The Supreme Court is releasing key decisions on issues such as affirmative action, student loan payments and LGBTQ rights. Follow here for the latest live news updates.
A pure merit-based approach also overwhelming benefits white people though, because they have a lot more generational income to help their kids get ahead in life.
Do the “affirmative action” on the basis of how wealthy a person’s background is and you get many more people from minorities than without it, whilst not unfairly helping people with the right genetics from wealthy backgrounds and ignoring people with the wrong genetics from poor backgrounds.
Strangely the solution of simply helping kids from poor backgrounds is never chosen, and instead it’s always “lets help people who happen to have a certain set of genes even if their parents are filthy rich and whose life has been a long red carpet so far, same as the non-minority kids”
It’s not pessimistic - it’s simply an honest understanding of how white supremacism is fundamental to the US. To be clear, things like affirmative action didn’t really improve things all that much - it was a band-aid on a traumatic amputation - but it was at least something.
It was a good band-aid for the time because racism was a massive problem back then, though, I sincerely doubt it’s needed today. I’m not saying racism isn’t a problem today, but the idea that universities must be regulated for them to accept non-white applications ignores the strides we’ve taken as a society. We don’t need the band-aid anymore.
Honestly, asking anyone for race on any application for anything shouldn’t be a thing. With the exception of medical things specific to race, it’s completely unnecessary. Unless I’m missing something glaring, other than perpetuating systematic disenfranchisement.
It’s a way for the college admissions to combat the systemic racism already present in USA society. It treats a symptom of a larger issue. A college cannot help with all the disadvantages minority students face throughout thier primary education but they can account for that in admissions.
While I agree that requiring people to reveal their ethnicity should be a no-no for anything other than medical, asking for people to volunteer this information makes sense.
In UK in many places giving ethnicity is optional and the results are used to monitor how different groups aka “races” are doing. This then can be used for research.
It’s very difficult. Discriminating against white people in a fundamentally white supremacist society (which the US is) is a bit like farting in a hurricane. I mean… do you see footage of black cops casually murdering white people at least once every week?
I really appreciate this take, because it reminded me that I can always call my congressman (or at least their office) and voice my opinion to ears that might be able to do something about it.
I don’t agree with legacy admissions but at least that’s based on a choice that was made at some point rather than race alone. Race is a grouping you can never join or leave, while legacy admissions are a coupon that can be acquired by anyone after a generation and it only applies to 1 or 2 schools at a time. The nature of this division is very different and I think that makes affirmative action the squeaky wheel here, but both are silly ways to decide admission.
You can never change who your parents are, that’s some real mental gymnastics to justify how hereditary acceptance criteria is good actually, but using race to identify those underservered by k-12 education, lacking in family connections, not having knowledge of college specific tricks to getting accepted & generally having less resources available to do the extra-ciricular activity to get in, and compensate for that bias is bad.
Affirmative action is only silly if you don’t accept that systemic racism exists.
Affirmative action is only silly if you don’t accept that systemic racism exists.
Just because AA isn’t “silly” doesn’t mean it’s a correct policy
Most of AA “positives” can be achieved with income-based criteria, more seats in courses and the unachievable better base education and home environment
AA was meant to cause division not solve issues. Which becomes obvious when you realize having income-based criteria would help everyone that needed it, not just some black people that do and some that don’t.
Did I say it was good or that you could change who your parents are? How is not being allowed to look at race… hurtful to specific races? At a predominantly black high school, does the 1 white kid somehow have the upper hand with college admissions?
Fine the mental gymnastics is to justify why hereditary admission criteria are more acceptable to you not “good”
Yes the white kid does.
The racial biases of whoever runs the admission system
The racial biases of teachers at the school
The white kid is still more likely to benefit from hereditary admission and insider information on how to do well in admission tests/letter.
To pretend a white kid in a predominantly black school doesn’t have an advantage in “colorblind” admissions is to deny the existence of systemic racism.
I thought colorblind meant they couldn’t see that kid’s race. With AA, your response to racism can only be “hey that’s not the kind of racism we want!” Without AA, racism in admissions is illegal.
