That's fine to believe but the issue is that places like Congress and government constantly pull from these elite schools, making them a pipeline to places of power and governance, therefore diversity at these universities becomes far more of a national interest unless we ant to go back to a country whose representatives are 90% one race and/or gender.
That's one classical way, but even China has moved away from purely academic performance to a more holistic evaluation, realizing its many shortcomings. Regarding yesterday's court decision, only race as a factor for admission has been struck down. Everything else still stands, including legacy status, athletic status, financial aid, nationality, geography, in-state vs. out-of-state, and so on. I believe it's fairly obvious that race, as a proxy for experience, is as valid, if not more valid, than nationality, geography, socioeconomic status, and others. And in terms of "fairness," legacy status is nothing more than privilege-based admission and probably the most unfair of all the approaches for entrance.
Hopefully he is running to the podium to apologize for breaking his promise. He knew he didn't have the power and he knew the make-up of the SC. He lies all the time but this one stands out. Nancy knew. She publicly said that this was not within his authority. Admitting fault doesn't seem to be in his repertoire, unfortunately.
Well you know whether he broke the promise or not he's going to politicize it, as he should and any good politician would. He should remind young voters that his side is more likely to deliver on student loan debt and the other side has 0 interest in doing so.
You do realize that you and all taxpayers (including poorer people who didn't get to go to university) would be paying for that?
Yes, because there are only 500 or so NBA players. Like with Harvard, you need to meet a certain threshold requirement. Now imagine if the NBA was turning down NCAA players who were scoring more and playing better defense in college to have more Asian players, even though by objective metrics they were not as good at basketball. I don't think I ever said anything about Obama being an Affirmative Action beneficiary. Moreover, his greatest accomplishment was being President, which is done through election by the people and has nothing to do with Affirmative Action. No human is merely a score, but the most fair way to decide between a group of candidates is with an objective metric that doesn't give preference to some characteristic unrelated to what you are choosing for. If you are doing school admissions, the most fair way to decide would be based on an objective measure of scholastic aptitude (exactly what the SAT is purported to measure). He said something that is anathema to Affirmative Action, I don't see a problem with using his quote to advocate against Affirmative Action. I would agree that it is objectively incorrect for someone to say he would have opposed Affirmative Action, but using his quote is fair game in my opinion. Lincoln said quite clearly that his objective was to keep the Union together and that if he could do so by freeing all the slaves, he would, if he could do so by freeing some slaves and leaving others in bondage he would (this is the route he ultimately took with the Emancipation Proclamation), and if he could do so by freeing none of the slaves he would do that. I think that is fair to quote. It would be incorrect to say he didn't favor emancipation, but you could use his quote to argue against it if you so chose. He was free to believe whatever he wanted. Personally, I wouldn't support differential treatment for people on the basis of race. Nor would I support his more socialist leanings. I don't think, like some, that Dr. King is some god-like figure and we must agree with whatever he says. I do think his iconic line from the I Have a Dream speech is a perfect distillation of how the government must and how individuals should treat others. The COVID emergency has been declared over (and probably shouldn't have been declared an emergency in the first place). The program also had no relation to the emergency, there was no testing to prove that the recipients were directly impacted by the national emergency of COVID. They wanted to cancel student loan debt so they said anyone making less than $125,000 could have some debt cancelled and anyone who had received a Pell grant could have some debt cancelled. The HEROES Act was a fig leaf to try to cover the illegal actions of the Biden administration. Great, someone should sue on those issues and have them thrown out as well, if they can. I don't think athletic prowess, financial aid receipt, geography, socioeconomic status, or legacy status are recognized protected classes, but that language doesn't appear in the Constitution anyway, so I would have no issue with getting rid of the concept.
Rather invest in future generations than corporate bailouts and other corporate favors. It's not a good thing that people go into debt seeking to better their lives through education, no other country operates this way.
It's one thing to try and change the system going forward, but these people knowingly chose that path, why should everyone else pay for them?
Trump declared COVID a national emergency, no one took issue with that at the time. That's when it should have been debated. People were impacted by COVID - not being able to earn substantially affected the ability to repay loans. Given it was a national emergency as declared by the prior administration and accepted by Congress, there is nothing that says they weren't following the letter of the law. SCOTUS made a political decision to provide red meat to conservatives - pure and simple.
They do though? Drew Timme wasn't even drafted by a team. There are tons of players with college accolades that don't get drafted meanwhile a guy that played in a glorified rec league went 4th to our Houston Rockets. Sounds like Holistic review to me. By all the numbers Drew Timme should have went ahead of Amen Thompson. Correct, I never did say you thought that, just that a lot of people that make the argument that Obama (or some other successful poc) went through thanks to AA don't realize they are actually supporting Harvard's argument of holistic review. You are imagining that Harvard ONLY wants good test takers, they do not. So the metric you are forcing on them is a metric they don't wish their college to be run by. SAT scores are also not even some concrete thing, of course someone will score better on a SAT test if all they get to do is prepare on it vs someone that has to work an extra job. This whole SAT only thing just supports more classism and makes it harder for the 'bootstraps' people you conservatives brag about to ever pull themselves up and out of poverty. Fair enough, i do think most people that use that quote do so dishonestly. Usually adding something like "Just listen to MLK" and so my response is if you're going to use him as an authority on the subject then at least know where he stood on that subject. That's my issue with it, the framing of the quote pretends that MLK would be against AA. I also don't think the quote contradicts AA at all because in MLKs world black people had their kneecaps blown off then told to run a race so the injustice he spoke of was the initial injustice. Equal the playing field first then we can talk. The issue is equality didn't exist post-civil rights and definitely not before it. So that's why I asked was his quote correct then, at the time, nothing else. Because at the time things were demonstrably worse, you can't say "I'm just for treating all people equal" when a huge section was not only treated unfairly, but targeted to be treated unfairly and actively discriminating against. Malcom X once said..."If you stick a knife in my back 9 inches and pull it out 6 inches, there's no progress. If you pull it all the way out, that's not progress. The progress is healing the wound that the blow made.. And they won't even admit the knife is there." This is what this entire thing feels like. People act like the race has been completely fair when for black Americans, it hasn't been for a VERY long time. My grandparents grew up in a time where it was perfectly fine to deny a black person a job for their race, to deny them service for their race, house, you name it. My Grandparents. Not my great great grandparents. My Grandparents. They then passed on absolutely nothing to my parents because WTF were they supposed to have to pass on? My parents then started with that but still grew up in the time of civil rights and being actively discriminated against. Fortunate to work any kind of job that could provide just so that we could be better. This is the black experience for many today. There's no generational wealth to lean on, little family history, just that and the stigma that you're not good enough because of the history of racism, a history that America desperately wants to get past but wants to sometimes cheat on the way there. We still had redlining, housing loan discrimination, sentencing discrimination, hell you you put you put your kids at a disadvantage if you decide to name them DeAndre, these are all things in MY lifetime. Not 100 years ago, but today, the modern era. As someone else put it, its like coming into a monopoly game but the properties are all bought and they refuse to restart the game but consider giving you your starting money enough to compete. This is what MLK was saying, in his time it was of course worse, but is it better now? It is, but people should be concerned that it's not going to remain that way. Segregation in education is as bad as its ever been and nowadays people think 'diversity' is a bad naughty word. I'm fine with the race being unfair, ok cool, but like Malcom said at least admit the knife is there.
