Earlier quoted context omitted.
The decision affects private entities that accept some form of federal financial assistance (this is language from Title VI of the 1964 Civil Rights Act), not private entities writ large. Granted, that is still a big bucket.
There's apparently a bit of overlap between Title VI and Title VII. But will likely have a separate case > “many of the thought processes and the basic legal principles” are the same, says Daniel Pyne III, an employment specialist at law firm Hopkins & Carley. If the court strikes down race-conscious admissions in education, “that is a strong hint that the same decision might be made” in employment cases https://www.…
Supreme Court strikes down affirmative action in college admissions
961–970 of 1001 posts
Re: Supreme Court strikes down affirmative action in college admissions
#962I got an email about this from my university president expressing his disappointment with the ruling. He assured everyone the campus will continue to strive for more racial diversity and that this ruling is a hindrance to that goal because race based discrimination is a good thing for achieving diversity. The school is already about 25% white in a country that is ~60% white. Is that sufficiently diverse? What is the…
College populations are a window into the staggering inequality of our society. Shallow as we Americans are, many of us will be content if we can just apply a little window dressing and create some stories to make ourselves feel better. (Be warned, this strategy has now entered many workplaces.)
People with jobs like university president and CEO are stuck in a bind - most can’t stick their neck out. Unfortunately there’s no reasoning with a person whose job depends on not conceding their argument.
Re: Supreme Court strikes down affirmative action in college admissions
#963Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think it's a mistake to think the intent is to benefit individuals of specific races. This has very much been something where the intended benefactor is American society in general. As an example, I went to a good public school that had a policy where the top 5% of high school students were automatically given admission to the university. While this was technically race blind, it was de facto affirmative action, be…
> Simply put, being exposed to a a rich, diverse student body is good for everyone, not just minorities. Why does the student body need to replace part of its Whites and Asians with minorities to be "rich and diverse"? Can't it be rich and diverse by having different people which are each his own individual not defined by his race? Also, aren't you worried about how getting denied admission to a college because of yo…
Hey, so there are two parts to your question, the "rich" part and the "diverse" part. I'll start with diverse because it's the most obvious.
In order to have a "diverse" student body, it should be represent a plurality of points of view. If everyone was White/Asian then the student body wouldn't be diverse, because, by definition, there would just be people from those backgrounds. Obviously there's more to diversity than just race, and I'm not not trying to argue there isn't. I am trying to keep this response short though, so forgive me from enumerating on other things when you asked specifically about race.
Ok so now the "rich" part of the question. College is an important time in one's life where many people get the opportunity to experience freedom for the first time, while they pursue a challenging, serious education. However homework and lecture is not the only place where our education happens. Being exposed to a lot of ideas, people, and experiences is also critical to the college education. By this line of reasoning being around people of all sorts of different backgrounds is part of that aspect of education.
I grew up in a suburb of Texas. There were not a lot African Americans. I actually can't remember there being any. My family wasn't wealthy though, and my parents are immigrants (just to give you some context and to keep my story honest). I truly think that if my university hadn't had its affirmative action program, there's a good chance I would have made it to adulthood without having ever been around non-white people in a meaningful sense. When would I have? I didn't choose what family, city, state, or country I was born in. All of those things happened outside of my control, and, frankly, from the perspective of someone who was from a city like New York or London I would have seemed pretty ignorant.
It's sort of like traveling, you know? Having the opportunity to travel gives you a baseline level of experience in the world that there really is no substitute for. I think having an ethnically diverse student body is similar, and that is why I said society is the primary beneficiary of affirmative action. That's my best way to answer the question without there being an actual person in front of me and being able to have a face to face discussion, so I hope you take my answer as one given sincerely, even if you don't agree with it.
> Also, aren't you worried about how getting denied admission to a college because of your race will have a very negative effect for "society"?
I am Italian. My "race" invented pizza, so no.
Edit: Also, kidding aside, give me a break. I don't even know how to answer that. You're acting like you're the victim of some kind of race war, and it's cringe. I hate to say it, and I don't mean to be disrespectful, but it's true. You sound like one of my parents when they pretend like "you can't joke about anything anymore" or that everything is "so complicated with all the political correctness". Madonna.
