« First « Previous Comments 7 - 29 of 29 Search these comments
I think the timing, as with abortion, is a calculated attempt to help Democrats.
Asians are over represented in that statistic.
whites were 20.6% at UC and 27% of eligible students
Or perhaps a lot of Whites are strategically self-identifying as Lantinx or Hispanic ? And that is why there is a lot less whites enrolled than represented by the population ?
What if I say none, do they run background check and find out that I was an Asian.
Actually I was more curious to understand how it works if everyone who do not like affirmative action select none. Gov, private companies, universities already know everything about every person but how they respond officially in terms of implementation when dealing with “none”.
There's a huge tell between Cali State Schools and the Ivy's.
The Ivys can and do reject Asians; California HAS to accept them under state law, ironically enough the one based thing that was passed in the 90s I think in Cali.
Its a perpetual system.
"I didn't go to racially diverse schools, but there were educational benefits, and I'd like you to tell me expressly when a parent sends a kid to college that they don't necessarily send them there to have fun or feel good or anything like that," Thomas pressed. "They send them there to learn physics or chemistry or whatever their study. So tell me what the educational benefits are.”
In response, Park claimed there is a “truth-seeking function of learning in a diverse environment” and argued that students in racially diverse schools perform better and “[reduces] bias between people of different backgrounds.”
"I don't put much stock in that because I've heard similar arguments in favor of segregation, too,” Thomas responded.
Thomas has long been a critic of affirmative action. CNN pointed out that Thomas wrote in 2003 that “The Constitution abhors classifications based on race, not only because those classifications can harm favored races or are based on illegitimate motives, but also because every time the government places citizens on racial registers and makes race relevant to the provision of burdens or benefits, it demeans us all.”
The Ivys can and do reject Asians; California HAS to accept them under state law, ironically enough the one based thing that was passed in the 90s I think in Cali.
They actually tried to strike this from the California constitution two years ago with Prop 16. It was roundly defeated 57.2% to 48.8%.
ARTICLE I DECLARATION OF RIGHTS
SEC. 31.
(a) The State shall not discriminate against, or grant preferential treatment to, any individual or group on the basis of race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin in the operation of public employment, public education, or public contracting.
Alito asked Waxman to explain why Asian applicants scored lower on the “personal” criterion. Waxman tried to evade the question, then described the difference on the personal score as small, and finally resorted to citing the district court’s decision in Harvard’s favor, which concluded that there was no discrimination. However, he admitted that the district court had not had full access to the precise criteria used in evaluating an applicant’s personal score.
Waxman then argued that the personal score was merely a form of “triage” to manage a large number of applications, and had no statistical effect on the outcome.
“Then why do you do it?” Alito asked.
NYT piece is an opinion, not editorial.
Right before midterms this news drops.
I tend to think lefties generally favor AA, especially since it aligns with their "if recipient = white then racism = good" logic. But note the NYT support.
Do you think this news will help the left or the right in the upcoming elections? I assume the left would be motivated to vote out of fear of losing their legalized college raycism, and the resulting damage it would do to their institution of justified and legal raycism used in support of their identity politics. And the right would be motivated to vote for righting a wrong that is long overdue.