• jscummy@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      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

      • atzanteol@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        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.