Re: Supreme Court strikes down affirmative action in college admissions
#964Earlier quoted context omitted.
> the US had formal, legal discrimination against black people this is misinformation; State laws had complete jurisdiction over certain matters, by design. "The US" is calling Washington State the same as Alabama. So, no.
States can do many bad things because the US constitution designed by the founders of the country lets them do it. So, no this scapegoat is not available. The discrimination is 100% an issue of the US as a country.
Last statement is, some religious people, of different groups, were absolutely and completely against slavery, preached against racism, wrote laws that were fair and impartial, from the very first days. The founding groups of the United States included deeply religious people who opposed slavery and did not practice it, and therefore got no monetary support from that system. And some of those deeply opposed to slavery, grew and built a great society. You or others cannot just ignore those founders and claim now that "everyone did it" , it is the fault of the USA, etc .. The USA was a place that broke away from the Old World systems, including a LOT of slaving, but the progress was uneven, and the slave system was profitable so their masters had a lot of money and things that go with that.
Re: Supreme Court strikes down affirmative action in college admissions
#965Re: Supreme Court strikes down affirmative action in college admissions
#966I got an email about this from my university president expressing his disappointment with the ruling. He assured everyone the campus will continue to strive for more racial diversity and that this ruling is a hindrance to that goal because race based discrimination is a good thing for achieving diversity. The school is already about 25% white in a country that is ~60% white. Is that sufficiently diverse? What is the…
Re: Supreme Court strikes down affirmative action in college admissions
#967Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Create and support plebian race-based factions and pit them against one another so they can't fight the elites. So pretty much the opposite of class warfare? Class warfare would be warfare between classes. What you're describing is racial warfare intentionally engineered to avoid class warfare.
I think the implication is that it's race warfare is a tool used by the "ruling" class to wage class warfare on the poor.
Re: Supreme Court strikes down affirmative action in college admissions
#968Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I went to MIT, and to this day I wonder how much checking "Hispanic" helped me there and if I "deserved" to go. the problem with aa is not about people getting in that didn't "deserve" it, it's people getting in who don't have the means to succeed; elite colleges brag about their diverse admissions but don't talk about people who go on to fail when they could've succeeded at less prestigious schools if you succeede…
If MIT rejected applicants with better profiles because of the URM checkbox, in some sense they didn't deserve to get in. I'm technically 1/4 Hispanic, but not at all Hispanic in any real sense. I forgot to check the box when applying to top schools. My odds would've had a large boost just for claiming an identity that's had no relevance to any area of my life. I'd call that "undeserved."
"better" is subjective and imo anyone who goes on to succeed at the school is as good as the next person; there are lots of other equally arbitrary decisions that go into college admissions
Re: Supreme Court strikes down affirmative action in college admissions
#969In Brazil, public universities were dominated by the rich, mainly whites, since the entrance exams required high grades that only those who could pay for expensive exam prep courses would have. Since 2012, with the Law of Social Quotas, that reality has changed, since 50% of the new admission spots are destined for students coming from public high schools, with further subdivisions for racial minorities based on the…
In fact, a blue eyes, blonde hair white European from Argentina would be given preference over an Indian or Thai individual.
Re: Supreme Court strikes down affirmative action in college admissions
#970Earlier quoted context omitted.
Patently incorrect. Minority preference is ~20x times larger than legacy preference at Harvard. A typical class at Harvard has 2,500 student admits. Of those, 700 are black or Hispanic. If Harvard did away with legacy admissions, 25 additional Hispanic or black applicants would be admitted, so 725. However, if they did away with affirmative action, 450 would not be admitted, so you would be down to 275. Most of these…
That’s a strange reading of that study, and at odds with the abstract. >The lawsuit Students For Fair Admissions v. Harvard University provided an un- precedented look at how an elite school makes admissions decisions. Using publicly released reports, we examine the preferences Harvard gives for recruited athletes, lega- cies, those on the dean’s interest list, and children of faculty and staff (ALDCs). Among white a…