Notice how black admissions drop. Clarence Thomas is a traitor, screw everyone else he's got his own.
this post was submitted on 28 Aug 2024
263 points (99.3% liked)
politics
19229 readers
3044 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
He's an Uncle Ruckus for sure.
"I hope to harass and beat each and every black person I see with extreme prejudice!!"
Un-fucking-fortunately all this will do is reenforce the beliefs of all the assholes out there...
"See! If these people had any merit they'd have been accepted, they only got accepted before because they're (insert minority group here)!"
Large university who is fully in control of the people they choose to admit or decline says "there's no doubt they left out many qualified and promising applicants who would have excelled". How could the government do this!? Large university, who is completely in control of their applications process, wonders out loud.
They are not fully in control because the ruling didn't say that affirmative action couldn't be a government requirement. It said that a policy that enables affirmative action violates the constitution.
So, they are no longer asking applicants about race or ethnicity information. But they are expanding recruitment and financial aid to prioritize low income students.
I'm not agreeing with the court ruling, just clarifying the false representation of the issue with regard to the school.
I was lucky enough to see Ibram X. Kendi speak on anti-racism in higher education, and it was illuminating to realize that, as a white, cis-het man, I might not be able to work within the system to change the system without actively breaking laws.
The example he used was actually affirmative action and EEO standards and how the best an ally can do in certain situations might be to put your thumb on the scale even when it's technically illegal.
Basically, if you want to be anti-racist, you've gotta be Chaotic Good since the system is literally rigged against people of color.
So, they are no longer asking applicants about race or ethnicity information. But they are expanding recruitment and financial aid to prioritize low income students.
Holy shit, this is what I’ve wanted forever, finally!
load more comments
(6 replies)
load more comments
(2 replies)
FYI, places that already had affirmative action bans have partially got around this by at least pulling a percentage out of disadvantaged high schools (the kind with only one or two AP courses) since segregation still exists and it increases diversity. It's not quite as direct, though, even if it is easier to justify.
Another FYI on the history of affirmative action; the original argument that won over the court wasn't a social justice argument. It was a "diversity benefits everyone" argument
in other words, white kids benefit from exposure to black and brown folks. Which is in fact true, but kind of a fuckery rational to begin with and one that doesn't seem to be winning over white folk the way it used to.
(Sorry for the fyis, just have to as the resident Education PhD on Lemmy)
As a white college graduate I can definitely confirm that I benefitted from black classmates as well as classmates of every other race. But also Jesus fuck that shouldn’t be the main reason why disadvantaged people of color get to get an education.
I’ll also add that a poverty quota in general is a good thing for colleges. I learned a lot from my impoverished white classmates as well.
There's generally an effort to get first generation college students, which is a better way to ultimately say poverty quota. It's a little easier to lie about, but it's what most schools like to brag about. There's also a lot more need based scholarships than there used to be, so that helps.
What changed in their admissions procedures as a result of the court ruling? Is it as simple as just not asking race on the application so they couldn't hold spots open to fill racial quotas? Or is it more complex than that?
They had a way of weighting a person's background as a part of their application. So imagine 2 students: -4.0 through high school, AP classes, a bunch of extra curriculars, great test scores -3.8 through high school, one AP class, no extra curriculars (because of family responsibilities), great test scores.
If the second student is a black student coming from a disadvantaged community, they legally can't consider that in their admission process.
load more comments
(13 replies)
More than 40% of the US population identifies as a race other than white, according to 2023 census data.
White students make up 37% of the new class, compared with 38% last year, while the percentage of Asian American students rose to 47% from 40%.
Seems like with or without affirmative action, white students are underrepresented at MIT. 60% of the population (minus those who didn't report?) vs 37-38% at the school. Or could there be a discrepancy about how white as a race vs Hispanic as an ethnicity is reported in the two different stats?
Anyway, white supremacy seems to have little to do with the issue. It's the Asian American proportion that went up and the black, Hispanic, and Pacific Islander proportions that went down.
Get out of here with your facts and numbers
In other news, water is wet.
view more: next ›