Modern day systemic racism, does it exist?

[variant]

As an Asian I don't see the court ruling as you
choose to.
The "liberal" support for racial discrimination
against Asians is a disgrace and discredits the
liberal - savior industrial complex for what it is.

The court wasn't looking to protect Asians, they were looking to dismantle affirmative action as a political goal.

In the day, your Asian exclusion act was
specifically because Chinese work too hard
for the taste of lazy Americans who imported
slaves to work hard for them, but free men
working hard, that's bad.

The affirmative action Asian exclusion act is
finally finally been abolished. And look how
you react.

The Chinese exclusion act was just plain old racism, because they were 'undesirables' at the time. In a similar vein the Japanese Americans were treated much differently than German Americans and Italian Americans during world war 2.

It's the sort of thing that if we tried tor rectify today by allowing more than a usual amount of Asian immigration the conservatives would use some other group against the idea and cry racism some more.

 

[RDKirk]

The court wasn't looking to protect Asians, they were looking to dismantle affirmative action as a political goal.



The Chinese exclusion act was just plain old racism, because they were 'undesirables' at the time. In a similar vein the Japanese Americans were treated much differently than German Americans and Italian Americans during world war 2.

It's the sort of thing that if we tried tor rectify today by allowing more than a usual amount of Asian immigration the conservatives would use some other group against the idea and cry racism some more.

That happened in the latter 1960s. Asians were effectively weaponized against blacks.

 

[Estrid]

The court wasn't looking to protect Asians, they were looking to dismantle affirmative action as a political goal.



The Chinese exclusion act was just plain old racism, because they were 'undesirables' at the time. In a similar vein the Japanese Americans were treated much differently than German Americans and Italian Americans during world war 2.

It's the sort of thing that if we tried tor rectify today by allowing more than a usual amount of Asian immigration the conservatives would use some other group against the idea and cry racism some more.

That's all an ideological statement.

Esp. note your assertion that the court
now consists of political hacks, a mere
subsidiary of those dreaded cons

Problem other than inaccuracy is that
its group- think, and, us the good v the bad.

Gives a sense of completely unearned superiority
and similarly as so often seen with religious ideology,
the -ology or -ism becomes the Source of infallible revealed truths.

I dont care to debate, but it might profit you
to examine where I am right.

I have relatives btw descended from veterans of
Angel Island.

 

[variant]

That's all an ideological statement.

Esp. note your assertion that the court
now consists of political hacks, a mere
subsidiary of those dreaded cons

Problem other than inaccuracy is that
its group- think, and, us the good v the bad.

Gives a sense of completely unearned superiority
and similarly as so often seen with religious ideology,
the -ology or -ism becomes the Source of infallible revealed truths.

I dont care to debate, but it might profit you
to examine where I am right.

I have relatives btw descended from veterans of
Angel Island.

Ideology is what we are arguing.

In this case the court used the example of Asian students in order to completely invalidate all affirmative action in every case, which is the outcome they were looking for.

And yes, the supreme court is full of partisan hacks, when they got enough justices of a similar ideology they decided to simply institute that ideology . They decided that a policy put in place for decades and ruled upon many times is now reversed and unconstitutional in 2023.

 

[variant]

That happened in the latter 1960s. Asians were effectively weaponized against blacks.

Divide and conquer, a strategy as old as the hills.

To consider someone's race among a variety of factors with an eye toward diversity is now simply "racism" apparently.

 

[Estrid]

Ideology is what we are arguing.

In this case the court used the example of Asian students in order to completely invalidate all affirmative action in every case, which is the outcome they were looking for.

And yes, the supreme court is full of partisan hacks, when they got enough justices of a similar ideology they decided to simply institute that ideology . They decided that a policy put in place for decades and ruled upon many times is now reversed and unconstitutional in 2023.

You are arguing ideology. Absolutely.
That's what I pointed out. And kinda suggested
you look into what a bad thing ideology is.

I'm not American. I don't have a dog in your
family squabble. If you want to play - ology v
-ology, find someone else.

I'm only interested in what actually happened.

I guess you Americans will go
ahead and tear eachother to pieces,
as it suits you. There wont be any
problem finding someone to mop the
floor with what's left of you.


You might look up 20-1199
Students for fair adnissions v
President and Fellows of Harvard

Asian Americans have consistently been the
big losers.* Victims of highly specific racist
anti Asian discrimination.

Perhaps you are in favour. If not, how do you
find fault in the court's ruling?


* Asian Amrricans are overwhelmingly liberal.

 

[mark46]

The government didn't need to do anything as the process was already working.

Dismantling affirmative action was a political goal of the right wing since the moment it started.

It merely took them this long to pack the courts. You'll see similar regression in any area that they control significantly over the next 20 years or so.

