/townhall/ - Townhall

>>12172
>Do you agree
I know not to write anything that could be in conflict with state power.  The state determines what is legal and we accept, generally without even the training to competently read law.  That is the way of things.

But in the interest of being conversational, I doubt it will help higher education become more racially diverse, if that is indeed a goal of higher education.  I favor independent education, so I'm not involved in places like Harvard College myself, as we have divergent values in some areas.

>>12172
Racism is racism.
It shouldn't be acceptable for anyone to racially discriminate in admissions.

I don't know.

>>12172

From my understanding, affirmative action is no longer allowed at federally-funded universities, but it is still allowed at military academies. I am of the opinion that from a philosophical perspective, on which court decisions ought to be based, this apparent contradiction invalidates the decision.

But generally-speaking, I think discrimination in admissions based on income (favoring promising, less-qualified lower-income people) would make more sense and be more fair, given how important money seems to be in doing things in the world (such as attending a nice school). (I also think that a lack of money can be linked back to a variety of disadvantages other than race, meaning a larger variety of disadvantaged people are included, increasing the students' diversity of experiences at college.)

>>12178
>From my understanding, affirmative action is no longer allowed at federally-funded universities, but it is still allowed at military academies.
The Supreme Court didn't rule that it's allowed; they just noted that the question isn't fully resolved by the current case.

Can someone explain to me where there are legit concerns about the positive racism?
Were really bad precedents already set in an alarming trend?

While it's a general statement that if racism and discrimination is bad in all direction, it does touch somewhat on the whole BLM versus All lives matter debate.

Like, where I live, as a neurodivergent person I was privy to some additional free training / some additional counselingin my way to find work.
Programs exist to give companies some extra financing to train and hire neurodivergent people and there are perhaps also some benefits to assure that people with a handicap can be hired and be kept on.

Now, that is also some form of protection that neurodivergent can get and that neurotypical don't have "access" to.
Personally, I would of course be totally dismayed if someone would come in and say "right is right" and demand that all public funding is ceased for handicapt people.

Technically, installing an access ramp for people in a wheelchair is discrimination in a sense.

>>12201
Handicapped parking'd probably be a better example, as non-handicapped people can also use ramps.

In either  case, though, couldn't this logic be applied to racism, generally?
Who determines what is "positive" racism?
How do we decide that it's okay to discriminate against some people, and not others?

>>12204
To me, discrimination may be acceptable if it allows naturally disadvantaged people to gain an opportunity they may not have had otherwise.

A person who has a handicap can be given tools to perform certain tasks, even though non-handicapt people may not have access to these. But non-handicapt people in general don't really need those tools.
A Handicap parking space helps to reduce mobility for people who are not as mobile, while a "normal" person can stand to walk a bit extra.

When it comes to the SC decision here, I haven' really looked at it in detail. So I do want to be a bit more careful. Which is also why I wouldn't mind a TLDR of the exact situation here.
I don't think privileges on access to a proper education should be granted on a racial basis alone, instead should be encouraged for people who have less access to a higher education, for example, those who are eager, but generally can't afford it. If that happens to favour minorities because they tend to have less income, then in the end it's just a shift on emphasis.

Saying you can't have programs to motivate poor people and allow a smooth access to a proper education because it wouldn't be fair to the rich people is kind of ridiculous to me.

If good research can be found that people with a foreign sounding name are far more often turned down from renting a house, I don't mind an official organisation buying property and renting out to people of that demographic for living spaces.

>>12225
Actually, the ''were'' discriminating racially, primarily against Whites. They still discriminate sexually however, always against males.

>>12241
It is unfortunate that places prefer to discriminate against people with a male gender identity.  I hope people can find or create more inclusive places for education.

>>12241
I thought it was predominantly against Asians was the problem

My thought legally is that discrimination based on a general category is inherently wrong, and that shouldn't happen. However, discrimination based on a highly specific background status that's properly documented can make sense. And it often does.

For example, if somebody is descended from the enslaved and this is a clear-cut matter of family history as found in written documents, then I find it fairly logical to regard their personal story and family heritage as having a special meaning. Their inclusion in programs of higher education is a matter of accomplishing meaningful goals of social improvement, righting past wrongs, and expanding intellectual diversity. The same is true of bringing into the programs cancer survivors. And victims of child abuse who've rose above those circumstances. As well, those who've been formerly homeless and otherwise dealt with extreme poverty have unique character-based aspects to their lives. Same thing for war veterans. Especially veterans with citations of merit.

I wouldn't consider preferential treatment to a child of enslaved parents, of parents who've survived cancer, of veteran parents, and such to be that objectionable. It's not like an extremely broad category label such as 'a black person', especially when a gigantic number of black Americans have never had any of their relatives slash forefathers enslaved. Not to mention that, obviously, records of enslavement exist for people who aren't / weren't black. Scholarships for those people, their children, their grandchildren, and/or their great-grandchildren seems reasonable.

I'm in favor of the ruling to some extent, then, I suppose. I'm not familiar with the technical legal grounds argued, however.