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

[OBD]

It's back!?

As the author of a Fremont version of this bill, I support this initiative enthusiastically.

[OBD]

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.

As an Asian who's applying to college next year, I need to dispute the claim that Asians aren't disadvantaged in admissions. There's a study done by Harvard that if admissions was done purely on merit, 43% of the incoming class would be Asian. The actual numbers? Around 21%. If that isn't a disadvantage (with over half of academically qualified Asian students facing rejection due to affirmative action policy), than what is?

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.

Of course, a total repeal of AA may be counterproductive, but I, and many others, will appreciate it if this body found a way to remedy this gross injustice.

[OBD]

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.

Well, this also brings up another question. While helping to break cycles of poverty in affirmative action is an honorable goal, there are plenty opportunities for abuse. What if a top-tier college, say Harvard, is really only using affirmative action to increase its percieved diversity, and what if the beneficiaries of this policy are African-Atlasians and Hispanics who are already in the middle class - not to mention that contrary to public perception, many Asians are indeed poor?

It seems to me that an affirmative action program based on race is highly ineffective. Many advocates of race-based affirmative action claim that it helps "lift up" poor minorities from their endless cycle of poverty, and that it's okay to deny academically qualified, but richer, students admissions in response (after all, affirmative action is zero-sum in nature). However,  based on these arguments, would it not be better to eliminate race as a factor of consideration and instead use family income and assets to determine which applicants are victims of systemic discrimination and thus deserve to have a chance at a good education and a better life? After all, there are rich minorites and poor whites and Asians, but I haven't yet heard of a destitute wealthy person or a rich poor person.

[OBD]

Also, just a PSA for uninformed lefties, this bill is actually a very neutered version of lfromnj's initial proposal. At this point it's basically a $10 billion grant to the education system.

[OBD]

Also, just a PSA for uninformed lefties, this bill is actually a very neutered version of lfromnj's initial proposal. At this point it's basically a $10 billion grant to the education system.

I. Any Publicly funded college or university in Atlasia is hereby banned from using race, or gender as a factor in admissions in any form after 2030., this line is the issue, changing it from "a factor" to "the only factor" or just striking this clause entirely is the best solution. This clause is the main issue with this bill.

Actually I retract my initial comment partially - I thought the House version used the "only factor" language. That said, I oppose this change. As I mentioned earlier, race should not be a factor in college admissions - income and personal background as factors will do more than enough to compensate for 'systemic discrimination' if any.

[OBD]

Also, just a PSA for uninformed lefties, this bill is actually a very neutered version of lfromnj's initial proposal. At this point it's basically a $10 billion grant to the education system.

I. Any Publicly funded college or university in Atlasia is hereby banned from using race, or gender as a factor in admissions in any form after 2030., this line is the issue, changing it from "a factor" to "the only factor" or just striking this clause entirely is the best solution. This clause is the main issue with this bill.

It shouldn't be a factor, especially since it doesn't really affect anything today. There are other factors that actually affect one's education that should be addressed. Race isn't one of them.

This bill isn't passing as written, if you want to save some of it, I'd recommend striking Clause 1.

That's like ordering a meatless steak at a restaurant. There's little point passing this bill without Clause 1, even in its diminished form.