Supreme Court accepted Affirmative Action cases

[lfromnj]

Good.

Affirmative action is the greatest example of modern-day systemic racism.

Systemic racism? Talk about white fragility.

Fragility is when people are upset about being discriminated against, apparently.

I mean I'm not sure it affects white people much. See Thomas Jefferson placing holistic reviews and increasing white students .

[Schiff for Senate]

Good.

Affirmative action is the greatest example of modern-day systemic racism.

Systemic racism? Talk about white fragility.

Indeed. Suggesting that Asian Americans receive a fair shake at university admission is driven from a deep sense of white fragility.

Great, thank you.

This is true. Asian-Americans (a minority themselves) are the ones most discriminated against by affirmative action, which is largely why it's such an important issue to me. We don't need to be discriminated against just because we are objectively likelier to get into the best colleges otherwise. As far as I understand it whites aren't even that discriminated against by AA - sure, it hurts them, but mostly Asian-Americans need to take the fall. Not sure how fair it is to Asian-Americans.

[The Undefeatable Debbie Stabenow]

It's interesting that everyone (both pro-AA and anti-AA) immediately jumps to justifying/criticizing AA on the basis of the concept that AA can rectify socioeconomics inequities that exist between races, because SCOTUS has explicitly said that this is not a constitutional justification. Its constitutional justification has always been that diversity is a compelling interest at educational institutions.

That isn't to say that the latter is an objectively more convincing justification, but it's noteworthy that no one seems to be talking about the aspect of AA that has actually allowed it to withstand constitutional challenges in the past.

[politicallefty]

It's interesting that everyone (both pro-AA and anti-AA) immediately jumps to justifying/criticizing AA on the basis of the concept that AA can rectify socioeconomics inequities that exist between races, because SCOTUS has explicitly said that this is not a constitutional justification. Its constitutional justification has always been that diversity is a compelling interest at educational institutions.

That isn't to say that the latter is an objectively more convincing justification, but it's noteworthy that no one seems to be talking about the aspect of AA that has actually allowed it to withstand constitutional challenges in the past.

Not me. I've long believed that affirmative action is both bad policy and unconstitutional under the Fourteenth Amendment. I think Sotomayor and Ginsburg were totally wrong in their dissent in Schuette v. Coalition to Defend Affirmative Action. Their dissent believed that affirmative action was actually required by the Constitution. I could not disagree more.

I don't disagree that there isn't systemic racism in our society and educational system. That includes massively underfunding schools with strong minority enrollment. It is up to the political branches to determine a better way that satisfies the Constitution.

I mean I'm not sure it affects white people much. See Thomas Jefferson placing holistic reviews and increasing white students .

Unfortunately, you're right. Holistic reviews (which mostly includes extracurriculars, sports, community volunteering, charity work, etc) tend to lean heavily towards the affluent, particularly affluent whites.

[David Hume]

It's interesting that everyone (both pro-AA and anti-AA) immediately jumps to justifying/criticizing AA on the basis of the concept that AA can rectify socioeconomics inequities that exist between races, because SCOTUS has explicitly said that this is not a constitutional justification. Its constitutional justification has always been that diversity is a compelling interest at educational institutions.

That isn't to say that the latter is an objectively more convincing justification, but it's noteworthy that no one seems to be talking about the aspect of AA that has actually allowed it to withstand constitutional challenges in the past.

Not me. I've long believed that affirmative action is both bad policy and unconstitutional under the Fourteenth Amendment. I think Sotomayor and Ginsburg were totally wrong in their dissent in Schuette v. Coalition to Defend Affirmative Action. Their dissent believed that affirmative action was actually required by the Constitution. I could not disagree more.

To be fair, Sotomayor did not say AA is required by constitution, which is clearly ridiculous. Her point was that MI should change their AA policy in other methods. They should not change it by ballot measure to pass an amendment, because it would be very hard for racial minorities to pass pass an amendment to support AA. This is probably equally or even more ridiculous. I respect Ginsburg as a jurist, and was disappointed the signed on such a ridiculous opinion.

[politicallefty]

To be fair, Sotomayor did not say AA is required by constitution, which is clearly ridiculous. Her point was that MI should change their AA policy in other methods. They should not change it by ballot measure to pass an amendment, because it would be very hard for racial minorities to pass pass an amendment to support AA. This is probably equally or even more ridiculous. I respect Ginsburg as a jurist, and was disappointed the signed on such a ridiculous opinion.

I admit that was an oversimplification, but I read the text of Michigan Proposal 2. I don't see anything offensive in that amendment that violates the United State Constitution. To strike it down would be to say that the text somehow violates some right of affirmative action. I don't see how you can see otherwise. This isn't singling out a specific class from protections or discrimination as Romer v. Evans ruled against.

