Law Affirmative Action Abolished: U.S Supreme Court Outlaws Racial Discrimination In College Admissions.

[Roaming East]

If white liberals want more blacks and Latinos in schools why don't they start by giving up on their admissions?

affirmative action and indeed the entire desegregation of universities effectively did just that. or were you just being facetious?

 

[nefti]

affirmative action and indeed the entire desegregation of universities effectively did just that. or were you just being facetious?

Desegregation was a civil rights issue. Now white liberals want more blacks and Latinos in universities. Which is a good thing. So give up your spots to Latinos and blacks.

 

[PrinceOfPain]

LOL @ calling affirmative action "systemic racism". Way to completely expose yourself.

I'm not entirely familiar with exactly how affirmative action is instituted in the States.
Is race not a qualifying factor?

 

[HomerThompson]

I'm not entirely familiar with exactly how affirmative action is instituted in the States.
Is race not a qualifying factor?

I don't consider correcting historic injustices and systemic racism to be racism. AA was a reasonable attempt to correct things from America's past. I'm all for a large scale analysis of it to see if it has achieved the desired impact, and if it is still necessary.

But, I don't think it makes any sense for the Justice Department to go after Harvard hard like this, when there is so much disgusting corruption in the corporate world, not to mention organized crime, drug cartels, etc. It's a huge misallocation of resources.

 

[PrinceOfPain]

I don't consider correcting historic injustices and systemic racism to be racism. AA was a reasonable attempt to correct things from America's past. I'm all for a large scale analysis of it to see if it has achieved the desired impact, and if it is still necessary.

Don't get too caught up in the absurdity of the example, but hitler would surely have said the same thing about correcting the injustices that the jews had inflicted upon Germany.
I am not saying you're hitler, obviously. Just that i wonder where and how you're drawing your lines. Lines tend to get fuzzy when subjective justice is administered in a generalised manner. Especially when the direct victims of the injustice that is to corrected are beyond the reach of said justice.

My opinion is that the resultant injustices of race-based policies are rectified, over time, by purging the system of race-based policies.
Nothing will be repaired overnight, but i do not believe that replacing those race-based policies with other race-based policies that make a different group feel marginalised is really an answer to anything, other than "how to keep people divided."

Also, i am not sure that justice or injustice can be effectively applied to a group based purely on their colour. I think justice is more of a case-by-case concept. People are individuals, after all.

Anyway, how do you define racism, if not as race-based discrimination?

But, I don't think it makes any sense for the Justice Department to go after Harvard hard like this, when there is so much disgusting corruption in the corporate world, not to mention organized crime, drug cartels, etc. It's a huge misallocation of resources.

Again, i am not all that familiar with America's interpretation of affirmative action (i do know that it is a lot more resonable than ours) but depending on the kiebler elf's intended scope, i have to disagree with you.
To me, education stomps almost everything else, in terms of national priorities. Problems in the education system not only perpetuate themselves if not corrected, but they magnify almost every other problem a nation faces.

 

[nefti]

I don't consider correcting historic injustices and systemic racism to be racism. AA was a reasonable attempt to correct things from America's past. I'm all for a large scale analysis of it to see if it has achieved the desired impact, and if it is still necessary.

But, I don't think it makes any sense for the Justice Department to go after Harvard hard like this, when there is so much disgusting corruption in the corporate world, not to mention organized crime, drug cartels, etc. It's a huge misallocation of resources.

You are correct. There is nothing wrong with trying to help blacks and Latinos. Do it by GIVING UP WHITE LIBERAL SEATS. act on your words, make the sacrifice for your oppressed countrymen.

 

[BIKES!]

It's funny that to keep Jews out, they added criteria for character and fitness.

You are a racist piece of shit.

 

[panamaican]

I'm not entirely familiar with exactly how affirmative action is instituted in the States.
Is race not a qualifying factor?

Affirmative Action doesn't exist in the university system (since that's what this thread is about). It's been forbidden for years but people still seem to think that it's happening (which is a different conversation from if Asian americans are being discriminated against).

