⚖️What Happens After the End of Affirmative Action?⚖️

You realize, using education to address racism is grooming and the installation of CRT?

 

LOL - those acts were a step.

But, they absolutely did NOT end racism in our society. They didn't even attempt to address that. They were far more limited in scope, and even within those limited scopes their success was limited.

We've taken basic steps - "freeing slaves", forcing schools to accept black kids, allowing blacks to vote, enacting public accommodation and employment law.

But, we have certainly not ended discrimination against racial minorities in the USA.

 

I suspect you're joking!

I suspect that many forget that at Harvard, diverse groups of students work together toward shared objectives.

For many, that's probably the first time in their lives that their success depended on that.

 

You have explained it here multiple times, and every time you have done so, I have seen a lot of prejudice and discrimination embedded into the system you describe.

Your last excuse I saw when people called you out for it being racist was that it isn't just done for race, as if it being also sexist means it isn't racist. That's not rational.It can be both.

I even saw you trying to argue the racial discrimination is ok, because people were saying discrimination in favour of those who did military service (which they saw as earning it; which is fundamentally different from being born a paritcular race or gender) is ok. Again, not rational.

I ask you here, and again, will you speak against discrimination based on race, when it is black people being discriminated for? Or do you endorse it? Lets see if you can answer that without confusing individual black people for one another, without equating blackness to poverty or overcoming hardship, etc. Purely on race alone. Is racial discrimination ok so long as its for black people?

When a rich privileged black applicant to Harvard gets in ahead of a poor trailer park white applicant who has suffered far more hardship, do you agree that is a travesty, and is racist? Do you agree that if we are to account for overcoming harship etc, that we should actually look at hardshop that specific individual has overcome, and not use race a a proxy for it?

 

True.

Again, true. And endorsing legal overt actions of racial discrimination, regardless of direction, encourages more of the illegal covert action in all directions.
We have less pursuasive ground to stand on when telling white racists that racism isn't ok, if we ourselves engage in overt racism against their race. It makes us look disingenous and ignites rather than calms racial conflict.

And you just got rid of another such law. Congratulations. Don't create new ones.

 

Good grief cite where a Democracy is mentioned in the DoI or Constitution. We are a "Republican" form of government there is no adjective qualifying it. The founding fathers specifically did not authorize votes by the People on issues or even for the President and Vice-President and Senators are supposed to be selected by their respective State legislature andwe need to go back to that and repeal the 17th Amendment.

Your type of nonsense shows the bad job schools are doing teaching civics and the Constitution.

Still waiting.

Do cite a single time we the People have ever voted as a single body in a national election on an issue or candidate.

Do you pledge allegiance to the Democracy for which the flag stands or the Republic?

 

I don't think anything will really happen it was State approved racism and balance going to just being the colleges being racist and who they admit.

 

Why do I have to keep correcting you. We are divded like a republic because we are a republic and not a democracy where there would be no state and the people would vote as a national body on candites and issues. We have some democratic elections within states but not nationally. But when founded even Senators were selected by the state legislature and we should return to that. The founding fathers had disdain towards democracy.

What is it you have against us being a Federal Republic of States?


Do cite a single time we the People have ever voted as a single bodg in a national election on an issue or candidate.le
Why does the constitution have more words concerning being a republic? My guess is that being a representative democracy is pretty well understood. England and others had parliaments.

And a guaranty the federal government would be a republican form of government. Not some made up hybrid.

 

Do you mean black people or poor people? Do you mean black people or people subjected to racial discrimination? I would join you in fighting for poor people at the espense of rich people. I would fight also fight with you for those racially discriminated agaisnt at the expense of those who do reacial discrimination against others, meaning all of them, regardless of race. But I would fight against you in fighting for black people at the expense of white or asian people regardless of the former. The former are social justice. The last one is racial discrimination. I suspect I am not alone in my stances on all of these, so people purporting to fight racism lose allies by being racist about it.

That's a nonsequitor. Yes, racism against minorities exists today. I have experienced it myself, even up here in Canada. It does NOT follow that laws against discrimination have nothing at all to do with adressing it. They have a lot to do with addressing it. They just don't work perfectly and you could use more of them, including laws barring schools from engaging in it in admissions.

Education absolutely CAN help. People should be educated that race is a stupid thing to care about in yourself and in others, and that people should not be discriminated against based on it. Campaigns showing black and white hands held together, showing the destruction racial discrimination creates, the lost productivity it creates, and that anyone can do it to anyone else regardless of race are all very good initiatives.

 

Using education to adress racism is a good thing. It need not be confused with grooming or the installation of CRT.

It also doesn't equate to racial discrimination in admissions. Quite the opposite.

 

I suspect you're joking.

I think people forget that at Harvard, diverse groups of students work together toward shared objectives.

It's not just that some kid who would otherwise be denied actually got a degree - though that is important, too.