What is best is to not have courts packed by conservatives.

As Manchin has advised, if you want more liberals in the House, the Senate and the Courts, elect more liberals.

I understand that many think that Affirmative Action programs should continue as they were structured before the decision. They must have strongly supported Asians with 4.0 averages being turned down by the Ivy league schools so that they could admit enough African Americans (and rich ones at that). I saw one interview with an Asian-American with better than a 4.0 average who applied to all the Ivy schools and to all the universities in California. He was rejected by every Ivy league school and accepted by every California university.
==========
Let's be clear. There are states that haven't had programs that singled out race for several decades.
============
BOTTOM LINE
1) The majority of Americans wanted to the court to end race-based Affirmative Action, and many would likely have wanted SCOTUS to go even further than it did,
2) The goal should NOT be a certain percentage of each race at various colleges. This is especially true when the programs don't help the poor, just the rich.
3) As a society, it is much better for colleges to have programs that give advantages in admission to those who are economically discriminated, and those who have had a personal history of being discriminated because of their race, religion, sexual orientation or for other reasons. As Obama said a decade ago, his children should NOT, should NOT have advantages because of their race.
4) YES, let us help the poor, the weak and the disadvantaged. NO, let us not discriminate against Asians.
5) The only way to end discrimination based on race is to stop discriminating based on race.
=========
AS AN ASIDE
A) Much has been made of Berkeley having relatively low numbers of African-Americans, supposedly because California bars affirmative action programs. First, these blacks found it easier to just take their race advantage and went to Stanford. Berkeley decided NOT to have a program to favor the economically disadvantaged.
B) STOP AND THINK! Why is there no affirmative action in California, the bastion of liberalism. The people voted it down decades ago by referrendum, and the programs do NOT have enough support to bring them back.

 

[rjs330]

Every idea I think of to solve that problem looks too much like what was done to Native American children 100 years ago.

It's so definitely a tough issue to figure out. Ultimately the communities need to figure it out themselves. However I think making sure they have good educational systems might help. Good schools with good equipment, teachers that are paid well at least gives them the right opportunities. Whether they take advantage of it is up to them. I'm no great white hope coming in to save the day. The communities need a leader or two who really recognizes some of the issues and can gather support to help change the culture piece by piece.

 

[rjs330]

Colleges are bastions of liberalism and liberal thought. And they can't think of anything better than race based quotas? What keeps people from going to college are two things, the testing to get in and the cost. The testing to get in shows the failure of the K-12 educational system. It also reveals the problem with some cultures who don't value it.

What about offering tuitions based upon income? As long as you pass the SATs then pay to the college of your choice who then has tuition and cost based on income. Berkeley should lead the way with progressive thought. The liberal run colleges are the epitome of privilege they so denigrate. Yet they won't put their money where their mouth is. Instead od scholarships, which are limited, grants, which are limited how about coat based on income. You come from a family that makes good money then you pay full price. You come from a poor inner city or a poor country family and your college costs are greatly discounted. As an example the rich kid pays $30 grand a year while the poor kind pays $7 grand.

Try that and see what all the liberals who believe in share the wealth have to say.

 

[essentialsaltes]

Colleges are bastions of liberalism and liberal thought. And they can't think of anything better than race based quotas?

Race-based quotas have been illegal since the Bakke decision in the 1970s.

(SCOTUS-then actually overruled the California Supreme Court, which had struck down all race-based affirmative action. SCOTUS-then found that "the State has a substantial interest that legitimately may be served by a properly devised admissions program involving the competitive consideration of race and ethnic origin." This statement is no longer operative.)

Berkeley should lead the way with progressive thought.

Berkeley and the other UCs have already led the way. Affirmative action of the type eliminated in the recent SCOTUS decision has been illegal in California since Prop 209 in 1996.

Try that and see what all the liberals who believe in share the wealth have to say.

Financial aid has always been calculated in that way. Shrug. (The problem with your plan is that it would incentivize colleges to let in wealthy students.)

 

[RDKirk]

It's so definitely a tough issue to figure out. Ultimately the communities need to figure it out themselves. However I think making sure they have good educational systems might help. Good schools with good equipment, teachers that are paid well at least gives them the right opportunities. Whether they take advantage of it is up to them. I'm no great white hope coming in to save the day. The communities need a leader or two who really recognizes some of the issues and can gather support to help change the culture piece by piece.

Here is one of my barber shop discussions:

In any tribe, there are two kinds of "leaders." You have your shamans (witch doctors, priests) whose role is to entreat the gods (the higher powers, the powers that be) to provide the tribe with a benign environment (good weather, good hunting, prosperous harvests). You also have your chiefs (captains, kings, elders) whose job is to direct the actions of the people. The chiefs assign duties to the people, maintain order, and administer justice. A chief says, "You! Get up and do that! I you don't, you'll suffer consequences by my direction."

