SCOTUS and whatnot

[gehringer_2]

And there are ways around using explicit AA that work to achieve the same ends. UM has big Detroit/Wayne country outreach program. That's not race based per se. Seems like that kind of thing should be unaffected by this ruling.

[ewsieg]

31 minutes ago, The Ronz said:

To my knowledge the answer is no.

Legacy admissions, donors, employee families and special recommendations will still be allowed.

This is important as we know colleges are struggling to make money.  

[gehringer_2]

26 minutes ago, ewsieg said:

This is important as we know colleges are struggling to make money.  

I'm waiting to see what the solution, if any comes, is going to be for the mid-tier schools. At least in MI, MSU and UM are stealing enrollments from EMU/CMU/WMU etc to crisis levels in that second tier. A system with only Community Colleges and mega-Universities doesn't strike me as the best long term outcome. 

[ewsieg]

17 minutes ago, gehringer_2 said:

I'm waiting to see what the solution, if any comes, is going to be for the mid-tier schools. At least in MI, MSU and UM are stealing enrollments from EMU/CMU/WMU etc to crisis levels in that second tier. A system with only Community Colleges and mega-Universities doesn't strike me as the best long term outcome. 

Not a good outcome at all, and to clarify, my comment was said in jest while pointing to the large universities.  Seems like the biggest of the big are always scrounging for more money, as their endowments continue to grow.  It gets annoying.  You correctly point out others aren't in the same boat.  

[chasfh]

2 hours ago, gehringer_2 said:

I'm waiting to see what the solution, if any comes, is going to be for the mid-tier schools. At least in MI, MSU and UM are stealing enrollments from EMU/CMU/WMU etc to crisis levels in that second tier. A system with only Community Colleges and mega-Universities doesn't strike me as the best long term outcome. 

Although a system of just community colleges and mega-universities would be an apt allegory for America.

[smr-nj]

6 minutes ago, chasfh said:

Although a system of just community colleges and mega-universities would be an apt allegory for America.

That’s depressingly true

[chasfh]

2 hours ago, ewsieg said:

I don't like affirmative action, but I also don't like a scenario without it.  I wish most race discussions could be talked about in terms of class discussions as I've felt making everything about race pits two groups of people, poor blacks and poor non-blacks, against each other, despite having a lot more similarities than they realize.

 

I was once a proponent of considering that race problems are at their core class problems, since racial minorities have historical been relegated to second-class status, and a lot of the problems that plague black people emanate from their modest economic and educational means.

But I've come around more to the idea that using class as a proxy for race is way too reductive, because white people at the same socioeconomic level still have at least social advantages, and in large part employment advantages, over racial minorities who exist at the same educational/wealth level. Affirmative action was in part supposed to address this, but it's also somewhat akin to a lottery, since it applies only to certain circumstances at only certain institutions, and is itself applied unevenly based in part on both discretion and quotas.

It's a shame that the most perfect solution, true merit-based applied irrespective of demographics or special circumstance, is unavailable to us, since the acquisition of presumably agreed-upon merits is itself influenced by the social history of this country.

[gehringer_2]

9 minutes ago, chasfh said:

But I've come around more to the idea that using class as a proxy for race is way too reductive, because white people at the same socioeconomic level still have at least social advantages,

true, but an economic or geographic alottment will still allow you to raise your net  proportion of minority candidates. A sometime weakness of conventional AA programs is that you get tremendous compeition between elite insitutions for the highest qualified minority candidates, who didn't need the help, when the same resource commitment would be more usefully deployed out in the larger community.

Edited June 29, 2023 by gehringer_2

[romad1]

The race thing is weird.  On my cul-de-sac there are multiple Indian families.  They don't talk to each other because they are different castes.    My son and daughter hang out with kids across the paper-bag darkness spectrum and since all the parents were middle-class nerds that was groovy.   If for some reason they started to hang out with some kid whose parents were drinking in mid-day from a bottle-in-a-paper-bag whilst sitting on their porch, that would have been notable and cause for discussion.  

[gehringer_2]

16 minutes ago, gehringer_2 said:

true, but an economic or geographic alottment will still allow you to raise your net  proportion of minority candidates. A sometime weakness of conventional AA programs is that you get tremendous compeition between elite insitutions for the highest qualified minority candidates, who didn't need the help, when the same resource commitment would be more usefully deployed out in the larger community.

To expand on this a bit, I think the institutions would rather not do economic based outreach because in general they would have to take on more white students that need remedial help when they could as easily get elite white students and save that effort. I imagine opinions will vary on the desireablility of that outcome.

[Motor City Sonics]

I have thought that Affirmative Action shouldn't be based solely on race.  There are poor kids who can't get into schools without scholarships that deserve a shot regardless of race, but overall it's still going to favor diversity 

Only stupid schools (and there are plenty) are going to stop trying to have a diverse student body.   Schools like Michigan, and  Michigan State are going to continue their AA policies.    

