Split Affirmative Action Pros and Cons (split from Universities)

[Derec]

This thread is split from https://iidb.org/threads/why-do-universities-want-a-diverse-student-body.27456/ to discuss whether affirmative aaction is useful, good, bad or needed. The “this is a derail” comments have been deleted for brevity.

= = = =



The Left only wants some universities to have a diverse student body. They want schools like Harvard and Georgia Tech to be diverse, even to the detriment of admissions and academic standards, but at the same time they do not care that schools like Howard or Morehouse are nigh monochromatic.

 

[Derec]

It's generally bad practice to appear racist or homophobic when your customers are mostly well-educated liberals. Some schools likely care more than others, but most orgs need to follow the trends of the day or be outcast.

It's truly Newspeak when not discriminating by race in college admissions is called "racist". And what does this whole discussion have to do with "homophobic"? Do LGBTXYZ now demand "affirmative action" for themselves too?

 

[pood]

It's generally bad practice to appear racist or homophobic when your customers are mostly well-educated liberals. Some schools likely care more than others, but most orgs need to follow the trends of the day or be outcast.

It's truly Newspeak when not discriminating by race in college admissions is called "racist". And what does this whole discussion have to do with "homophobic"? Do LGBTXYZ now demand "affirmative action" for themselves too?

It‘s truly Newspeak when you declare that discriminating by race in favor of whites (ending affirmative action) is not discriminating by race.

 

[Derec]

It‘s truly Newspeak when you delcare that discriminating by race in favor of whites (ending affirmative action) is not discriminating by race.

You are still newspeaking. How are race-neutral admissions "discriminating by race in favor of whites"? Please explain. And what do you think of Asian students? They will be the biggest beneficiaries of ending the racist policy of giving admissions preferences based on race.

 

[CosmicJellyfish]

The Left only wants some universities to have a diverse student body. They want schools like Harvard and Georgia Tech to be diverse, even to the detriment of admissions and academic standards, but at the same time they do not care that schools like Howard or Morehouse are nigh monochromatic.

Yes, white people are the true victims of racial segregation. What the fuck is wrong with you? Why the fuck do you think HBCUs exist?

The way you handwave away four centuries of brutal, institutionalized, systemic, endemic anti-black racism so that you can cling to your stupid white victimhood narrative is disgusting.

 

[pood]

It‘s truly Newspeak when you delcare that discriminating by race in favor of whites (ending affirmative action) is not discriminating by race.

You are still newspeaking. How are race-neutral admissions "discriminating by race in favor of whites"?

Amazing you think that discriminating in favor of whites, which has been done in this country since time immemorial and which affirmative action combated, is “race-neutral.” Way to Newspeak!

 

[Loren Pechtel]

It's generally bad practice to appear racist or homophobic when your customers are mostly well-educated liberals. Some schools likely care more than others, but most orgs need to follow the trends of the day or be outcast.

It's truly Newspeak when not discriminating by race in college admissions is called "racist". And what does this whole discussion have to do with "homophobic"? Do LGBTXYZ now demand "affirmative action" for themselves too?

It‘s truly Newspeak when you declare that discriminating by race in favor of whites (ending affirmative action) is not discriminating by race.

The primary beneficiaries will be Asians, not whites.

 

[TomC]

The primary beneficiaries will be Asians, not whites.

Nevertheless, what's mostly happening in this thread is Wokesters arguing that institutional racism is a good thing.
Tom

 

[Derec]

Yes, white people are the true victims of racial segregation. What the fuck is wrong with you? Why the fuck do you think HBCUs exist?

Nothing is wrong with me. I understand why HBCUs were founded. And at the time they served a noble and important purpose.

But today is very different than late 19th century. And if all students benefit from a diverse student body, why are nearly monochromatic, non-diverse HBCUs celebrated? Do blacks not benefit from studying around non-blacks?

The way you handwave away four centuries of brutal, institutionalized, systemic, endemic anti-black racism so that you can cling to your stupid white victimhood narrative is disgusting.

I am neither handwaving nor clinging. You leftists are clinging to history as if these historical realities still exist. We will never move ahead with race relations as long as blacks are treated as a different category than whites. Everybody should be treated as individuals. Period.

 

[Derec]

Amazing you think that discriminating in favor of whites, which has been done in this country since time immemorial and which affirmative action combated, is “race-neutral.” Way to Newspeak!

Discriminating against blacks wasn't right.
Neither is what has been going on for ~50 years, discriminating against whites and Asians.
Going forward, we need to treat people as individuals and not discriminate in favor or against any race.