The black community has had many, many shamans. Most of the people considered black "leaders" (chiefs) are actually shamans. Martin Luther King was a shaman, for instance. His role was to beseech the powers-that-be for a benign environment. Sometimes a shaman might look like a leader because he may lead the people into a rain dance or the like, but that's still just beseeching the powers-that-be for a benign environment. Shamans do not assign duties to the people, maintain order, and administer justice.

We have had very few chiefs in the black community. The closest we come to chiefs have been Nation of Islam (Black Muslim) figures such as Malcolm X and Louis Farrakhan. Notice that when Louis Farrakhan organized his Million Man March, the purpose was not to get the US government to do anything, but to get black men to behave better. I'm not a fan of Louis Farrakhan (although I do respect Malcolm X a great deal more now than I did when he was alive...but I was young then), but I recognize that what he does in the NOI is actually "chiefing" rather than "shaman-ing."

 

[mark46]

Berkeley and the other UCs have already led the way. Affirmative action of the type eliminated in the recent SCOTUS decision has been illegal in California since Prop 209 in 1996.

Many, many colleges (yes, liberal colleges) see the need to give a step up for the economically disadvantaged. They also see the need to have different admission standards for those whose high school educations were in disadvantaged school systems. Finally, there are those colleges who carefully read applications (useless now with the advent of AI) and give advantage based on individual stories.

Yes, these programs do indeed end up benefiting blacks more than Asians or whites. These programs are NOT affirmative action.
=======================
Berkeley is NOT one of those schools. They certainly welcome the rich of all colors with little discrimination, other than legacy. They refuse to have admission programs that try to benefit the economically disadvantaged.

Other California universities (e.g. UCLA) have chosen differently.

IMO, for society, the issue is NOT about trying to increase the number of rich minorities in the top schools.

INSTEAD the issue is about reversing the status quo where fewer can afford college.

As an ASIDE, much, much more of GOVERNMENT attention should be to increasing funds for educating folks to fill the many, many high paying jobs that do NOT require a 4-year degree.
=================
Also, I STRONGLY, STRIONGLY oppose giving hundreds of billions (primarily to the rich) in student debt relief. Instead use HALF of that amount to help apprentice programs and 2-year degree program.

Why should those who didn't go to college give money to those who did? Those who decided to pay for college made their decisions. They will likely make much more money than those who didn't go to college. It is really icing on the cake to expect the non-college folks to pay for their educations.

To me, it is sad that Biden is forced to jump through hoops to give the college educated federal benefits. Before running for president, Biden strongly opposed these efforts.

 

[essentialsaltes]

Many, many colleges (yes, liberal colleges) see the need to give a step up for the economically disadvantaged. They also see the need to have different admission standards for those whose high school educations were in disadvantaged school systems.
=======================
Berkeley is NOT one of those schools.

What's your evidence for that? UC Berkeley and UCLA are both part of the UC system and I don't think there's much difference in their admission standards.

NY Times look at Economic diversity and student outcomes. (Circa 2013-2015) Down below you can click on Pac-12 and better see the head to head between Berkeley and UCLA. There are differences, but not huge ones.

Median Family Income
USC (Boo): $161K
Berkeley: $120K
UCLA: $105K

% from "the 1%"
USC (Boo): 14%
Berkeley: 3.8%
UCLA: 4.2%

% from the bottom 20%
USC (Boo): 4.9%
Berkeley: 7.3%
UCLA: 8.3%

[Berkeley] certainly welcome the rich of all colors with little discrimination, other than legacy.

Per long-established UC Regents policy, UC forbids legacy admissions and does not grant preferential admission to the children of alumni or donors.



PS GO Bruins!

 

[rjs330]

Here is one of my barber shop discussions:

In any tribe, there are two kinds of "leaders." You have your shamans (witch doctors, priests) whose role is to entreat the gods (the higher powers, the powers that be) to provide the tribe with a benign environment (good weather, good hunting, prosperous harvests). You also have your chiefs (captains, kings, elders) whose job is to direct the actions of the people. The chiefs assign duties to the people, maintain order, and administer justice. A chief says, "You! Get up and do that! I you don't, you'll suffer consequences by my direction."

The black community has had many, many shamans. Most of the people considered black "leaders" (chiefs) are actually shamans. Martin Luther King was a shaman, for instance. His role was to beseech the powers-that-be for a benign environment. Sometimes a shaman might look like a leader because he may lead the people into a rain dance or the like, but that's still just beseeching the powers-that-be for a benign environment. Shamans do not assign duties to the people, maintain order, and administer justice.

