Politics

200 readers

39 users here now

@politics on kbin.social is a magazine to share and discuss current events news, opinion/analysis, videos, or other informative content related to politicians, politics, or policy-making at all levels of governance (federal, state, local), both domestic and international. Members of all political perspectives are welcome here, though we run a tight ship. Community guidelines and submission rules were co-created between the Mod Team and early members of @politics. Please read all community guidelines and submission rules carefully before engaging our magazine.

founded 2 years ago

123

US supreme court rules against affirmative action in Harvard and UNC cases (kbin.social)

submitted 1 year ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

107 comments fedilink hide all child comments

From The Guardian

So Affirmative Action is basically dead for college admissions, further dismantling Civil Rights era legislation.

Way to go, SCOTUS. /s

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

They just removed affirmative action which hurts underserved minorities. They didn't touch legacy admissions which benefits rich white people. What they're doing is transparently racist. If they wanted a meritocracy why not bar legacy admissions as well?

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Did you know 2 things can be wrong at the same time, meaning both AA and legacy admissions can be both wrong at the same time? meaning that even if they didn't turn down LA it doesn't mean turning down AA wasn't the right thing to do?

Shocking right!? that 2 things can be bad at the same time.

Lol, if your best argument against this ruling is "oh they only did because they racist because they didn't also do the other thing" that's how you know the ruling is correct, you aren't attacking the argument against AA, you're attacking the judges because they took a decision you didn't like

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I would be for removing AA of they removed LA as well. Because they didn't, their motivation is clear. If we agree that both are wrong then removing only one shows that they're ok with the other.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Sure, i agree that both are wrong, my other comments were geared towards the people who believe AA is justified somehow.

There's a non small number of people believe that in older to compensate minorities who suffered discrimination in the past, we should discriminate people today as a form of payment to these minorities, in other words, to apply racism but in favor of minorities, and the people who argue for this actually believe they have the moral high ground and that this is justifiable, when in reality they behave exactly as the racist of the past, just with a different motivation.