And yes, you are still engaging in Newspeak when you insist that not discriminating in favor of blacks is discriminating in favor of whites. And you are completely ignoring Asians.

 

[laughing dog]

Yes, white people are the true victims of racial segregation. What the fuck is wrong with you? Why the fuck do you think HBCUs exist?

Nothing is wrong with me. I understand why HBCUs were founded. And at the time they served a noble and important purpose.

But today is very different than late 19th century. And if all students benefit from a diverse student body, why are nearly monochromatic, non-diverse HBCUs celebrated? Do blacks not benefit from studying around non-blacks?

Do you have a scintilla of evidence that suggests that alleged "monochromaticity" of HBCUs is result of some sort of skewed admissions criteria? are treated as a different category than whites. Everybody should be treated as individuals or is this just another one of your hobbyhorses?

BTW the alleged diversity preferences of "Lefitists" is not the topic of this OP. It specifically asks why universities might want diversity. Do you have thoughts on that topic?

 

[TomC]

Do you have a scintilla of evidence that suggests that alleged "monochromaticity" of HBCUs is result of some sort of skewed admissions criteria?

Who said it was?
Nobody in this thread.

I do remember an episode from a few decades ago where a white student was turned down from a HBC. His credentials weren't sterling, but better than some black applicants.
Nevertheless...
Tom

 

[ZiprHead]

Neither is what has been going on for ~50 years, discriminating against whites and Asians.

Harvard's present student demographics.

I assume white people make up the 40.1% of the remainder.

With that as evidence I find it hard to believe African Americans and Latinos are preferred and that Asian Americans are discriminated against.

 

[laughing dog]

Do you have a scintilla of evidence that suggests that alleged "monochromaticity" of HBCUs is result of some sort of skewed admissions criteria?

Who said it was?
Nobody in this thread.

Now why would any rational interested person in the subject of why universities would want diversity bring up "Leftists" not do care about the "monochromacity" of HBCUs? Hmmmm.

I do remember an episode from a few decades ago where a white student was turned down from a HBC. His credentials weren't sterling, but better than some black applicants.
Nevertheless...
Tom

Do have you any relevant details from this alleged "episode" from a few decades ago so that someone might check if there is some relevant information you might have missed or forgot?

 

[CosmicJellyfish]

It's generally bad practice to appear racist or homophobic when your customers are mostly well-educated liberals. Some schools likely care more than others, but most orgs need to follow the trends of the day or be outcast.

It's truly Newspeak when not discriminating by race in college admissions is called "racist". And what does this whole discussion have to do with "homophobic"? Do LGBTXYZ now demand "affirmative action" for themselves too?

It‘s truly Newspeak when you declare that discriminating by race in favor of whites (ending affirmative action) is not discriminating by race.

The primary beneficiaries will be Asians, not whites.

I'm an Asian-American and I speak for about 70% of Asian-Americans when I say that we did not ask for this, we did not want this, and it will not help us.

Moreover, Edward Blum, the right-wing gargoyle behind the 2013 gutting of the Voting Rights Act obviously did not do this to benefit Asians.

This was a project of white supremacy and anti-black racism.

Opinion: Affirmative action isn't hurting Asian Americans. Here's why that myth survives

The idea that Asian Americans need higher SAT scores than others to get into Harvard is a fallacy based on a misreading of a study that didn't look at other admissions factors.

www.latimes.com

Asian Americans Support for Affirmative Action Increased Since 2016 - AAPI Data

The majority of registered voters among all Asian American groups surveyed supported affirmative action in 2020, and the direction of the trend since 2016 is positive

aapidata.com

69% of Asian American Registered Voters Support Affirmative Action - AAPI Data

In spite of racially charged campaigns by opponents of affirmative action that have portrayed Asian Americans as adversaries, a strong majority of Asian American registered voters supports the policy in university admissions. Moreover, Asian American support has remained stable and high for...

aapidata.com

Chinese For Affirmative Action’s Statement on the Supreme Court’s Decision in SFFA v. Harvard and SFFA v. University of North Carolina - CAA

San Francisco, CA — Chinese for Affirmative Action (CAA) expresses frustration and disagreement with the Supreme Court’s decision to overturn race-conscious admissions in both the Students for Fair Admissions (SFFA) v. Harvard and SFFA v. University of North Carolina affirmative action cases...

caasf.org

 

[Bomb#20]

It‘s truly Newspeak when you declare that discriminating by race in favor of whites (ending affirmative action) is not discriminating by race.

