4 ms·
I can see why they used poised. Affirmative action is an tool they use to reduce the inequality caused by historic events (jim crow era). Absolute equality help
by stop50 4y ago
I can see why they used poised. Affirmative action is an tool they use to reduce the inequality caused by historic events (jim crow era). Absolute equality helps only people which start line was moved before others.
- LatteLazy 4y agoPoised means it is about to happen. But I don't think anyone knows which way this case will go. Maybe they will ban it, maybe they will affirm it. No one knows...
- teg4n_ 4y agoYou can make a pretty good prediction based on the people in the court and their political opinions which makes poised an accurate assessment.
- LatteLazy 4y agoAssuming that is true (and I am sympathetic to it) they're still going to spend a few months hearing arguments and then writing it all up. The chances they will give a ruling without going through the motions is basically zero right?
- ReptileMan 4y agoThe biggest losers of the affirmative action are asian Americans.
- jmpman 4y agoI have white cousins who are second generation drug dealer’s children. I have black cousins who are members of the local golf country club. Which one deserves affirmative action to get into college? By every measure, my white cousins are worse off. Sure, neither are Harvard bound. A reliable car, and an apartment in a city with strong job prospects are what my white cousins need, and I try to provide. My black cousin’s need help with their golf short game… so do I.
- hackyhacky 4y agoYou are using anecdotes to disprove data. You know very well that statistically speaking, the argument for affirmative action is in one direction, your own personal acquaintances notwithstanding.
- aetherane 4y agoThat is essentially the core difference in viewpoint, though. Whether to treat people as individuals or broad statistical classes.
- spiderice 4y agoWrong. You’re using data to ignore people’s problems because their skin isn’t the right color. Get rid of affirmative action and replace it with income/poverty level. Basing it off of race will always be racist, and never be fair, as highlighted by GP’s example.
- doubleunplussed 4y agoThat really depends what metrics you think are relevant. On the one hand, the average black person in the US is more disadvantaged than the average white person. That much is true. If you meet a random person, and they are black, statistically they are more disadvantaged than if they were white. On the other hand, I'm fairly sure it's the case that for almost any given threshold of disadvantage, there are numerically more whites below it than blacks, simply because there are more white people in the US than black people. So if you are a university with hypothetical applicants drawn randomly from the population, the majority of the disadvantaged applicants in the pool are white, for most thresholds of disadvantage. A system that treats disadvantaged whites, who are quite numerous, as if they are advantaged, based in the colour of their skin, is incredibly unjust, and creates deserved resentment. Frankly, even if disadvantaged whites were less numerous it is still incredibly unfair. AA based on poverty and socio-economics directly, rather than the colour of one's skin, would be more just (and is more how things are done where I'm from).
- mancerayder 4y agoHe's using an ethical argument, not a numerical one. You're using the latter. Person 1 says, don't generalize ideas of privilege since it isn't fair to certain individuals that stand out as edge cases. Person 2 says, the statistics say the majority of the cases the generalizations are consistent. This conversation is a category error.