But there are some schools that will do everything they can to try to keep minorities out.   Maybe some minorities that play sports should pay attention to that.   Maybe let some of those schools know they won't consider playing for them if they aren't diverse. 

In some ways AA is kind of reverse racism because sure, there are some white kids that won't get into to make room for diversity, but I also think we have to make up for the awful **** we've done to minorities in our past and that's a small price to pay.  

College is going to be changing drastically over the next decade anyway.  There is going to be a much larger percentage of the student body learning remotely which means there will be more room for more students and there won't be the same housing limits now.    As someone else has pointed out,  colleges need money and they're going to relax their standards anyway.  Without physical constraint with the increasing presence of virtual learning, they'll take more students than ever.  They are going to have to, so this may not be much of a hindrance.    

I just hate that we keep going backwards, though.    I think James Meredith is one of the bravest Americans who ever lived.   This is kind of spitting in his eye, something that Mr. Alito and Mr. Thomas would probably have no problem with not even being a metaphor.  

 

[gehringer_2]

5 minutes ago, Motor City Sonics said:

Mr. Thomas would probably have no problem with not even being a metaphor.  

 

the irony is that Thomas faced a lot of poor treatment in his life, but a lot of it was from other Blacks, particularly his own family. I guess that has sort of left him hating everybody, white or black.

Edited June 29, 2023 by gehringer_2

[romad1]

Just had a moment with my daughter about this. She's asking questions.  I mentioned that James Madison (the school a LOT of Northern Virginia suburb kids go to) was kind of weirdly white for being the school all these kids go to.   My wife and I remember that some parents were asking if they taught Critical Race Theory when we went to the parent orientation when my son was touring.   She and I are just rolling our eyes and dying inside at this. 

Our overall observation is the school is like 60-40 female to male (at least) and about 85-15 white to non-white which was weird to us coming from MSU (her) and UM-dearborn (me). 

I actually think she might like going there but...that's weird to see in this day and age.

[CMRivdogs]

JMU was originally a woman's college until about 1966 (I had to look it up, it wasn't on my radar in 1970 as a co-ed school). I think in some areas it's still considered a teachers' school. TBH, given a do-over I might have considered it over the quickie Famous Broadcaster School. 
 

I haven't spent much time in Harrisonburg recently, but I think the location might play a factor in the demographics considering other local options.

[ewsieg]

1 hour ago, chasfh said:

I was once a proponent of considering that race problems are at their core class problems, since racial minorities have historical been relegated to second-class status, and a lot of the problems that plague black people emanate from their modest economic and educational means.

But I've come around more to the idea that using class as a proxy for race is way too reductive, because white people at the same socioeconomic level still have at least social advantages, and in large part employment advantages, over racial minorities who exist at the same educational/wealth level. Affirmative action was in part supposed to address this, but it's also somewhat akin to a lottery, since it applies only to certain circumstances at only certain institutions, and is itself applied unevenly based in part on both discretion and quotas.

It's a shame that the most perfect solution, true merit-based applied irrespective of demographics or special circumstance, is unavailable to us, since the acquisition of presumably agreed-upon merits is itself influenced by the social history of this country.

I personally feel that the left's insistence, even if there is some truth to it, that poor white people can't be compared to poor black people is what has helped lead us to Trump.  I'm not going to say their hardships are equal, but I feel like there could be a lot done to support both, but politically it's better to pit them against each other as nothing gets done for either.   

A true merit based system, assuming we could eliminate all other factors may not be the best either though, thus why diversity is such a great thing.  People are different, even people from the same race, religion, and sex.   How people react, struggle, achieve things in life give a different perspective.  I'm right back where I was earlier, I don't like affirmative action, but I feel like this direction isn't the best for us.

[chasfh]

23 minutes ago, ewsieg said:

I personally feel that the left's insistence, even if there is some truth to it, that poor white people can't be compared to poor black people is what has helped lead us to Trump.  I'm not going to say their hardships are equal, but I feel like there could be a lot done to support both, but politically it's better to pit them against each other as nothing gets done for either.   

A true merit based system, assuming we could eliminate all other factors may not be the best either though, thus why diversity is such a great thing.  People are different, even people from the same race, religion, and sex.   How people react, struggle, achieve things in life give a different perspective.  I'm right back where I was earlier, I don't like affirmative action, but I feel like this direction isn't the best for us.

I did not lead this country to Trump with any insistence of any kind.

Funny you talk about "poor" people, because no politician cares about people who are actually poor because as far as they're concerned, poor people probably don't vote, definitely don't donate money, and otherwise are not visible to them in everyday life. That's why when politicians talk about helping people do better economically, they talk about the middle class, not the poor. There are few political consequences for hurting the poor with policies designed to gut the welfare system. In fact, the more conservative politicians hurt the poor, the more they get rewarded with lower middle class votes.