The primary beneficiaries will be Asians, not whites.

I'm an Asian-American and I speak for about 70% of Asian-Americans when I say that we did not ask for this, we did not want this, and it will not help us.

So what? Do you think if "51% of Americans should get to vote away your right to be treated as an individual" is an inadequate argument, "70% of Americans who look like you should get to vote away your right to be treated as an individual" is a better argument? If 70% of Asian-Americans really do want government-supported universities to be allowed to treat "Asian" as a negative personal characteristic in their admission decisions, all that proves is that 70% of Asian-Americans are among the people an Asian-American Harvard applicant needs the government to protect her from.

Moreover, Edward Blum, the right-wing gargoyle behind the 2013 gutting of the Voting Rights Act obviously did not do this to benefit Asians.

This was a project of white supremacy and anti-black racism.

Are you familiar with the term "ad hominem argument"?

 

[CosmicJellyfish]

It‘s truly Newspeak when you declare that discriminating by race in favor of whites (ending affirmative action) is not discriminating by race.

The primary beneficiaries will be Asians, not whites.

I'm an Asian-American and I speak for about 70% of Asian-Americans when I say that we did not ask for this, we did not want this, and it will not help us.

So what? Do you think if "51% of Americans should get to vote away your right to be treated as an individual" is an inadequate argument, "70% of Americans who look like you should get to vote away your right to be treated as an individual" is a better argument? If 70% of Asian-Americans really do want government-supported universities to be allowed to treat "Asian" as a negative personal characteristic in their admission decisions, all that proves is that 70% of Asian-Americans are among the people an Asian-American Harvard applicant needs the government to protect her from.

It puts to rest the absurd right-wing talking point that this fucking charade was all about helping Asians, when in reality this has always been about white supremacy using Asians as pawns to advance their own agenda and hurt other minorities.

Moreover, Edward Blum, the right-wing gargoyle behind the 2013 gutting of the Voting Rights Act obviously did not do this to benefit Asians.

This was a project of white supremacy and anti-black racism.

Are you familiar with the term "ad hominem argument"?

Examining one's past behavior can give us clues about their current objectives.

 

[Bomb#20]

It‘s truly Newspeak when you declare that discriminating by race in favor of whites (ending affirmative action) is not discriminating by race.

The primary beneficiaries will be Asians, not whites.

I'm an Asian-American and I speak for about 70% of Asian-Americans when I say that we did not ask for this, we did not want this, and it will not help us.

So what? Do you think if "51% of Americans should get to vote away your right to be treated as an individual" is an inadequate argument, "70% of Americans who look like you should get to vote away your right to be treated as an individual" is a better argument? If 70% of Asian-Americans really do want government-supported universities to be allowed to treat "Asian" as a negative personal characteristic in their admission decisions, all that proves is that 70% of Asian-Americans are among the people an Asian-American Harvard applicant needs the government to protect her from.

It puts to rest the absurd right-wing talking point that this ... charade was all about helping Asians, when in reality this has always been about white supremacy using Asians as pawns to advance their own agenda and hurt other minorities.

Who the heck ever said it was all about helping Asians? It's all about stopping the government from denying to persons within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. Selecting demographic groups for selective help is your hang-up; don't project it onto people who don't think like you.

If you mean "The primary beneficiaries will be Asians, not whites." was LP saying it's all about helping Asians, you misunderstood him. He was simply refuting pood's characterization of the decision, rather than making any claim one way or another about what the goal was.

Moreover, Edward Blum, the right-wing gargoyle behind the 2013 gutting of the Voting Rights Act obviously did not do this to benefit Asians.

This was a project of white supremacy and anti-black racism.

Are you familiar with the term "ad hominem argument"?

Examining one's past behavior can give us clues about their current objectives.

Are you familiar with the term "ad hominem argument"?

 

[CosmicJellyfish]

It‘s truly Newspeak when you declare that discriminating by race in favor of whites (ending affirmative action) is not discriminating by race.

The primary beneficiaries will be Asians, not whites.

I'm an Asian-American and I speak for about 70% of Asian-Americans when I say that we did not ask for this, we did not want this, and it will not help us.

So what? Do you think if "51% of Americans should get to vote away your right to be treated as an individual" is an inadequate argument, "70% of Americans who look like you should get to vote away your right to be treated as an individual" is a better argument? If 70% of Asian-Americans really do want government-supported universities to be allowed to treat "Asian" as a negative personal characteristic in their admission decisions, all that proves is that 70% of Asian-Americans are among the people an Asian-American Harvard applicant needs the government to protect her from.