[Mr. Reactionary]

To be fair, Sotomayor did not say AA is required by constitution, which is clearly ridiculous. Her point was that MI should change their AA policy in other methods. They should not change it by ballot measure to pass an amendment, because it would be very hard for racial minorities to pass pass an amendment to support AA. This is probably equally or even more ridiculous. I respect Ginsburg as a jurist, and was disappointed the signed on such a ridiculous opinion.

I admit that was an oversimplification, but I read the text of Michigan Proposal 2. I don't see anything offensive in that amendment that violates the United State Constitution. To strike it down would be to say that the text somehow violates some right of affirmative action. I don't see how you can see otherwise. This isn't singling out a specific class from protections or discrimination as Romer v. Evans ruled against.

Her argument was that affirmative action is a policy to reduce racial discrimination and must therefore be treated as a special thing. So by putting a ban on affirmative action in the constitution rather than merely statute you were making it harder to obtain the special thing. And the government is only supposed to make it easier to obtain special things, not harder. By her argument you could substitute affirmative action with literally any policy claimed to be about racial discrimination and she'd reach the same conclusion.

[politicallefty]

To be fair, Sotomayor did not say AA is required by constitution, which is clearly ridiculous. Her point was that MI should change their AA policy in other methods. They should not change it by ballot measure to pass an amendment, because it would be very hard for racial minorities to pass pass an amendment to support AA. This is probably equally or even more ridiculous. I respect Ginsburg as a jurist, and was disappointed the signed on such a ridiculous opinion.

I admit that was an oversimplification, but I read the text of Michigan Proposal 2. I don't see anything offensive in that amendment that violates the United State Constitution. To strike it down would be to say that the text somehow violates some right of affirmative action. I don't see how you can see otherwise. This isn't singling out a specific class from protections or discrimination as Romer v. Evans ruled against.

Her argument was that affirmative action is a policy to reduce racial discrimination and must therefore be treated as a special thing. So by putting a ban on affirmative action in the constitution rather than merely statute you were making it harder to obtain the special thing. And the government is only supposed to make it easier to obtain special things, not harder. By her argument you could substitute affirmative action with literally any policy claimed to be about racial discrimination and she'd reach the same conclusion.

I'm not making that argument. I explicitly said I disagreed with it. This is a major issue where I tend to depart with my liberal friends. I cannot justify affirmative action under the Constitution.

I wanted to separate the issue in Romer v. Evans whereby the state constitution specifically precluding non-discrimination for a particular class. While the Michigan proposal did not mention sexual orientation or gender identity, it did not preclude them from protections. The areas of non-preferential treatment under the Michigan Constitution are also those that are barred from discrimination.

[Aurelius]

Good.

Affirmative action is the greatest example of modern-day systemic racism.

Systemic racism? Talk about white fragility.

Fragility is when people are upset about being discriminated against, apparently.

"White Fragility" is a kafkatrap. To those who believe in it, disagreeing with them on the matter is itself evidence of white fragility.

[Matt24]

Good.

Affirmative action is the greatest example of modern-day systemic racism.

Systemic racism? Talk about white fragility.

Fragility is when people are upset about being discriminated against, apparently.

Oh my goodness, white people have every advantage imaginable. Universities making a small effort to correct for this imbalance isn't discrimination. Mediocre white people need to realize that maybe they aren't qualified instead of crying about affirmative action.

[Shaula🏳️‍⚧️]

Affirmative action should exist, but only based on class.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

Affirmative Action is a big deal but many people are going to online schools especially nursing schools so quotas as we know it is gonna end with this Crt

[Mr. Reactionary]

Good.

Affirmative action is the greatest example of modern-day systemic racism.

Systemic racism? Talk about white fragility.

Fragility is when people are upset about being discriminated against, apparently.

Oh my goodness, white people have every advantage imaginable. Universities making a small effort to correct for this imbalance isn't discrimination. Mediocre white people need to realize that maybe they aren't qualified instead of crying about affirmative action.

Asians are white?

[gerritcole]

end anti asian racism, though the left rejects asians as minorities

[Bootes Void]

Affirmative Action is probably a goner but I have to wonder if a future liberal Supreme Court would want to bring it back

[Badger]

Good.

Affirmative action is the greatest example of modern-day systemic racism.

Systemic racism? Talk about white fragility.

Fragility is when people are upset about being discriminated against, apparently.

 Don't fret little white boy. You shall overcome!

[ملكة كرينجيتوك]

Good.

Affirmative action is the greatest example of modern-day systemic racism.

Systemic racism? Talk about white fragility.

Fragility is when people are upset about being discriminated against, apparently.

Oh my goodness, white people have every advantage imaginable. Universities making a small effort to correct for this imbalance isn't discrimination. Mediocre white people need to realize that maybe they aren't qualified instead of crying about affirmative action.

