281–290 of 585 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not sure who we is, but I have 4 kids and live paycheck to paycheck and nobody helps me or my kids. We can’t spare what we don’t have.
I think you deserve help as well. This is why I suppose universal basic income, because for someone like you, an extra $1000/month would help tremendously.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't think anyone here is denying that there is a correlation, but there's a very legitimate question over whether policy should target the correlated trait (skin color) or the hardship itself (poverty) when trying to fix the problem.
It's a hard question to answer because the two are entertwined. Hence the term socio-economics. Poverty is disproportionately in minorities' court due to historical discrimination based on skin color. That doesn't mean that there aren't poor white people. But it does mean that actions targeting minorities end up overlapping a lot with poverty. The main reason it's relatively easy to target skin color is, well, visual…
Yes, but they also have a false positive rate (rich minorities) and a false negative rate (poor white people) that is much higher than a properly administered means test.
Given this, and given how controversial race-based affirmative action is, it's worth questioning whether attempting to sort based on race as a sort of shortcut to sorting based on economics is doing more harm than good. If we could implement a race-blind affirmative action program that got bipartisan support, could we not solve poverty faster than if we continue to alienate one side by insisting on excluding poor white people?
> The main reason it's relatively easy to target skin color is, well, visuals. Another can of worms in and of itself, but for the most part it's pretty easy to look at a certain minorities and pin them as such.Meanwhile financials are private and it's not like every millionaire is driving a fancy car with a suit and tie.
Why should a goal of an affirmative action system be to be able to make the accept/reject call based on a quick glance at the applicant's photo?
We already ask college students to provide an assessment of their means for the FAFSA, and about 3/4 do so. It's not long or complicated, and I see no reason why a similar system couldn't be used for a means-based admissions process.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Asians are over-represented in Harvard (note: I do no know if this is actually true) and the kinds of students rejected from Harvard but who'd get in anyway aren't exactly the kinds of students who'd fall out of society. I recognize the racism, but I also see the point of justification there. There is some distinct difference in discrimination at the top and discrmination at the bottom of the societal rungs.
I don't see where it could possibly be justifiable to discriminate against Asians. Where is the systemic racism that somehow gives Asians an advantage? It's almost as if they are being punished for ruining the narrative through their own hard work, which would force people to admit that other minorities being underrepresented at Ivy League colleges is due to something other than just "systemic racism".
I just did. You don't have to accept that justification, but I don't imagine it's an uncommon sentiment. There's a difference between not getting into Harvard but pretty still having a dozen top universities of choice and barely even getting out of high school because your area's education was under-funded due to historical factors.
I don't know the historical factors that lead to Asian-Americans being so successful in comparison to other minorities, but it's clear they need less help as a whole compared to other minorities. There's your justification.
>It's almost as if they are being punished for ruining the narrative through their own hard work
You can interpret it that way. You can also say that the AA is starting to focus more on those who need it, and Asians seem to need it the least as of now.
>force people to admit that other minorities being underrepresented at Ivy League colleges is due to something other than just "systemic racism".
So what are you suggesting? Again, my Asian american history is very superficial, but I think it's hard to deny that it's a shorter history than African or Mexican American history in this context.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I agree completely. Something so striking about the situation as well is that on balance, we have a staggering amount of wealth to share with the less fortunate. Yet these are children, specifically, who deserve every opportunity we can afford them by default. Not “hopeless addicts” or some other group deemed not worth saving by so many of us, but people quite literally the epitome of worth saving. These people need…
> we have a staggering amount of wealth to share with the less fortunate Many Americans will stop you at that first word. Who is this we you speak of? If the pandemic taught me anything, it's that to all too many Americans the most important freedom is freedom from strangers' problems. They don't want to see them, they don't want to hear them, and they sure as hell don't want to pay for them. Now, if THEY happen to h…
[1] https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/most-char...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think "Equity" was launched to the general public 2-3 years ago.
In 1968, H. George Frederickson articulated "a theory of social equity" and put it forward as the 'third pillar' of public administration.[4] Frederickson was concerned that those in public administration were making the mistake of assuming that citizen A is the same as citizen B; ignoring social and economic conditions. Using the term launched, similar to how tech companies launch products, implies a conspiracy to b…
This is what affirmative action should be... helping people out based on their individual situation, not because their skin color or gender.
[1] https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2022/11/15/black-ame...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
you keep saying that but your set of facts is clearly missing many pieces (you admit as much) so to keep repeating it doesn't make it any more true and is really revealing a lot.
You can't make a fact more true. It simply is. You can drop the personal attacks and insinuations. That's not necessary.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Interesting, most places I've seen are increasing the food restrictions, including in food brought from home. This is probably something you can address with your district if your state doesn't already some healthy school food law.
How on earth do they have the right to make rules about what food kids bring from home?