No positive measure to counteract systemic biases are illegal.
Hereditary admissions when 80% of previous students were not black, is pretty explicitly racist and still very much legal
All the implicit systemic biases in the admission system are very much legal
The only thing you can’t do is ensure black kids get admitted.
If you have a system and you know its giving you biases results you can compensate for the bias, without understanding every single component bias, that’s what AA was, banning it, is sticking your head in the sand and going back to faux/real Naïvity about how system racism works.
We might as well start asking “why do black people prefer renting?”, because as a nation we are commited to pretending to not understand that there are systemic reasons for things.
when 80% of previous students were not black, is pretty explicitly racist and still very much legal
Black people only make up 12.6% of the population. If 80% of previous students aren’t black, then black students are heavily over-represented in the student body.
Yes. If a white person applies to an HBCU they can get minority scholarships. There was a big story about it a few years ago where a white person wrote about their experience being a minority and turns out being a minority sucks no matter who the majority is.
Asking prospective students for their skin color when they apply to your school should be unthinkable.
“I want to attend your school just like my grandfather” = This is fine
“I want to attend your school because my grandfather wasn’t allowed to” = This is not
Think about that for a second.
Legacy admissions shouldn’t be a thing either, imo. It should be 100% about merit.
Absolutely.
And until that’s the case, there’s a clear double standard that benefits white people.
A pure merit-based approach also overwhelming benefits white people though, because they have a lot more generational income to help their kids get ahead in life.
Hook me up with that generational wealth. The ATM doesn’t accept race as a condition for providing money.
Rich people.
It benefits rich people.
Do the “affirmative action” on the basis of how wealthy a person’s background is and you get many more people from minorities than without it, whilst not unfairly helping people with the right genetics from wealthy backgrounds and ignoring people with the wrong genetics from poor backgrounds.
Strangely the solution of simply helping kids from poor backgrounds is never chosen, and instead it’s always “lets help people who happen to have a certain set of genes even if their parents are filthy rich and whose life has been a long red carpet so far, same as the non-minority kids”
deleted by creator
This is a bad take.
Racial admissions existed to counter the other injustice - an imperfect solution to the inherent racism of legacy admissions.
Now that affirmative action has ended, the injustice of legacy admissions has been made even worse. Racism is now the law.
And it will never end.
So we need laws to not be racist? This is an insanely pessimistic take that nothing has improved the issue of racism in the US.
It’s not pessimistic - it’s simply an honest understanding of how white supremacism is fundamental to the US. To be clear, things like affirmative action didn’t really improve things all that much - it was a band-aid on a traumatic amputation - but it was at least something.
It was a good band-aid for the time because racism was a massive problem back then, though, I sincerely doubt it’s needed today. I’m not saying racism isn’t a problem today, but the idea that universities must be regulated for them to accept non-white applications ignores the strides we’ve taken as a society. We don’t need the band-aid anymore.
Ask me how I know you’re white lol
You are correct here, why would we not celebrate this just because there are more issues that need corrected?
Wait is this actually a thing?
deleted by creator
Legacy is a much more weighted merit than affirmative action was.
Honestly, asking anyone for race on any application for anything shouldn’t be a thing. With the exception of medical things specific to race, it’s completely unnecessary. Unless I’m missing something glaring, other than perpetuating systematic disenfranchisement.
It’s a way for the college admissions to combat the systemic racism already present in USA society. It treats a symptom of a larger issue. A college cannot help with all the disadvantages minority students face throughout thier primary education but they can account for that in admissions.
While I agree that requiring people to reveal their ethnicity should be a no-no for anything other than medical, asking for people to volunteer this information makes sense.
In UK in many places giving ethnicity is optional and the results are used to monitor how different groups aka “races” are doing. This then can be used for research.
But asking them who their father is is fine?
If people gave a shit about fairness they’d care about legacy admission more than affirmative action.
No, that’s not fine either and should also be outlawed due to a history of systemic racism giving some people an advantage over others.
It should be 100% merit based, plain and simple. It’s the only fair way.
Funny how we addressed the tool that helped black kids first, rather than the one that hurt them.
