- 09 Jul 2023 18:57
#15279566
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 wrote: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.