 

Article 1 of our constitution is a prescription for how our democracy works.

Article 1

Did you manage to read the constitution and miss Article 1?

 

Laws do not address most of the racism and discrimination that is baked into our society today.

Telling people what they SHOULD believe is a poor method of changing that.

We have a whole NT of Jesus telling us how we should run our lives. In fact, Jesus demonstrated with his life on Earth. He helped the foreigners, the godless, and whomever else he met. In Matthew 25:31-end, Jesus stated that his own believers would go to hell if they don't search out the poor, those in prison, those who are sick and provide them with what they need.

Did we do that?

Nope!

Who do you have that is better than Jesus at telling people to end racism?

Another approach to changing minds on racism (and other factors, too) is by having diverse groups working together on mutual objectives - practical experience. Harvard sees diversity as important in education. I think they are right.

 

If so, that does not mean it doesn't have ANYTHING AT ALL to do with addressing racial discrimination, which is what you wrote.

Explicitly endorsing and making excuses for racial discrimination is worse.

Some people did, yes. And pointing at that is always better than preaching the opposite.

People who happen to be different skin tones working together in racial harmony is a wonderful thing. Absolutely. You don't get there by telling them that their race matters and that some of them will be accepted and others rejected because of their race.

 

We've had those laws for years.

They are NOT causing us to make progress. In fact, they're weak in allowing the status quo.

Identifying the problem and choosing methods of rectifying that problem is the only legitimate approach.

Look, the point is that the message of Jesus was great, but that telling people how to behave is a failure, even for Jesus.

Harvard is not telling anyone who applies, who is rejected, or who is accepted that their race matters. Where did you get that idea?

 

They made MASSIVE progress when they were enacted. They certainly can't eradicate racial discrimination on their own. But adding laws in the opposite direction, demaning or allowing for explicit official racial discrimination, does the opposite.

The problem is racial discrimination. The solution is not more of the problem itself.

It is a failure if you expect it to 100% fix the problem, yes. That doesn't mean it hasn't helped.

Partially from you, in what you wrote above. You wrote they want a racially diverse student body and that they admit students accordingly. That's telling everyone that race matters to them.
It means that if a student's test scores are better and they overcame more adversity, they may be rejected because there are already too many others of their race admitted. I don't think that's ok.

 

Yes, those laws helped make progress. So did ending slavery and allowing blacks to vote. Today I do not see any indication that civil rights laws are continuing to cause improvement. And, improvement needs to be the goal.

Harvard has been helping by ensuring that their classes graduate with a history of working in diverse groups toward shared objectives. Plus, minority students seed a respect for education in their original communities.

?? Race DOES matter. Racism in America IS a problem that needs to be addressed on a continuing basis, at least where we are today.

Even white supremacists believe that race matters.

Your idea on how Harvard does its admissions isn't accurate. They do give a boost to those they believe have overcome challenges such as (but not limited to) racism, but it doesn't have to do with whether "too many" have "already" been admitted. They flat out deny that there is a quota system. That would already have been illegal as per past USSC rulings.

 

This country just like all others did. We’re not unusual. Mankind in every culture had the haves and have nots. Still do. The difference now is that in the US at least there are no laws prohibiting anyone from succeeding anymore. Been that way for a while actually. AA made sure some had an advantage regardless if they really “needed” it. Rich POC don’t need handouts, but they still got them, except for Asians, which was why AA is getting abolished, as it should be. Leftists took it too far. Still offering women AA advantages long after their college acceptance rates were outpacing men. Giving women AA advantages in fields to even the numbers while interest in those fields was NOT equal. I know plenty of coworkers daughters who got into STEM programs in good colleges because it was easier, then once they got in they changed majors. What that did was deny MEN who deserved it more and were more qualified and had to go on waiting lists. That’s ****ed up. And when I talked to the parents they didn’t care. They just wanted their kids accepted no matter how.

All the comments talking about certain people not deserving this or that or how evil legacy admission is in college, I just never hear those people blast the Obamas for it. Perfect example of how unfair it really is. You’ve got 2 extremely successful POC having the most privileged kids who then surprisingly get into the BEST college where their parents are alumni. I’m sure they “deserved” it, because they worked SO HARD Aren’t you glad that’s over? Are the Obama girls THAT smart, or were they shoe ins for Harvard the moment their Dad became president? Just like Will Smiths son deserves all those movie roles, hehe.

 

Well, what do you recommend? More unconstitutional "affirmative action" (reverse-discrimination)? More minority hiring quotas? More "set-aside" government contracts exclusively for minorities? How about "reparations"? Would that get it done now, 58 years after those landmark new laws you think were relatively unimportant in establishing the rock-solid legal basis of EQUALITY BEFORE THE LAW?

What do those who favor continued giveaways for American Negroes think they will accomplish in another 58 years that they haven't accomplished already?

 

Law have not ended discrimination. There is still plenty of racism in the USA.

