Quote by Chryses

Here is what Affirmative Action policies in the Admissions at colleges and universities did to one Asian American.

Affirmative action: Why this teen says he was rejected by top US colleges

"Colleges like Harvard represent a chance to actually build our connection to the country and a chance to make our mark within this world," he told the BBC.

With a resume boasting high test results, work volunteering for political organisations, prestigious leadership awards and the ability to speak five languages, he entered the admissions process with confidence.

He says he applied to 35 different schools, though Harvard was not one of them.

But, he says with a sigh: "I was rejected from all the Ivy League universities."

He applied to 35 different schools, but not Harvard, and he won't say which ones or how many were Ivy league.

It doesn't say it in the story, but Rutvij Holay ended up at Stanford, a top 5 ranked University in the world. He didn't get into the specific college he wanted to, and is blaming Affirmative Action for this with no evidence. This whole article is about a butt-hurt 17-year old.

Quote by ElCoco

Well, with your opinion about guns, that's understandable. But the reality of gun ownership doesn't take anything away from Texas's efforts to address the school shooting issue.

I wonder if anyone in Texas has ever heard of the definition of insanity.

Trump-obsessed MAGA guy in North Carolina racially harasses neighborhood for a year before he's arrested.

https://www.charlotteobserver.com/news/state/north-carolina/article276761116.html

Quote by ElCoco

Your posts make me think you don't think it's true now. If that's true, what are the reasons you think it's not valid now?

Quote by AngelEthics

I would be curious to see if they're still growing safer. This article is from 2013. That's pre-MAGA and pre-Trump's presidency. It's also pre-Covid (obviously). All of these things had big impacts on the way people deal with each other.

Quote by ElCoco

So the study stands unless following the science isn't important.

The study is true for 2013. That's what the science says.

Quote by ElCoco

Then do your research and let us know what you've found.

Thank you for the assignment, but I'm already ahead of you. Nobody followed up on this study. That's why I said I was curious rather than posting more information.

Quote by PrincessC

You raise a really valid argument here in critical thought. People who study and advise on these inequalities often say the “we don’t see race” approach is the most insidious form of racism. It dismisses the lived experience of people and often standardises issues to that of white experience.

A simple comparison between disability access and “not seeing disability” would work here to illustrate your point.

I really like this way of framing it. People who claim they don't see race are almost always white, telling people who aren't that they're going to ignore that element of their identity, like it or not. It not only dismisses the lived experience of these people, but it also completely shuts down any possibility of conversation.

It's also interesting to me that Justice Thomas was someone who benefited from Affirmative Action. It helped get him into Yale (because of quotas) and put him in a position today to deny it to everyone else. Talk about paying it forward!

Quote by ElCoco

It helps when you follow the Science.

America’s cities have become safer over the last few years.

I would be curious to see if they're still growing safer. This article is from 2013. That's pre-MAGA and pre-Trump's presidency. It's also pre-Covid (obviously). All of these things had big impacts on the way people deal with each other.

The dissent by Ketanji Brown Jackson in the Affirmative Action case is a mirror of what we've been talking about here:

I especially liked, "The best that can be said of the majority's perspective, is that it proceeds (ostrich-like) from the hope that preventing consideration of race will end racism."

Edited to add this link, which is the full dissent: https://thehill.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2023/06/Jackson-dissent.pdf

Quote by Ironic

Harvard lost.  Supreme Court sets new limits on affirmative action programs in landmark ruling

This isn't surprising. When they reversed Roe, we knew they were coming for affirmative action and gay marriage and that they were going to cut what they could when it comes to gun restrictions.

Covid deniers can't figure out why food doesn't taste right and smells are off...

Quote by ElCoco

You can't get coffee from them!

They either went to hard liquor and tea, or they're in the process of dehydrating, as we write.

I still think Biden's dog, Major, knew something about the Secret Service and that's why he kept biting them. 😉

Quote by PrincessC

If I say no will you let me escape the free speech debate. I’m not American, our freedom of speech doesn’t include racial discrimination.

You're in South Africa? Do you have hate speech laws, where saying something hateful is a crime by itself, without anything additional (assault, robbery, etc.)? I could look it up, but since I have you right here.....

Quote by ElCoco

Bud Light Giving Away Beer for Free to Try to Save July 4 Sales

This is kinda funny to me, mainly because anyone who was aware of Dylan Mulvaney and anyone who has ever noticed who drinks Bud isn't surprised by the backlash. I'm guessing there are overlapping demographics between the people mad about Bud and the people who trashed their Kurigs, boycotted football, and stopped going to Starbucks.

