⚖️What Happens After the End of Affirmative Action?⚖️

Too much of the left hates America, and Americans.

“These universities are completely addicted to racial preferences.”

“It is part of their core philosophy on life. It is part of their core being. It’s why diversity, equity, and inclusion has become a religion on campuses. They are not going to give this up.”

'affirmative action and how it has changed over time from a remedial program in the 1970s meant to address then-recent segregation and what now is a social agenda and massive grift.'

'Anybody who thinks racial preferences are over is kidding themselves. The schools will do a workaround almost universally.'

 

So you agree with me.
This country was never about equality as I posted.
And was never a founding principle, except perhaps on paper. But never in action.

 

It was an ideal aspired to and worked towards. More recently people seem to have given it up, and many even act against in while claiming to be interested in "social justice".

 

Equating the bolded to race is pure 100% grade A racism. Just because somebody is Asian doesn't mean that they didn't overcome as much adversity. Some of them have overcome far more than some black people could imagine.

 

What were some of those steps that worked towards that aspiration?

 

The ending of laws segregating people explicitly by race. The repealing of policies excluding or prefering people by race or gender. The voting rights extended to all regardless of race or gender. The encouragement of friendship rather than division and animosity based on race. The downplay of race as the core identity of a person, and the shaming of those who do so. This is pretty simple stuff. Stuff that more of us on the left used to understand.

 

There will NEVER be equality. NEVER. Only equality of opportunity, and under the law we’ve got that. Although there is still inequality when it comes to law and money. Money buys “freedom” but race or sex has nothing to do with it because no matter what race or gender you are money gives you power. And even then it’s impossible to be equal because people are NOT equal and never will be.

Some are better looking and that’s power. Some are physically and athletically superior and that’s power. Some are simply more intelligent and that’s power. Some are more creative and that’s power. Some are born rich and that’s power. Now some of these can be enhanced and trained and improved but we all don’t start out the same and we don’t all end up the same. I can’t be Lebron or Djokovic. Not big enough. I can’t be a physics or math genius because I wasn’t born that way. But I took advantage of my creativity. That was my gift. And I didn’t even use it to its fullest potential because I wanted other things that conflicted with pursuing creative greatness. But I got mostly what I wanted by improving what I could and sacrificed here and there because you can never really have it all. But having it all depends on the person. Some require less. Some require more. Some want less. Some want more.

But everyone CAN succeed. From the most poor to the most physically inferior or handicapped. Everyone from every walk of life has succeeded and beaten the odds. Not everyone!!! Everyone can’t be rich and successful because not everyone has the drive. But the opportunity is always there in THIS country. Can’t say that about Iran or China or NK or Cuba and many other countries.

HERE there is nothing stopping you but you, baring an accident which disables you. But people have STILL succeeded despite horrible accidents!! So when I hear people say they can’t or someone or something is preventing me from X or Y, it makes me laugh. Assuming you’re not a vegetable, but we’re not talking extremes. The average person.

The founding principles have PREVENTED what people in NK or China deal with. So spare me excuses. They’re toilet paper. I live in a diverse community with all sorts, all races and ethnicities. All seemingly successful if you compare homes somehow they did it.

What I disagree with the most is AA, giving people an advantage just because. Sorry. No. Glad it’s hopefully gone.

 

Wrong again the founding fathers insured we would not be a democracy even GUARANTING it in the Constitution. Do cite a single time we the People have ever voted as a single bodg in a national election on an issue or candidate.

 

You might be right.

One indication is that Harvard has selected its freshman class such that it is 30% Asian. Perhaps they recognize adversity that some Asians have faced.

I don't accept your last sentence, though. In our population we have exceptional circumstances of all sorts. Having "some" of some particular characteristic doesn't mean much.

Maybe the question has to do with how much a university should be allowed to find exceptional characteristics - exceptional leadership, exceptional ability to overcome adversity, etc.

Or, should Harvard be required by law to follow high school grades with no exceptions? After all, that's recognized as a top indicator of success in 4 year institutions.

 

LOL!

We make our decisions through representative democracy. The nation is divided in the manner of a Republic. We are a democratic republic.

Why does this have to be repeated?

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.

What was new and needed major explanation is the division of the USA to form a republic, with a legal description of state and federal responsibilities.

England had tried to be a republic. King Charles was executed in 1649, with England being a republic for the next years. Cromwell, the end of the republic, the establishment of a new king and parliament, ... There was a lot of what for our founders was recent experimentation in government. Plus, our founders had the colonies to deal with, which included serious issues in political opinion, religion (where some colonies paid taxes to the dominant church), economics, etc.

 

I am confused by that. Are you saying that you don't accept that some asian students have overcome far more adversity than some black people could imagine? That's a fact.

