https://www.msnbc.com/the-reidout/reidout-blog/republicans-minority-scholarships-wisconsin-rcna92426
The Wisconsin State Assembly's speaker suggested college grants meant for minority students are on the chopping block.
The GOP’s war on racially diverse college campuses was never going to be confined to the party’s war on affirmative action.
Black and brown people at the bottom ever subservient to a small elite of rich white cis straight men. It was never about the ‘unfairness’ of affirmative action. If it was you’ll also see them taking aim at the unfairness of legacy admissions as well. It has always been about keeping black and brown folk down and maintaining hierarchy.
I like how they made an actual argument that referenced real things the Republican party has actually done, and the best defense you could come up with was "nuh uh!"
Hold on let me find Dorothy, Tinman, and the lion and we have the entire crew to hang out with strawman.
Ignoring the fact that AA has nothing to do with legacy admissions and frankly wouldn't survive a challenge on it's own even in a less stacked court; no I do not think banning legacy admissions would be effective policy. Legacy admissions allow an individual to expand capabilities and capacity of educational institutions and get a favor in return. At it's core it helps more individuals get education at the cost of unfairness which frankly is built in at every level. That rich person will always have an advantage. You've fixed a small and trivial piece. They still have the network and funding.
It's frankly hurting the intended recipients to right a wrong that will not be fixed unless you somehow eliminate income equality. It's bad policy in pursuit of an unrealistic standard for us to achieve in this decade+.
Sorry, they have nothing to do with each other? Systemic racism is real and legacy admissions are definitely a part of that.
You keep mentioning whether it's effective policy, but that has nothing to do with SCOTUS. Their one and only concern is whether the policy is constitutional. Effectiveness is for the other branches of government to deal with.
100%. You might want to tell the guy mouthing off legacy admissions then. I've already pointed out that the bitching is beyond the scope of this case.
Let's use a simple metaphor. You have a bridge. One side of the bridge is heavier than the other, so it's not balanced. You add a counterweight to balance the bridge.
Several years later, someone says "there's no need for this counterweight anymore, it's just unbalancing the bridge." If the bridge was rebuilt to address the imbalances, you'd be right. But it wasn't rebuilt, it's the same bridge with the same flaws it had when the counterweight was put in place. In an ideal world, we wouldn't need affirmative action. But pretending we're in that ideal world isn't actually solving anything.
This assumes that the systemic issues causing the imbalance are the admissions themselves and that you are fixing the source of the problem. Everyone agrees about fixing the source of a problem. There are many issues with patching over a systemic concern by targetting a single metric, the most common being Goodhart's Law “When a measure becomes a target, it ceases to be a good measure".
For example, if POC are being exposed to poorer education prior to University, the solution is not to force the universities to lower standards for POC, it would be to address the issues in the elementary schools.
Final solution... I think I've heard that somewhere before, I wonder where... Might have been in another language, German maybe...
The Rs are all about merit. They believe in pulling yourself up by your bootstraps. Like the old saying goes, "Arbeit macht frei"
Seems like their final solution is to stop basing scholarships, awards, and college placement off of the color of a person's skin or their race.
Actually it is to change it back to basing it off of wealth, family connections, and other things white people have more of than minorities.
So race based outcomes without saying it out loud.
Median white household income in the U.S. - $74,262
Median black household income in the U.S. - $46,400
Maybe, possibly, black people need more help paying for college than white people?
Let me guess, that lower income is their own fault. Black people need to collectively pull themselves up by their bootstraps. I wonder if education has a part to play in that?
Yeah man, these fucking minorities need to pick themselves up by their great great grandparents bootstraps.
Because if we gain power, they lose it. Hierarchy must be maintained. When everyone has power, no one does. And that’s not “fair.”
"We don't need these old protections, we're different now."
Oh, really? What, pray tell, makes us, less than 100 years later, so fundamentally different from Jim Crow supporters and the fucking Nazis that we don't need to be concerned about it anymore? I find it to be particularly shocking news that Dr. King fixed racism for all time, considering my experience living in the south when Obama was running for president.
I don't buy it. I think this is ultimately about keeping the poor down.
The GOP is garbage, AND, giving people special privileges based on skin color or race is fucked.
Want to empower those who have less? Change the criteria to economic, and remove race from the equation.
How anybody thinks otherwise, this Skeleton can’t quite understand.
Kids from poor White schools still don't face as much of a headwind as kids from poor Black or Latino schools. Systemic racism is still present in k-12 education, and needs to be addressed before declaring victory at the college admission level and going home.
Quite the blanket statement you’ve made there.
Who’s going home and calling it a day? Affirmative action in its previous methodology is the only way to fight systemic racism? That’s black and white, a false dichotomy.
It’s obvious that fighting discrimination with discrimination is self-defeating, but people don’t want to acknowledge when their thinking sucks. Instead the shouting just gets louder, and round and round we go.
All the while the class warfare rages on.
It’s not racism to not want different rules for different races. Make scholarships for people from underprivileged families, not from race.
Just because something is helping out a race that you want it to help out doesn’t make it free from racism.
It’s my understanding that diversity scholarships generally put those below the poverty line first.
