20 more years of this SCOTUS in all likelihood. That’s what 4 years of Trump got us, and DeSantis’s nominees for Florida’s SCOTUS make Trump’s nominees look like level headed centrists. Unless we get big Democratic majorities, then maybe there’s a chance at SCOTUS expansion.
Remember it’s not enough to just vote in the general, participate in your primaries too and encourage your friends and family to do the same for both federal and state/local office. The people who are most eager to right these wrongs quickly and through drastic action are usually the underdogs for their nominations. Removing Republicans in favor of Democrats will help most of the time regardless, but how much it helps depends on which Democrats we are electing. It’s the difference between slowing the bleeding for 2 years and actual meaningful change.
Biden will sign a new Judicial Act if Congress puts one in front of him so don’t worry about that or how wishy washy he might sound in the meantime. He may be lukewarm on SCOTUS expansion in hypothetical discussion, but when the paper is on his desk, he’ll sign it. But it’s up to us to give him a Congress that would do it and state governments that will sue to put cases back in front of a relegitimized SCOTUS after the fact.
These social issues vasculate by design to keep the peasants of every color at each other’s throats.
The only real war is class war, too bad our owners propagandized us from birth to refuse to fight that particular war.
Now by all means, carry on fighting over the social wedges that are largely caused or exacerbated by our rigged capitalist dystopia.
Just don’t be late for work, my fellow capital batteries.
Honestly, if we could stop this cultural race war for like two seconds we’d have a way better society. I just went healthcare end high speed rail.
Not to mention K-12 that isnt in literal ruin, so underfunded that becoming a teacher, what should be one of society’s most revered professions, is a life on the edge of poverty. How about our tent cities in every major city filled with our beaten, hopeless brothers and sisters our society throws away like garbage for the crime of not being effective enough capital batteries.
I could get into other stuff but there’s just too fucking much. Almost all of which stems from allowing insatiable greed to fester and metastasize until it became an aspirational trait and core value in the US. The Gorden Geckos/Mr Potters/Ebenezer Scrooges were elevated and deified and allowed to run a muck here and warp our nation and increasingly the world to their cancerous, antisocial vision, and everyone outside of the owner class lost, even most who are their most zealous defenders.
If the only war is the class war, why do minorities have to fight (and die) for equal rights? Why are their own class-members among the first to try to stop them from achieving equality?
Because they’ve been propagandized to look away from the class war.
Once again, social wedges. Indentured servitude never went away, it just rebranded. The almost entirely caucasion owner class did cling to using race as the ultimate tool for coerced labor, but after generations of resistance, and the unquenchable quest for unsustainable growth, more than half a century ago decided that having a racial underclass in a largely white population simply wasn’t enough exploited labor to increase their wealth and power fast enough, as it’s never fast enough.
The poor, true believer Fox News consuming racists are the cultural remnant of that long abandoned unspoken compact between the wealth class and their once favorite colored, highest ranking capital batteries when it was convenient. Racism is real. Racism is wrong, but to the oligarchs, it’s become just another tool to manipulate their labor pool.
Some might see it as poetic justice on the once complacent white peasants who took solace in being the richer, more socially powerful peasants, and that’s fine, but unproductive, as we have a common enemy who manipulates and stokes such anymous with the means of major media propaganda they own to maintain productivity. It’s easier than chains, it’s more insidious than Jim Crow. Just turn half fhe peasants against the other half and they’ll never look up. You can’t argue with the effectiveness.
Me, still waiting for those “checks and balances” to kick in:
I’m sorry, did you meant the “checks and balances” that will be cashed for lobbying against the common interest of citizens? /j
Race shouldn’t be a consideration in whether to admit a particular student. But it should be used on an ongoing basis to ensure that the admission process is applied fairly.
Then, if it’s determined that there’s a racial bias in admissions, the root cause should be analyzed and corrected. Are students of one race better prepared academically? That’s a problem that needs to be fixed at the high school level (or earlier). If you admit students who aren’t prepared for college-level courses, you either have to spend resources on remedial classes, or have a lot of students from that race drop out.
Are students of one race more able to pay? If we want everyone to have the same chance at education regardless of background, maybe college should be fully government-funded.
It’s about competitive college admissions. Rich students get college prep, tutors and extra curricular activities to give them an edge. Not having to work through high school is also a massive advantage.
I work in graduate education, and about 30% of my work is in admissions. My life just became very complicated.
This affects white people too. Asian students are often discriminated against when applying for colleges. I imagine that we’ll be seeing a lot of Asian students displacing both white and brown students as a result of this.
My favorite part is that military academies are exempt
“We can be racist, but not that racist”
What is racist about not including race in admissions?
