My !!!
I worked as a volunteer on the Father Drinan election
campaign.
I was also helped by the BC Learning to Learn Center
in bringing attorney William Pepper to speak at BC
William Francis Pepper (born August 16, 1937) is a former attorney based in New York City who is most noted for his efforts to prove government culpability and the innocence of James Earl Ray in the assassination of Martin Luther King, Jr., as well as the King family, in subsequent years. Pepper has also been trying to prove the innocence of Sirhan Sirhan in the assassination of Robert F. Kennedy. He is the author of several books. He has been active in other government conspiracy cases, including the 9/11 Truth movement, and has advocated that George W. Bush be charged with war crimes.[1]
Contents
Early life Edit
Pepper received a B.A. and M.A. from Columbia University, Ed.D. from the University of Massachusetts, and J.D. law degree from Boston College.[2] He was admitted to the bar in 1977.[3]
Prominent cases Edit
Martin Luther King cases Edit
Pepper has stated Martin Luther King Jr. contacted Pepper after seeing his photo essay, The Children of Vietnam, which was published in the January 1967 issue of Ramparts magazine. It depicted victims of napalm in Vietnam.[4] Pepper later stated that the contact contributed to King’s more adamant position against the Vietnam War. Pepper has said he was present at King’s April 4, 1967 Riverside Church speech in which King launched a strong campaign against the war.
James Earl Ray pleaded guilty to King’s assassination. Pepper, who was Ray’s last attorney, has postulated that Ray was framed by the FBI, the CIA, the military, the Memphis police, and organized crime figures from New Orleans and Memphis. He has publicized his position in books and represented James Earl Ray in a televised mock trial. Ray was found not guilty in the mock trial.
King’s youngest son, Dexter King, met with Ray on March 27, 1997, at the Lois M. DeBerry Special Needs Facility. King subsequently said, ”In the name of truth and justice, our family is calling for a trial, a trial James Earl Ray never had. … I don’t think his trial—if he is granted a trial—will necessarily give us the unequivocal proof, but at least in regard to new evidence, we will know more than we do now.”[5]
Following Ray’s death, Pepper represented the King family in a wrongful death lawsuit, “King family vs. Loyd Jowers and other unknown co-conspirators”. During a trial that lasted four weeks, Pepper produced over seventy witnesses. Jowers, testifying by deposition, stated that James Earl Ray was a scapegoat and not involved in the assassination. Jowers testified that Memphis police officer Earl Clark fired the fatal shots. On December 8, 1999, the Memphis jury found Jowers responsible, and also found that the assassination plot included “governmental agencies.” The jury took less than an hour to find in favor of the King family for the requested sum of $100.[6]
Robert F. Kennedy assassination Edit
On February 22, 2012, Pepper and co-counsel Laurie Dusek filed a court brief in District Court in Los Angeles claiming that a second gunman fired the shots that killed Robert F. Kennedy, and petitioning for the release of their client Sirhan Sirhan.[7] Sirhan Sirhan was again denied parol on February 10, 2016. On March 30, 2016, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals denied a further appeal launched by Pepper, noting the appellant has not shown that “jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the petition states a valid claim of the denial of a constitutional right and that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the district court was correct in its procedural ruling.”[8]
Bibliography Edit
The Self-managed child: Paths to Cultural Rebirth, 1973. ISBN 0-06-090310-4
Sex Discrimination in Employment: An Analysis and Guide for Practitioner and Student, 1982. ISBN 0-87215-331-2
Orders to Kill: The Truth Behind the Murder of Martin Luther King jr, 1995. ISBN 0-7867-0253-2
An Act Of State: The Execution of Martin Luther King, 2003. ISBN 1-85984-695-5
Die Hinrichtung des Martin Luther King, ISBN 3-7205-2405-1
The Plot to Kill King: The Truth Behind the Assassination of
in other poesies
http://www.unz.com/article/comey-and-mueller-russiagates-mythical-heroes/
Comey and Mueller: Russiagate’s Mythical Heroes
COLEEN ROWLEY retired FBI agent
• JUNE 8, 2017
Mainstream commentators display amnesia when they describe former FBI Directors Robert Mueller and James Comey as stellar and credible law enforcement figures. Perhaps if they included J. Edgar Hoover, such fulsome praise could be put into proper perspective.
Although these Hoover successors, now occupying center stage in the investigation of President Trump, have been hailed for their impeccable character by much of Official
also see
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=6umn4nsNN2E
Silenced: TWA 800 and the subersion of justice
also see
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=0B5hv6scbBo
Allan Francovich: The Maltese Double-Cross – Lockerbie (1994)
Wa-llahi! I remember betting the BC b-ball team. What a run of luck! Those were the days. Eastern Wyoming (Gillette) is good money. Detroit wheels, Johnny, and, Drey, don’t let me down.
Henry Hill smiled on your Good Fortune then Khalid !!! …. That entire scandal was sumtin’ .
Then there is the decline of the Triple Eagle. My father and his 5 brothers were all Double , going to BC High and BC (no lawyers). I knew many Triple Eagles. It seemed that around the time of Father Drinan, the Law School wanted to “go National” and looked with disdain on Double Eagles. How are those numbers these days?