> Asian Americans, the group whom the suit was supposedly about, have been oddly absent from the conversations that have followed the ruling.
This isn’t true from what I’ve seen. The major talking point was “this is great for asians!”
Which I think is a problematic take. This ruling is precisely NOT about giving people “their due” based off their race. Why not also say “this is great news for whites!” Ostensibly because people dont think whites “need” it but doleing out favor based off a supposed “need” by race is the problem.
This is good for absolutely everyone. No one actually benefits from institutionalized racism.
> This isn’t true from what I’ve seen. The major talking point was “this is great for asians!”
> Which I think is a problematic take. This ruling is precisely NOT about giving people “their due” based off their race.
Asians* are great academically. That's the whole reason why Harvard made being Asian count negative. So yes, this will be great for Asians. Doesn't matter that the intention isn't to give people their due. What matters is that the practical outcome is that if you're Asian and wanted to apply to Harvard, your probably of getting in, everything else being equal, just went way up.
* Who is included in "Asian", and how homogeneous the various subsets are is a long conversation and beside the point of my comment.
Its great for everyone. I recognize admission-wise Asian and White people have more to gain on average but the point is this is a win for society. Its not a tug of war between racial groups.
Always has been, affirmative action and policies that limit Asian education upward mobility is like the one issue I see masses apolitical asians consistently and vocally rally for in the last few years. MSM has been downplaying their frustrations for a long time though, mainly because most of the media savvy Asians / Asians who get MSM time are disproportionately “libtards” who are disconnected from the priorities of the broader Asian community.
My mom emailed me the SFFA decision before I even saw it. She was extremely relieved. She’s 71, immigrated from Bangladesh in her late 30s, blue dog democrat voter.
The term "institutional racism" is such a strawman argument. It acts as a catch all for essentially claiming institutions, coincidentally universities and government, are 100% racist. That just doesn't hold water given the past twenty years of these very same institutions doing everything they can legally and illegally do to boost minority inclusion.
The ugly truth is that everyone is racist to a degree, no matter the color of their skin, and any opportunity or requirement that a person be judged on the color of their skin is unconstitutional.
Ultimately no, it benefits no one. Obviously some groups benefit admission-wise but that pales in comparison to living in a racist society.
The benefit someone may receive is going to be less than the detriment to society. Even if you were granted all favor based on your race with day of reckoning (nevermind inevitable strife), dont you believe that on some deeper level you are worse off than if you earned from your merit?
In my view, this could be done by massively supporting public universities, community colleges, and trade schools.
I think the constant focus on a few "elite" colleges distorts the entire dialogue about higher education. They don't represent the people. Their antics make the working class angry, and stoke anti-education propaganda.
The state college systems stand a much better chance of educating a larger number of more diverse people, especially dollar for dollar.
>The state college systems stand a much better chance of educating a larger number of more diverse people, especially dollar for dollar.
I wouldn't mind seeing the spread of UT Austin's automatic admissions system, where Texas high school seniors are accepted if they graduate in the top 6% of their class [1]. This gives representation across all of Texas, regardless of the resources or demographics of any given high school. State universities need to get back to serving their states at large, and not filling their classes with out-of-staters who pay full freight.
I dont think it should even be legal to ask for the applicant’s race nor track their students race. I think the most appropriate response to “How many black people are at your college?” would be “I dont know we dont count them.”
> I dont think it should even be legal to ask for the applicant’s race nor track their students race. I think the most appropriate response to “How many black people are at your college?” would be “I dont know we dont count them.”
So if a college is 100% white in a predominately black area, would you not consider that to be somewhat suspicious? What about the reverse? What if a college instituted a test that has a high chance of weeding out people of a certain race incidentally? Is that institutional racism, or is it mere chance?
> So if a college is 100% white in a predominately black area, would you not consider that to be somewhat suspicious?