Maybe it’s because this is being pushed by bad people, that you seem to agree with under some fantasy of “100% merit based” reality.
Systemic biases exist, AA compensated for them banking AA is basically pretending this nation isn’t racist AF.
deleted by creator
Our entire society is plain wrong, doing things to address those injustices is good actually.
P.s you can’t be “racist” against white people, in a white supremacists nation.
You can in Hawaii.
[X] Doubt
It’s very difficult. Discriminating against white people in a fundamentally white supremacist society (which the US is) is a bit like farting in a hurricane. I mean… do you see footage of black cops casually murdering white people at least once every week?
[X] Doubt
That’s not how it’s going to play out in reality, unfortunately. I truly wish it were.
deleted by creator
Indeed. Such programs exist, and we need more of them.
Neither is ok. But only one likely violates the constitution. Congress could make legacy admissions illegal if they wanted to.
Congress could’ve made affirmative action illegal if they wanted to?
But only one side works as the majority’s dog whistle.
Yes. Even noted red state California (/s) voted in a referendum to make the practice illegal.
I really appreciate this take, because it reminded me that I can always call my congressman (or at least their office) and voice my opinion to ears that might be able to do something about it.
I don’t agree with legacy admissions but at least that’s based on a choice that was made at some point rather than race alone. Race is a grouping you can never join or leave, while legacy admissions are a coupon that can be acquired by anyone after a generation and it only applies to 1 or 2 schools at a time. The nature of this division is very different and I think that makes affirmative action the squeaky wheel here, but both are silly ways to decide admission.
You can never change who your parents are, that’s some real mental gymnastics to justify how hereditary acceptance criteria is good actually, but using race to identify those underservered by k-12 education, lacking in family connections, not having knowledge of college specific tricks to getting accepted & generally having less resources available to do the extra-ciricular activity to get in, and compensate for that bias is bad.
Affirmative action is only silly if you don’t accept that systemic racism exists.
Just because AA isn’t “silly” doesn’t mean it’s a correct policy
Most of AA “positives” can be achieved with income-based criteria, more seats in courses and the unachievable better base education and home environment
AA was meant to cause division not solve issues. Which becomes obvious when you realize having income-based criteria would help everyone that needed it, not just some black people that do and some that don’t.
Did I say it was good or that you could change who your parents are? How is not being allowed to look at race… hurtful to specific races? At a predominantly black high school, does the 1 white kid somehow have the upper hand with college admissions?
Fine the mental gymnastics is to justify why hereditary admission criteria are more acceptable to you not “good”
Yes the white kid does.
To pretend a white kid in a predominantly black school doesn’t have an advantage in “colorblind” admissions is to deny the existence of systemic racism.
I thought colorblind meant they couldn’t see that kid’s race. With AA, your response to racism can only be “hey that’s not the kind of racism we want!” Without AA, racism in admissions is illegal.
No positive measure to counteract systemic biases are illegal.
Hereditary admissions when 80% of previous students were not black, is pretty explicitly racist and still very much legal
All the implicit systemic biases in the admission system are very much legal
The only thing you can’t do is ensure black kids get admitted.
If you have a system and you know its giving you biases results you can compensate for the bias, without understanding every single component bias, that’s what AA was, banning it, is sticking your head in the sand and going back to faux/real Naïvity about how system racism works.
We might as well start asking “why do black people prefer renting?”, because as a nation we are commited to pretending to not understand that there are systemic reasons for things.
“Why do
blackpoor people prefer renting?” You can solve this better by addressing wealth disparityBlack people only make up 12.6% of the population. If 80% of previous students aren’t black, then black students are heavily over-represented in the student body.
Can be biased both for or against the student based on who the specific administrators are.
Can be biased both for or against the student based on who the specific teachers are.
Sure buddy, and if you’re too stupid to get into any college you might believe both those have the same chance of happen 🤣
Yes. If a white person applies to an HBCU they can get minority scholarships. There was a big story about it a few years ago where a white person wrote about their experience being a minority and turns out being a minority sucks no matter who the majority is.