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 L.C. 6:15 is repealed, effective immediately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.

[S019]

This bill will strengthen protections for students of underprivileged backgrounds, who will be at risk of being discriminated against under Lincoln's affirmative action ban. It ensures that minority interests are protected and seeks to prevent racism in college admissions that could result in all white colleges.

[AGA]

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?

[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.

[S019]

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.

[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.

[S019]

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.

[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?

[S019]

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.

[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.

[S019]

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.

I can amend the bill if needed, or we can create a brand new test

[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.

[S019]

Well here's idea one, which is to just use the IAT

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 $2.50 for any individuals involved in racial discrimination in college admissions or $1,000 $10 universities involved in racial discrimination in college admissions.
III: A publicly funded university shall be defined as one where at least 20% 90% 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
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.

[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.

[AGA]

I don't think a racial bias test is worthwhile. How is it possible to test for racism? I've never heard of this test.

[Nyssus]

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.

I object.

[Former President tack50]

Honestly if people here want to get rid of the AA ban, they should just be honest about it and repeal it, not write a terrible piece of legislation.

It would be a mistake imo (there is a reason I voted in favour, even when it was a very poorly written bill) but that's the will of the council.

Similarly the anti AA side (among which I include myself to be honest) should just issue a standard ban. Lfromnj's original bill from way back in the day was perfectly fine, I'd just remove or lessen the "rewards" for whistle blowers but that is it.

[lfromnj]

I don't think a racial bias test is worthwhile. How is it possible to test for racism? I've never heard of this test.

Its a fairly garbage test that merely tests your instant second decisions based on a person's race. Its even worse because the test given actually pre trains you at first and then switches it up which I believe causes a significant portion of said bias.

Do not accept an IAT.

https://implicit.harvard.edu/implicit/takeatest.html

Its fun to take I guess but that's about it. If I had to bet, if anything most college officials would have a moderate bias towards black people because most races generally have a "in preference" with the exception of white liberals who have a preference for other races.

[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

[AGA]

Aye

[SN2903]

No

[Never Made it to Graceland]

Abstain

[JoeInator]

Nay

[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.