Why do white Hispanics benefit from affirmative action?

[Anonymous]

I'd say Hispanic in general, but specifically white Hispanics are basically European decent with Hispanic surnames. Is there some history of strife I'm unaware of? Don't understand why they get a boost in college admissions, college scholarships, employment, promotions, federal contracts, etc. My BIL is a car dealer and lost a bid on a new dealership to a rich white Hispanic because of diversity.

[Anonymous]

It's just another example of reverse racism.

[Anonymous]

OP go back and look at the Supreme Court's reasoning in Grutter v. Bollinger. Affirmative Action now has ZERO to do with "rewriting past wrongs." The reasoning for AA is now 100% about increasing diversity. For a variety of reasons (that have zero internal consistency) some groups are deemed important for diversity and others not so much. If liberals really cared about diversity they would aim to increase the representation of groups like:

-Cubans
-Republican/conservative college professors
-Asians and Jews

All of the above are "minorities" but they are disfavored minorities. I know, it makes zero sense. I'm just the messenger.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:OP go back and look at the Supreme Court's reasoning in Grutter v. Bollinger. Affirmative Action now has ZERO to do with "rewriting past wrongs." The reasoning for AA is now 100% about increasing diversity. For a variety of reasons (that have zero internal consistency) some groups are deemed important for diversity and others not so much. If liberals really cared about diversity they would aim to increase the representation of groups like:

-Cubans
-Republican/conservative college professors
-Asians and Jews

All of the above are "minorities" but they are disfavored minorities. I know, it makes zero sense. I'm just the messenger.

I've read that and followed that deeply. How is a white person with a Hispanic surname adding diversity?

[Anonymous]

^And to add to this. The one group that DOES NOT need AA? White women. Yet AA has done more for white women then African Americans by far. Yet white women are the single most overrepresented group on 4-year college campuses across the country. The "achievement gap" in K-12 schooling that gets little to no attention is between boys and girls.

[Anonymous]

Yeah, reverse racism is the REAL racism.

I love how white guys who can't cut it are always seeing rich, light affirmative action recipients everywhere. If you ever see Hispanic or African-American family with lots of children, from the same parents you can see offspring with a huge range of skintones - do you want to institute a Jack & Jill paperbag test?

If you think in the age of Trump and Build that Wall maniacs that those with Latino surnames aren't a little more nervous about everthing, you are very entitled and fortunate.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP go back and look at the Supreme Court's reasoning in Grutter v. Bollinger. Affirmative Action now has ZERO to do with "rewriting past wrongs." The reasoning for AA is now 100% about increasing diversity. For a variety of reasons (that have zero internal consistency) some groups are deemed important for diversity and others not so much. If liberals really cared about diversity they would aim to increase the representation of groups like:

-Cubans
-Republican/conservative college professors
-Asians and Jews

All of the above are "minorities" but they are disfavored minorities. I know, it makes zero sense. I'm just the messenger.

I've read that and followed that deeply. How is a white person with a Hispanic surname adding diversity?

They aren't, but neither are Malia and Sasha Obama adding true diversity to Sidwell Friends. If Sidwell Friends were really interested in diversifying student experiences they would have AA for kids from SE and NE DC. But of course, they just want to check boxes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:^And to add to this. The one group that DOES NOT need AA? White women. Yet AA has done more for white women then African Americans by far. Yet white women are the single most overrepresented group on 4-year college campuses across the country. The "achievement gap" in K-12 schooling that gets little to no attention is between boys and girls.

White women do not receive affirmative action at 4 year college campuses, except for a few private technical schools. This is readily apparent when looking at the sex of the plaintiff in the UT case.

[Anonymous]

Affirmative action's time has come and gone.

If we are going to continue AA, it should be based on socio-economic factors and not race. The coal miner's offspring deserves a leg up more than well off blacks or Hispanics whose children are not disadvantaged.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I'd say Hispanic in general, but specifically white Hispanics are basically European decent with Hispanic surnames. Is there some history of strife I'm unaware of? Don't understand why they get a boost in college admissions, college scholarships, employment, promotions, federal contracts, etc. My BIL is a car dealer and lost a bid on a new dealership to a rich white Hispanic because of diversity.

Lady, get out a bit more.

Learn a bit about California and the West and the Southwest.

If that is too much to ask, just notice that Obama has deported close to 3 million immigrants, breaking thousands of families regardless of skin color.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP go back and look at the Supreme Court's reasoning in Grutter v. Bollinger. Affirmative Action now has ZERO to do with "rewriting past wrongs." The reasoning for AA is now 100% about increasing diversity. For a variety of reasons (that have zero internal consistency) some groups are deemed important for diversity and others not so much. If liberals really cared about diversity they would aim to increase the representation of groups like:

-Cubans
-Republican/conservative college professors
-Asians and Jews

All of the above are "minorities" but they are disfavored minorities. I know, it makes zero sense. I'm just the messenger.

I've read that and followed that deeply. How is a white person with a Hispanic surname adding diversity?

They aren't, but neither are Malia and Sasha Obama adding true diversity to Sidwell Friends. If Sidwell Friends were really interested in diversifying student experiences they would have AA for kids from SE and NE DC. But of course, they just want to check boxes.

+1

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP go back and look at the Supreme Court's reasoning in Grutter v. Bollinger. Affirmative Action now has ZERO to do with "rewriting past wrongs." The reasoning for AA is now 100% about increasing diversity. For a variety of reasons (that have zero internal consistency) some groups are deemed important for diversity and others not so much. If liberals really cared about diversity they would aim to increase the representation of groups like:

-Cubans
-Republican/conservative college professors
-Asians and Jews

All of the above are "minorities" but they are disfavored minorities. I know, it makes zero sense. I'm just the messenger.

I've read that and followed that deeply. How is a white person with a Hispanic surname adding diversity?

You sound a bit stupid.

Why do you assume skin color is the main source of diversity? What about culture, language, history, religion?