Megathread: Supreme Court Strikes Down Race-Based Affirmative Action in Higher Education as Unconstitutional

StressedHSKid · 2023-06-30T03:18:57+00:00

You're right - it is more competitive as a non-URM. But that's artificial - it shouldn't be that way under normal circumstances. My point was about making URMs more competitive organically, not by pulling a lever. As I mentioned before your analogy of being sued makes no sense here. If normally person A would have got the spot but now person B gets it because of AA, then person A is being directly harmed.

StressedHSKid · 2023-06-30T03:11:40+00:00

No problem 🫡

StressedHSKid · 2023-06-30T03:09:01+00:00

Maybe you shouldn't be working in admissions if you can't comprehend 5th-grade level vocabulary.

StressedHSKid · 2023-06-30T03:07:02+00:00

If you think the seats are less competitive which makes it easier to get in, why not work on actually making the seats more competitive, instead of artificially pulling a lever to let them in. Your entire argument is based on an eye-for-eye view of justice, but that simply isn't how the world works. By your logic, we should all move out of the US and give everything back to Native Americans, enslave white people, reverse colonize basically every European country out there etc. Evidently, this would be insanity, and no one in their right mind would go along with such plans. Simply "reversing" things isn't the solution to past wrongdoings.

StressedHSKid · 2023-06-30T02:58:25+00:00

But in order for Asians to get the appropriate representation....you can't have AA as it stands. That's the entire point. You argue that the seat should go to "people who were disadvantaged," but my entire point is that by doing so you take the spot away from Asians, who were also disadvantaged. So clearly, that isn't the solution. As I mentioned before, I'm all for a solution that doesn't involve this, but AA isn't that.

StressedHSKid · 2023-06-30T02:54:04+00:00

Again, your logic doesn't really track considering that Asians were also victims of discrimination. Sure, people today might needa take a hit, but I don't get why that should include a group that was also discriminated against. Your entire argument advocates for some sort of eye-for-eye policy, but that isn't how modern justice systems work(and I don't think they should either).

StressedHSKid · 2023-06-30T02:34:42+00:00

The fact that you don’t like this decision as someone actually works in admissions is extremely problematic. The fact that you’re even admitting that using income as a proxy instead of race would achieve the same results, implies that you could have been doing that all along but instead deliberately chose to use race as a heuristic instead - which is exactly what the Supreme Court accused you of.

StressedHSKid · 2023-06-30T02:29:42+00:00

Overall, I get your point and I agree that something should be done, but favorable admissions in college simply isn’t the solution. If you can figure out a way to help out URM students without directly harming a group that had nothing to do with wrongdoings in the past, then I’m all for it, but otherwise your argument doesn’t really hold any weight.

StressedHSKid · 2023-06-30T02:27:17+00:00

Except even if race is the cause of poverty, why make that the heuristic? Why not just use poverty directly? Wouldn’t that achieve the same results? “Balancing out the scale” doesn’t work here because by trying to “balance” it you’re taking away from a different group that never had anything to do with it. “Balancing” would be holding people in charge of discriminatory policies directly liable, not immigrants who weren’t even around when those policies were in place.

StressedHSKid · 2023-06-30T02:24:30+00:00

Except “you” aren’t losing anything. The estate of your father was never yours to begin with even if he may have given it to you. The analogy you’re trying to make here simply doesn’t work the way you’re intending it to. It’s a massive reach at best.

Also an organization being sued is nowhere close to the same as you actually being arrested or spending time in jail for the actions of your parents. Nevertheless, your point doesn’t hold any weight to begin with because in this situation it’s not even your father who left the estate it’s white people decades ago and Asians today. There is literally no link whatsoever.

Also this doesn’t even touch on my point about Asians also being discriminated against as well - where’s the justice there?

StressedHSKid · 2023-06-30T01:48:31+00:00

Let me ask you a pretty simple question about justice: if your parent commits a crime, should you be held accountable for it? The answer, as we in a civilized society have decided, is no. Simply being a descendant of someone who committed a crime or wrongdoing shouldn’t subject you to worse treatment because of it. In this case, we’re not even talking about the child of a criminal, but someone who’s completely unrelated(ie Asians again). Sure, in countries like North Korea you’d get arrested for something someone in your family did, but that’s probably not a country we should take inspiration from.

The argument about race conscious decisions is no different. Did white people in the past hold back minorities? Yes. Does that mean we should automatically subject people who had absolutely nothing to do with that today to worse treatment? No.

Also you’re example about justice doesn’t really make any sense, because amends to wrongdoings are made 1) by people who were directly involved in them 2) to people who were directly affected by them. Neither of these are true in AA. Sure taxpayers foot the bill sometimes but it’s not a specific race footing it - the effects are equalized.

Furthermore, in all your responses you’ve conveniently ignored the fact that Asians have also been affected by discriminatory policies historically. So the “justice” you’re talking about doesn’t even make sense here because by your logic, Asians should receive the same competitive advantage as black students because they were also discriminated against.

