Why does this make it harder for the poor to access higher education? A debt forgiveness will make current debtors less burdened but will probably make it more expensive for new applicants. Isn't it the other way around?

[–] amanneedsamaid@sopuli.xyz -2 points 1 year ago (3 children)

Yes, higher education is now less accessible to non-whites. Which is good, because affirmative action was never a fair solution to the issue and was simply unfair in principle imo. We shouldn't raise the eligibility of people based on their race, college admissions and race should have nothing to do with one another. Class-based affirmative action actually makes sense instead of deciding off race.

[–] SeaJ@lemm.ee 1 points 1 year ago

We have class based affirmative action. Rich people buy their kids into school all the time.

[–] frozen@lemmy.frozeninferno.xyz 1 points 1 year ago

I agree with you in theory, but striking down AA without a better solution in place is bad. Don't let perfect be the enemy of good.

[–] withdrawn@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Yes, higher education is now less accessible to non-whites. Which is good,

Jesus H. Christ. Either stop being a racist or learn to organize your thoughts.

[–] whatsarefoogee@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

You literally cut his quote in the middle of the sentence. He says its good specifically because it was not a result of fair treatment, right after you cut him off.

The world is upside down when you can someone saying "it's unfair to judge people by race" a racist.

[–] withdrawn@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

I think you can call someone saying “it’s unfair to judge people by race” a racist when they're using that line to applaud the removal of protections against institutional racism. We can argue the merits of AA as a form of protection, but it was protection nonetheless. To say that it was unfair is to entirely ignore the unfairness which necessitated its existence.

[–] amanneedsamaid@sopuli.xyz 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Lmao is reading comprehension not your thing? Because my meaning was very clear and not at all racist.

[–] withdrawn@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

How was it not? How is non-whites having less access good?

You follow what I quoted by claiming it wasn't fair ("imo") because, as you say, "we shouldn’t raise the eligibility of people based on their race" which is great if you ignore the fact that nearly every institution in the US treats people differently based on race, whether intentional or not. It is exceedingly rare for that bias to swing in the favor of non-whites.

With no meaningful alternative to AA, what exacxtly is the win here?

[–] amanneedsamaid@sopuli.xyz 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Non-whites having less access is good in this context, because they were being unfairly given an advantage before. I agree with your premise about bias, but why should the solution to that be to artificially inflate the people being discriminated against, instead of trying to provide a system that doesn't have room for discrimination?

Class based alternative action, along with anonymizing applicant details pertinent to their race is a meaningful alternative to AA.

[–] withdrawn@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I agree on the last point, but there isn't a class based system in place, nor is there a plan to implement one (that I can find).

That, I shall continue to argue, makes this very not good.

[–] amanneedsamaid@sopuli.xyz 1 points 1 year ago

I agree with no proper replacement this will overall have a negative effect. I think the method race-based AA uses was very flawed.