431–440 of 660 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I didn't think the DOJ was involved here?
It's absolutely hilarious that the person you're replying to is so sure what's going to happen next without even knowing who the plaintiff is.
https://www.politico.com/news/2019/10/01/harvard-race-affirm...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Isn't that a strong argument for class as a better means for analysis? I mean, if they're so interlinked, why not avoid the pitfalls of racialism?
There are people alive today who's parents or grandparents lived for a time without civil rights. I don't think disregarding their experience is the correct direction to take.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No but it might be possible that an African american with the same grades as an asian american is much more likely to be successful in the future because they got the same results from what is likely a much more difficult starting point. The context of someone's acheivements matters and race is part of that context.
But if it's starting position you're worried about, you'd be worried about class. You would give affirmative action based on economic status, not race. That I would agree with.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It is the price that "white" identity demands. It is a subtractive identity, ie it abhors identity complication. You basically have to strip every complicating element of your true identity safe for the absolutely benign forms (ie "Kiss me, I am Irish" tea shirts). If you pay attention at least in American you can observe intriguing examples of this tension with white identity playing out. For instance being LGBTQ an…
> In fact there are examples now of white gay men who claim to hate "identity politics", what they really hate is that LGBTQ identity jeopardizes their "white" identity and they recognize this Speaking for myself, mmm.....no.
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/11/magazine/gay-conservative...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
A race is a "folk science" version of an ethnicity (it's defined culturally instead of scientifically). An ethnicity is a genetically similar group of people that often come from the same geographic origin.
Ethnicity has nothing to do with genetics. Dictionary definition says "a social group that has a common national or cultural tradition"; Wikipedia has this starting paragraph: "An ethnic group or ethnicity is a category of people who identify with each other, usually on the basis of a presumed common genealogy or ancestry or on similarities such as common language or dialect, history, society, culture or nation. Ethn…
From Wikipedia. You're right that I didn't list every factor.
This ruling is a travesty and I hope the Supreme Court overturns it when this is appealed. It is very clear that race-conscious admissions are systematically racist and discriminatory. Take a look at the distribution of students by race in the University of California system, where they're not permitted to discriminate in this manner, thanks to Prop 209 ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1996_California_Proposition_20..…
You assume that just some test criteria is the only criteria that matters but why? Who said that someone with the best marks in some specific test deserve a place more than someone with lower marks? It is an indicator for ability for sure but guess what, genetics is also a very good indicator and social standings of the family is also a very good indicators and there are many other factors or correlation we could use. There is no "fair", it is only criteria and schools should be able to choose whatever criteria they want, even if they choose to bring in the most stupidest student if they feel like it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> It is very clear that race-conscious admissions are systematically racist and discriminatory. Every time the SCOTUS hears one of these cases they acknowledge that, but the justification is that these classes are/have been historically discriminated against and constitutional admissions which take race into consideration are a temporary measure to right these historical wrongs by leveling the playing field. So the e…
> So the end goal even according to SCOTUS is for these measures to eventually become unconstitutional. This shouldn't be an acceptable justification, "righting historical wrongs" is a highly subjective policy goal which shouldn't be relevant to a verdict of "constitutionality".
Earlier quoted context omitted.
But Harvard is a private school, which I think makes a difference. I also don't know how you maintain a diverse student body with different cultural perspectives if you aren't in some way filtering on cultural background, of which race is a part. Honestly, I don't know . I don't think it's an easy question. However, I think there's a decent case that, if Harvard is making decisions like this, it's ability to receive…
Since Harvard receives federal funds, it has to play by the same anti discrimination rules as the Federal government.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Asian Americans were as discriminated against as African Americans under Jim Crow. The fact is that we have forgotten the rampant bigotry against Asian Americans because us Asian Americans now basically own the United States of America. Asian Americans had to put up with (among other things): * Being ineligible to become citizens of the United States well after the passage of the 13th Amendment. There was a time in t…
Clearly all racial and ethnic sub-groups were discriminated against to various degrees in the US (and elsewhere). I distinctly remember being taught this (including about several of your bullet points) in the Texas suburb I grew up in. But its not comparable in scope or legacy to that of Black Americans, and by your own admission if Asian American's "basically own the United States" -- do they actually need help? Its…
Most affirmative action beneficiaries are middle and upper class. Their class standing shields them from the effects of past discrimination.
In the case of African Americans, they are less oppressed than Asian (and all other races) applicants that come from immigrant families. African Americans had access to first world education and infrastructure throughout the 1940s-1980s. Compared with immigrants from previously communistic or 3rd world countries, African Americans have been very privileged. It also helps that African Americans don't have a language barrier in America.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Hiring and employment is different from college selection processes. Students attending a university are not employees. There are federal laws on equal opportunity employment and California has enacted additional laws. If anyone is caught discriminating on employment based on race it's directly against federal law.
Morally it is the same. Legally, I don't know, I am not a lawyer and I don't even live in US, someone else can tell what the law is.