• slackassassin
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    39
    ·
    edit-2
    3 months ago

    They are not fully in control because the ruling didn’t say that affirmative action couldn’t be a government requirement. It said that a policy that enables affirmative action violates the constitution.

    So, they are no longer asking applicants about race or ethnicity information. But they are expanding recruitment and financial aid to prioritize low income students.

    I’m not agreeing with the court ruling, just clarifying the false representation of the issue with regard to the school.

    • NielsBohron@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      14
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      3 months ago

      I was lucky enough to see Ibram X. Kendi speak on anti-racism in higher education, and it was illuminating to realize that, as a white, cis-het man, I might not be able to work within the system to change the system without actively breaking laws.

      The example he used was actually affirmative action and EEO standards and how the best an ally can do in certain situations might be to put your thumb on the scale even when it’s technically illegal.

      Basically, if you want to be anti-racist, you’ve gotta be Chaotic Good since the system is literally rigged against people of color.

    • Grandwolf319
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      3 months ago

      So, they are no longer asking applicants about race or ethnicity information. But they are expanding recruitment and financial aid to prioritize low income students.

      Holy shit, this is what I’ve wanted forever, finally!

        • Grandwolf319
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          3 months ago

          Focusing on low income families. That by itself would have a positive impact on minorities since they happen to be over represented in the poor families category.

          Imo this way poor conservatives don’t feel excluded and work against these initiatives. Same destination, different paths to get there.

          • BradleyUffner@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            3 months ago

            Except in reality this change caused diversity to go down. Like actual real numbers, not theory.

            • Grandwolf319
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              3 months ago

              Would like to see the data for that if you have it.

              There could be other factors but a lot of people like me just don’t want minorities to be held back because of poverty. People can have cultural reasons why they might not go towards education (or go more so than other cultures). Personally, I don’t think it’s up to society to change something like that.

                • Grandwolf319
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  3 months ago

                  Read the article, some minority numbers went down some went up.

                  It also says that 40% of population of US identify as non white but in university, 38% consider themselves white.

                  Doesn’t that mean people who consider themselves white make 60% of the population but only 38% of the admissions? Sounds like removing this law is making admission rates closer to population demographics.

                  Edit:

                  The article said that 15% was the number of black admissions, that’s higher than the total percentage in US (12%). So they were over represented, and remember, there could be cultural reasons why some black youth might not think college is worth it more than other ethnic groups (like Asians).