[wat0n]

You are, once again, out of your depth.

The racists don't care about the imperfections of affirmative action. Academics, Progressives, have been critical of it since it started, over half a century ago.

303 Creative is a profoundly flawed case that is a thinly disguised attack on Blacks... If the Right had not been working toward this since the 1970s you might have a leg to stand on. But you do not.

It does not attempt to create a better admissions process, which is beyond the scope of judicial review. It seeks to limit the achievement of Blacks.

What's happened to Asian applicants who busted their asses to build a competitive application, with many of them not being from the upper class, is just an imperfection to you, @late?

I also believe you're a bit mistaken about the reasons for college affirmative action policies. I don't think they aim to bring the truly underrepresented groups in society, elite schools like Harvard don't admit many among the have nots regardless of race, let alone those talented African American teens who are truly at the bottom of the social ladder and who could do great in any school. I also don't think, like @Pants-of-dog hinted earlier, that these policies exist because of whatever benefits diversity may bring to white students either - some may believe in the ideology, but I don't think that's the main concern.

If I had to bet, the main reason for practicing affirmative action is simply that it has allowed schools sell admissions to applicants from wealthy families passing as "charitable donations" with their respective tax deductions, allowing the schools relying on them save face just like passing the sale as a donation allows the buyers save face themselves (being forced to acknowledge your child couldn't get an admit on merit alone definitely hurts the family's reputation in those circles). I also think that's why schools give advantages to alumni by privileging legacies.

That's also why we pretty much immediately saw pushback in the form of a lawsuit to end legacy admits, many preferred to look the other way since schools were at least nominally trying to reserve spots for underserved minorities.

[late]

If I had to bet

You wouldn't need to bet if you had read the link I posted:

https://scholarship.law.bu.edu/faculty_scholarship/1834/

Repeating lies doesn't improve them..

[Pants-of-dog]

The original reason for affirmative action seems to be to address systemic racism.

The benefits of diversity are often cited as a reason, but they cannot be the original reason. That would require white people to have known what these benefits are back in the day when AA started, and these benefits were unknown at the time.

The benefits of diversity are now more of a way to keep white people from getting rid of it. Lol.

[wat0n]

You wouldn't need to bet if you had read the link I posted:

https://scholarship.law.bu.edu/faculty_scholarship/1834/

Repeating lies doesn't improve them..

Doesn't really address the issue.

Tell me again, why do you support Harvard's and UNC's institutionalized stereotyping of Asians?

[late]

Doesn't really address the issue.

A lie is not an issue.

[wat0n]

You can tell yourself that if you want. Even the press articles you cited yourself are accepting Harvard was stereotyping against Asians.

[Unthinking Majority]

It does not attempt to create a better admissions process, which is beyond the scope of judicial review. It seeks to limit the achievement of Blacks.

What is your evidence that they (including Clarence Thomas) were motivated by "keeping the black man down" rather than racial equality in admissions or maybe some simply not wanting whites to be discriminated against unfairly? You've literally assumed the worst possible intentions.

[Unthinking Majority]

Again, you are the one who brought this up.

You made a claim.

You need to provide evidence.

At this point, it seems like you are taking a debate about racism and trying to change the subject to make it a debate about individual behaviours.

And you have not presented any evidence for your claim of individual behaviours.

No, this is a debate about AA. The argument often made by you and others is that systemic racism is the reason why poor blacks are poor, and rarely are other reasons given, and this racism is a reason given for why AA should exist.

I'll reiterate that racism past and to an extent in the present is a factor. However, racism does not explain how the out-of-wedlock birthrate among black Americans increased from 25% in 1965 to 72% in 2011 while during that same time period racism against blacks has been drastically reduced. Also, 67% of black children are raised in a single-parent home per 2011 census. So clearly something else is going on besides just racism. White people are not forcing black people to have sex outside of marriage or without birth control, and they have greatly increased access to birth control and abortions since 1965. However, since the 1960's, progressives have increasingly normalized sex outside of marriage and divorce/single-parenthood , while social conservatives have fought against these changing social norms. So it's possible that changing progressive attitudes surrounding sex and the family have had a disproportionately negative impact on blacks.

And what do you want evidence for? Here's the statistics for unwed mothers and single-parent families I have mentioned. Unwed births and single-parent families by race correlates well with poverty level by race, and nobody should be surprised that families with 2 incomes are less poor and their children have better outcomes in education.

https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2 ... an-americ/

You need to provide evidence for your claim. If you don't we can assume you have none and your claim can be rejected as unsubstantiated speculation.

[Pants-of-dog]

@Unthinking Majority

Tyre Nichols had a kid. That kid is now growing up in a single parent home. Is that because Mr. Nichols made bad choices? Or was it systemic racism?

[Rich]

However, since the 1960's, progressives have increasingly normalized sex outside of marriage and divorce/single-parenthood , while social conservatives have fought against these changing social norms.

I remember my political awakening. When I was a child my parents chose for us to watch a TV series on Lili Langtry. I was shocked. They tried to portray the future Edward VII as a decent man, that we should look up to, they clearly thought that the fornication and adultery by this future King and head of the Church of England was OK. If Conservatives were serious about stopping sex outside marriage, then Edward VII would have been hung and his body left to rot on a gibbet in Trafalgar Square. In Victorian times Britain had prostitution including child prostitution and homosexual child prostitution on an industrial scale. Yet Conservatives think we're going to take moral lectures from them.

