Supreme Court rejects affirmative action at colleges as unconstitutional

[Satinavian]

It is simply absurd to think a known disadvantage must be ignored because a greater one exists. They can both be tackled.

Could, yes.

But instead AA has been used for many years do divert attention from the other issues. All that focus on race did not much beside having the poor fight each other over scraps while the rich continue their bought privileges and get richer.

And that is nothing new. Stoking racial tensions has been used as such a tool for centuries.




Some years before i was born, there was a rule of "Only children of working class people are admitted to university". It was later scrapped because of various side effect but it certainly did way more for mixing various strata of society and abolish generational privileges than race based AA ever could.

 

[Ag3ma]

Could, yes.

But instead AA has been used for many years do divert attention from the other issues. All that focus on race did not much beside having the poor fight each other over scraps while the rich continue their bought privileges and get richer.

Honestly, do you think it would really be any different without AA? Do you think there are a shortage of things that they can distract public attention with, or that they're short of money that they can lobby and PR unwelcome scrutiny of their advantages away?

 

[Satinavian]

Honestly, do you think it would really be any different without AA? Do you think there are a shortage of things that they can distract public attention with, or that they're short of money that they can lobby and PR unwelcome scrutiny of their advantages away?

No. Specifically the US has one of the lowest social mobility on the planet and the power of money is basically unchecked. Doesn't particularly make me like AA as yet another diversion. I am not even convinced the good it does does outweight the harm it does by putting racial friction in the spotlight and fostering us vs. them dynamics along racial lines.

But it is not something i have a particularly strong opinion towards. I kinda can see what AA wants to achieve and find that agreeable. I am just not convinced that it is all that effective or that the various downsides are worth it.

I do agree though that the traditional admission system has severe issues. Higher education should not require nor be an indicator of wealth. Public schools should provide better education and not rely on colleges for all the basic skills. I am not sure why elite universities even need to exist, there should not be such a difference in quality between universities when it comes to regular courses. Universities should not be just service providers for people buying education. There is no need for the expensive full campus experience that so many universities provide. If one needs to limit student numbers, it should be subject specific and based on competence only, not money, not race and not connections.

But of course that is mostly just cultural bias. I am very aware of many of my preferences aligning somewhat with how my country does it.

 

[Phoenixmgs]

Dude, c'mon

Yes or No?

Yes, obviously. What's the point of this?

If American slavery is racist, how are racist AA policies not racist? Slavery CAN be racist or not, same with AA, but when someone says AA is racist, they are talking about the racism obviously. Yet, I have to inundated with senseless claims about police or capitalism or math being inherently racist, and you guys won't even say super obvious racist thing is racist, this is how ridiculous this conversation is. The fact that we are on page 23 now when this should've like 1 page long with everyone saying like "cool, a bit less racism now" and that should've been it.

Sure.

But let's imagine that due to various issues with societal racism, what the black person needs and the white person needs to compensate for their disadvantages are in certain ways different.

So, I take it, you are proposing that there must be a "one-size fits all" policy tailored to white people that leaves disadvantage for black people, or tailored to black people that leaves disadvantage for white people, or not tailored such that it inadequately compensates for the disadvantages of both.

What the policy is should be based off objective measures like income. So if 2 people are below the poverty line, the person with making less gets more. If one race is more disadvantaged in such things (there's more to use than income obviously), that race will get end up getting more help (and no one is b!tching about that). But 2 people of different races in the same circumstances should get the same help, that wasn't happening with AA, that was the problem.

 

[Silvanus]

If American slavery is racist, how are racist AA policies not racist? Slavery CAN be racist or not, same with AA [...]

American slavery is not something that "could be racist or could not be". It just was. There's no "could not be".

, but when someone says AA is racist, they are talking about the racism obviously.
Yet, I have to inundated with senseless claims about police or capitalism or math being inherently racist

No, what people are doing is applying your own logic to other things to show how untenable it is.

