I never understood why are people against standardized testing. I would rather fail test than be judged by someone then deemed not worthy.
I'm confused, isn't that what SAT and ACT are?
Supreme Court strikes down affirmative action in college admissions
661–670 of 1001 posts
Re: Supreme Court strikes down affirmative action in college admissions
#662Earlier quoted context omitted.
https://indypendent.org/2015/01/the-white-race-was-invented-... https://www.theguardian.com/news/2021/apr/20/the-invention-o... I also seem to recall a factory or trade uprising/strike in/around Europe between 1400-1700 where they basically made up whiteness to divide the laborers and get them to argue amongst themselves (successfully), but this may be apocryphal as I cannot seem to find a source.
Really, people had to be told that people with white(r) skin, are similar..? How stupid do these people think 'everyone else' is. This is the most absurd thing I've read all day. Humans, who divide themselves along such lines as _what tv shows they like_, had to have the concept of _skin colour_ invented for them. Really think about how ridiculous this assertion is.
People naturally mix. They work together, worship together, and marry each other, unless this natural mixing is opposed by external forces.
Re: Supreme Court strikes down affirmative action in college admissions
#663The most elite colleges already pre-empted this ruling by rapidly moving towards non-merit based admissions they will just make it so you can't really tell if they are using affirmative action or not instead of having it be explicit.
Won't people be able to prove statistically that they are obviously still using affirmative action policies via GPAs/SAT scores/racial mix? I'm not that great at statistics but that doesn't seem like a very hard task even using basic figures of merit like ratio of applicants to population of accepted students. Seems like something easy to bring a class action suit against a University after a few years of data is available.
Re: Supreme Court strikes down affirmative action in college admissions
#664Earlier 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…
>this whole Affirmative Actions seems to just be reversed racism
It is, but it is an attempt to right a wrong, which isn't an easy thing to do or measure. It's a moralistic endeavor and moralistic endeavors can become monsters in their own right.
>To me as an outsider, the US focuses wayyyyy to much on race.
It's become a political football, because of this, I think it's perpetuating it more than it would be naturally. Morgan Freeman articulated this well many years ago.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MpnpIhqSLto
>Even asking for ones race or ethnicity in my country would be considered descriminatory as there can be no purpose for collecting that information that isn't descriminatory.
It's funny, this is done to ensure that historically oppressed races are measured for success / failure. It seems to support to your reverse racism comment.
>Discriminating based on race (among other things) is forbidden in the constitution, and that is absolute.
I agree, that's why AA was struck down. It's a clear violation of the 14th amendment. This was known at the time and known in the early 2000's (2003?) when this came up before. It's always been considered an emergency measure that would need to end because it was a clear violation of equal protection under the law clause of the 14th.
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. 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.
Re: Supreme Court strikes down affirmative action in college admissions
#665I admittedly skimmed the opinion, but is this the first case that establishes a private entity like Harvard University is bound by the Equal Protections Clause? I thought existing law and precedent only had it applied to state/state actors (and a few cases where private businesses acted like governments, eg company towns).
Corporations are also private entities and they have to also adhere to the Civil Rights Act and not discriminate based on race/ethnicity, why wouldn't Harvard?
Re: Supreme Court strikes down affirmative action in college admissions
#666I'd rather live in a society that made it an imperative to have more students from more ethnicities be eligible for the best universities every year. That requires addressing inequality earlier, and more thoroughly, and across more axes, than an approach that is, in the final analysis, about setting quotas based on ethnicity. Affirmative action can do everything it was designed to do while having essentially zero imp…
That's probably not going to happen in the USA given current status of public schools barely hanging on.
Re: Supreme Court strikes down affirmative action in college admissions
#667I could understand how this applies to state universities, but how does the US Constitution have this kind of jurisdiction over Harvard?
Private college status doesn't override basic rights elucidated by the Constitution which are further spelled out by various civil rights laws.
Re: Supreme Court strikes down affirmative action in college admissions
#668So, legally, does this apply to corporate quotas by extension?
I don't think so, I believe this strictly for college admissions. However, there is no reason it couldn't be cited in future cases along those lines because they're in the same realm of judicial logic.
Re: Supreme Court strikes down affirmative action in college admissions
#669The 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…
Imagine the same argument but swap race for gender. Why are you trying to get women into medicine? Just to help the historically disadvantaged? Why don't you just let poor people in and not care about their gender? Nowadays, you could probably get away with that because everyone has got over the whole "women's brains are too small and their wombs too big for logical thought to even be possible" idea. But when the (hi…
[deleted]
Re: Supreme Court strikes down affirmative action in college admissions
#670The 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…
> I assume the intent is to help disadvantaged people have opportunities that more priviledged people have already. Right? I mean, I can get behind that. But then why the entire detour with race? Up until about 1971 (possibly later, but that's the date of Loving vs Virginia ), the US had formal, legal discrimination against black people. On finally removing that, there was at various times discussion of whether peopl…
Legacy is always brought up in these discussions. The amount of students who get into Harvard because of the boost from their race outnumbers the number of legacy students who get boosted from their status 20 to 1. Basically a race and legacy blind policy would reject 20 times more minorities than legacy applicants and then if the policy is race and legacy discriminatory.