this post was submitted on 29 Jun 2023
109 points (100.0% liked)

Politics

19 readers
1 users here now

@politics on kbin.social is a magazine to share and discuss current events news, opinion/analysis, videos, or other informative content related to politicians, politics, or policy-making at all levels of governance (federal, state, local), both domestic and international. Members of all political perspectives are welcome here, though we run a tight ship. Community guidelines and submission rules were co-created between the Mod Team and early members of @politics. Please read all community guidelines and submission rules carefully before engaging our magazine.

founded 1 year ago
 

From The Guardian

So Affirmative Action is basically dead for college admissions, further dismantling Civil Rights era legislation.

Way to go, SCOTUS. /s

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] chaogomu@kbin.social 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

No, he's a bad human for all the bribes he's taken to reach these decisions.

And all the other right-wing nonsense he's put out.

And the fact that he benefitted from these policies, and is pulling the ladder up behind him, because he mistakenly believed that because he got into law school via affirmative action, big law firms wouldn't hire him.

This was a black man looking for work at large, white run law firms in the early 70s. The reason they wouldn't hire him is because they were racist fucks.

Which is what affirmative action is meant to correct. Otherwise qualified applicants denied admission into universities because of their race.

Without affirmative action, you get state universities where the state population is something like 30% minority, and the population on campus is something like 1%, if that.

[–] nobodylikesyou@kbin.social 2 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Which is what affirmative action is meant to correct. Otherwise qualified applicants denied admission into universities because of their race.

Without affirmative action, you get state universities where the state population is something like 30% minority, and the population on campus is something like 1%, if that.

So your solution for racism to be racism yourselves and make these minorities the beneficiaries of it instead of getting rid of it, in order words, you replaced racism you didn't like, with racism you do like.

Hypocrite.

[–] ScrumblesPAbernathy@readit.buzz 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

They just removed affirmative action which hurts underserved minorities. They didn't touch legacy admissions which benefits rich white people. What they're doing is transparently racist. If they wanted a meritocracy why not bar legacy admissions as well?

[–] nobodylikesyou@kbin.social 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Did you know 2 things can be wrong at the same time, meaning both AA and legacy admissions can be both wrong at the same time? meaning that even if they didn't turn down LA it doesn't mean turning down AA wasn't the right thing to do?

Shocking right!? that 2 things can be bad at the same time.

Lol, if your best argument against this ruling is "oh they only did because they racist because they didn't also do the other thing" that's how you know the ruling is correct, you aren't attacking the argument against AA, you're attacking the judges because they took a decision you didn't like

[–] ScrumblesPAbernathy@readit.buzz 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I would be for removing AA of they removed LA as well. Because they didn't, their motivation is clear. If we agree that both are wrong then removing only one shows that they're ok with the other.

[–] nobodylikesyou@kbin.social 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Sure, i agree that both are wrong, my other comments were geared towards the people who believe AA is justified somehow.

There's a non small number of people believe that in older to compensate minorities who suffered discrimination in the past, we should discriminate people today as a form of payment to these minorities, in other words, to apply racism but in favor of minorities, and the people who argue for this actually believe they have the moral high ground and that this is justifiable, when in reality they behave exactly as the racist of the past, just with a different motivation.

[–] chaogomu@kbin.social 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

What you fail to understand is that the method for getting rid of racism in admissions decisions is to actually look at race.

Only willfully blind racists think that anything can ever be race blind. Because reality is not.

Another misconception that racists spread is that minorities who benefit from affirmative action are somehow not otherwise deserving. The reality is that you still need the grades (or money) to get in to the university. All that is different is that universities are rewarded (read as not sued) for having racist admissions. i.e. being an all white school in a state with a large minority population. Which was a real thing in the deep south into the late 1970s.

What racists also ignore is that having a mixed student population is actually good for the student body as a whole.