It's not some raving success to have found a successful black man.

And, that is NOT EVEN SLIGHTLY a measure of whether there is equality of opportunity in America.

You can't evaluate 330 million people on the basis of one American family, regardless of what that one family accomplished.

Harvard admits NOBODY who isn't judged to be fully capable of success at Harvard. Parents do make a difference. They show what is possible. The model what is important. They understand the ways toward success - whether it is Will Smith or the majorly erudite and accomplished Obama parents.

Was it shocking that Bill Gates was successful, given his highly respected international trade lawyer dad and his mother who was a major force on the boards of a good number of corporations?

 

You are not even trying to be serious. Yes, those laws were important. But, at this point they are barely maintaining the status quo.

How important do you believe equality of opportunity in America is in terms of America's future?

 

I don't think we should equate a diversity of race to a diversity of anything else.

That may be true, yes.

You just told me that Harvard isn't telling anyone that race matters. That's clearly not true. They are saying that race matters. And no, race doesn't matter. Racism does.

Yes. Racism is a continuing problem. It isn't fixed by adding more racial discrimination or by pushing the view that racism matters.

Yes, and that is their base problem. Supporting that doesn't fight against them, it supports them.

If not through quotas and other forms of racial discrimination, how else do they ensure a racially diverse student body, which you've told me is their aim and something they consider an educational value to all the students? Are you saying that all else being equal, the black student isn't given preference over the asian because there are already more asian then black students admitted?

 

I'm not sure what you mean here.

But, race is NOT the only diversity that Harvard strives to attain. They look at regionality, foreign students, and other kinds of diversity and accomplishment.

Harvard is not telling anyone that race had anything to do with the fact that they are invited to attend Harvard.

I disagree with this. Pretty much anything done to reduce racism in America is going to be seen as unequal or otherwise race based in some way.

Concern about cops murdering black kids - racist against the police! Aid to inner city black businesses to work toward minority business growth there - racist. Etc., etc. You can not address the problem of racism without being called a racist.

Some states have argued that it is racist to suggest that they have to follow rules to give racial minorities more equal representation in voting.

What Harvard has done can not POSSIBLY do other than reduce racism while improving the quality of education.

Yes, Popcorn actually uses the fact of Harvard's 30% Asian student body in claiming that there surely must be racism AGAINST Asians!.

There is just no explaining some posters!

 

Maybe, but we shouldn't encourage that.

I agree with the bolded. We also have so called "anti-racists" pushing racial discrimination and calling anyone who disagrees with doing so racist. We should perhaps be more clear and nuanced in discussion. I oppose racial discrimination done for or against any individual, regardless their race. No individual deserves that, again, regardless of their race.

The unbolded actually fits if you make it about race itself and not raceism or need. We SHOULD be concerned about cops killing innocent kids, regardless of race. We should also be concerned about cops killing people for racial reasons if that is what is happening (and we should not presume it). Aid to inner city businesses may make some sense. Aid to BLACK businesses to work towards MINIROTY business growth is explic racial discrimination, and I call that racist.

I don't know what exactly you mean by that, but if anyone is being denied or discouraged from voting, that is horrible and needs to be changed immediately.

You keep making these dramatic statements that are obviously not true.

The percentage of the student body that is asian doesn't prove racism for or against asian people. A statement that they want a racially diverse student body and will implement policies to make it so DOES. If all of the best applicants are all asian, then lack of racial discrimination would mean a 100% asian class. If none of the best students are asian then lack of racial discrimination would mean a 0% asian class. If "best applicant" includes overcoming adversity, then that needs to be measured and applied, and not a racial proxy for it.

No individual should be held to a higher standard simpy because of their race. You say Harvard isn't doing that? Yet you also say they want to ensure a racially diverse campus and that they take steps to make that so. How do you reconcile those two statements?

The only way I can think of to do that is to invest in education programs below the University level, giving every disadvantaged student a better shot, regardless of their race. Since more disadvantaged students happen to be [insert race], more indivduals who are [insert race] will get this help and the numbers will slowly even out over time. That doesn't seem to be what is happening here.

 

I've answered these issues over and over again for a couple days now.

I stand by what I've said.

I agree with your last in working to improve education, though I see no justification to ignore schools beyond k-12.

However, we already get complaints of racism, as inner city schools face a much greater education challenge, and thus often get more funding per student.

The problem in this case is that the racism that we have is concentrated in specific places, and when funding is higher in those places, it is loudly identified as RACISM.

Pretty much ANY action the US takes to mitigate the problem of racism in America requires funding - one can not take action without dollars. And, those dollars are going to go to specific situations where the racism is most evident or most problematic.

That may not apply in the case of working to restrict the actions of Republicans in attempting to reduce representation by minorities in voting. And, that is its own problem as Republicans are constantly working on ways to make it harder for minorities and those with low income to vote and to redraw district lines to water down their attempts at representation.