It means a lot if you are working by unjust proxy, such as pretending race equals overcoming adversity. It absolutely does not, even if the vast majority of one race are overcoming adversity and the vast majority of another are not.

I don't think it should be. I just also don't think race should be confused with virtue or merit, or lack thereof. That's not ok when white supremacists do it, and its not ok when Harvard does it either.

 

We are a representative democracy.

Good LORD.

This kind of nonsense comes from those who are totally willing to work to end America's form of government.

 

And, Harvard's freshman class is 30% Asian.

You can not argue that Asians are somehow being disregarded.

I'm not pretending anything. Are YOU?

Harvard is considering each individual they are accepting.

Race is not being confused with virtue or merit.

Harvard does work toward having a diverse student body, which they (and other institutions of education) believe results in a higher quality education for ALL WHO ATTEND. It's one of the factors that adds to their standing as a world leading elite university.

 

OK, I answered the above. But, I have questions:

What is the limit on government in defining what is taught and who may attend our schools?

We see the USSC in this case. We see DeSantis in his direction of not only k-12 subject matter but also in what colleges may teach.

Where is this heading? If DeSantis is president, will he FORGET that the courseware on race that he so hates and thus bans was created at Harvard?

Should educators have ANY input on what comprises a quality education?

Are partisan political candidates the new source of expert opinion in pedagogy?

 

Depends on the society I suppose. Personally, I prefer a society in which racial discrimination (and also gender discrimination, and sexual orientation discrimination) is not permitted. My understanding is that the USA aspires towards this same ideal, or that it used to. Some societies prefer an apartheid or caste sort of system. Its your choice, but I WILL call you out for hypocrisy if your society pretends to the former but actually pushes the latter in policy and law.

I see this as a derail from the topic of whether or not racial discrimination such as AA is acceptable, rational or just.

Sure. But race, gender etc should not be equated to merit or virtue in any such decision. Just as transit experts should have input on what makes a good bus system, but that shouldn't include "black people to the back of the bus".

 

A "We have enough of your kind" approach is a very racist way to address an applicant, and ensures individuals (some of whom are asian) are being disregarded.

Again, there do exist individuals who are asian who have overcome more adversity than other indivuals who are black. Equating race to overcoming adversity is pure racism.

Hopefully not any longer. But we shall see.

And back when they were racistly only accepting white students, and excluding others based on race, they thought that resulted in higher quality education.They thought that as one of the factors that added to their standing as a world leading elite university.

 

Yea, but our founders said we were all "created equal". So none of these laws should have been created since we all were at the start line together. I mean, there was no need for these equality laws........

 

There are needs for laws against racial, gender, sexual orientation etc discrimination. But again, I'm not shocked to see you say otherwise.

 

So why are you against AA?

 

Because it is an explicit case of such discrimination. Nobody should be preferred because of their race.

 

Have you ever read any affirmative action policy and what it actually is?

 

50 yrs ago, that diverse community could not exist.
I've never said there will be equality. It's an impossible goal.

But there's over 250 yrs of history in USA where equal chances never existed for many.
That was what my original post to the original post I responded to was about.
And you and I agreed. This country prohibited for 250 yrs equal chances.

 

Those were the attempts made.
But changing laws does not change peoples minds, habits, or culture.

It went from legal overt actions of all those things you posted to illegal and covert actions.
It takes generations to get culture to change.
We are only 3 or so generations in from those laws that were changed.
We are only 15 yrs from the day the USA apologized and recognized their discriminatory actions for well over 250 yrs.

 

We have very few methods for addressing the racism that is baked into our society. Education is one of those tools. If it becomes possible to end the use of that method, what other method do you propose we use?

The fact is that racism is legal in America in almost all regards. Simply relying on certain laws is NOT going to reduce the racism that IS in America tody.

Transportation today DOES put "black people to the back of the bus". When we build roads, we build them through the middle of black communities, basically destroying the community. In Seattle, the light rail system goes through a major tunnel where there are business concerns, but it goes right down the city streets in areas that are highly populated but racially diverse and far from wealthy. These communities must then survive on their own, with less joint revenue for projects and services, including emergency services.

This is perfectly legal discrimination.

We all know the problems of having police who are seen as (and act as) the enemy of the people. That's perfectly legal.

The list is long and serious. You can not pretend that laws against discrimination have ANYTHING AT ALL to do with addressing racial discrimination in America today.

However, education CAN help with that. But, of course THAT is UNCONSTITUTIONAL!!

 

Yes! We really will be able to achieve the "holy grail" of a real, authentic color-blind society, and that would be the best of all possible things we could hope for to promote total equality of all people, regardless of race, ethnic background, and all the rest of it.

The first step had to be getting rid of DISCRIMINATION, and we did that with the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965. The next step had to be getting rid of REVERSE-discrimination, also known as "affirmative action".