120
Anti-affirmative action group, emboldened by US Supreme Court, targets scholarships
(www.reuters.com)
this post was submitted on 22 Sep 2023
120 points (96.9% liked)
politics
19104 readers
3094 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Asshats like these may sing a different tune when lawsuits targeting legacy scholarships and the like start popping up.
Lol these asshats didn't go to college...
Yes they fucking do.
The Conservative apparatus around streamlining young Conservative thinkers through the pipeline of elite universities is profound.
These fucks all go to Harvard, Yale, Princeton, and the like. It's a major part of how they have power, the networking that comes from all this. They do it using deep pocketed donors, legacy admissions, and all kinds of scholarships and Federalist Society-style influence. That's why it is SO important to them to keep anyone who grew up outside of that system -- like a black kid who grew up poor in a city -- WAY the fuck out.
They already are. Legacy admissions are rightfully being targeted. Honestly they should have done away with those before even starting affirmative action.
Being a legacy admit tells us that you grew up with all kinds of advantage in your favor to get into the school. You were more likely to have connections, know the bueracratic ins-and-outs, know how to cater your application to what the university likes, etc. . Being legacy means your test scores should almost inherently be treated as less impressive than identical scores from a non-legacy because the non-legacy almost certainly showed more grit and effort to get to the same place.
Which is the same exact logic as how being an underrepresented minority student should almost certainly weight your scores more strongly than someone with identical scores from an over represented social group since it almost certainly took more grit and effort to get to those scores for someone starting from that point of disadvantage. On the same logic that someone who grew up dirt poor and self-studied has shown far more grit than the rich kid who had a team of tutors. The former put blood, sweat, and tears into getting that A. The latter is a loser if he DIDN'T get the A.
And this plays out in reality, which is why affirmative action rules have been shown to increase academic performance of schools that have them. They get better students by pursuing those policies.
All that to say, they should've gone after legacy admits INSTEAD of affirmative action. But they didn't because Students for Fair Admissions was not really concerned with helping Asian kids get into elite universities. They were after affirmative action because Edward Blum is a hardline anti-black neoconservative and works to repeal any laws designed to ensure black representation or participation in the American political system. It's the same people that brought Shelby to the SCOTUS and is still actively trying to strike down the Voting Rights Act.