Intention will be all over the place and it's not just about scholarships. It's about admission.
What it actually did was put middle class minorities in higher end colleges at the cost of middle class white kids. It did very little for anyone who couldn't afford the costs.
Because someone told them they were special and that they deserved more. And against a lifetime of insurmountable evidence to the contrary, they still believe it.
This is why they accuse slippery slope on everything, because that's what they intend to do.
Is this a US thing I don't get? How are diversity scholarships not affirmitive action?
There it is! Check.
But to answer your bad faith conservative argument, affirmative action is typically in regards to admission, not ability to pay.
Which is also funny because that's the next step: black people are technically allowed, see we met the law, but we jacked up the tuition, now it's too much for "the poors". Whoopsies, how embarrassing, I guess black people can't attend, no issues here, teehee. Hey let's do the same thing with k-12 and defund public schools. Land of opportunity, if you can pay, teehee.
First, to clarify: I live in the EU and kind of don't care aboutt this stuff. We are doing pretty well on the nondiscrimination here. And I honestly don't know about your issues enough to be for or against affirmitive action.
But I find it funny how often the democrats make bad faith arguments by redefining words. Affirmitive action is any decision bases on protected class that is supposed to be positive for an otherwise discriminated against minority to presumably undo discrimination. These scholarships would clearly be affirmitive action by this legal definition.
Sure, you may define affirmitive action differently but the conservatives would use (suprise suprise) the conservative (legal, dictionary) meaning when they talk. Saying they are hypocrites because you redefine the word to mean something different than what they clearly ment is clearly a bad faith argument.
PS: Also, trying to label anyone calling out your bad arguments as conservative racist regardless of who they are.
I live in Canada, but it's hard to not watch the dumpster fire.
I made a comment about slippery slope, how the conservatives project slippery slope on everything because that's what they intend to do. And this is the perfect example of it. They came for affirmative action in admissions, and once they got that, they are now going after anything else they can. That is slippery slope.
That was my point.
You try to change this to being about affirmative action itself. Whether it's good or bad, or should be allowed or not. But that was not my original point. My original point was slippery slope and how conservatives project that because that's what they do. And I am correct in that. Your bad faith argument is trying to change my topic.
Shall I explain it another way? For now let's accept that this is all affirmative action. Admissions is one topic. Scholarships is another topic. And they have slid right from one to the next! That is exactly my point with how they project slippery slope on to everyone else, because that's what they intend to do.
Something tells me you're going to try to change from my point about slippery slope again.
No, I just don't think it is slippery slope when they say from start what they want to do. Slippery slope would apply if they pretended to do something and once they got it, then tried to move it again.
It is just one of the clickbait definitions of slippery slope to call anything that is gradual slippery, so I kinda get it. Its just the media misusing words to generate controversy and outrage.
For me, saying no discrimination either way (affirmitive or negative) and working towards it is normal. Saying you want religious freedom when they don't allow teaching religious topics in schools and then when they get it trying to undermine real science and hang up commandments in classrooms. That is slippery slope that I am outraged about. I don't want to water to words down by these clickbaits, hence my comment.
This is not clickbait, this is what slippery slope is.
Btw, at risk of you accusing me of changing the topic, they didn't go after Legacy admissions. Legacy admissions is not the strongest candidate, or the best candidate. It's the children of people who went there before, take a guess who benefits from that.
For me, saying no discrimination either way (affirmitive or negative) and working towards it
If you believe that you've been duped. Ever wonder why their public schools are in shambles?
You should watch "Beau of the fifth column" on YouTube.
Legacy admissions are some real BS. I guess it does not ring alarm bells in my head as immediately because its not obviously unconstitutional. But it is a rather nice roundabout way of discriminating. For any school that takes public funds, legacy admissions should be forbidden.
They want a world where only the children of the rich are allowed to go to universities, while everyone else goes to vocational school or directly into the labor force.
That's known as the paradox of tolerance. Society can't tolerate the intolerant even if tolerance is our goal.
In a world where people are good and decent, there would be no racists, bigots, xenophobes, misogynists or homophobes. These behaviors come exclusively from conservatives. Our world would be a much better place without conservatives.
Tom the Dancing Bug has a good cartoon about this situation. https://boingboing.net/2023/07/05/tom-the-dancing-bug-class-of-28-college-admissions.html
Unfortunately these bills were really never going to stand up in court and I'm surprised they lasted as long as they did. The best way forward is to reintroduce the same scholarships and admittance but make them income based.
So scholarships and colleges have to ignor all indications of race. They will probably only be need-based grants and scholarships Who needs those the most? Minorities and people of color. GOP when minorities strive still get access to education one way or another: :O
But who's gonna do my yard work, and other menial tasks? Cmon now. I need to step on someone ffs!
Affirmative Action means that degrees earned by minorities are worth less than the same degree by a white guy.
A side effect means that I seek straight male white or Asian doctors. My health is too important to trust to someone who only made it there because of that skin color or sexuality.
AA is hot garbage. It rewards rich minorities while punishing poor people. There's a reason everyone hates it.
Racial discrimination is unconstitutional. I don't care if it benefits you or me, it's wrong.
No buts. No what abouts. No "but a long time ago!" Just no.