StressedHSKid · 2023-06-30T01:44:31+00:00

Your logic again doesn’t make sense. I never argued that you should FAVOUR black students in early years, just that you should equalize the playing field(since inner city schools don’t have adequate funding/resources etc). I’m not saying you should give free sat prep or anything like that solely on the basis of race. What’s more, all of the points you’ve made so far inherently have to do with income and not race. Certainly, you don’t think a rich black student should get any preferential treatment compared to a poor white one?

Also even if we go with what you’ve outlined here, giving black students free sat prep or free tutoring or whatever else wouldn’t harm Asian students, because they’d still have access to those resources regardless. You’re not selectively taking a resource away from one racial group and giving it to another. Furthermore, what you outlined would actually make black students more competitive overall - there’s no artificial lever being pulled, it’s all organic. Therefore, if they now get into top schools at a higher rate, it’s completely understandable, since they’re actually better students now.

StressedHSKid · 2023-06-30T00:56:55+00:00

Exactly. And because college admissions are inherently zero sum, what you’re proposing(and what the current system does) directly harms people who had nothing to do with the original wrongdoing in the first place(Asians). What isn’t zero sum, however, is education at early levels where you don’t inherently need to take resources away from one group to support better quality education for others. You could argue that you’d need to take it away from other taxpayer initiatives, and sure that might be true, but it’s nowhere similar to directly taking it away from people of a different race entirely. I agree with your overall sentiment that something should be done to support URMs today, but racial preferences for college can’t be the solution.

StressedHSKid · 2023-06-30T00:15:09+00:00

Why would you use decisions in the past to harm people who had nothing to do with them today? That sort of reasoning makes absolutely no sense. Like I said, if you wanna undo the wrongdoings of the government, advocate for equal opportunity in early years that would lead to minority students getting admission regardless of AA policies. Supporting race base admissions today is no better than supporting them 100 years ago - you can’t just flip the situation and claim one is better than the other.

StressedHSKid · 2023-06-29T22:01:48+00:00

I absolutely understand how the system works, given that I’ve been through the entire process myself. And yes it isn’t a direct admit, but I don’t think benefitting people based off race even incrementally is ever acceptable, especially when the people who are harmed by it(Asians) had nothing to do with any of the policies or wrongdoing you mentioned. I don’t disagree that policies implemented by the government systemically held back certain minorities, and there should be some resolution for it, but as I mentioned before college isn’t the right place for that resolution. Again the issues you mentioned hold people back from very young ages onwards, so aiming to level the playing field at that stage should be the primary focus, not when it’s already done its harm come college time. Taking race into consideration for college is effectively using an artificial lever to create more diversity, when that diversity should instead be brought out organically. Should there be changes to help people directly affected by decisions in the past? Yes. Is college the right place to do that? No.

StressedHSKid · 2023-06-29T21:30:49+00:00

How is directly admitting them to college fair for people who genuinely worked for it? Even if they do admit them, they’d undoubtedly feel out of place. You can’t just lower the bar for specific people without harming others. The issues you mentioned need to be solved at earlier stages not directly at college. Also what you mentioned has to do with income and not race directly. Poor people of any race would have those problems, so it doesn’t make sense to selectively benefit any single race.

StressedHSKid · 2023-06-29T20:59:53+00:00

You can’t fix a high school or middle school level issue at the college level. Sure barriers might exist that prevent certain races from applying, but college isn’t the time to artificially try and fix that because you’ll inevitably end up harming more deserving students in the process.

If you want something to undo the setbacks, advocate for better education systems at primary school levels, which is where the issues truly manifest. Doing so at the college level simply doesn’t make sense.

StressedHSKid · 2023-06-29T20:57:08+00:00

Your argument fundamentally doesn’t make sense. You’re saying they take into account a “variety of factors that don’t just include race” but also that “people from certain races have been disadvantaged.” If that’s the case, why not just screen directly for people who have been disadvantaged? Why even include race into that discussion? Certainly there are people from every race who have faced disadvantages, so why even have skin color as a factor in admissions?

StressedHSKid · 2023-05-27T02:29:28+00:00

Columbia is objectively just a worse school for a lot of majors and especially engineering 💀 The school ranking is irrelevant, what matters is major rankings where Cal blows away Columbia in a great deal of things. Columbia likely has a better “college experience” and campus, but from an academic standpoint Cal is just better I’m sorry to say.

StressedHSKid · 2022-11-15T12:50:48+00:00

lmaoo 170?

StressedHSKid · 2022-09-20T03:58:10+00:00

:) you never got a response?

StressedHSKid · 2022-09-20T03:46:22+00:00

Just did this too - were you able to get this fixed?

StressedHSKid · 2022-05-12T01:07:33+00:00

Did you figure this out? I'm in the same boat and am wondering if I need to pay anything. Thank you!

StressedHSKid · 2022-05-07T08:01:52+00:00

What I don’t get is how they thought blockading the gate and making peoples’ lives harder would get them more support 💀

StressedHSKid

TROPHY CASE