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?
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.