171–180 of 1001 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
But somehow, some people only feel the need to mention it when they don't like the result.
Right, like how the SCOTUS rejected the Independent State Legislature theory case. Some people were like "we really shouldn't be legislating from the bench", but when the SCOTUS overturned Roe v Wade they cheered it on.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don’t love the decision, but I actually like the process. And I don’t think it is legislating. It is interpreting the law. I’d like term limits on Supreme Court justices. But I think the arguments on both sides of this debate are well thought out. Again I don’t love the decision, but Im OK with it. That said I’d love to see universities stop giving weight to legacies. But the money is just too strong.
When a neoconservative spends his life petitioning courts for this exact result instead of petitioning anyone in congress... it feels like dirty legislating. Part of it is because our congress is dreadfully inept.
Some states are getting legislation done. Minnesota, for example, but same too with states that rapidly passed abortion curbs.
As someone of Hispanic descent this is very interesting to me. Affirmative Action probably helped my father, whose father was a construction worker and mother a homemaker both of whom dropped out of high school, get into college and ultimately become a doctor. But because my father was a doctor, I had a fairly privileged upbringing. I'm a generation removed, but growing up in California always had to indicate my back…
If affirmative action is what enabled your father to become a doctor, then it almost certainly sounds like the success story that motivates the action. I don’t know percent of the time a similar story is required to justify the means, but it sounds like you should embrace the path that your family’s life has taken. The alternative, presumably, would be effectively unfair knowing what could and then did become.
I think universities can probably come up with a different set of non-protected criteria to lift underrepresented communities out of social/financial oppression. This might even provide greater access to some equally needing students that are looked over by racially-based criteria. In a perfect world, everyone would have equal opportunity and support throughout their primary education, and college admission could be…
If you agree with this decision on the grounds of supporting meritocracy, consider that the real travesty with regards to meritocracy in college admissions are legacy admissions.
I often wished universities (and other organizations) would use a scoresheet-like "matrix of oppression" to determine someone's background difficulties. Like okay, you get X points if you're this race, Y points for that. Z points if your parents were poor. Or if you grew up in these bad zip codes. Or if your dad was gone and mom was an addict. Whatever. As an Asian American of relatively privileged (middle class) upb…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Double-digit increases of Asian students at top tier universities, primarily coming from decreases of nonwhite students. Probably a modest reverse version of that at the lower tier universities. Love the policy change or hate it, that’s what’s likely to happen.
> primarily coming from decreases of nonwhite students Given the actual numbers, its more likely that the largest number of applicants negatively affected by this will be white, in absolute terms.
https://stanfordreview.org/stanfords-racial-engineering/
Stanford might be an outlier, but I don't see white applicants being negatively affected by this decision. Quite the opposite.
It is important to note that Harward’s admission policy that is the subject of this case was designed to favor White students over Jewish ones [1]. Today it is being used to discriminate against Asian Americans. Colleges are already prepared for this ruling. Many, such as the University of Washington have abandoned standardized tests because such tests compell universities to admit the kinds of students universities…
The concept of affirmative action is foreign to me (quite literally so). I only know it from American media, and I've come understand it to mean "positively discriminate based on race, so long as it's a minority race" - please correct me of I'm wrong. But anyway, my question for the Americans here who grok this stuff: I assume the intent is to help disadvantaged people have opportunities that more priviledged people…
This is what I will never understand, why don't we focus on just helping the poor instead of based on race. If people of a certain race are proportionally more poor than people of another race than they will be helped more and it helps out the people of a specific race.
However in my more conpsiracy minded moments I can't help but wonder if the focus on race is designed to keep the power and the middle class fighting each other over things like that rather than fighting against the people that have the power.
But seriously why can't we just focus our help and aid around people who are poor and needs based rather than all this faffing about with race?
EDIT: Well the votes on this comment are going up and down faster than an "Essex birds drawers" as the BOFH would say.