Schools are allowed to consider race when making their admissions decisions but they are not allowed to use quotas or make race a deciding factor.

If Asians are being discriminated against then it's not because of affirmative action for blacks and Hispanics because no school is applying affirmative action in favor of any race anymore. If discrimination is happening, it's direct discrimination against Asians. Not indirect discrimination as a result of favoring someone else.

But this conversation is difficult to have because people continue to pretend that admissions is strictly about grades and test scores when every single one of us that went to college knew that our extracurriculars were part of what colleges were looking at. That we joined debate teams and theater clubs and all that other shit because it mattered for getting into college. Yet when it comes to this subject, people put their heads into the sand and pretend that it's no longer true and that colleges should start only caring about grades and test scores.

That's not to say that discrimination isn't happening, it might be. Although every previous investigation into the subject has found no evidence of discrimination against Asians, that doesn't mean that something hasn't changed since the last time it was investigated. Personally, I find it hard to believe that schools would add Asian discrimination after being investigated and cleared. It's possible but would surprise me.

 

[Stoic1]

I don't consider correcting historic injustices and systemic racism to be racism. AA was a reasonable attempt to correct things from America's past. I'm all for a large scale analysis of it to see if it has achieved the desired impact, and if it is still necessary.

But, I don't think it makes any sense for the Justice Department to go after Harvard hard like this, when there is so much disgusting corruption in the corporate world, not to mention organized crime, drug cartels, etc. It's a huge misallocation of resources.

Disagree.

The only real way to create equality is to treat everyone equally. It creates divides and resentment and ultimately more racism if that "correction" for historic injustice simply creates more injustice.

 

[Lubaolong]

Affirmative Action doesn't exist in the university system (since that's what this thread is about). It's been forbidden for years but people still seem to think that it's happening (which is a different conversation from if Asian americans are being discriminated against).

Schools are allowed to consider race when making their admissions decisions but they are not allowed to use quotas or make race a deciding factor.

If Asians are being discriminated against then it's not because of affirmative action for blacks and Hispanics because no school is applying affirmative action in favor of any race anymore. If discrimination is happening, it's direct discrimination against Asians. Not indirect discrimination as a result of favoring someone else.

But this conversation is difficult to have because people continue to pretend that admissions is strictly about grades and test scores when every single one of us that went to college knew that our extracurriculars were part of what colleges were looking at. That we joined debate teams and theater clubs and all that other shit because it mattered for getting into college. Yet when it comes to this subject, people put their heads into the sand and pretend that it's no longer true and that colleges should start only caring about grades and test scores.

That's not to say that discrimination isn't happening, it might be. Although every previous investigation into the subject has found no evidence of discrimination against Asians, that doesn't mean that something hasn't changed since the last time it was investigated. Personally, I find it hard to believe that schools would add Asian discrimination after being investigated and cleared. It's possible but would surprise me.

The last Ivy investigation that I remember was many years ago. They did not consider any of the several studies showing Asians need higher test scores to be competitive, for whatever reason. Maybe they didn't exist back then.

Colleges get around discrimination these days by reframing their affirmative-action programs as diversity programs. They use a "holistic" approach, looking at race, family background, athletic abilities, and how the applicant may have been disadvantaged. It amounts to lowering standards to increase "diversity." How much diversity are people comfortable with? How diverse do we want our doctors to be?

If Harvard were forbidden from using race as a factor in admissions, the Asian-American admissions rate would rise drastically, and the percentage of minorities would fall. Someone can check the current rates, but Ivys typically keep Asians around 12-14% of the student body. Contrast this with Caltech, a competitive school where applicants' race is not part of the admission process, where Asians typically make up around 45% of the student body. It seems pretty clear what's going on.

 

[panamaican]

The last Ivy investigation that I remember was many years ago. They did not consider any of the several studies showing Asians need higher test scores to be competitive, for whatever reason. Maybe they didn't exist back then.