You've acknowledged above that AA can be racist and can not be racist. Yet you also apparently want us to conclude that it's definitively, inherently racist-- which is a complete self-contradiction. So others have shone the light on other things-- the police, capitalism etc-- that can sometimes be racist and sometimes not. And lo and behold! You're not willing to use the same logical approach to declare those things definitively racist.

and you guys won't even say super obvious racist thing is racist, this is how ridiculous this conversation is. The fact that we are on page 23 now when this should've like 1 page long with everyone saying like "cool, a bit less racism now" and that should've been it.

In short: you're annoyed that people didn't immediately agree with you.

If you want to convince people of something, you have to actually engage with what they say, not just insist.

 

[Ag3ma]

What the policy is should be based off objective measures like income. So if 2 people are below the poverty line, the person with making less gets more. If one race is more disadvantaged in such things (there's more to use than income obviously), that race will get end up getting more help (and no one is b!tching about that).

But the problem isn't always just money, is it? For instance, if racists will not hire black people, giving black people money does precisely nothing to resolve the problem that racists will not hire them.

 

[Kwak]

But the problem isn't always just money, is it? For instance, if racists will not hire black people, giving black people money does precisely nothing to resolve the problem that racists will not hire them.

Well, if it's enough money they don't need the racists to hire them.

 

[TheMysteriousGX]

Well, if it's enough money they don't need the racists to hire them.

Well sure, but it would be super obviously racist if only poor black people got the money for racists not hiring them, so every poor person should get the money.

Of course, black people would then still have less money due to not getting hired by racists, therefore...

If American slavery is racist, how are racist AA policies not racist? Slavery CAN be racist or not

American slavery was explicitly racialized, up to and including in the United States Constitution.

same with AA, but when someone says AA is racist, they are talking about the racism obviously. Yet, I have to inundated with senseless claims about police or capitalism or math being inherently racist, and you guys won't even say super obvious racist thing is racist, this is how ridiculous this conversation is. The fact that we are on page 23 now when this should've like 1 page long with everyone saying like "cool, a bit less racism now" and that should've been it.

Really? You wouldn't be commenting on how the Supreme Court is deliberately allowing the military to be "super obviously racist"? You'd just let that slide?

What the policy is should be based off objective measures like income. So if 2 people are below the poverty line, the person with making less gets more. If one race is more disadvantaged in such things (there's more to use than income obviously), that race will get end up getting more help (and no one is b!tching about that). But 2 people of different races in the same circumstances should get the same help, that wasn't happening with AA, that was the problem.

Despite the existence of specific scholarship funds for a wide variety of gender and racial specific groups, white dudes still take home a disproportionate majority of scholarship funds

In light of that, would you declare those specific scholarships unacceptably racist and allow that disproportionate gap to get even wider?

 

[Phoenixmgs]

American slavery is not something that "could be racist or could not be". It just was. There's no "could not be".



No, what people are doing is applying your own logic to other things to show how untenable it is.

You've acknowledged above that AA can be racist and can not be racist. Yet you also apparently want us to conclude that it's definitively, inherently racist-- which is a complete self-contradiction. So others have shone the light on other things-- the police, capitalism etc-- that can sometimes be racist and sometimes not. And lo and behold! You're not willing to use the same logical approach to declare those things definitively racist.



In short: you're annoyed that people didn't immediately agree with you.

If you want to convince people of something, you have to actually engage with what they say, not just insist.

I said slavery CAN be racist, note how I didn't put American before it.

The racist part of AA is inherently racist because it's racist like American slavery was racist because it was racist. When people say AA is racist, they are talking about the racist parts of it obviously. Did SCOTOS rule that all AA is racist? Nope.

AA is literally racist, there's no way to say it's not racist; it's a fact, not an opinion. It's like trying to say American slavery wasn't racist. You're just gaslighting again; you're just annoyed that people don't agree that water is wet or the earth is a sphere, that's your argument. Certain things are just right and certain things are wrong, and this is one of them.

But the problem isn't always just money, is it? For instance, if racists will not hire black people, giving black people money does precisely nothing to resolve the problem that racists will not hire them.

You don't practice racism to fix racism...

Well sure, but it would be super obviously racist if only poor black people got the money for racists not hiring them, so every poor person should get the money.