It puts to rest the absurd right-wing talking point that this ... charade was all about helping Asians, when in reality this has always been about white supremacy using Asians as pawns to advance their own agenda and hurt other minorities.

Who the heck ever said it was all about helping Asians? It's all about stopping the government from denying to persons within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. Selecting demographic groups for selective help is your hang-up; don't project it onto people who don't think like you.

If you mean "The primary beneficiaries will be Asians, not whites." was LP saying it's all about helping Asians, you misunderstood him. He was simply refuting pood's characterization of the decision, rather than making any claim one way or another about what the goal was.

One of the talking points the right has been using to deflect the valid accusation that this case was really about white grievance and preserving racial hierarchy is that it can't be about these things because it actually helps a minority—Asians—rather than white people. This is obviously horseshit.

Moreover, Edward Blum, the right-wing gargoyle behind the 2013 gutting of the Voting Rights Act obviously did not do this to benefit Asians.

This was a project of white supremacy and anti-black racism.

Are you familiar with the term "ad hominem argument"?

Examining one's past behavior can give us clues about their current objectives.

Are you familiar with the term "ad hominem argument"?

Of course I know what the fuck an ad hominem is. Do you deny that one's past behavior can give us clues about one's current and future behavior and motivations? Are you really going to sit there and tell me with a straight face that Edward Blum's past words and deeds are irrelevant to this case?

 

[Bomb#20]

Who the heck ever said it was all about helping Asians? It's all about stopping the government from denying to persons within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. Selecting demographic groups for selective help is your hang-up; don't project it onto people who don't think like you.

If you mean "The primary beneficiaries will be Asians, not whites." was LP saying it's all about helping Asians, you misunderstood him. He was simply refuting pood's characterization of the decision, rather than making any claim one way or another about what the goal was.

One of the talking points the right has been using

"The right" isn't here to defend itself, and people are notoriously poor at accurately reproducing their opponents' arguments. So if you want to make an issue of "the right"'s talking points, rather than the talking points of the people contributing to the thread, go find some of them and quote them in context.

to deflect the valid accusation that this case was really about white grievance and preserving racial hierarchy

What makes that a "valid" accusation? In any major social policy dispute there are lots of different considerations at issue; picking out any one of them and defining it as what the case is "really about" is an exercise in autobiography, not logical reasoning. It's "really about white grievance and preserving racial hierarchy" to you. It's really about something else to someone else. What any case is "really about" is subjective. Calling any accusation of what a case is really about "valid" is a category error.

Moreover, Edward Blum, the right-wing gargoyle behind the 2013 gutting of the Voting Rights Act obviously did not do this to benefit Asians.

This was a project of white supremacy and anti-black racism.

Are you familiar with the term "ad hominem argument"?

Examining one's past behavior can give us clues about their current objectives.

Are you familiar with the term "ad hominem argument"?

Of course I know what ... an ad hominem is.

Then why do you keep using them?

Do you deny that one's past behavior can give us clues about one's current and future behavior and motivations?

Obviously not. What's your point? If you are proposing that bringing up Blum's current and future behavior and motivations doesn't count as an ad hominem argument, then no, you don't know what an ad hominem is.

Are you really going to sit there and tell me with a straight face that Edward Blum's past words and deeds are irrelevant to this case?

Of course they're irrelevant. Are you really going to sit there and tell me with a straight face that the ad hominem fallacy stops being a fallacy if the hominem its ad is bad enough? Why on earth would you imagine they're relevant?

Whether the SCOTUS should order Harvard and UNC to stop considering race depends on what the proper role of the court is. If the SCOTUS is a court of justice then it ought to make the universities treat applicants justly. If the SCOTUS is a court of law then it should figure out whether it's color-blind admission or holding students of some races to higher academic standards than others that denies "to persons within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws". If the SCOTUS is properly the House of Lords it's been evolving into then it should determine whether affirmative action helps to "form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity", or hinders them. If the SCOTUS is just a bunch of randos with power, then they should approve or prohibit affirmative action based on which maximizes total human happiness, if we presume Utilitarianism is correct. Note that in none of these scenarios does the court have a reason to pay the slightest attention to Blum's current and future behavior and motivations.

So if you think Blum's wicked personal agenda is what the outcome of the case ought to turn on, what do you feel the proper role of a judge is? To say "True, you've shown you were a hundred miles away at the time of the robbery. But your lawyer bedded his best friend's wife, so he doesn't deserve to win a case, so I find you guilty as charged."?