zlacker

Affirmative action was to address systemic inequalities, not individual ones. Bringing it up in an article about foster kids and then further including the bit about gender feels like flamebait.

>>mmanfr+(OP)
Ironically affirmative action is systemic racism itself, no matter how well intentioned.

>>lockho+i
True, but many forms of discrimination are legal and good. Minimum age to drive is ageism, but I think we would all agree that it’s a good form of discrimination. You say “no matter how well intentioned” as if the intention isn’t important. But intention and outcome are both very important and determine whether a given form of discrimination is good or bad.

>>lockho+i
I don’t think it’s ironic, it is acknowledged by the Supreme Court that hears and rules on affirmative actions cases with some regularity.

The reason they take these cases so often is because affirmative action must be narrowly tailored and affirmative action programs are often found to be Unconstitutional.

Also, affirmative action as a whole, as acknowledged by the Supreme Court, is a temporary measure to level the playing field of prior systemic racism. So even in the instances a program is currently a constitutional even that is for a temporary period of time.

People often complain about the nature of it, but generally don’t have any solutions to address the realities of historic discrimination codified in law, at best people suggest to ignore it a do nothing be happy those old laws have been over turned and move on, the problem there is typically the people that suggest doing nothing to right the wrongs of the past benefit from damage of historical systematic racism and discrimination.

>>lockho+i
Compensation needs to happen on the same criteria as the prejudice.

If you stiffed a whole generation matching X criteria, you should give reparation to people matching the same X criteria, whatever that criteria is.

>>Pierce+N1
Harvard and other Ivy League universities got caught discriminating against Asians in their admissions. How do you justify that as a good thing?

>>lockho+i
And the use of a police, courts, juries, and prisons to punish and prevent violence is violence, yet very few people complain about fighting fire with fire in that spectrum (even if they disagree with the implementation).

>>lockho+v9
I wonder how Harvard, elitest of the elite of educational institutions justified it? Presumably such learned ones must have their reasons.

>>lockho+v9
The parent referred to affirmative action, not a specific case. Affirmative action is practised by many organizations in many different forms. That’s what I was replying to. If you’re genuinely interested, you can find well though out opinions on that specific case with a quick Google search.

>>lockho+v9
Asians are over-represented in Harvard (note: I do no know if this is actually true) and the kinds of students rejected from Harvard but who'd get in anyway aren't exactly the kinds of students who'd fall out of society.

I recognize the racism, but I also see the point of justification there. There is some distinct difference in discrimination at the top and discrmination at the bottom of the societal rungs.

>>johnny+5d
I don't see where it could possibly be justifiable to discriminate against Asians. Where is the systemic racism that somehow gives Asians an advantage?

It's almost as if they are being punished for ruining the narrative through their own hard work, which would force people to admit that other minorities being underrepresented at Ivy League colleges is due to something other than just "systemic racism".

>>lockho+Rd
>I don't see where it could possibly be justifiable to discriminate against Asians

I just did. You don't have to accept that justification, but I don't imagine it's an uncommon sentiment. There's a difference between not getting into Harvard but pretty still having a dozen top universities of choice and barely even getting out of high school because your area's education was under-funded due to historical factors.

I don't know the historical factors that lead to Asian-Americans being so successful in comparison to other minorities, but it's clear they need less help as a whole compared to other minorities. There's your justification.

>It's almost as if they are being punished for ruining the narrative through their own hard work

You can interpret it that way. You can also say that the AA is starting to focus more on those who need it, and Asians seem to need it the least as of now.

>force people to admit that other minorities being underrepresented at Ivy League colleges is due to something other than just "systemic racism".

So what are you suggesting? Again, my Asian american history is very superficial, but I think it's hard to deny that it's a shorter history than African or Mexican American history in this context.