Of course, black people would then still have less money due to not getting hired by racists, therefore...
American slavery was explicitly racialized, up to and including in the United States Constitution.
Really? You wouldn't be commenting on how the Supreme Court is deliberately allowing the military to be "super obviously racist"? You'd just let that slide?

Despite the existence of specific scholarship funds for a wide variety of gender and racial specific groups, white dudes still take home a disproportionate majority of scholarship funds

In light of that, would you declare those specific scholarships unacceptably racist and allow that disproportionate gap to get even wider?

Yes or No?

 

[Silvanus]

I said slavery CAN be racist, note how I didn't put American before it.

But you... originally did ask about American slavery. I was responding to the parameters of your own question

The racist part of AA is inherently racist because it's racist like American slavery was racist because it was racist.

This is just tautology. "Bad things are bad because they're bad".

AA is literally racist, there's no way to say it's not racist; it's a fact, not an opinion. It's like trying to say American slavery wasn't racist.

So why did you ask, if you were just going to obstinately insist that the answer you got was wrong?

 

[Ag3ma]

You don't practice racism to fix racism...

Okay, you have been given numerous examples of how policies can be enacted that can assist disadvantaged races without discrimination. You need to engage with them, because mulishly repeating that affirmative action is racism is just being gratuitously obstinate.

 

[Schadrach]

You do realize that when people say AA is racist, they aren't referring to something like helping people with income under some level right? They are talking about the actual racist stuff.

It's a basic motte and bailey argument. Same as using wheelchair ramps when one talks about equality vs equity. It's the stuff that's easy to defend (and usually at best adjacent to the problematic things being discussed in the first place) being used to defend the other stuff.

But instead AA has been used for many years do divert attention from the other issues. All that focus on race did not much beside having the poor fight each other over scraps while the rich continue their bought privileges and get richer.

That is seemingly the purpose of a lot of "social justice" type talk over the last twenty years or so. More or less since it was used as a wedge against Occupy.

Really? You wouldn't be commenting on how the Supreme Court is deliberately allowing the military to be "super obviously racist"? You'd just let that slide?

The Supreme Court makes a point of not interfering with the military whenever possible, leaving that for Congress. A great example of this would be National Coalition For Men vs Selective Service, where in the statement refusing to hear the case they outright admitted that NCFM was probably right, but Congress was currently discussing the topic and SCOTUS tries not to interfere in the military.

It's notable that Congress started discussing the topic after the case was submitted to SCOTUS, and then quietly dropped it not long after SCOTUS refused to hear it. It's not the kind of equality that wins you votes.

Okay, you have been given numerous examples of how policies can be enacted that can assist disadvantaged races without discrimination. You need to engage with them, because mulishly repeating that affirmative action is racism is just being gratuitously obstinate.

Again with the motte and bailey. There is a distinct difference between "some policies that don't discriminate with respect to race can potentially benefit minorities more often than whites" and "we should enact policies explicitly based on race" and in that gap is precisely where the racism lies.

 

[TheMysteriousGX]

It's notable that Congress started discussing the topic after the case was submitted to SCOTUS, and then quietly dropped it not long after SCOTUS refused to hear it. It's not the kind of equality that wins you votes.

More of a moot point, really. If the US ever needs a draft then the world is literally going to end.

iirc, that was the time some republican dude brought up equalizing the draft as a sort of "haha, watch this, feminists don't actually want equality" gotcha, then had to vote against his own amendment because the democrats went "yeah, okay"

I predict the next time it's going to come up is some republican trying the same gotcha about trans men turning 18 and it's probably gonna play out the same way

 

[Thaluikhain]

More of a moot point, really. If the US ever needs a draft then the world is literally going to end.

As an aside, as well as the Federal draft, various states also have provisions for state drafts, which can include women. People don't know/care about those, as a rule.

 

[Phoenixmgs]

But you... originally did ask about American slavery. I was responding to the parameters of your own question



This is just tautology. "Bad things are bad because they're bad".



So why did you ask, if you were just going to obstinately insist that the answer you got was wrong?

