In other news, water is wet.
this post was submitted on 28 Aug 2024
261 points (99.2% liked)
politics
19159 readers
4307 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 1 year ago
MODERATORS
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
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.
Good, should be based on rec letters, or parental income, or if they do not have access to that, zip code.
So you are happy with less black students getting in?
The metric shouldn’t be black. It should be economic, which usually impacts black americans the most. An Asian kid whos parents make 40k will struggle more than the black kid with 300k.
I agree that income matters more than race. Obviously. But they cut out considering race, and then less black people made it through the admission process. You can't say that you are a big fan of the process AND you wish there were different outcomes.
Black people experience racism that has disadvantaged them, and it seems silly to think that we shouldn't acknowledge that in processes that could give them a leg up.
The fact that black people are being disproportionately affected by this change means they were disproportionately represented before. You should not have a system that accounts for race at all. If two candidates are completely the same, gpa, extra curriculars, aps, etc. it shouldn’t be race just economics.
If you haven’t seen this, go check it out. While not directly addressing it, you can see how even ending up with the “same gpa, extra curricular, aps, etc.” can take absolutely different levels of challenges to overcome.
https://digitalsynopsis.com/inspiration/privileged-kids-on-a-plate-pencilsword-toby-morris/
That’s where economics comes into play like I mentioned. She could also have a much better essay and rec letters. That comic does not address the issue being discussed.
So the question then becomes, why are there less black candidates that can get in when race blind? Are black people just dumber? Or has the system they grew up in acted on them in a way that disadvantaged them? Because if we agree with the former, we are racists, and if we agree on the latter, well then it's unfair to them because the system actively worked against them.
Before, affirmative action placed race at a higher level of consideration for mid to low tier candidates. Colleges may skip over candidates that had slightly better test scores or an extra ap in order to meet diversity standards. When you remove the race of the candidate as a factor, the other qualifiers play a larger role, and black candidates who had been advantaged by thr system now lose this specific advantage.
But if the pool of candidates between the races were equal, why did fewer black candidates make it in? Is the new system racist against against black candidates, are black people less deserving of slots, or is there something that happens pre-applying for college that makes black candidates less appealing?
The pool of candidates are not equal. There are less black candidates overall. Less black candidates made it in because they were less competitive students overall. Less aps, lower gpa, less extra curriculars, lower test scores, etc. If you want to improve the black student population, you need to offer and encourage and offer more of these then complain by the time it’s too late.
Sounds like you are wanting a system that punishes an ethnic group of children for being given worse opportunities.
Nope, i want a system that removes ethnicities entirely. Ideally race is replaced with economic status, which will still advantage black students the most.
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.
Obviously they aren't since it was a SCOTUS decision that forced them to change their admissions.
Yeah that jumped at me as well.
The whole process is about accepting the most qualified, leaving people out who are qualified but didn’t meet the limit is kind of the whole thing.
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.
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!
Less diversity?
Focusing on low income families. That by itself would have a positive impact on minorities since they happen to be over represented in the poor families category.
Imo this way poor conservatives don’t feel excluded and work against these initiatives. Same destination, different paths to get there.
Except in reality this change caused diversity to go down. Like actual real numbers, not theory.
Would like to see the data for that if you have it.
There could be other factors but a lot of people like me just don’t want minorities to be held back because of poverty. People can have cultural reasons why they might not go towards education (or go more so than other cultures). Personally, I don’t think it’s up to society to change something like that.
It's literally the news story this entire post is linked to.
Read the article, some minority numbers went down some went up.
It also says that 40% of population of US identify as non white but in university, 38% consider themselves white.
Doesn’t that mean people who consider themselves white make 60% of the population but only 38% of the admissions? Sounds like removing this law is making admission rates closer to population demographics.
Edit:
The article said that 15% was the number of black admissions, that’s higher than the total percentage in US (12%). So they were over represented, and remember, there could be cultural reasons why some black youth might not think college is worth it more than other ethnic groups (like Asians).
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.
view more: next ›