Do the “affirmative action” on the basis of how wealthy a person’s background is and you get many more people from minorities than without it, whilst not unfairly helping people with the right genetics from wealthy backgrounds and ignoring people with the wrong genetics from poor backgrounds.
Strangely the solution of simply helping kids from poor backgrounds is never chosen, and instead it’s always “lets help people who happen to have a certain set of genes even if their parents are filthy rich and their life has been a long red carpet so far, same as the non-minority kids”
A pure merit-based approach also overwhelming benefits white people though, because they have a lot more generational income to help their kids get ahead in life.
It really should be income/circumstance based instead of race based. Sure they’re correlated, but there’s plenty of disadvantage white people and plenty of wealthy minorities
I get that what you’re saying but the policy wasn’t just about “financially disadvantaged groups” - it was actually about race and having a diverse student body because diversity is beneficial to one’s education and to society at large.
It’s only been since the 1960’s that schools have not been allowed to block black students from even attending. Ruby Bridges is still alive! That’s not just “poverty” as a disadvantage. That’s something else entirely that no poor white child has ever had to face. You don’t just pass a law making it illegal and say “the problem has been solved.” There is momentum in society around these things.
You could absolutely give advantages to lower-income people and still have an all-white campus. These colleges select such a vanishingly small percentage of all students that the number of “qualified students” greatly outnumbers the number of slots to be filled so you can mix and match students however you like. These schools have felt that it was better to have a diverse population than not. I don’t know if AA is needed to make that happen, but it was a tool for them to self-police.
It’s not pessimistic - it’s simply an honest understanding of how white supremacism is fundamental to the US. To be clear, things like affirmative action didn’t really improve things all that much - it was a band-aid on a traumatic amputation - but it was at least something.
It was a good band-aid for the time because racism was a massive problem back then, though, I sincerely doubt it’s needed today. I’m not saying racism isn’t a problem today, but the idea that universities must be regulated for them to accept non-white applications ignores the strides we’ve taken as a society. We don’t need the band-aid anymore.
The US is as fundamentally white supremacist today as it was way back then - if you need reminding, just think back to 2016 when more than half of all white people in the US voted a KKK-approved colostomy bag full of tanning lotion into the Waffle House. Or you could just take a look at who the main victims of the carceral slavery system are.
The US is as fundamentally white supremacist today as it was way back then
Segregation; lynchings; slavery; these are all things that were systematically outlawed and struck down in our society today. To say that white supremacy is just as bad as it was in 1960 is an utterly blind take and completely ignores what we’ve accomplished today. It’s still a problem today, yes. But if what we’re complaining about is a spray-tanned muppet who is now being legally shredded apart, I think we’ve come a long way.
Stating purely that over half of white people voting for the clown is also ignoring the other half who did not- or the intentions of the half who did vote for him. I highly doubt that a majority of the half who did vote for him were crossing their fingers for the next racial uprising.
Segregation; lynchings; slavery; these are all things that were systematically outlawed and struck down in our society today.
Segregation in the US is alive and well. We watch cops lynching black people on tv all the damn time, and slavery is literally enshrined in the constitution.
It’s still a problem today, yes.
It’s not a problem - it’s a feature of a fundamentally white supremacist society.
a spray-tanned muppet
A spray-tanned muppet that was enthusiastically endorsed into the Waffle House by the majority of white USians while he was hurling around white supremacist dog-whistles.
Absolutely.
And until that’s the case, there’s a clear double standard that benefits white people.
Rich people.
It benefits rich people.
Do the “affirmative action” on the basis of how wealthy a person’s background is and you get many more people from minorities than without it, whilst not unfairly helping people with the right genetics from wealthy backgrounds and ignoring people with the wrong genetics from poor backgrounds.
Strangely the solution of simply helping kids from poor backgrounds is never chosen, and instead it’s always “lets help people who happen to have a certain set of genes even if their parents are filthy rich and their life has been a long red carpet so far, same as the non-minority kids”
A pure merit-based approach also overwhelming benefits white people though, because they have a lot more generational income to help their kids get ahead in life.
Hook me up with that generational wealth. The ATM doesn’t accept race as a condition for providing money.
I invite you to understand population statistics vs. individual statistics.
It really should be income/circumstance based instead of race based. Sure they’re correlated, but there’s plenty of disadvantage white people and plenty of wealthy minorities
I get that what you’re saying but the policy wasn’t just about “financially disadvantaged groups” - it was actually about race and having a diverse student body because diversity is beneficial to one’s education and to society at large.
It’s only been since the 1960’s that schools have not been allowed to block black students from even attending. Ruby Bridges is still alive! That’s not just “poverty” as a disadvantage. That’s something else entirely that no poor white child has ever had to face. You don’t just pass a law making it illegal and say “the problem has been solved.” There is momentum in society around these things.
You could absolutely give advantages to lower-income people and still have an all-white campus. These colleges select such a vanishingly small percentage of all students that the number of “qualified students” greatly outnumbers the number of slots to be filled so you can mix and match students however you like. These schools have felt that it was better to have a diverse population than not. I don’t know if AA is needed to make that happen, but it was a tool for them to self-police.
deleted by creator
This is a bad take.
Racial admissions existed to counter the other injustice - an imperfect solution to the inherent racism of legacy admissions.
Now that affirmative action has ended, the injustice of legacy admissions has been made even worse. Racism is now the law.
And it will never end.
So we need laws to not be racist? This is an insanely pessimistic take that nothing has improved the issue of racism in the US.
It’s not pessimistic - it’s simply an honest understanding of how white supremacism is fundamental to the US. To be clear, things like affirmative action didn’t really improve things all that much - it was a band-aid on a traumatic amputation - but it was at least something.
It was a good band-aid for the time because racism was a massive problem back then, though, I sincerely doubt it’s needed today. I’m not saying racism isn’t a problem today, but the idea that universities must be regulated for them to accept non-white applications ignores the strides we’ve taken as a society. We don’t need the band-aid anymore.
To be clear the Supreme Courts decision here is a regulation on the universities. Not a removal of regulations.
Affirmative action was an option that institutions could choose if they thought was appropriate… Now that option has been regulated away.
The US is as fundamentally white supremacist today as it was way back then - if you need reminding, just think back to 2016 when more than half of all white people in the US voted a KKK-approved colostomy bag full of tanning lotion into the Waffle House. Or you could just take a look at who the main victims of the carceral slavery system are.
Segregation; lynchings; slavery; these are all things that were systematically outlawed and struck down in our society today. To say that white supremacy is just as bad as it was in 1960 is an utterly blind take and completely ignores what we’ve accomplished today. It’s still a problem today, yes. But if what we’re complaining about is a spray-tanned muppet who is now being legally shredded apart, I think we’ve come a long way.
Stating purely that over half of white people voting for the clown is also ignoring the other half who did not- or the intentions of the half who did vote for him. I highly doubt that a majority of the half who did vote for him were crossing their fingers for the next racial uprising.
Segregation in the US is alive and well. We watch cops lynching black people on tv all the damn time, and slavery is literally enshrined in the constitution.
It’s not a problem - it’s a feature of a fundamentally white supremacist society.
A spray-tanned muppet that was enthusiastically endorsed into the Waffle House by the majority of white USians while he was hurling around white supremacist dog-whistles.
Ask me how I know you’re white lol
You are correct here, why would we not celebrate this just because there are more issues that need corrected?