LGC 1.6 - Amendment to the End of Affirmative Action Again Act - TABLED

[Attorney General & PPT Dwarven Dragon]

Amendment to the End of Affirmative Action Again Act

1. L.C. 6:15 is repealed, effective immediately
2. L.C 2:18 is reinstated, with the following provisions:

End of Public Affirmative Action in Lincoln

I. Any Publicly funded college or university in the region of Lincoln is hereby banned from using race as the sole factor in admissions.
II. Failure to abide by this law shall result a fine not exceeding $2500 $1500 for any individuals involved in racial discrimination in college admissions or $1,000 $600 universities involved in racial discrimination in college admissions.
III: A publicly funded university shall be defined as one where at least 20% 50% of funding for the university comes from the government.
IV. Private Universities shall not be affected by this law.
3. No part of this law shall be considered severable from any other part
4. No part of this legislation may be used to deny adequate representation to minority groups
5. This law shall take effect beginning in the 2022-23 school year

Sponsor: S019
Court Sponsor: CraneHusband
Occupying: Slot 6 of 14

Sponsor, please advocate for your bill.

[Attorney General & PPT Dwarven Dragon]

I agree with AGA's remarks. The bill as enacted now is already a significant compromise. If anything the original bill needs to be strengthened. This just serves to make a mockery of the legislation we enacted.

[Attorney General & PPT Dwarven Dragon]

The original bill was so watered down that it was effectively useless. There is no college in this region whose sole admissions criterion is the race of the applicant. I'm not sure what the point of this new bill is. Why should the fine for admitting applicants solely based on race (if that were to even happen) be decreased? The final section also seems vague. Who would make this test and what would it consist of?

I agree with AGA's remarks. The bill as enacted now is already a significant compromise. If anything the original bill needs to be strengthened. This just serves to make a mockery of the legislation we enacted.

The goal here is to protect the representation of minority students which I believe was insufficiently protected in the original bill.

No. All the bill would actually do is add laughably arbitrary regulation in the form of a racial bias test, for which no implementation details are provided.

[Attorney General & PPT Dwarven Dragon]

The original bill was so watered down that it was effectively useless. There is no college in this region whose sole admissions criterion is the race of the applicant. I'm not sure what the point of this new bill is. Why should the fine for admitting applicants solely based on race (if that were to even happen) be decreased? The final section also seems vague. Who would make this test and what would it consist of?

I agree with AGA's remarks. The bill as enacted now is already a significant compromise. If anything the original bill needs to be strengthened. This just serves to make a mockery of the legislation we enacted.

The goal here is to protect the representation of minority students which I believe was insufficiently protected in the original bill.

No. All the bill would actually do is add laughably arbitrary regulation in the form of a racial bias test, for which no implementation details are provided.

The racial bias test was created to prevent all white colleges arising from racist attitudes in admissions, if further details are wanted for that, I'm happy to clarify.

There's several things that would need to be answered before it would even potentially work:

- Who writes the test?
- Who proctors the test?
- What is the universe of information that will be covered in this "bias training" and be on the test?

[Attorney General & PPT Dwarven Dragon]

The original bill was so watered down that it was effectively useless. There is no college in this region whose sole admissions criterion is the race of the applicant. I'm not sure what the point of this new bill is. Why should the fine for admitting applicants solely based on race (if that were to even happen) be decreased? The final section also seems vague. Who would make this test and what would it consist of?

I agree with AGA's remarks. The bill as enacted now is already a significant compromise. If anything the original bill needs to be strengthened. This just serves to make a mockery of the legislation we enacted.

The goal here is to protect the representation of minority students which I believe was insufficiently protected in the original bill.

No. All the bill would actually do is add laughably arbitrary regulation in the form of a racial bias test, for which no implementation details are provided.

The racial bias test was created to prevent all white colleges arising from racist attitudes in admissions, if further details are wanted for that, I'm happy to clarify.

There's several things that would need to be answered before it would even potentially work:

- Who writes the test?
- Who proctors the test?
- What is the universe of information that will be covered in this "bias training" and be on the test?

The best test is probably the Harvard IAT, which is free and can be used by anyone. It'd be proctored by the employer, a drawback is that people may have to take the test several times, but I've done it myself and it's quite short, so they can definitely take it 7 or 8 times and average the result. Obviously, they'd call over the proctor and the proctor would not the results before they take it again.

Okay, I looked into that, but it doesn't give any sort of percentage score, it just tells you whether you have a bias or not. So doesn't really fit with the standard you applied.

Honestly this seems unworkable and I'll be moving to table once the required debate period is over.