Removed by mod
Removed by mod
Tie college admissions to a random, unique identifier, and make it as blind to subjective opinion as possible. It could go through an intermediary that does have the personal information, but that gives the universities access to that identifier and only non-identifying information. Ask for motivational letters without as little personal information as possible (or no motivational letter at all), no picture, no name, no sex, financial status, nothing that’s identifiable to the people who have to evaluate the candidates.
The issue with this approach is that it further entrenches gaps that are already there. The best predictor of economic outcome is zip code. That’s because schools are funded by local property tax. Live in a wealthier area, get better schools. Better schools lead to a better outcome. Schools in poorer districts stay poorer. It’s a system that is self perpetuating.
Replacing affirmative action with something that is strictly income based could help but that ignores other systemic biases that are based on race rather that income.
I feel like if we’re ending affirmative action we should also put in place more restrictions on legacy admissions which is just affirmative action for dumb, rich kids and represents a much bigger chunk of students than affirmative action ever did.
IIRC California has been this way for some time now, and it did result in more Asian Americans getting admitted than before. The problem I see brought up most often is that there hasn’t been any real distinction made between AAPI groups (Indian, Chinese, Vietnamese, Korean, etc) and some have felt left out or pushed aside after they thought they won big.
Y’all need to fucking vote blue in every election to stop this shit. No third party shit, no “both sides,” no “my vote doesn’t matter.” If you actually want to stop this kind of stuff, you have to vote for democrats in every election.
So you agree with the policy that resulted in the Asian plaintiffs being denied admission to Harvard based on their race?
This includes primaries. If the left isn’t radical enough for you, you can change that within the primaries. It’s wild how many complaints about the Dems come from people who only vote in presidential election years.
some states don’t have primaries; they have caucuses. which means you get to spend an entire day in a room with a bunch of other people arguing.
if you’re conflict avoidant, that’s the equivalent of a root canal without anesthesia.
I think it’s a mix of things. I agree a lot of people don’t participate in the primaries and they really should, but I’d also stress the importance of elevating the quality of the candidates we have. I don’t believe any of the primary candidates right now have any idea what it’s like to live in the USA as an “average” person. For starters, the average age of US citizens is 39, but the average age of the 3 current candidates is 74, with each of them being a minimum of 30 years older than the average American. I am not trying to promote ageism in any way, but I would really prefer if we had leadership that was less removed time-wise. I just don’t personally believe that someone at 70 or 80 has any reasonable idea what it’s like to be an American in the 30-40 age range right now – their experiences with that age come from a time prior to the advent of cellular telephones, social media, personal computing technology, etc.
On top of that, even if you look past the age gap, the choices we have so far really don’t instill great confidence.
RFK Jr is an admitted openly vocal anti-vax believer and also a vocal science denier (he still promotes belief in the link between vaccines and autism which has been systemically dis-proven), neither of which are popular positions to the left and will likely cost him votes. Biden has a low approval rating and a lot of Democrat voters don’t see him as a strong or effectual president, but he’s likely to get the nomination because he previously beat Trump and seems to be the defacto “if you’re voting against Trump instead of voting for someone, vote for him” nominee. Marianne Williamson is at least a fresh, non-dynastic face in the political race with a reasonable track record as an independent, but because she’d been an independent until 2019 and because she’s female there’s a subsection of voters who will adamantly refuse to vote for her regardless of her political stance, making her unlikely to win the nomination over Biden.
I really hope that we start to see greater candidate diversity in the future and I agree that it starts with showing up to vote, I just wish we had candidates that felt more representative of the party ideals and also of our overall population than what we’re getting now.
This goes back to not voting in every election. Groups that invest (money, time, votes) on local races (city council, school board) have a greater variety to pick when one of these people goes on to higher office (state-level, county-level) and then goes on to federal office.
The primaries are already too late - it’s all about the local races.
This is a very valid point – elections don’t stop at the primaries either!
and local elections. take a cue from the wingnut playbook where they’ve taken over school boards, for example, and push 'em further left.
I tried this because of all the calls to focus on local elections, but I found that in my area there werent any dems running for office. The choice was between “Republican party of Trump” and “Republican party of Reagan,” and in one position there was only one person running unopposed, so I didn’t bother.
voting blue because that’s the only option — what? why? how did this happen?
Because that’s how republicans are recorded to vote republican every time, so realistically other choices are just splitting the votes and leaving the republican votes strong.
For the forseeable future unless the republican base breaks they win elections where others try to vote on third party. Because they’re voting purely for party and just assuming party is looking out for them.
