441–450 of 1001 posts
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…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Poor White and Asian kids still beat out poor Black and Hispanic kids academically on average Why is that the case? For Asians, I don't see what systemic privilege they could have that would need to be compensated away?
Asians spend much more time than others on homework. [1] 1: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/07311214221101...
Regardless of what your take is on the substance, as a former lawyer, I was really struck at the language in the various concurrences and dissents. They are very clearly pissed and/or disgusted with each other in a way that is very not-normal, even for hot button cases.
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…
> Shouldn't this just be run-of-the-mill social democratic "lets hand out some extra opportunities/benefits to the poor" program? In a lot of ways, affirmative action is a boogeyman that doesn't exist in the way many people think. In many large states, such as california, they already for a long time do not consider race as a factor in admissions, as per law. And, IMO, california has done a pretty good job of having…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> They are striking this down for purely political reasons. On its face affirmative action is pretty blatantly a violation of the 14th amendment: Which to a trivial reading would come out as 'All persons [black, white, rainbow] shall have equal rights to attend [state funded school], and as such a right to a fair and impartial admissions process'. Affirmative action adds the clause: "except those whose skin color we…
No, it isn't. From a strict textual reading, the 14th says > No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. Admittance to a school is not a deprivation of life, liber…
Brown v. Board of Ed, to start, seems to pretty clearly dictate that public schools may not discriminate on the basis of race because it is a violation of the 14th amendment. What is affirmative action if not a discrimination based on the color of one's skin?
> When did school attendance become a right?
I don't really feel like in 2023 I should have to be arguing that the right to attend a public school shouldn't be conditioned on a pupil's race or ethnicity.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's worth bearing in mind that if affirmative action helped his father become a doctor, it also prevented someone else's father from becoming a doctor. I wonder what that person could have achieved.
As someone not from the US, this whole Affirmative Actions seems to just be reversed racism. I.e. in the end more-or-less still unfair. Better to just remove race all together, and e.g. require college admissions by law to be judged without knowing the applicants name or ethnicity. To me as an outsider, the US focuses wayyyyy to much on race. Race really does not matter, and no matter how much the US claims to be rac…
Minorities, like the Uyghurs, were exempt from the 1-child policy and they got extra points on the national college exam.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Except it's not mostly poor, hardworking ADOS (African descendents of slavery) students that benefit. It's rich, Black students that are benefiting, especially those from outside the US and no lineage from slavery. The problem with affirmative action is that everyone is only looking literally at skin color, which is the opposite of what we should be doing.
Rich ADOS should still benefit, though. We should be looking at lineage instead of skin color, because thinking all black people are the same is a handicap of both the left: who think that all "people of color" should be compensated for slavery, and the right: who love to say that US blacks were sold by "their own people." That's like claiming innocence for molesting a child because their parents sold it to you. (I k…
A white legacy applicant at Harvard is 5 times as likely to be admitted as a non-legacy white applicant. "Our model of admissions shows that roughly three-quarters of white ALDC admits would have been rejected if they had been treated as typical white applicants." All of you writing that if a Black kid gets admitted then some white or Asian kid gets bumped off are scrapping for the little bits the rich have left to y…
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…
Why do you think you didn’t belong? I know a lot of white and Asian MIT grads and only one had perfect SAT scores. And several were valedictorian, but I’m not sure it was the majority. Curious how often you wonder if the white people you work with had an advantage by not being historically discriminated against? Probably never. And rightfully so. If people do wonder then that’s on them. There’s a lot of dumb stuff pe…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
But somehow, some people only feel the need to mention it when they don't like the result.
Yep. Roe vs. Wade was one of the most egregious examples of "legislating from the bench" in the latter 20th century? How many people who would hand-wring over recent SCOTUS decisions oppose Roe on these grounds? Or is this a convenient exception? Griswold? How about Lawrence vs. Texas?