Reply to Trump DOJ to prosecute universities for anti-white affirmative action policies

Forum Index » Political Discussion

Reply to "Trump DOJ to prosecute universities for anti-white affirmative action policies "

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]This thread is truly stunning and saddening.

OP, your title should more accurately read "...anti-white male affirmative action policies". 16 pages in and [b]no one seems to realize that the biggest beneficiaries of affirmative action are in fact women, specifically white women.[/b] It is the main reason why women now out-number men on college campuses.

But sure let's all keep focusing on what Jamal is "taking from" Jim. SMH. Do Jim's parents realize that their DD Becky is a beneficiary of AA as well? Or are they too busy worrying about "reverse racism"?

Perhaps this explains why Becky voted for Trump et al. She's too concerned with keeping Jamal out to realize she's hurting herself.[/quote]

The idea that white women are the main beneficiaries of AA is a very popular myth these days.  I hear people say it a lot, but I rarely see it backed up with evidence. Maybe it depends on what definition of AA we are using? If white women are the primary beneficiaries of AA, then how much is it really helping the African Americans for whom it is apparently so important?[/quote]

Affirmative action is not a HARD FORMULA applied every time to every situation every year. There are no hard and fast rules and it changes its shape ever so slightly based on the application pool, scores etc. And it doesn't prefer anyone over the other based on race or gender using a hard formula either. But overall affirmative action tries to create a pool that reflects America without overly favoring one factor alone. If it is purely admission test scores the top schools should look over 50% asian BUT it doesn't. If it is purely based on sports achievement it would have fewer asians and so forth. [/quote]

I recognize that AA can have many different meanings to many different people. But I have a feeling Trump is specifically talking about race-based preferences. [/quote]

What do you mean "AA can have have many different meaning to many different people"? It is not different to different people. The admission rate can be different for different groups based on how AA is applied. Trump/Bannon/Miller/Sessions are all in this together to create wedge issue to divide white people from non-whites and get them to voting for him. [/quote]

As a matter of fact, there is quite a debate -- even on mainstream media before the yesterday's announcement -- among academics /legal scholars as to whether there may be different outcomes reached under Constitutional analysis for different types of AA. Different types of classifications are scrutinized by  different standards under the equal protection and due processes clauses.  The rub is not in the application of admissions rates, but in differences in the application of admissions criteria to achieve potentially pre-determined rates. It is most unfortunate that Trump is the one to bring this up because of his history and the blatant political reasons he has for doing so, but it is a topic worthy of thoughtful, serious dialogue just as much as other issues that concern race in this country (police, incarceration, housing, poverty, etc.)  Whether the country can have a serious dialogue about these subjects when the current administration starts the conversation is questionable -- we begin with too much baggage that will question one another's motives.  I had hoped that Barak Obama in his second term would have returned to the subject which he commented on briefly early on, but he did not.  My own view is that at the end of the day whether or not AA based solely on race for African Americans was justified as a remedy for long term discrimination when it began back in the 1960s, it cannot be an indefinite part of American Society.  Ultimately, America's solution to upward mobility of minority groups must be based on understanding, social interaction, primary/secondary education, etc., and the legal framework should be based on prohibiting discrimination.    We have seen all over college campuses the past few years African America students telling us they feel left out or that they are perceived as not belonging on campus or as having not earned their place there.  That will never end as long as pure racial affirmative action continues -- it simply cannot.   Diversity -- the intellectual successor to affirmative action  -- has merit, but the trick is in the application /execution.   Proponents are quick to quote studies showing better decision making in more diverse groups; but I am not sure any of them say that is so unless all other things are equal.  A diverse group of poor engineering students are less likely to build a safer building than less diverse group strong engineering students, even if theoretically a diverse group of strong engineering students will come up with a better plan than a less diverse group of strong students (I am granting the premise here although I am sure the studies must be more nuanced).  It is a complicated subject worthy of serious discussion, not quips. [/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics