SB 23-17: End of Affirmative Action in Atlasia Act (At Final Vote)

[Sestak]

right senate pls kill

[Sestak]

I oppose this and will veto it if it is sent to me. Affirmative action remains necessary to promote diversity and to help remedy racial disadvantage and other inqequality in Atlasian society.

Unless the student is Asian. Then you clearly support keeping policies that create a racial disadvantage. 

That's a myth, there is no 'Asian penalty' and arguably banning affirmative action would hurt Asians too (Asian-American college admissions fell in California after it banned affirmative action). Affirmative action continues to serve a valid purpose and grant opportunities to those who deserve and otherwise would not get them. It is wrong to pretend we have a color-blind society where everyone has the same opportunities regardless of race. We are trying to work towards such a society, and passing this bill would be a step backwards which is why I'd have to veto it.

While Asians seem to be in generally better financial straits than other minorities, they also faced immense struggle and systemic discrimination for much of America's history - from the nation's first travel ban (1883-1945, from China) to internment to palpable discrimination, even from other minorities. It's rather unfair to punish Asian students because their parents managed to overcome societal barriers that are used to justify affirmative action in the first place.

The question here, however, is whether or not such past oppression has actually inhibited the academic or financial success of a group - in the case of Asians, the answer to this is pretty clearly "no". Compared to other minorities, most Asians grow up in nicer neighborhoods. They have access to better schools. Access to tutoring. Access to very academically-oriented parent networks. The continuous cycle of lower academic success leading to worse economic/social conditions leading to lower academic success for children that affirmative action seeks to help break does not exist within the Asian community.

It's the same reason that colleges and universities prioritize people who would be the first person in their family to go to college as well; admitting that person to college doesn't just help lift them up, it also helps lift up the entire family; giving a role model for other family members to potentially follow in their footsteps etc.. You could, I suppose, argue against this and say it's punishing students with many college-educated family members, but the fact is that those people had strong advantages from having more resources and others to guide them in the application and resume-building processes.

[Sestak]

I mean, I am personally of the opinion that college access should be as equal as possible. College applications should not look at supreflous stuff. That includes an applicant's race, gender and income; but also they should not look at stuff like extracurriculars and what not.

This is probably one of the most disturbingly fascist ideas for higher education I've heard. I'm no fan of how the current American/Atlasian college application system works, but basing it all on a score would result in all the top universities being composed solely of score-chasers - people who are mainly just really good at test taking and preparation, and spend a lot of time on just those things. We'd end up with the top colleges all just churning out nothing but management consultants and hedge fund managers.

[Sestak]

I mean, I am personally of the opinion that college access should be as equal as possible. College applications should not look at supreflous stuff. That includes an applicant's race, gender and income; but also they should not look at stuff like extracurriculars and what not.

This is probably one of the most disturbingly fascist ideas for higher education I've heard. I'm no fan of how the current American/Atlasian college application system works, but basing it all on a score would result in all the top universities being composed solely of score-chasers - people who are mainly just really good at test taking and preparation, and spend a lot of time on just those things. We'd end up with the top colleges all just churning out nothing but management consultants and hedge fund managers.

I mean, this also involves setting different "passing scores" for different majors and universities. So no, the top colleges will not become "full of hedge fund managers", though the "hedge fund manager at Harvard" admission score would be through the roof. At the end of the day it shuld work on "supply and demand".

First off, this wouldn't work because in a lot of schools in the US you don't have a declared major until halfway through college - forcing specialization early is something I strongly disagree with. Also this would be even worse - as people would start choosing majors in things they aren't actually interested in in order to get admissions into a certain school. This is already a problem with the current system; doing that would only make it far far worse.

[Sestak]

As for people choosing majors in things they aren't actually interested to get admitted to a certain school, is that really a problem? I would assume people would choose their major first and then go to whichever school admits them for that major and not the other way around?

Not when the top of the top universities carry such good name recognition and clout that they can get you into to a wide range of jobs no matter what your actual major is. Maybe it works differently somewhere that doesn't have that distinction idk.


Also there are PLENTY of people who choose to study something they aren't interested in because it looks good or whatever.


And also this brings me to another point on this. If you are admitting people to specifically, let's say, a physics program. Ideally, you want students who are really interested in physics and capable of doing something with the learning you offer. However, instead, learning or doing physics beyond the "normal high school" level is actually punished under your system because the more time you spend on subjects you actually care about the less time you will spend studying for the One Big Exam that actually gets you into stuff.