Asians are white?

As far as college admissions are concerned, domestic Asians are "white", whites are "underrepresented", and international applicants are ca$h cows. I don't expect this to change regardless of the ruling outcome.

[Matt24]

Good.

Affirmative action is the greatest example of modern-day systemic racism.

Systemic racism? Talk about white fragility.

Fragility is when people are upset about being discriminated against, apparently.

Oh my goodness, white people have every advantage imaginable. Universities making a small effort to correct for this imbalance isn't discrimination. Mediocre white people need to realize that maybe they aren't qualified instead of crying about affirmative action.

Asians are white?

White adjacent, yes.

[lfromnj]

Good.

Affirmative action is the greatest example of modern-day systemic racism.

Systemic racism? Talk about white fragility.

Fragility is when people are upset about being discriminated against, apparently.

Oh my goodness, white people have every advantage imaginable. Universities making a small effort to correct for this imbalance isn't discrimination. Mediocre white people need to realize that maybe they aren't qualified instead of crying about affirmative action.

Asians are white?

White adjacent, yes.

Santander can die happy now.

[HisGrace]

It's very easy to get into college Affirmative Action has done it's job but Clarence Thomas is against it and used it to be a judge, it's hypocritical for him, because he is in an interracial marriage not a Blk marriage

The hardest part is getting into grad school I went thru it but now it's on line schooling, who pays 200 K in student loans to go to Harvard Law school

There's no way a legal genius like you could have ever been kept out of law school, don't worry about it.

[Big Abraham]

Good.

Affirmative action is the greatest example of modern-day systemic racism.

Systemic racism? Talk about white fragility.

Fragility is when people are upset about being discriminated against, apparently.

Oh my goodness, white people have every advantage imaginable. Universities making a small effort to correct for this imbalance isn't discrimination. Mediocre white people need to realize that maybe they aren't qualified instead of crying about affirmative action.

Asians are white?

White adjacent, yes.

🤡

[Malarkey Decider]

Good.

Affirmative action is the greatest example of modern-day systemic racism.

Systemic racism? Talk about white fragility.

Fragility is when people are upset about being discriminated against, apparently.

Oh my goodness, white people have every advantage imaginable. Universities making a small effort to correct for this imbalance isn't discrimination. Mediocre white people need to realize that maybe they aren't qualified instead of crying about affirmative action.

Asians are white?

White adjacent, yes.

Question: What does "white" mean to you?

[Warren 4 Secretary of Everything]

Good.

Affirmative action is the greatest example of modern-day systemic racism.

Systemic racism? Talk about white fragility.

Fragility is when people are upset about being discriminated against, apparently.

Oh my goodness, white people have every advantage imaginable. Universities making a small effort to correct for this imbalance isn't discrimination. Mediocre white people need to realize that maybe they aren't qualified instead of crying about affirmative action.

Asians are white?

White adjacent, yes.

Question: What does "white" mean to you?

Asians don’t face the same discrimination as Blacks and Hispanics when it comes to education. That’s just the truth.

[ملكة كرينجيتوك]

Good.

Affirmative action is the greatest example of modern-day systemic racism.

Systemic racism? Talk about white fragility.

Fragility is when people are upset about being discriminated against, apparently.

Oh my goodness, white people have every advantage imaginable. Universities making a small effort to correct for this imbalance isn't discrimination. Mediocre white people need to realize that maybe they aren't qualified instead of crying about affirmative action.

Asians are white?

White adjacent, yes.

Question: What does "white" mean to you?

Asians don’t face the same discrimination as Blacks and Hispanics when it comes to education. That’s just the truth.

Maybe not in aggregate, but that doesn't make us a socioeconomic or cultural monolith, nor does it make us "white-adjacent".
https://www.buffalo.edu/ubnow/stories/2021/09/asian-stem-disparities.html
https://www.science.org/content/article/u-s-science-no-longer-leads-world-here-s-how-top-advisers-say-nation-should-respond

[Malarkey Decider]

Good.

Affirmative action is the greatest example of modern-day systemic racism.

Systemic racism? Talk about white fragility.

Fragility is when people are upset about being discriminated against, apparently.

Oh my goodness, white people have every advantage imaginable. Universities making a small effort to correct for this imbalance isn't discrimination. Mediocre white people need to realize that maybe they aren't qualified instead of crying about affirmative action.

Asians are white?

White adjacent, yes.

Question: What does "white" mean to you?

Asians don’t face the same discrimination as Blacks and Hispanics when it comes to education. That’s just the truth.

In what fashion? If you mean Black and Hispanic kids go to on average worse schools, is this really current discrimination, or rather past discrimination and current cultural differences manifesting themselves? If that's the case, shouldn't we work to remove these disparities instead of pushing discrimination later in the education process?