Colleges get around discrimination these days by reframing their affirmative-action programs as diversity programs. They use a "holistic" approach, looking at race, family background, athletic abilities, and how the applicant may have been disadvantaged. It amounts to lowering standards to increase "diversity." How much diversity are people comfortable with? How diverse do we want our doctors to be?

If Harvard were forbidden from using race as a factor in admissions, the Asian-American admissions rate would rise drastically, and the percentage of minorities would fall. Someone can check the current rates, but Ivys typically keep Asians around 12-14% of the student body. Contrast this with Caltech, a competitive school where applicants' race is not part of the admission process, where Asians typically make up around 45% of the student body. It seems pretty clear what's going on.

They've looked at this both at Harvard and Princeton and the data existed back then. The data was what prompted those initial investigations in the first place. In both cases, there was no finding of discrimination.

Your second paragraph re: the holistic approach is what I was referring to previously. The holistic approach has always been how colleges weighed applicants. When you applied to college, I'm sure you remember people discussing all of the non-classroom stuff they were doing to help get into college. It's why they ran for Class President and listed sports accomplishments on their applications. The college essay didn't start in the last 20 years. The "holistic" approach goes back decades.

Let's say Harvard (And every other school) were forbidden from looking at race, would they be forbidden to look at sports accomplishments? Would they be forbidden to look at economic circumstances? Would they be forbidden from evaluating the quality of the high school? Family circumstances?

Are you saying they should only look at grades and test scores and nothing else?

 

[Lubaolong]

Are you saying they should only look at grades and test scores and nothing else?

I don't think being president of an African American club should hold more weight than leading an Asian American club or playing high school basketball should be worth more than playing cello in the local orchestra. I think it's fairer in states that have banned using race but use some sort of socio-economic affirmative action. No reason an AA applicant of millionaire parents should get in before a more academically qualified child of first generation working class South East Asians.

Harvard first adopted a "holistic" admission policy to eliminate their "Jewish invasion" nearly 100 years ago. And here we are again. They will try to rationalize it, but we will all get to see how this plays play out in court. One fact is undeniable. Despite a large disproportionate increase in Asian applicants over the last 25 years and Asians making up a large percent of the most qualified applicants, the admission rates of Asians have remained stable. Seems odd, don't you think?

 

[PrinceOfPain]

Affirmative Action doesn't exist in the university system (since that's what this thread is about). It's been forbidden for years but people still seem to think that it's happening (which is a different conversation from if Asian americans are being discriminated against).

Schools are allowed to consider race when making their admissions decisions but they are not allowed to use quotas or make race a deciding factor.

If Asians are being discriminated against then it's not because of affirmative action for blacks and Hispanics because no school is applying affirmative action in favor of any race anymore. If discrimination is happening, it's direct discrimination against Asians. Not indirect discrimination as a result of favoring someone else.

But this conversation is difficult to have because people continue to pretend that admissions is strictly about grades and test scores when every single one of us that went to college knew that our extracurriculars were part of what colleges were looking at. That we joined debate teams and theater clubs and all that other shit because it mattered for getting into college. Yet when it comes to this subject, people put their heads into the sand and pretend that it's no longer true and that colleges should start only caring about grades and test scores.

That's not to say that discrimination isn't happening, it might be. Although every previous investigation into the subject has found no evidence of discrimination against Asians, that doesn't mean that something hasn't changed since the last time it was investigated. Personally, I find it hard to believe that schools would add Asian discrimination after being investigated and cleared. It's possible but would surprise me.

Thank you for a bit more elaboration than might otherwise be fair for me to expect since i get knee-jerky when affirmative action comes up.

Since it does not exist, why is sessions going after it, and why does it matter?

ETA: given the ongoing conversation, it looks like racial discrimination does exist in american universities. So, nevermind.

 

[panamaican]

I don't think being president of an African American club should hold more weight than leading an Asian American club or playing high school basketball should be worth more than playing cello in the local orchestra. I think it's fairer in states that have banned using race but use some sort of socio-economic affirmative action. No reason an AA applicant of millionaire parents should get in before a more academically qualified child of first generation working class South East Asians.