[Attorney General & PPT Dwarven Dragon]

Not saying never to some amendment to this, but honestly at this point seems like the current law is the ideal situation.

[Attorney General & PPT Dwarven Dragon]

Hmmm...maybe. What do the other deputies think?

[Attorney General & PPT Dwarven Dragon]

Proposing this amendment, 24 hours to object:

II. Failure to abide by this law shall result a fine not exceeding $2500$2.50 $1500 for any individuals involved in racial discrimination in college admissions or $1,000 $10 $600 universities involved in racial discrimination in college admissions.

[Attorney General & PPT Dwarven Dragon]

The question is on this amendment, please cast your votes:

Proposing this amendment, 24 hours to object:

II. Failure to abide by this law shall result a fine not exceeding $2500$2.50 $1500 for any individuals involved in racial discrimination in college admissions or $1,000 $10 $600 universities involved in racial discrimination in college admissions.

Aye

[Attorney General & PPT Dwarven Dragon]

On this amendment, the vote is 2-2 with 1 abstention and 2 not voting.

The Governor will be contacted to break the tie.

[Attorney General & PPT Dwarven Dragon]

Amendment is agreed to on a vote of 3-2 with 1 abstention and 2 not voting.

[Attorney General & PPT Dwarven Dragon]

But I don't like this bill. Just repeal the ban.

A full repeal places no restriction on what is a reverse racism program that some colleges have employed, and I will not support that.

---


Now back to the issue of testing...I think the concerns of LFromNJ are well taken.


Next amendment (to be clear this strikes section 6 entirely):

III: A publicly funded university shall be defined as one where at least 20% 90% 50% of funding for the university comes from the government.

6. All college admissions officials shall be required to undergo racial bias training which shall last for a period of 2 months, at the end of this training they shall take a racial bias test requiring a score of at least 80% in order to pass. also known as an implicit association test (IAT). The test shall be proctored by the Dean of Admissions. All college admissions officials shall take the test at least 10 times, and shall obtain a score of at least 80% of attempts with the result: "no automatic preference towards white or black people." Those who fail to attain 80% on this test these series of tests shall be given one (1) opportunity to retake the tests within thirty (30) days. Failure to complete the series of tests with a score of at least 80% with the result: "no automatic preference towards white or black people" within this time frame shall result in administrative leave and possible dismissal, to be determined by the University.[/b]

If this is adopted, I will support the bill.

24 hours to object.

[Attorney General & PPT Dwarven Dragon]

Objecting to the Joeinator amendment.


Votes on these will be held separately. I'll start the first one this evening.

[Attorney General & PPT Dwarven Dragon]

We will first vote on this amendment:

Now back to the issue of testing...I think the concerns of LFromNJ are well taken.


Next amendment (to be clear this strikes section 6 entirely):

III: A publicly funded university shall be defined as one where at least 20% 90% 50% of funding for the university comes from the government.

6. All college admissions officials shall be required to undergo racial bias training which shall last for a period of 2 months, at the end of this training they shall take a racial bias test requiring a score of at least 80% in order to pass. also known as an implicit association test (IAT). The test shall be proctored by the Dean of Admissions. All college admissions officials shall take the test at least 10 times, and shall obtain a score of at least 80% of attempts with the result: "no automatic preference towards white or black people." Those who fail to attain 80% on this test these series of tests shall be given one (1) opportunity to retake the tests within thirty (30) days. Failure to complete the series of tests with a score of at least 80% with the result: "no automatic preference towards white or black people" within this time frame shall result in administrative leave and possible dismissal, to be determined by the University.[/b]

If this is adopted, I will support the bill.

24 hours to object.

Please cast your votes.

Aye

[Attorney General & PPT Dwarven Dragon]

Dwarven Amendment adopted 5-2

----

Next vote is on this amendment:

Reinstation of Affirmative Action Again Act
1. L.C. 10.6 is repealed, effective immediately
2. L.C 6.15 is reinstated, effective immediately

I will sponsor.

Nay

[Attorney General & PPT Dwarven Dragon]

Joeinator amendment fails 2-3.

Moving for a final vote.

(Please refer to the OP for the current text of the bill)

[Attorney General & PPT Dwarven Dragon]

Question is on the Motion for a final vote. Only a simple majority is required as 240 hours have elapsed.

Aye.

[Attorney General & PPT Dwarven Dragon]

Motion fails 3-4.

So if that doesn't have the votes, and the Joeinator Amendment doesn't either...where do we go from here?

[Attorney General & PPT Dwarven Dragon]

Moving to table this as it appears there is no agreement that can be reached.

Is there objection?

[Attorney General & PPT Dwarven Dragon]

The legislation is Tabled.