The primary goal of affirmative action policies is to make American institutions (education, business, law, government) more reflective of the American population. So a one-size-fits-all approach doesn’t necessarily make sense.
For example, if Black people make up 13% of the general population but only 5% of lawyers then our legal systems are unlikely to address or even understand the needs of the Black community. One way to address this is to use race as one factor in law school admissions with the goal of boosting the proportion of Black students.
Conversely, if Asian-Americans make up 6% of the general population but 10% of tech workers, then there isn’t as clear a need to boost the number of Asian-Americans admitted into tech schools.
Not an American here, so I’m not entirely familiar with your university applications system-
So from my point of view, this decision has put US universities in the same place as UK universities, where race cannot be used as any factor in applications. To that end, one very interesting thing is what Scottish universities are doing to widen participation in higher education- All universities here have to make a certain percentage of offers to people from the 10% poorest postcodes in the country, and given what I know about how poverty and skin colour are inter-related in the USA, this would seem to be something that is allowable under this ruling, and would support the goals of AA, without direct racial discrimination.
That could help but implementation would be key. There are plenty of case studies of anti-poverty programs that ended up giving preferential treatment to poor white people over poor Black people.
affirmative action isn’t racial discrimination; it’s the opposite.
it’s the recognition that systemic and unconscious bias artificially increase barriers to education for minorities and especially for black americans; and it seeks to balance that bias.
having no way to account for racial bias is discrimination.
Asian Americans face different kinds of disadvantages in American society than Black people do, so it would be nonsensical to take a one-size-fits-all approach to dealing with the respective social inequities.
Also, a stated goal (i.e. “we would like to see 10% of our student body comprised of People of Color”) is distinct from a quota (“we will admit exactly this many people of each race regardless of how many qualified applicants we get”).
What different kinds? Asian Americans are racially discriminated, period. They were brought in as labor in the past, not allowed the same rights, and even now faces exclusions and violence in this society. They sought out protection through education in the case of universities - they need more, not less, and good proportion of so called “Asians” are undereducated and live in poverty WITH the same disadvantage going to college.
Are you seriously trying to tell me the Asian American experience of racism is exactly the same as the Black American experience of racism? You can’t think of any ways that those experiences have differed throughout the last couple centuries of American history, creating distinct problems each group has had to overcome?
So why not exclusively boost black population in college to make up for the unique history of slavery in US, not faff around about quota and “representation” of college? I think that’s fair. I don’t think it can be had both ways - is it a quota or to help black folks (and they SHOULD be helped, just not at expense of other disadvantaged minorities)? Otherwise it just means policy wants less asians in college.
To be clear, I agree that other discriminatory practice like legacy policy still exists, so abolishing AA is a bad outcome.
It’s not about who has had it worse. It’s about who is currently under-represented in various American institutions as a result of those generations of discrimination.
And again, a goal is not the same as a quota. But I suspect you actually know that since it’s been explained to you again and again. No one is putting a hard cap on the number of white or Asian-American students who are allowed to attend American Universities.
And it’s worse if you include those who got in because a family member works there or is a donor, and “athletes” (e.g. yacht club members) - it’s over 40% at the ivies. Which means almost half the white students at these schools wouldn’t have gotten in if they had a different family.
I’m not sure I understand correctly here but are you just implying only Asian experience discrimination?
Are you just describe Black people and slavery ? /S At least Asian is not likely to get shot at traffic stop comparing to Black.
I hope you’re kidding because half of those people gaming the welfare programs, while at the same time voting for Republican because “socialism” is bad. They were complaining about the recent social security cut about “how anyone can ever live on those ever so reduced benefits?” Talk about voting for the “Leopard eating face” party. Ever read their community paper or listen to their radio to hear full blow right wing propaganda bullshit of how Tr*mp is the second coming of Christ because he will fight China, Cuba, etc (insert your favorite communism regime here)?
The Grutter decision- and all race or gender based anti discrimination laws must be narrowly tailored. You have to show evidence that a group is being discriminated against based upon a statistical analysis showing that their admissions or access to capital or access to say government contracts is less than their proportion of the population etc.
Are you in receipt of information that this discrepancy exists for that group? And that is it African American students who are the cause of that discrepancy & not over representation by white students?
