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
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.