Harvard first adopted a "holistic" admission policy to eliminate their "Jewish invasion" nearly 100 years ago. And here we are again. They will try to rationalize it, but we will all get to see how this plays play out in court. One fact is undeniable. Despite a large disproportionate increase in Asian applicants over the last 25 years and Asians making up a large percent of the most qualified applicants, the admission rates of Asians have remained stable. Seems odd, don't you think?

You bypassed my question though. Should they look at grades and test scores and absolutely nothing else?

 

[panamaican]

Thank you for a bit more elaboration than might otherwise be fair for me to expect since i get knee-jerky when affirmative action comes up.

Since it does not exist, why is sessions going after it, and why does it matter?

ETA: given the ongoing conversation, it looks like racial discrimination does exist in american universities. So, nevermind.

Sessions is going against any racial consideration at all (which was just litigated and the Supreme Court said that universities can include race in their holistic approach). But that's not what this specific lawsuit is about. This lawsuit is about Asians specifically being discriminated against because they are Asian.

 

[Arkain2K]

Affirmative Action doesn't exist in the university system (since that's what this thread is about).

As of today, only 8 out of 50 U.S states have decided that their state “shall not discriminate against, or grant preferential treatment to, any individual or group on the basis of race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin in the operation of public employment, public education, or public contracting.”

Should they look at grades and test scores and absolutely nothing else?

That's a strawman IMO. Nobody is against this idea of a well-rounded individual, they are pissed because some RACES are being discriminated against while others are being favored behind this secretive "holistic" veil. The OP should have made that plenty clear to anyone who have read it.

Colleges absolutely should look at a student's overall accomplishments as an individual, with special consideration to socioeconomic factor. IE: a poor Black kid from the projects, a poor Hispanic kid from the hood, a poor Asian kid from China Town, and a poor White kid from the trailer park should be treated the same if they are equally successful academically, and their bonus athletic factors should carry the exact same weight as their artistic factors. We have been through this.

Then again, all of those other stuff is just noise, as racial discrimination is the only factor that people here wants eliminated.

On contrary to popular beliefs in the College Admission offices, being born with a certain skin pigmentation is not a personal skill or accomplishment deserving of bonus points in their not-so-secret "holistic" game.

You either agree with that, or you don't.

 

[panamaican]

As of today, only 8 out of 50 U.S states have decided that their state “shall not discriminate against, or grant preferential treatment to, any individual or group on the basis of race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin in the operation of public employment, public education, or public contracting.”

Yes but at the federal level, quotas and such have been outlawed for a while. The federal level is what matters since most of these schools are receiving some form of federal support. Race conscious decisions were upheld in the recent UT case (2016 I think).

 

[Lubaolong]

You bypassed my question though. Should they look at grades and test scores and absolutely nothing else?

Stellar grades and test scores are the two most important admission factors. As I said before, alternative socio-economic affirmative action policies at schools that have banned racial consideration seem much fairer. And of course other things like real world accomplishments and exceptional talents should be considered.

 

[Lubaolong]

Yes but at the federal level, quotas and such have been outlawed for a while. The federal level is what matters since most of these schools are receiving some form of federal support. Race conscious decisions were upheld in the recent UT case (2016 I think).

It's just rebranding of the same shit, like teaching intelligent design in science classrooms after creationism was banned.

 

[lifelessheap]

I don't consider correcting historic injustices and systemic racism to be racism. AA was a reasonable attempt to correct things from America's past. I'm all for a large scale analysis of it to see if it has achieved the desired impact, and if it is still necessary.

But, I don't think it makes any sense for the Justice Department to go after Harvard hard like this, when there is so much disgusting corruption in the corporate world, not to mention organized crime, drug cartels, etc. It's a huge misallocation of resources.

How does punishing poor, hard working Asians correct historic injustices?

Please help me understand how punishing the smallest minority in the country is a reasonable way to correct systemic racism from the past.


We must be unfair to Asians because of slavery from hundreds of years ago! Surely using racist policies is the best way to to undue racist policies!

Liberalism is a mental disorder.