Earlier quoted context omitted.
[deleted]
Quoted post unavailable.
No post body was provided.
In Supreme Court brief, Yale and peers defend use of race in admissions
311–320 of 363 posts
Re: In Supreme Court brief, Yale and peers defend use of race in admissions
#312Earlier quoted context omitted.
I really don't understand current progressive ideology. Apart from discrimination against Asians, there is also the whole "Hijab empowers women" nonsense. I come from a part of the world where women have to fight for the right to take off hijab. They are shunned socially for doing so. In worse places, they can be jailed or beaten. Imagine coming from such a place to America, and seeing here women are wearing that sym…
You don't understand it because your understanding of it is wrong. The point isn't that the "hijab empowers women." The point is that a woman should be able to choose for herself whether to wear the hijab or not. Autonomy, and all that. Telling a Muslim woman she can't wear a hijab is just as oppressive as telling one she must wear it.
Nobody is talking about a ban. I'm talking about there being no backlash in America against hijab in liberal circles. A hijab and a confederate flag are equally symbols of oppression but only one is frowned upon in liberal circles. Why?
Re: In Supreme Court brief, Yale and peers defend use of race in admissions
#313Earlier quoted context omitted.
> a doctrine that discriminating against Whites is very good and correct, because they deserve it. This is an argument put forth in bad faith. The thought - agree or disagree - is white individuals in America have systemic advantages that persist due to historical social practices the manifest across many years of education and just existence in life in America. It's not about "deserving less" but about acknowledging…
How does acknowledgement of favor manifest if not by punitive discrimination? Is a simple admission of favor sufficient, or must corrective action be taken? It seems that this is simply the argument for why the punitive belief is just.
I had another response to a now-deleted reply, but I'll put it here. Ultimately, there are policies and practices in place that try to mitigate documented structural disadvantages for underrepresented groups using a counterweight of procedural advantage. There is a debate to be had here (though I won't have it online), but the reality is true fairness and justice cannot occur without an intentional efforts to redress systemic structural unfairness because by it's very nature it won't "just work out eventually" for those affected. At least not on a reasonable timescale.
In other words: in some decision-making settings non-White groups have a procedural weight in their favor to minimally counterbalance the way society has objectively and still measurably disadvantaged them for generations. If you want to call that "punishment" because White people "deserve it" then fine. However, I personally think that's semi-dishonest semantics that may be technically correct in the most literal sense of the word, but is not expressed in a way commensurate with the parlance of our times.
Re: In Supreme Court brief, Yale and peers defend use of race in admissions
#314Earlier quoted context omitted.
The purpose of affirmative action policies is to help under-represented groups. Asians aren't under-represented at Yale, they are 19 percent of the student population, while only 6 percent of the American population.
So asian students are being punished because other asian students did too well? Back in the early-to-mid 20th century, universities had limits to how many jewish students could join each year, with the argument that if they didn't, jews would make up the entire university population. Are you in favor of bringing back that policy, as well?
There are other policies universities have established to create a student body that is somewhat reflective of America -- they discriminate based on geography(multi-regional), on socio-economics (first generation students preferred), on sex (males preferred), athletic ability (the strong and fast preferred), age (youth preferred), and on veteran status (veterans preferred). Conservatives, being who they are, chose to focus on race.
I will answer your question with a question:
If the Supreme Court requires universities select their student based solely on standardized tests, and consequently this results in our top universities being made up of primarily of foreign nationals (there are billions of Chinese and Indians, and it is illegal to discriminate based on national origin), would you favor that inevitable outcome?
Re: In Supreme Court brief, Yale and peers defend use of race in admissions
#315Earlier quoted context omitted.
But what’s missing from your steelman is why returning to racial discrimination will solve the problems of past racial discrimination — rather than making them worse, by teaching a whole new generation to be racists.
Forget making it worse as the primary concern. I am concerned about fascism emerging as a backlash to anti-White discrimination. People are pissed that their society has turned against them and will abandon democracy to fix the situation.
[deleted]
Re: In Supreme Court brief, Yale and peers defend use of race in admissions
#316I dont know why peoplehate meritocracy but i can say one thing for sure that communities/orgs dont encourage meritocracy go down the drain. I look for the best surgeon not someone with some race to do a surgery on me.
Quoted post unavailable.
> she's probably working a double shift at a grocery store
Then she's not a surgeon
Re: In Supreme Court brief, Yale and peers defend use of race in admissions
#317To quote from the brief. Unlike applicants whose identities have been affected mainly by their socioeconomic or geographic circumstances, applicants whose formative experiences relate to race or ethnicity would be denied the opportunity to convey their full, authentic selves when competing for admission to selective schools like Amici. And so we guarantee that millions of Americans will have a formative experience th…
I really don't understand current progressive ideology. Apart from discrimination against Asians, there is also the whole "Hijab empowers women" nonsense. I come from a part of the world where women have to fight for the right to take off hijab. They are shunned socially for doing so. In worse places, they can be jailed or beaten. Imagine coming from such a place to America, and seeing here women are wearing that sym…
> Its analogous to if you were an American slave in 1800s, got your freedom and sailed to the UK. And on landing saw blacks in the UK wearing chains as a fashion accessory.
> Most black men couldn't balance a checkbook / But buy a new car, talkin' 'bout, "How my neck look?" / Well, it all looks great / Four hundred years later, we buyin' our own chains
Re: In Supreme Court brief, Yale and peers defend use of race in admissions
#318Earlier quoted context omitted.
Is that to say the California and Washington schools now have the appropriate demographics? I'm curious to know what those numbers are.
In CA at least, there is a large gap: Despite those changes and others, the proportion of freshmen from underrepresented racial groups, including Blacks, Latinos and women, attending the UC campuses, averaged 20% before Prop 209, then dropped to 15% in 1998, then slowly increased over the next 20 years, reaching a peak of 37% in 2016, according to the system. However, the percentage of underrepresented students gradu…
I know you are quoting from your source, but this blew my mind:
> underrepresented racial groups, including Blacks, Latinos and women
Women are not an underrepresented racial group, and in fact make up the majority of students at the University of California. https://www.universityofcalifornia.edu/about-us/information-...
Re: In Supreme Court brief, Yale and peers defend use of race in admissions
#319Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Beginning to repair that inequity is not racist. What is racist is to think you're inherently better than them, which is what many people who want to end affirmative action believe. By all means: cite the data that shows this.
Cite data that the KKK wants to end affirmative action? …uh, okay? [0] [0] https://www.csmonitor.com/1991/0613/13072.html
If we're using association with the KKK, then note that your favored organization the ACLU also has backed the Nazis and KKK on many occasions [0]. It's almost as if association with the KKK is not enough to impugn a policy.
[0] https://www.aclu.org/press-releases/aclu-em-defends-kkks-rig...
Re: In Supreme Court brief, Yale and peers defend use of race in admissions
#320Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Meanwhile, everybody pays taxes so we have the data we need to not use racial discrimination. Actually, the very wealthy _don't_ pay a ton in taxes, depending on how their wealth is invested and distributed. What wealthy folks often do is to take lending against their assets, giving them liquidity. This is not taxable income.
Quoted post unavailable.
> Your take on taxes is incorrect
It isn't, at least in the US. Straight from the horse's mouth: https://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/briefing-room/2021/09/23/new-...
Talk to your friends in Wealth Management, they can confirm. Tax minimization via loopholes is active and thriving.