We have had very few chiefs in the black community. The closest we come to chiefs have been Nation of Islam (Black Muslim) figures such as Malcolm X and Louis Farrakhan. Notice that when Louis Farrakhan organized his Million Man March, the purpose was not to get the US government to do anything, but to get black men to behave better. I'm not a fan of Louis Farrakhan (although I do respect Malcolm X a great deal more now than I did when he was alive...but I was young then), but I recognize that what he does in the NOI is actually "chiefing" rather than "shaman-ing."

Interesting take. Do you think the black community would accept a new leader that might try to change or push for change to some of the culture?

 

[RDKirk]

Interesting take. Do you think the black community would accept a new leader that might try to change or push for change to some of the culture?

I don't know if I can really say there is a "black community" in any practical sense of the word. We could debate what comes first: The community or the leader? But I'm pretty sure if the leader's first command is going to be "Y'all need to do better," the community will somehow have to come first, because "Y'all need to do better" is not the way to herd cats.

Nobody, black or white, really wants a chief these days. Everyone wants a shaman, including those who will say they want a chief, because "Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country" just ain't the American way...anymore.

 

[rjs330]

I don't know if I can really say there is a "black community" in any practical sense of the word. We could debate what comes first: The community or the leader? But I'm pretty sure if the leader's first command is going to be "Y'all need to do better," the community will somehow have to come first, because "Y'all need to do better" is not the way to herd cats.

Nobody, black or white, really wants a chief these days. Everyone wants a shaman, including those who will say they want a chief, because "Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country" just ain't the American way...anymore.

Well I think there is a lot of that to be sure. On all sides these days. I see it more from the left of the aisle, but the right certainly isn't immune to it either. Just talk about flat taxes and and removing home mortgage deductions and see what happens.

 

[rjs330]

Financial aid has always been calculated in that way. Shrug. (The problem with your plan is that it would incentivize colleges to let in wealthy students.)

Funny how those liberal bastions would do that. I thought they all taught how much we should be doing to help the disadvantage and give out of our own pockets to do so. You know, take from other to give to others. They all teach that. Yet somehow when it comes to their own pockets they can't manage to do that?

Quotas may have been illegal, but they were still doing it in a different way. That's why SCOTUS addressed it. They were finding a way around it.

Financial aid? Then why aren't the universities flooded with the poor? Why aren't they taking advantage of that great financial aid?

 

[rjs330]

What's your evidence for that? UC Berkeley and UCLA are both part of the UC system and I don't think there's much difference in their admission standards.

NY Times look at Economic diversity and student outcomes. (Circa 2013-2015) Down below you can click on Pac-12 and better see the head to head between Berkeley and UCLA. There are differences, but not huge ones.

Median Family Income
USC (Boo): $161K
Berkeley: $120K
UCLA: $105K

% from "the 1%"
USC (Boo): 14%
Berkeley: 3.8%
UCLA: 4.2%

% from the bottom 20%
USC (Boo): 4.9%
Berkeley: 7.3%
UCLA: 8.3%


Per long-established UC Regents policy, UC forbids legacy admissions and does not grant preferential admission to the children of alumni or donors.



PS GO Bruins!

Looks like a difference to me. It appears that none of them are doing very good.

 

[essentialsaltes]

Funny how those liberal bastions ... I thought they all taught ... You know, take from other to give to others. They all teach that.

Try not to confuse your conservative fantasies for reality.

That's why SCOTUS addressed it. They were finding a way around it.

They weren't 'finding a way around it'. They were literally doing what the Bakke decision said they could.

It appears that none of them are doing very good.

Er, well. Elite schools attract elite talent.

We can contrast with, say, Santa Monica College, a community college that sends a lot of transfer students to UCLA.

Median family income $44,300
From the 1%: 1.8%
From the bottom 20%: 21%

 

[Estrid]

Colleges are bastions of liberalism and liberal thought. And they can't think of anything better than race based quotas? What keeps people from going to college are two things, the testing to get in and the cost. The testing to get in shows the failure of the K-12 educational system. It also reveals the problem with some cultures who don't value it.

What about offering tuitions based upon income? As long as you pass the SATs then pay to the college of your choice who then has tuition and cost based on income. Berkeley should lead the way with progressive thought. The liberal run colleges are the epitome of privilege they so denigrate. Yet they won't put their money where their mouth is. Instead od scholarships, which are limited, grants, which are limited how about coat based on income. You come from a family that makes good money then you pay full price. You come from a poor inner city or a poor country family and your college costs are greatly discounted. As an example the rich kid pays $30 grand a year while the poor kind pays $7 grand.

Try that and see what all the liberals who believe in share the wealth have to say.

It's standard for people with 6 figure incomes to
pay over 30k for day care.