politics
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
view the rest of the comments
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.
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).
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.
Obviously they aren't since it was a SCOTUS decision that forced them to change their admissions.