Unfortunately these bills were really never going to stand up in court and I'm surprised they lasted as long as they did. The best way forward is to reintroduce the same scholarships and admittance but make them income based.
this post was submitted on 05 Jul 2023
7 points (88.9% liked)
politics
24939 readers
2336 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
This is why they accuse slippery slope on everything, because that's what they intend to do.
Is this a US thing I don't get? How are diversity scholarships not affirmitive action?
There it is! Check.
But to answer your bad faith conservative argument, affirmative action is typically in regards to admission, not ability to pay.
Which is also funny because that's the next step: black people are technically allowed, see we met the law, but we jacked up the tuition, now it's too much for "the poors". Whoopsies, how embarrassing, I guess black people can't attend, no issues here, teehee. Hey let's do the same thing with k-12 and defund public schools. Land of opportunity, if you can pay, teehee.
First, to clarify: I live in the EU and kind of don't care aboutt this stuff. We are doing pretty well on the nondiscrimination here. And I honestly don't know about your issues enough to be for or against affirmitive action.
But I find it funny how often the democrats make bad faith arguments by redefining words. Affirmitive action is any decision bases on protected class that is supposed to be positive for an otherwise discriminated against minority to presumably undo discrimination. These scholarships would clearly be affirmitive action by this legal definition.
Sure, you may define affirmitive action differently but the conservatives would use (suprise suprise) the conservative (legal, dictionary) meaning when they talk. Saying they are hypocrites because you redefine the word to mean something different than what they clearly ment is clearly a bad faith argument.
PS: Also, trying to label anyone calling out your bad arguments as conservative racist regardless of who they are.
I live in Canada, but it's hard to not watch the dumpster fire.
I made a comment about slippery slope, how the conservatives project slippery slope on everything because that's what they intend to do. And this is the perfect example of it. They came for affirmative action in admissions, and once they got that, they are now going after anything else they can. That is slippery slope.
That was my point.
You try to change this to being about affirmative action itself. Whether it's good or bad, or should be allowed or not. But that was not my original point. My original point was slippery slope and how conservatives project that because that's what they do. And I am correct in that. Your bad faith argument is trying to change my topic.
Shall I explain it another way? For now let's accept that this is all affirmative action. Admissions is one topic. Scholarships is another topic. And they have slid right from one to the next! That is exactly my point with how they project slippery slope on to everyone else, because that's what they intend to do.
Something tells me you're going to try to change from my point about slippery slope again.
No, I just don't think it is slippery slope when they say from start what they want to do. Slippery slope would apply if they pretended to do something and once they got it, then tried to move it again.
It is just one of the clickbait definitions of slippery slope to call anything that is gradual slippery, so I kinda get it. Its just the media misusing words to generate controversy and outrage.
For me, saying no discrimination either way (affirmitive or negative) and working towards it is normal. Saying you want religious freedom when they don't allow teaching religious topics in schools and then when they get it trying to undermine real science and hang up commandments in classrooms. That is slippery slope that I am outraged about. I don't want to water to words down by these clickbaits, hence my comment.
This is not clickbait, this is what slippery slope is.
Btw, at risk of you accusing me of changing the topic, they didn't go after Legacy admissions. Legacy admissions is not the strongest candidate, or the best candidate. It's the children of people who went there before, take a guess who benefits from that.
For me, saying no discrimination either way (affirmitive or negative) and working towards it
If you believe that you've been duped. Ever wonder why their public schools are in shambles?
You should watch "Beau of the fifth column" on YouTube.
Legacy admissions are some real BS. I guess it does not ring alarm bells in my head as immediately because its not obviously unconstitutional. But it is a rather nice roundabout way of discriminating. For any school that takes public funds, legacy admissions should be forbidden.
Guess which one is much, much larger.
At its core, legacy admission is discrimination. We don't have to twist ourselves into knots about legal definitions, we can all see that at its core it's discrimination. (Or selective picking, if you'd rather use that term, that is not based on merit.) If the heart of this is fairness then why aren't Republicans chasing after that?
Yes, I agree. Or rather, I think favoritism is a better word. They prefer the children of their "friends" (alumni). Which is kind of ok as long as it is just their own money, not public funds. But with public funding, it is basically shameless embezelment.
But don't you dare call the GOP racist!
It’s not racism to not want different rules for different races. Make scholarships for people from underprivileged families, not from race.
Just because something is helping out a race that you want it to help out doesn’t make it free from racism.
It’s my understanding that diversity scholarships generally put those below the poverty line first.
Intention will be all over the place and it's not just about scholarships. It's about admission.
What it actually did was put middle class minorities in higher end colleges at the cost of middle class white kids. It did very little for anyone who couldn't afford the costs.
In a world where people are good and decent, there would be no racists, bigots, xenophobes, misogynists or homophobes. These behaviors come exclusively from conservatives. Our world would be a much better place without conservatives.
I wonder what their final solution will be for diversity?
Black and brown people at the bottom ever subservient to a small elite of rich white cis straight men. It was never about the ‘unfairness’ of affirmative action. If it was you’ll also see them taking aim at the unfairness of legacy admissions as well. It has always been about keeping black and brown folk down and maintaining hierarchy.
Couldn't be that it was racist ineffective policy. No definitely not.
Are we also getting rid of legacy admissions? Or is that advantage acceptable?
Hold on let me find Dorothy, Tinman, and the lion and we have the entire crew to hang out with strawman.
Ignoring the fact that AA has nothing to do with legacy admissions and frankly wouldn't survive a challenge on it's own even in a less stacked court; no I do not think banning legacy admissions would be effective policy. Legacy admissions allow an individual to expand capabilities and capacity of educational institutions and get a favor in return. At it's core it helps more individuals get education at the cost of unfairness which frankly is built in at every level. That rich person will always have an advantage. You've fixed a small and trivial piece. They still have the network and funding.
It's frankly hurting the intended recipients to right a wrong that will not be fixed unless you somehow eliminate income equality. It's bad policy in pursuit of an unrealistic standard for us to achieve in this decade+.
You keep mentioning whether it's effective policy, but that has nothing to do with SCOTUS. Their one and only concern is whether the policy is constitutional. Effectiveness is for the other branches of government to deal with.
100%. You might want to tell the guy mouthing off legacy admissions then. I've already pointed out that the bitching is beyond the scope of this case.
Let's use a simple metaphor. You have a bridge. One side of the bridge is heavier than the other, so it's not balanced. You add a counterweight to balance the bridge.
Several years later, someone says "there's no need for this counterweight anymore, it's just unbalancing the bridge." If the bridge was rebuilt to address the imbalances, you'd be right. But it wasn't rebuilt, it's the same bridge with the same flaws it had when the counterweight was put in place. In an ideal world, we wouldn't need affirmative action. But pretending we're in that ideal world isn't actually solving anything.
Affirmative Action means that degrees earned by minorities are worth less than the same degree by a white guy.
A side effect means that I seek straight male white or Asian doctors. My health is too important to trust to someone who only made it there because of that skin color or sexuality.
AA is hot garbage. It rewards rich minorities while punishing poor people. There's a reason everyone hates it.
Racial discrimination is unconstitutional. I don't care if it benefits you or me, it's wrong.
No buts. No what abouts. No "but a long time ago!" Just no.
view more: next ›