The damage caused by the christion nationalist takeover of the supreme court will take literally generations to undo, if it ever can be undone.
It wasn’t just the Supreme Court. To your point.
If you want to keep civil rights, women’s rights, worker’s rights, climate change actions, etc. then, yes. Maybe you’re just a fascist though.
i’m right there with you. my concern is that democracy is dying or is long dead.
the worst generation at it again
Clarence Thomas probably considers this his shining achievement. He has had a personal vendetta against affirmative action forever, despite benefitting from it himself.
Would Asians finally be less discriminated against in college admissions now? Your scores are all perfect but too bad we’re full in the list of Asian admissions
Yes, instead different groups that were having their scores weighted against systematic discrimination they faced will no longer stand any chance of getting in even though the degree of grit and achievement to get there was higher, in the face of that discrimination they faced to get there. And so systemic discrimination will be that much more self-reinforcing.
Wealthy asian applicants, already over-represented in elite institution admissions, will likely be even more over-represented in the coming years. And as diversity falls, so will education standards, since diverse student populations have been conclusively shown time and time again to increase education standards.
As a first generation white student wanting to go to college, this makes me happy! Hopefully other first generation white students will get equal treatment too.
Edit: I guess racism against white people is socially acceptable now…
Rofl yeah cause you and yours definitely had such a hard time. 🙄
I was too but my family was busy fuckin and working in autobody shops. It was nothing keeping them back but themselves.
This also makes me happy. While I generally wish that more people would pursue the trades and avoid college completely, this is a step in the right direction. Good luck to you!
Lefties constantly talk about being inclusive and fair. Yet they can’t see through their own BS.
Social equity programs DO NOT promote equality. By requiring colleges and universities to use colorblind criteria in admissions, it ensures that all applicants are evaluated based on their merits and qualifications, rather than their race or ethnicity. So this ruling is a big win!
This approach aligns with the principle of equal protection under the law, as enshrined in the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. Removing race as a consideration allows for a more objective and fair evaluation of applicants’ qualifications. Focusing on an applicant’s individual qualities and achievements enhances diversity in a more comprehensive and meaningful way.
Considering race perpetuates a form of discrimination in itself.
We must eliminate systemic barriers and leveling the playing field for ALL PEOPLE.
Ah yes because white people have it so rough
Some do, some don’t. Class matters a lot more than race.
Not when you’re any race but white.
I see this as a good thing, if ai have a candidate that is better than another, why would I deny the 1st candidate admission just because of the 2nd’s color
a candidate that is better than another
Better how? Any metric you use to measure candidates can arguably already be biased towards people who didn’t grow up poor.
Better grades? Students who attended well funded schools get better grades. That’s indirectly measuring wealth
More extracurricular activities? Students from wealthy families have more opportunity to take part in extracurricular activities. That’s indirectly measuring wealth.
Ability to pay? That’s just straight up measuring wealth.
While not the greatest solution, affirmative action was meant to give people born into bad situations a way to climb out. Education is directly linked to wealth and requiring wealth to get an education keeps poor people poor.
It ignores context. The state caused generational harm to a specific group of people. The fix has to target the same people. If you feel in a general sense there isn’t enough opportunity to go around, that’s a different bone to pick imo.
The problem with this thinking is that especially in education, the education level of the parents matters a lot. If you have parents with no higher education, the child is not likely to get one either. This means that groups that were previously disadvantaged will have fewer kids that attend, and their kids will have fewer kids that attend, and this goes on and on.
In order to break the cycle, you need to push the opposite direction for a while. Otherwise you’re disadvantaging children for something that happened to their great-grandparents.
There are many many reasons… and everyone replying to you is talking about them all
-
a “better” candidate by most academic standards is more likely to be wealthy and, in the US, that means more likely to be White. Simply put, White people have more generational wealth, which makes them more able to participate in extracurriculars, more time to study, less general stress.
-
If a college wants to create a more holistic education than just academic, it benefits them to have a diverse student body. The more diverse the student body, the more tolerant and open minded your graduates will be. They’ll be more open to listening to people that don’t look like them, and society will be better for it.
and then there’s 3) The elite in this country have always been and thus have been biased towards Straight White Men. Without guardrails in place, they will select more Straight White Men, and we will regress.
-
Meritocracy should not be replaced with anything else. Full stop.
Meritocracy is not a thing that has ever existed in any human society ever in history. It’s pure fantasy. Nepotism has always been the rule. Racial discrimination is honestly just a subheading of nepotism that consists of “You might not be family, but at least you look, act, and think just like me where that other guy doesn’t.”
You see it as a good thing because you’re a cracker-ass cousinfucker.
Blatant racism much?