Quote by IMPURETHOUGHTS

Tasty.

--

As in horse meat is tasty

Horse meat may taste like pumpkin pie, but I'll never know. 😉

Quote by Ironic

I think you're wrong about the Constitution's applicability. I'm sure it applies to federal as well as state laws.

The SBA's racially discriminatory policies are applied to individuals. They're the ones who it affects.

Is the SBA a law? No.

Quote by Ironic

I'll let the constitutional wonks argue that point, but I can see how racially discriminatory policies would fail equal protection, so the federal government would be included if those policies do fail that test.

What you're hearing from me is that fighting racism with racist policies is a bad idea.

How we approach the problem of racism is up to each of us, but I don't think the SBA's racially discriminatory policies serve as a good model.

Since I've read many posts defending the SBA's racially discriminatory policies, there are obviously people here and throughout America who approve of them.

Read the equal protection clause: "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

It applies to state laws. You don't need a degree in Constitutional law to understand that "No state shall...." means it applies to the state. "Make or enforce any law...." means it applies specifically to laws. JFC.

Also, we're not talking about individual racism. No law is going to make a flaming racist change his or her attitude. However, we might be able to make sure that racist person who just so happens to make business loans, doesn't hold all of the power over black-run businesses. This particular version of racism isn't "up to each of us". It's up to policy makers.

Quote by Ironic

My criticism of the policies is that they are racially discriminatory. I think racial discrimination is bad. Chryses told you that it doesn't square with the equal protection clause, so maybe the policy can be challenged way.

Either morally or legally, I think we'll all be better off dismantling racial preferences and discrimination where we can.

I'm pretty sure that the equal protection clause doesn't apply here, mainly because it applies to state laws and not government agencies. Like marriage, child custody laws and the like.

What I'm hearing here is that all of the racism in the past can't be addressed because that would require us to provide services to people who were unjustly blocked from those services, and not those who blocked access in the first place.

The answer is to simply move ahead, trying to stamp out racism, and ignore what racism has already done. That's unacceptable and I believe that most of America, if not most of the people on Lush, would agree.

Quote by Tantaleyes

It took a war to end slavery. It'll take a long while to get rid of racism.

We'll need a whole other war to end racism against white people. Probably a constitutional amendment solidifying their rights in this country. We have a long way to go before white people can be seen as equals. The MBDA being funded as government agency has brought that truth into clear relief.

🙄

Why stop with racism?

The department of HHS has specific programs for children (head start, child welfare). Seems a little ageist.

The Department of agriculture, HHS, DOJ, SBA, State Department, and department of Veteran affairs all have programs for women. Sexism, anyone?

There are federal government agencies that serve just the disabled community. Very discriminatory. Do you know how many curbs they had to jackhammer for people in wheelchairs? The nerve.

Just let me know which of your past statements I'm agreeing to disagree with:

Quote by ElCoco

Yes, that’s right. When I looked at the posts in this thread, none of them gave me any impression that providing resources to people who have been denied resources is racism. I also don’t think anybody’s said or suggested the agency’s racist. Have you found any posts that make you think the poster believes providing resources to people who have been denied resources is racism?

Quote by ElCoco

I agree.

The federal government's institutionalizing racism in this agency's policies. That can't end well.

Quote by ElCoco

Then how can you say "Dis you?" and mean it?

I feel like maybe I broke your brain a little.

See, you said that nobody suggested the agency was racist and asked for posts. To which I quoted you calling the agency racist. See?

Quote by ElCoco

I agree.

The federal government's institutionalizing racism in this agency's policies. That can't end well.

Then you pointed out that I said that I didn't think the agency (and I'll say here, their policies) weren't discriminatory and then quoted me saying... they weren't discriminatory.

😐

Quote by ElCoco

I think you need to be reminded they’re different because you’ve spent the last few posts associating them as if they mean the same.

.

I don’t think a thread about racially discriminatory policy has anything to do with reparations because “policy” doesn’t have the same meaning as “reparations.”

.

Yes, that’s right. When I looked at the posts in this thread, none of them gave me any impression that providing resources to people who have been denied resources is racism. I also don’t think anybody’s said or suggested the agency’s racist. Have you found any posts that make you think the poster believes providing resources to people who have been denied resources is racism?

.

Yes, you’ve said several times now you think a policy that discriminates based on race isn’t racially discriminatory.

.

How to fix the inequality you and I are aware of is a different question, and like reparations, it might be a good thread topic, but it definitely isn’t the topic of this thread. Before you ask, I’ll tell you I think racial discrimination isn’t the right way to go.