Because trying to say AA isn't racist is like trying to say slavery in America wasn't racist. Of course, one is way worse than the other, but it's still racism no matter how you slice it.

Okay, you have been given numerous examples of how policies can be enacted that can assist disadvantaged races without discrimination. You need to engage with them, because mulishly repeating that affirmative action is racism is just being gratuitously obstinate.

I never said you can't have policies that assist disadvantage without discrimination. Do you see me calling food stamps or welfare or medicaid racist? I said AA was racist because it was literally racist.

 

[Silvanus]

Because trying to say AA isn't racist is like trying to say slavery in America wasn't racist. Of course, one is way worse than the other, but it's still racism no matter how you slice it.

Have you already forgotten that you just denied talking about American slavery specifically, and said i was the one who inserted it? That's what I was responding to. It genuinely seems like you're forgetting what we're talking about from post to post.

 

[Ag3ma]

I never said you can't have policies that assist disadvantage without discrimination. Do you see me calling food stamps or welfare or medicaid racist? I said AA was racist because it was literally racist.

Seriously, what the fuck?

Affirmative action is nothing more and nothing less than an umbrella term for policies designed to improve the lot of minority and marginalised groups. The things that may be racist are the individual policies, not the umbrella term.

Ironically, of course, what you are doing here is the logical basis of racism: condemning an entire group because some of the individuals within it may be problematic.

 

[Schadrach]

iirc, that was the time some republican dude brought up equalizing the draft as a sort of "haha, watch this, feminists don't actually want equality" gotcha, then had to vote against his own amendment because the democrats went "yeah, okay"

That was 2022. 2021 had it's own round of that, contemporaneous to the court case and which had no chance of passing at all. This year had another round of it, if I recall. So did 2016.

Often it's a republican pushing it when Dems are in power, because if it passes it can be used as election fodder to their benefit. "The other guy wants your daughters to come home in body bags" and the like.

Affirmative action is nothing more and nothing less than an umbrella term for policies designed to improve the lot of minority and marginalised groups. The things that may be racist are the individual policies, not the umbrella term.

Any policy that is designed to benefit some people based explicitly on their race is racist, by definition.

 

[Phoenixmgs]

Have you already forgotten that you just denied talking about American slavery specifically, and said i was the one who inserted it? That's what I was responding to. It genuinely seems like you're forgetting what we're talking about from post to post.

This is literally where you came in when I was replying to Mysterious, how did I not stay on point?

Supreme Court rejects affirmative action at colleges as unconstitutional

Are you seriously saying, "it's just a little racist, it's still good"? Any policy that puts people from any race ahead (or behind) of people from another race is racism. It doesn't matter if it results in better outcomes, that is still racism. That is affirmative action. What you do...

forums.escapistmagazine.com

All I've been saying from page one is the same; basically it's good that SCOTUS stopped some racism. But, of course, you all hate the current SCOTUS and just can't take a win against racism because it was a group you don't like that did it and gotta argue about it because it doesn't compute that a group you don't like could be right ever.

Seriously, what the fuck?

Affirmative action is nothing more and nothing less than an umbrella term for policies designed to improve the lot of minority and marginalised groups. The things that may be racist are the individual policies, not the umbrella term.

Ironically, of course, what you are doing here is the logical basis of racism: condemning an entire group because some of the individuals within it may be problematic.

What is this thread about? All policies that help disadvantaged groups or the specifically racist policies that tried to help disadvantaged groups?

 

[Silvanus]

This is literally where you came in when I was replying to Mysterious, how did I not stay on point?

View attachment 10063

Supreme Court rejects affirmative action at colleges as unconstitutional

Are you seriously saying, "it's just a little racist, it's still good"? Any policy that puts people from any race ahead (or behind) of people from another race is racism. It doesn't matter if it results in better outcomes, that is still racism. That is affirmative action. What you do...

forums.escapistmagazine.com

That's not where slavery came up though, was it?

When you brought slavery it up, you brought up specifically American slavery. And then when I responded about American slavery... you then bizarrely moaned that I'd focused on American slavery.