In California it was Ronald Reagan who brought in no fault divorce, marriage lost even the pretense of being life long. Ronald Reagan an adulterer and bigamist according to traditional Christian teachings, wanted to make it easier for rich and powerful men to trade their wives in for a younger model.

[late]

What is your evidence that they (including Clarence Thomas) were motivated by "keeping the black man down" rather than racial equality in admissions or maybe some simply not wanting whites to be discriminated against unfairly? You've literally assumed the worst possible intentions.

Ignorance only carries one so far, and you've exceeded your limit.

Try reading the news.. it's an observation, not an assumption.

Some of the Federalist judges are corrupt, and that includes Thomas. Some are worse than that, and that includes Thomas...

[wat0n]

@Unthinking Majority

Tyre Nichols had a kid. That kid is now growing up in a single parent home. Is that because Mr. Nichols made bad choices? Or was it systemic racism?

This is a poor argument, even for you. As an anecdotal case it doesn't address @Unthinking Majority claim that out of wedlock births is a more important factor behind racial gaps and in any event he did mention discrimination as one reason as well.

I would first start comparing those percentages by race and over time if I wanted to say something intelligent on this topic. One of the obvious problems with that theory is that the percentage of out of wedlock births has gone up across all races/ethnicities over time yet we don't seem to be seeing a corresponding closing of gaps. Another slightly less obvious one is that it could be a spurious correlation since out of wedlock births depend on parental education, which in turn plays a major role in determining several of the child's future outcomes.

I'm also still waiting for the Memphis Police Department videos of cops killing people, I recall you said they were used to recording themselves doing that.

[Pants-of-dog]

@Unthinking Majority

George Floyd’s kid is another example. Since cops kill several hundred black people each year, leaving many children without a parent, the low three digits would not be surprising.

And this number would be dwarfed by the number of kids who have a parent who is incarcerated. That is probably closer to low 7 digits, with a disproportionate amount of black kids.

Would about 700,000 black families separated by incarceration have an effect on statistics?

[wat0n]

Not as much as you'd think.

There are around 40 million African Americans (single race, non-Hispanic), the average African-American household has around 2.5 members so those 700,000 families could conceivably turn into some 1.8 million people (out of 40 million).

If I had to bet, I think sustained access to worse schools and lower educational attainment (which happens for many reasons) probably plays a larger role explaining the overall gaps than the difference in incarceration rates. Ultimately, the households dealing with the criminal justice system are still a minority regardless of race/ethnicity.

[Pants-of-dog]

It seems that the racial disparity in single parenthood is at least partly due to systemic factors.

Consequently, it is difficult to argue that single moms are a cause of problems separate from systemic racism.

[Unthinking Majority]

@Unthinking Majority

Tyre Nichols had a kid. That kid is now growing up in a single parent home. Is that because Mr. Nichols made bad choices? Or was it systemic racism?

If police brutality is the reason 72% of black babies are born out of wedlock please cite the evidence. If 67% of black children grow up in a single parent home because their fathers are killed by cops please cite the evidence. I'm pretty sure 67% of black men aren't killed by cops.

I know a fair # of poor white families. They get knocked up and have a lot of kids out of wedlock. The reason seems to be that they just don't make good decisions when it comes to sex, and cops or rich white people are not to blame.

Also, Nichols was beaten to death by 5 other black men who were cops. Sounds like he was killed due to abuse of power rather than racism or systemic racism. A lot of black people are killed by black gang members and the murders aren't racially motivated. Black people kill a lot more black fathers than white people do.

[Pants-of-dog]

@Unthinking Majority

So you agree that Mr. Nichols’s child is being raised by a single mother but not because of bad choices. Instead, the reason is police brutality and systemic racism.

So we see that even if we decide to accuse single Black moms of being responsible for all the problems facing Black people and communities, we see that even they cannot be held responsible for all these broken families.

You posited single parent homes as a possible reason for the problems facing Black people and communities, as an alternative to systemic racism.

But even that is partly caused by systemic racism.

[Unthinking Majority]

Ignorance only carries one so far, and you've exceeded your limit.

Try reading the news.. it's an observation, not an assumption.

Some of the Federalist judges are corrupt, and that includes Thomas. Some are worse than that, and that includes Thomas...

I don't follow US domestic politics that closely because I'm not a US citizen, so sure maybe i'm missing something. How has this group of judges shown to be a bunch of anti-black racists before this decision?

[Godstud]

Single incidents and exceptions do not make systemic racism real. They show instances where racism happened.

The George Floyd incident was not the result of systemic racism. It was an instance of police brutality.

You need government policy and laws that are racist, for there to be systemic racism. Throwing criminals in jail, who just happen to be black, is not racism.

[Pants-of-dog]

https://mn.gov/mdhr/assets/Investigatio ... 526417.pdf

That is a link to a report by the Minnesota Department of Human Rights on their investigation into the Minneapolis Police Department and whether or not there was a pattern or practice of discrimination in that police department.

—————————

Shall we get back to the problem of unwed mothers?

It is impossible to analyze a problem in North American society without looking at how it affects people of different levels of wealth.

It is hard to imagine that after her divorce from B. Pitt, Angelina Jolie faced all the problems most single moms face. While not wishing to minimize her personal problems, it is safe to say that her wealth shielded her from a lot. To a lesser degree, a single parent with financial stability would be doing better than one that does not even have a marketable skill set.

So when we are talking about the problems related with unwed moms, we are talking about poor single parents. And Indigenous and people of colour are disproportionately poor.