In any event, white people at all economic strata are socially more advantaged then similarly economically-positioned racial minorities, highly visible exceptions such as sports superstars and black politicians notwithstanding—although they're don't escape the everyday social problems of merely being black, either, as demonstrated here, here, here and, just last month, here.

[jz68]

Hold up, how can anyone claim that poor white people are in a better situation than an equally poor black person?  If anything, the poor white person is worse off as far as gaining admission to college as schools already have plenty of white people and want to round out their student body with minorities.  

Edited June 29, 2023 by jz68

[Motor City Sonics]

Hey,  Bernie voters who wouldn't vote for Hillary.    This is all on you.    

 

Clarence Thomas' idol

[ewsieg]

4 hours ago, chasfh said:

I did not lead this country to Trump with any insistence of any kind.

Funny you talk about "poor" people, because no politician cares about people who are actually poor because as far as they're concerned, poor people probably don't vote, definitely don't donate money, and otherwise are not visible to them in everyday life. That's why when politicians talk about helping people do better economically, they talk about the middle class, not the poor. There are few political consequences for hurting the poor with policies designed to gut the welfare system. In fact, the more conservative politicians hurt the poor, the more they get rewarded with lower middle class votes.

I feel like you were offended by what I said, but then fully agreed that no one cares about the poor and there is no value in them caring for the poor, so no one should be shocked about that.  

4 hours ago, chasfh said:

In any event, white people at all economic strata are socially more advantaged then similarly economically-positioned racial minorities, highly visible exceptions such as sports superstars and black politicians notwithstanding—although they're don't escape the everyday social problems of merely being black, either, as demonstrated here, here, here and, just last month, here.

You're making my point...when your side refuses to listen to any issues that poor white people deal with and you immediately go to 'well you have it better than poor POC', it comes across that you don't care about legitimate issues that they have.  Add in some anecdotes that support your view and you are comfortable with wiping your hands of their complaints and moving on.  What does it hurt to admit they have issues too? (many that if addressed, would lift up poor black people too)

[digitalpigsmuggler]

[digitalpigsmuggler]

[romad1]

wrong thread

Edited June 30, 2023 by romad1
wrong thread

[gehringer_2]

15 minutes ago, ewsieg said:

What does it hurt to admit they have issues too? (many that if addressed, would lift up poor black people too)

Of course the key to uplifting the under class lies less in any legal remedies than in economic ones that compress income disparity by raising the standard of living for the bottom quartile (or so) of wage earners. When lower quartile families are able to amass social and economic capital, then the economic mobility of their children is enabled. 

When you look at some of the great destructors of Black family capital in the last century - one was the Wilson purge of Black Americans from the US Government employment, which was certainly intentional government action, but the second and probably larger one was the destruction of Black home ownership equity (and thus destruction of any nascent post WWII Black middle class) in the post 1960's collapse of so many urban residential areas in places like Detroit, Chicago, Cleveland, St. Louis, Philadelphia, SoCal, etc. Surburban white flight was a total economic catastrophe for Black Urban America, and while it was absolutely contributed to in very large measure by government policies, it was largely policies that were not intended or even undertood at the time to be overtly discriminatory, though there was a lot of discriminatory behavior on the part of non-government actors in real estate and banking. Then the collapse in high wage union employment that began building directly on the heels of that disaster, sawed off one more ladder for who had suffered those loses to climb back.

So the interactions between class, race, federal trade and economic policy, private racism, as well as law, *all* drive the economic and social disparites that comprise the litany KB Jackson details in her dissent. The solutions in turn have to comprise more than legal ones as well.

As an example I rank Biden's efforts to rebuild high wage employment for non-college educated workers as having far greater potential to reduce racial disparity in American than wherever the law lands on college AA policies.

[oblong]

Throw in the building of urban freeways through middle class black neighborhoods as something else that helped set them back, due to direct government action.  They had choices where to build and they almost always picked the black  neighborhoods.  Some would say they were targeted.  I 375 in Detroit is a prime example but it played out in places like Baltimore and San Francisco.

 

[ewsieg]

1 hour ago, oblong said:

Throw in the building of urban freeways through middle class black neighborhoods as something else that helped set them back, due to direct government action.  They had choices where to build and they almost always picked the black  neighborhoods.  Some would say they were targeted.  I 375 in Detroit is a prime example but it played out in places like Baltimore and San Francisco.

 

True, but even in growing all white neighborhoods, decisions on zoning and city planning have always had a NIMBY attitude, which made poor white neighborhoods even less desirable.  And again, i'm not discounting this or saying poor whites faced as many issues., but if we look forward on how to assist many blacks, or look behind to see how the system helped lead to today, in most cases (again certainly not all), but in most cases you can find legitimate issues and substitute 'black' with 'poor' and still be saying a true statement.