Dis you?

Quote by ElCoco

I agree.

The federal government's institutionalizing racism in this agency's policies. That can't end well.

When we identified food deserts in the city, we worked to bring in farmer's markets during summer and fall to supplement that need. I wonder is there's a similar way to serve "healthcare deserts".

Quote by ElCoco

No, I don't think I'm being purposely obtuse. I don't think I'm being at all obtuse. I've reminded you that the word "policy" doesn't have the same meaning as "reparations." The topic's the SBA's policy that uses the applicant's race to decide the applicant's eligibility. That has nothing to do with reparations. That's an interesting topic for another thread, maybe.

.

I've looked at the posts in this thread, and nobody's said creating a resource for people who were previously denied resources is racism. What's being questioned is the racially discriminatory policy it uses to provide those resources. You know I haven't said I disapprove of the SBA, so why did you suggest I do with your question?

Why would I ever need reminded that two different words have two different definitions?

Of course this has to do with reparations. The point of this agency is to address inequality in resources in business. That's an effort to redress wrongs, wrongs that were perpetrated based on race.

So let me get this straight. Nobody said that providing resources for people who have been denied resources is racism? But somehow funding an agency that has existed since 1969 and does just this IS racist because they name the groups that were denied resources?

I don't believe it's a racially discriminatory policy to identify the wronged group, name them, and put resources their way. How would you do it?

Quote by ElCoco

I'm under the impression a

Policy: a course or principle of action adopted or proposed by a government, party, business, or individual

isn't

Reparations: the making of amends for a wrong one has done, by paying money to or otherwise helping those who have been wronged

If you've decided to change the meaning of words, we won't be able to have much conversation.

.

You've said that before, but since the policy we're talking about uses race to discriminate between who is and who isn't eligible, the policy is racist. You might approve of this policy, and I disapprove of it, but our approval or disapproval of the policy's racial discrimination doesn't change the racial discrimination.

ElCoco, are you being purposely obtuse? Reparations are typically achieved through a policy. This isn't vocabulary gymnastics.

I disagree that this is racist. We've already discussed why that's the case. Creating a resource for people who were previously denied resources is not racism, just because we recognize who they are. So, to be clear, you disapprove of the Agency that has existed since 1969 because it doesn't include white people?

Quote by Just_A_Guy_You_Know

The entire thread is based on a dishonest semantic game. It's about the best you can expect from some people. But the argument that the policy is discriminatory is like claiming that a bullet discriminates by hitting its target and not everything else. It's unlikely anyone is quitting the NRA in protest over how unfair it is to do anything as discriminatory as aiming, and going to work in the garage building a less exclusionary doomsday machine. That would be stupid... about as stupid as stating that a program that explicitly targets the unique needs and issues of people of color should apply equally to everyone (especially white people - as Orwell famously wrote, some animals are more equal than others).

Thank you.

This is a writing site, right? Having "discriminating taste" doesn't mean you're racist, even if the evil word is in there.

I don't understand how some people can see the racism, sexism, and xenophobia that exists in our society, even acknowledge it, but don't want to do anything about it.

People telling me that the Minority Business Development Agency is racist have offered no other ideas (unless I'm mistaken and if I am, please tell me again) and no solutions. As if this whole problem didn't come from white people recognizing other white people (and who isn't white) and making decisions based on it, in this case out of prejudice. But, now, conveniently, we're all colorblind and can't do anything race-related. SMH.

Quote by Chryses

Although I know of treaties between the U.S. government and various Native American (Indian) nations, I am unaware of any treaty between the U.S. government and "black, African America, Hispanic, Latino, Hasidic Jew, Asian Indian or Spanish-speaking American". Are you aware of any?

With that as a background, there could be three different answers to your question.

1. The U.S. government is inconsistent with its policies.

2. The programs to which you refer in your first paragraph are ethnically discriminatory.

3. The policies of the SBA I have documented are not discriminatory.

We certainly do have treaties with the Jewish state (Israel). India, as well. The problem with setting this condition for creating government aid to make up for wrongdoing is that a group of people with a "nation" has a structure to enter into agreements. Did slaves, kidnapped from their countries, sold into servitude, and kept there generationally have this structure? Nope. And does America have anything to do with that? Yep.

I would agree with (1) above.

Quote by ElCoco

What you're talking about there are German reparations for the Holocaust. What this discussion is about is American government programs with racist policies.

Are you under the impression this isn't a cultural version of reparations? Probably a more effective one than giving a lump sum to descendants, though that helps, too.

I say this isn't a racist policy.