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

[Peanut]

End of Public Affirmative Action in Atlasia

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.
II: A publicly funded university shall be defined as one where at least 20% of funding for the university comes from the government.
III. Private Universities shall not be affected by this law.
IV. The budget of the Department of Education shall be increased by $10 billion per year after 2030.
 a. This money shall be distributed to schools.
 i. The Department of Education shall be tasked with calculating a formula which prioritizes schools with large class sizes, low funding per student and low achievement.
V. The spending in Section IV shall be funded from the Department of Education's general budget.

House of Representatives
Passed the House of Representatives 5-2-0-2

Atlasian Regional Senate

[Peanut]

Senators, this needs a sponsor.

[Sestak]

right senate pls kill

[Blair]

right senate pls kill

[Former President tack50]

How on Earth did this pass the House?

Anyways I oppose affirmative action but as I said this is an issue best left to the regions, not the federal government.

[Esteemed Jimmy]

I support this bill.

[S019]

As a citizen, I would urge the Senate to vote this down. Affirmative action is a regional issue, but also getting rid of it will prevent opportunities for many minority students to have a fair shot in college admissions, there is still an inherent racism present in college admissions, and affirmative action is our most potent tool to fight that racism.

[At-Large Senator LouisvilleThunder]

I will sponsor this bill. I'm open to amending this as currently written if that's what's needed to pass this bill.

[OBD]

It's back!?

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

[fhtagn]

but also getting rid of it will prevent opportunities for many minority students to have a fair shot in college admissions,

Unless the student is Asian. Then it's perfectly acceptable for colleges and universities to expect them to do better than white students. Do Asian students not deserve a fair shot? Because the system you are speaking in favor of makes it harder for them.

there is still an inherent racism present in college admissions,

Yep, towards the students proven to be harmed by affirmative action.

and affirmative action is our most potent tool to fight that racism.

By creating more racism? That's not a good plan by any definition. 



You are literally supporting racism.

[PSOL]

I’m lukewarm to this bill. I urge the senate to raise the upper quintile tax bracket to 75% while increasing funding for education by $30 Billion if we are to end Affirmative Action.

[Adam Griffin]

NO NO NO NO NO

[Pericles]

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.

[fhtagn]

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.  

[Pericles]

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.

[Peanut]

I am glad the President and I have the same view.

[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.

[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.

[fhtagn]

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.

The issues you are raising don't need to be addressed by factoring in race. A poor white kid in a poor school district has more disadvantages in education than a rich black kid in a nice suburban district.

There is no longer a valid need to factor race into college admissions, it just creates more problems than they fix.

[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.

[Former President tack50]

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.

I can say here irl my college application was literally just a number. 60% is your GPA equivalent; 40% is the "end of high school" exam. (it is actually slightly more complicated but not too much).First say, 20 students that want to get into a certain degree get in; everyone else doesn't get in (depends on supply and demand).

Of course if Atlasia really wanted to ensure perfect 100% equality, it could move to a "universal admission" model like the one France uses, though it is worth noting even the French are moving away from that model; and moving towards a French-like system would require deeper changes.

In my opinion college access should be above all objective and equal for all.

[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.

[Former President tack50]

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".

While I can understand the point about score-chasers; it does reinforce my point regarding objectivity and an even playing field, scores are probably the closest thing to that. I do not think there are any good ways to filter score chasers bad at everything else that are also objective and fair.

Anyways I 100% know that is not passing and I will not propose it. And as I said college access should probably be a regional policy, though the federal governments should provide oversight; though unless we were to change college admissions at a much deeper level (I proposed "Universal admission" as an alternative for example) I think this would exceed the level of oversight from the federal government that is admissible.

And before you ask, I'm not introducing such a reform in Lincoln either (again because I know it isn't passing; though pretty sure I did try a reform along those lines back in my time in the Council)

[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.

[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.