What is racism?

I'm not understanding what "person A was the AA applicant" means, honestly. I was trying to take all the 'newspeak' and 'woke' mumbo-jumbo out of the question and simply ask if it's fair for a demonstrably less-qualified person to gain admission to a college than a person who has exhibited superior score(s) on entrance examinations.

I don't know what a "legacy" applicant means, but if it is in any way based on race, or has anything to do with someone's financial contributions, then that is indefensibly wrong and unconstitutional concerning admittance to a public college or public university in the United States. 100% private colleges can do essentially what they like, so long as they do not accept any money at all from the government.

 

Person A is Shanequa, Person B is Chandler who has legacy benefits.

You were trying to make the case that AA steals peoples seats, when in fact it evens the playing field for exemplary qualified students with legacy issues competing for legacy dedicated seats. Winning isnt stealing.

Here is a valid question...why wasn't there a movement against legacy benefits instead of AA benefits? How come you know more about AA then legacy qualifications?

 

You can't even answer the question so you grossly twist what was presented to you.

AA absolutely can steal positions away from more qualified candidates based solely on race. I know you hate it because it makes your side look bad but the facts are what they are and you can't change them.

You're clearly saying it's cool to choose less qualified candidates based solely on race as long as it's your pet demographics that are receiving the benefits.

 

Here's an even more valid question. Why can't we recognize that both legacy and AA admissions are unjust?

I find it pretty funny that the reaction to people calling AA racist and unjust is to say so is legacy admissions, as if they expect everyone who opposes AA supports legacy, when this is clearly not so.

 

And how do you know that's what's happening?

 

Prove it.

 

You could simply state that's not what you are saying, if it isn't. Do you or do you not support race based criteria. If you don't, then your posts above are misleading. If you do, then the person you are quoting has nothing to prove, as you admit it.

 

Under AA, candidates of equal ability were chosen with a bias in favor of blacks to make up for decades of bias in favor of whites.

 

Racism is disagreeing with a liberal... ABOUT ANYTHING!

 

Except i did answer the question, and its the rights congregation that twisted AA into some sort of racist benefit when in fact all races benefited from it.

 

Because there was no movement to ban legacy based qualifications, only AA the response to making it fair for those with legacy issues. Quite suspicious.

 

Seeking someone with a similar cultural background isn't racism. Assuming someone of a different race can't have a compatible cultural background is racism and, significantly, incorrect. Anyway, assuming a couple with similar cultural backgrounds is automatically better for children is incorrect too.

Affirmative Action is about countering existing discrimination and unfairness. It isn't directly about race, it is about groups who would otherwise be disadvantaged (who are not always racial groups). It is a crude and imperfect method precisely because is discriminates on simple measure (like race).

That isn't racism. The doctor's choice is based on economics rather than race. The fact that the poorer people are disproportionately non-white is (among other things) a symptom of racism.

No. I think that is a flawed and potentially dangerous statement. As you demonstrate with your examples, the wide range of situations where the term can be applies (legitimately or not) are typically much more complex and nuanced than they're given credit for but that isn't justification for fudging the meaning of the word "racism". What i means is that we should all use more words to accurately represent what is actually happening in any given situation.

They say a picture speaks a thousand words so why do we so often try to describe a picture with just one?

 

Americans seem to have great difficulty with the word ‘Asian’. Asia technically goes from the other side of the Bosporus as far as Japan. In that spread there is huge diversity of cultures and indeed skin colour. Yet in America people use a catch all term ‘Asian’.
It is rather ironic in a place where people talk of the south, or Texas, or West Coast, or East Coast, or the Midwest, or the rust belt or wherever.
To me it is a sign of American distain and sense of exceptionalism that they can’t be bothered to be linguistically more precise.

 

Not really. It's pure whataboutism. And there has been plenty of calls to end legacy admissions.

 

They could say "oriental" to distinguish some Asian people from others. But that gets some dirty looks nowadays.

 

I note that you again dodged the question asked of you.

 

How do I know? It's all part of this uproar and legal action that's been gathering momentum for decades over the whole concept of some people being given unfair advantage or preference over others.

As far as publicly-funded institutions are concerned, we must (MUST) be totally color-blind, and, "preference-blind". It shouldn't matter which human race you're a member of, or, whether or not your daddy gave a million bucks to some college (with the unspoken understanding that 'daddy's-little-darling' would be allowed entrance to that school whether 'daddy's-little-darling' had any other right to be there or not).

 

Ho

How do Americans differentiate between a person from Colombo and Xian?

 

Eqplainijg why AA isnt racist is not whataboutism. Its the remedy for the legacy admissions process, and all races benefited from it.
Calling it whataboutism is like explaining why chemo is nessessary, and then when you talk about the cancer it treats someone saying cancer is bad too and talking about cancer is whataboutism.

There have been calls to end cancer, but for some reason we ended the chemo treatment first. AA was not perfect, but neither is chemo or plenty of other remedies.

 

Pointing at Legacy admissions isn't explaining why AA isn't racist. It is whataboutism.

Not when it is based on race. More whataboutism.

Are you claiming that AA somehow counteracts legacy admissions? If so, explain.

 

What if we disagree about whether you should put cereal in before or after the milk is in the bowl? Then what?

 

There are 2 pages explaining this, did you forget the entire back an forward?.

 

You have been extremely cryptic and have rarely answered direct questions, as you yet again do here.

 

....AA wasnt racist, all races benefited from it.
Thats just a fact.
Ending it before addressing legacy admission practices is suspicious...nothing cryptic about that.

 

.
That "all races benefited from AA", including non-race based AA is not addressing race based AA.
Avoiding addressing the above and frantically pointing at legacy admissions instead, whataboutism, presuming we won't agree that those should be ended, is suspicious.