• queermunist@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    43
    arrow-down
    12
    ·
    1 year ago

    “I want to attend your school just like my grandfather” = This is fine

    “I want to attend your school because my grandfather wasn’t allowed to” = This is not

    Think about that for a second.

      • queermunist@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        34
        arrow-down
        10
        ·
        1 year ago

        Absolutely.

        And until that’s the case, there’s a clear double standard that benefits white people.

          • queermunist@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            21
            arrow-down
            10
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            This is a bad take.

            Racial admissions existed to counter the other injustice - an imperfect solution to the inherent racism of legacy admissions.

            Now that affirmative action has ended, the injustice of legacy admissions has been made even worse. Racism is now the law.

            And it will never end.

            • SpacemanZ@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              5
              arrow-down
              16
              ·
              1 year ago

              Racism is now the law.

              So we need laws to not be racist? This is an insanely pessimistic take that nothing has improved the issue of racism in the US.

              • masquenox@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                19
                ·
                1 year ago

                It’s not pessimistic - it’s simply an honest understanding of how white supremacism is fundamental to the US. To be clear, things like affirmative action didn’t really improve things all that much - it was a band-aid on a traumatic amputation - but it was at least something.

                • SpacemanZ@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  arrow-down
                  9
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  It was a good band-aid for the time because racism was a massive problem back then, though, I sincerely doubt it’s needed today. I’m not saying racism isn’t a problem today, but the idea that universities must be regulated for them to accept non-white applications ignores the strides we’ve taken as a society. We don’t need the band-aid anymore.

                  • Hup!@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    5
                    arrow-down
                    1
                    ·
                    edit-2
                    1 year ago

                    To be clear the Supreme Courts decision here is a regulation on the universities. Not a removal of regulations.

                    Affirmative action was an option that institutions could choose if they thought was appropriate… Now that option has been regulated away.

                  • masquenox@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    7
                    arrow-down
                    5
                    ·
                    1 year ago

                    The US is as fundamentally white supremacist today as it was way back then - if you need reminding, just think back to 2016 when more than half of all white people in the US voted a KKK-approved colostomy bag full of tanning lotion into the Waffle House. Or you could just take a look at who the main victims of the carceral slavery system are.

          • Limes@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            6
            ·
            1 year ago

            You are correct here, why would we not celebrate this just because there are more issues that need corrected?

        • Aceticon@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          Rich people.

          It benefits rich people.

          Do the “affirmative action” on the basis of how wealthy a person’s background is and you get many more people from minorities than without it, whilst not unfairly helping people with the right genetics from wealthy backgrounds and ignoring people with the wrong genetics from poor backgrounds.

          Strangely the solution of simply helping kids from poor backgrounds is never chosen, and instead it’s always “lets help people who happen to have a certain set of genes even if their parents are filthy rich and their life has been a long red carpet so far, same as the non-minority kids”.

          “Let’s not talk about wealth” (the gigantic, crushing elephant in the room) whilst doing a Theatre Of Equality is quite a peculiar American thing.

        • TheCraiggers@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          A pure merit-based approach also overwhelming benefits white people though, because they have a lot more generational income to help their kids get ahead in life.

          • BombOmOm@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            arrow-down
            7
            ·
            1 year ago

            Hook me up with that generational wealth. The ATM doesn’t accept race as a condition for providing money.

              • jscummy@sh.itjust.works
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                1 year ago

                It really should be income/circumstance based instead of race based. Sure they’re correlated, but there’s plenty of disadvantage white people and plenty of wealthy minorities

                • atzanteol@sh.itjust.works
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  I get that what you’re saying but the policy wasn’t just about “financially disadvantaged groups” - it was actually about race and having a diverse student body because diversity is beneficial to one’s education and to society at large.

                  It’s only been since the 1960’s that schools have not been allowed to block black students from even attending. Ruby Bridges is still alive! That’s not just “poverty” as a disadvantage. That’s something else entirely that no poor white child has ever had to face. You don’t just pass a law making it illegal and say “the problem has been solved.” There is momentum in society around these things.

                  You could absolutely give advantages to lower-income people and still have an all-white campus. These colleges select such a vanishingly small percentage of all students that the number of “qualified students” greatly outnumbers the number of slots to be filled so you can mix and match students however you like. These schools have felt that it was better to have a diverse population than not. I don’t know if AA is needed to make that happen, but it was a tool for them to self-police.