Assuming that was due to discrimination that would be bad. Not tracking race does not beget racism. You can oppose both. Furthermore you cant prove racism or bias from an uneven distribution of race. If we stopped tracking race maybe we could avoid this logical fallacy and focus our efforts on real racism. Like policies that explicitly authorize discrimination by race.
Race conscious admissions gave the white people who run these universities perverse power over racial minorities. It enabled them to create an “It’s a Small World” atmosphere that effectuated the vision of diversity favored by white people. I can’t help but think that the admissions people at Harvard and Yale regard Obama as a success of “diversity” but don’t feel the same way about Justice Clarence Thomas. Minorities groveling to prove to white ladies that they’re the right kind of minority to “represent” their race is a practice that needs to be confined to the dustbin of history.
this isn't talked about enough - the people in charge still tend to all look a certain way. and even when they're trying to care about minorities it still ends up looking like asking everyone to talk, think and act like them.
Asian Americans have been slandered by some on the left as the "ideal minority" and not worthy of extra consideration or support.
"The repetitiveness of the affirmative-action debate has come about, in large part, because both the courts and the media have mostly ignored the Asian American plaintiffs and chosen, instead, to relitigate the same arguments about merit, white supremacy, and privilege."
"the commentators defending affirmative action ...dismissed the plaintiffs as pawns who had been duped by a conservative legal activist."
Affirmative action is a political weapon and its effect has had a damaging effect on innocent people, particularly Asians. The media, the left, and just about everyone in between discounted Asians in the name of reducing "white, etc." acceptance at university.
> race-conscious admissions allow Asian American applicants “who would be less likely to be admitted without a comprehensive understanding of their background” to “explain the value of their unique background heritage, and perspective” and allow colleges to “consider the vast differences within [that] community.”
If I read that correctly, she (Alito) is suggesting that instead of going for academic merit they should emphasize how disadvantaged they are in their essay and hope for the best.
Doesn’t that open the door for corruption and cheating? ChatGPT will write tear jerking essays maximizing victimhood points. People pretending they are a different race or nationality to game the system. Otherwise looking for a way to slip a bribe in to the admissions committee members to “grease the wheels”.
Even if you don't agree with affirmative action in college admissions, I've never understood the focus on its impact on Asian American applicants as a reason to reject the idea.
The premise behind affirmative action is to balance out racial factors that lead to minority demographics being underrepresented, in this case in elite colleges. If some minority demographics are not underrepresented, that's great, but not obviously a reason to scrap the idea for those that are...why does it have to be all or nothing? You could argue that Asian American college attendance success is proof that there are no racial factors to balance out, but that seems silly as not every minority demographic in the US faces identical situations.
Isn’t that the argument for equality of outcome rather than equality of opportunity?
I’m in medicine and when I talk to Asian or Indians they are annoyed by affirmative action. Everyone has 1 shot at life and they believe the US is making it harder for them. And it is.
Why should being born Asian so drastically negatively affect your ability to get into an elite college? It’s discrimination.
They did the same thing with Jews - they introduced standardized testing, found that too many Jews were making it into Harvard, and then added other requirements so they could reject them.
For some of us who want a not-systemically-racist society, this seems like a travesty
Why should being born the child of a parents who didn't attend ivy league colleges so drastically affect my ability to get into an ivy league college? It's discrimination.
It’s interesting that universities have already announced that they intend to effectively ignore the rules. I wonder how the courts will deal with massive resistance II.
Readit News
This isn’t true from what I’ve seen. The major talking point was “this is great for asians!”
Which I think is a problematic take. This ruling is precisely NOT about giving people “their due” based off their race. Why not also say “this is great news for whites!” Ostensibly because people dont think whites “need” it but doleing out favor based off a supposed “need” by race is the problem.
This is good for absolutely everyone. No one actually benefits from institutionalized racism.
> Which I think is a problematic take. This ruling is precisely NOT about giving people “their due” based off their race.
Asians* are great academically. That's the whole reason why Harvard made being Asian count negative. So yes, this will be great for Asians. Doesn't matter that the intention isn't to give people their due. What matters is that the practical outcome is that if you're Asian and wanted to apply to Harvard, your probably of getting in, everything else being equal, just went way up.
* Who is included in "Asian", and how homogeneous the various subsets are is a long conversation and beside the point of my comment.
No. It's because of this:
https://www.amren.com/news/2015/10/the-asian-white-naep-test...
> No one actually benefits from institutionalized racism.
Really? I'm sure it must benefit someone . . .
The ugly truth is that everyone is racist to a degree, no matter the color of their skin, and any opportunity or requirement that a person be judged on the color of their skin is unconstitutional.
The benefit someone may receive is going to be less than the detriment to society. Even if you were granted all favor based on your race with day of reckoning (nevermind inevitable strife), dont you believe that on some deeper level you are worse off than if you earned from your merit?
Ignoring race and focusing on class would probably be better for the US in the long run, especially considering the demographics of the poor.
I think the constant focus on a few "elite" colleges distorts the entire dialogue about higher education. They don't represent the people. Their antics make the working class angry, and stoke anti-education propaganda.
The state college systems stand a much better chance of educating a larger number of more diverse people, especially dollar for dollar.
I wouldn't mind seeing the spread of UT Austin's automatic admissions system, where Texas high school seniors are accepted if they graduate in the top 6% of their class [1]. This gives representation across all of Texas, regardless of the resources or demographics of any given high school. State universities need to get back to serving their states at large, and not filling their classes with out-of-staters who pay full freight.
[1] https://news.utexas.edu/2021/09/21/automatic-admissions-thre...
So if a college is 100% white in a predominately black area, would you not consider that to be somewhat suspicious? What about the reverse? What if a college instituted a test that has a high chance of weeding out people of a certain race incidentally? Is that institutional racism, or is it mere chance?
Assuming that was due to discrimination that would be bad. Not tracking race does not beget racism. You can oppose both. Furthermore you cant prove racism or bias from an uneven distribution of race. If we stopped tracking race maybe we could avoid this logical fallacy and focus our efforts on real racism. Like policies that explicitly authorize discrimination by race.
Like the "personality score" which somehow curiously scored Asians lower, without even talking to them in person ?
Don't you worry, the universities will make sure that their decisions are so opaque that they won't ever be caught red handed again
ultimately they're still setting the rules
Dead Comment
"The repetitiveness of the affirmative-action debate has come about, in large part, because both the courts and the media have mostly ignored the Asian American plaintiffs and chosen, instead, to relitigate the same arguments about merit, white supremacy, and privilege."
"the commentators defending affirmative action ...dismissed the plaintiffs as pawns who had been duped by a conservative legal activist."
Affirmative action is a political weapon and its effect has had a damaging effect on innocent people, particularly Asians. The media, the left, and just about everyone in between discounted Asians in the name of reducing "white, etc." acceptance at university.
If I read that correctly, she (Alito) is suggesting that instead of going for academic merit they should emphasize how disadvantaged they are in their essay and hope for the best.
Doesn’t that open the door for corruption and cheating? ChatGPT will write tear jerking essays maximizing victimhood points. People pretending they are a different race or nationality to game the system. Otherwise looking for a way to slip a bribe in to the admissions committee members to “grease the wheels”.
The premise behind affirmative action is to balance out racial factors that lead to minority demographics being underrepresented, in this case in elite colleges. If some minority demographics are not underrepresented, that's great, but not obviously a reason to scrap the idea for those that are...why does it have to be all or nothing? You could argue that Asian American college attendance success is proof that there are no racial factors to balance out, but that seems silly as not every minority demographic in the US faces identical situations.
I’m in medicine and when I talk to Asian or Indians they are annoyed by affirmative action. Everyone has 1 shot at life and they believe the US is making it harder for them. And it is.
They did the same thing with Jews - they introduced standardized testing, found that too many Jews were making it into Harvard, and then added other requirements so they could reject them.
For some of us who want a not-systemically-racist society, this seems like a travesty
Deleted Comment
Because its racism and no amount is good.