End of Affirmative Action

[Anonymous No.15506828]

https://www.theatlantic.com/podcasts/archive/2023/06/the-end-of-affirmative-action-for-real-this-time/674434/

Affirmative action in the US might stop soon.

How will this affect demographics in US colleges and universities?

[Anonymous No.15506920]

>>15506828
The gravy trains are like the bus from the movie speed, they never stop, if they do it explodes

[Anonymous No.15506997]

>>15506828
Until people to go jail, ways to implement it in alternate ways will continue.

[Anonymous No.15507138]

>>15506828
All the hand-wring over ending """affirmative action""" reminds me of how gaymers freak out when developers patch an exploit.

[Anonymous No.15507143]

It's illegal in the UK by the equalities act but the government has schemes to get around its own law, don't expect these universities to forget too quickly.

[Anonymous No.15507147]

>>15506828
>How will this affect demographics in US colleges and universities?

it wont. The courts will still uphold racist policies as long as they are against whites.

[Anonymous No.15507165]

>>15506828
Ironically enough not by much since the whole Student Debt Crisis, skyrocketing cost of college (plus cost of living in general), lack of suitable jobs for new grads and perceived liberal ""indoctrination'" bent has effectively strained good will and interest for the common populace.

Colleges will more than likely setup their own version of affirmative action policies in response.

Truth be told the growing A.I. integration into the job market will probably have devastating effects than Affirmative action ending.

[Anonymous No.15507169]

>>15507138
lol I see niggers talking about if they should still be applying to top schools given the court decision.

[Anonymous No.15507174]

>>15506828
>Affirmative action in the US might stop soon.
Not gonna lie, I'll be shocked if this actually happens. The "conservative" part of the SC is at least half controlled op, and the elites fucking love handicapping the productive capacity of the plebs through forced diversity.

The only reason they could possibly have for changing course at this stage would be a genuine fear of China. Obviously the East Asian countries don't give a fuck about muh diversity, which is why they are passing us up in every conceivable category.

[Anonymous No.15507179]

>>15507174
Removing affirmative action would actually increase the proportion of Asians in top universities

[Anonymous No.15507185]

>>15506828
So...i thought it was fake? That it was a lie made by angry white rednecks?

[Anonymous No.15507197]

>>15507174
>Obviously the East Asian countries don't give a fuck about muh diversity,

Stop talking about shit you don't know about. China has active affirmative action policies for their own ethnic minority groups right now both for college and general living.

Their ethnic minorities were excluded from the original one child policy act. Their ethnic minorities in some provinces did not had to pay certain local taxes.
Their ethnic minorities had dedicated cultural awareness days that promoted their practices and clothing.
Their ethnic minorities have dedicated slot thresholds in both colleges and job market.

You assume they don't give a fuck because of the lack of "racial minorities" and their treatment of uyghurs (who are primarily treated that way because they are muslims).

But they do have affirmative action and diversity programs. And some of the Han Chinese do bitch about but the government ignores it.

[Anonymous No.15507230]

>>15507179
Sure, but they're American citizens producing stuff for America, which helps against China

[Anonymous No.15507238]

>>15507138
I think you're confusing gamers with script kiddies. Why should gamers be upset about developers patching bugs? (and why would bugs in games be called "exploits", unless they were a security concern? And why then would gamers get upset about security bugs getting patched?)

[Anonymous No.15507239]

>>15507179
That doesn't bother them. They're concerned about the PRC, not asians. I know the CCP propaganda has you thinking that fear of the PRC is in fact fear of all asian racially, but that isn't an accurate description of the way western leadership thinks.

[Anonymous No.15507254]

>>15506828
This is politics >>>/pol/

[Anonymous No.15507293]

>>15506828
Probably the opposite

The end of the last facade of meritocracy

What's being deemed unconstitutional is the current affirmative action system, using test scores and applying blatantly racially biased metrics to achieve the results universities and institutions desire

When told they can no longer use this method, the universities will not accept defeat and give up on their objective and revert to meritocracy; they'll simply throw away all factors that can lead to evidence of bias - the exams and standardized test scores. It's already happening, expect it to kick up to the next level fast

[Anonymous No.15507320]

>>15507293
You act like that matters though, exams and standardize testing means nothing if the regular person on the street can get access to A.I. to do the shit for him.

Colleges were already going to need to adjust simply because of that factor alone.

[Anonymous No.15507596]

>>15507320
>>You act like that matters though
Not that anon and you're wrong that he's acting like it matters. If you actually READ HIS POST he says that it doesn't matter, it will have no effect because the universities will simply find another way to accomplish the same.

[Anonymous No.15507628]

>>15507596
Except that anon is, he assumes that if Affirmative action is taken away the Universities will find an alternative to it. But I'm pointing out that they would have had to find another way regardless of affirmative actions future status because A.I. is going to invalidate exams/testing and really any general homework offered.

[Anonymous No.15507636]

>>15507628
>he assumes that if Affirmative action is taken away the Universities will find an alternative to it.
No he doesn't. You're taking "affirmative action" to be this specific method of implementation (adjusting test scores) but that anon is pointing out that affirmative action isn't being taken away from them at all because they will implement it through other means.

>but AI will wreck testing anyway
Irrelevant to his point and to this conversation. Go away.

[Anonymous No.15507648]

>>15506828
Too late. White people are already racially aware and armed.

[Anonymous No.15507663]

>>15506828

How unbelievably stupid does your demographic have to be that you need people to FORCE you into educational institutions!
Slavery ended over 150 years ago and institutional racism ended over 50 years ago.
When I go to school and al the Black kids REFUSE to do school work and get the lowest grades, you can not blame "da evil Whitey'.

[Anonymous No.15507782]

>>15507636
How is me stating they will "find an alternative" different than his statment talking about "implementing it through other means"? Both effectively mean the same thing in taking a different approach to the matter.

>Irrelevant to his point and to this conversation

You think A.I. is irrelevant when it is forcing Universities to rethink their entire policy around verification of scores and tool assisted work in general? If students are going to have access to AI applications capable of passing law and medical bar exams assisting them in everything they do. What point is there to debate score adjustments and grading on the curve?

I suppose you could focus on the preferential treatment aspect of the debate between different groups by sex/race/ethnicity. But legacy applicants foils that part of the debate (since they are also a preferential group who just so happens to fund universities and bring in notary). Also can you imagine legacy students who use AI? What do you even do with that?

>>15507663
>Slavery ended over 150 years ago and institutional racism ended over 50 years ago.

So you think 150 years of non-slavery is enough time to reverse 246 years of slavery. While also thinking 50 years non-institutional racism is enough time to reverse 345 years of institutional racism?

I'm not even interested in defending blacks here but I'm curious why you think those time tables is suitable? Your point would be stronger if the time between those events and their origin points were "zeroed out". Then you can argue they had enough time to reverse it proper.

[Anonymous No.15507791]

>>15507238
An exploit is a bug that causes an advantage to a player.

[Anonymous No.15507792]

>>15507782
>>How is me stating they will "find an alternative"
The difference is you said
> if Affirmative action is taken away the Universities will find an alternative to it.
the courts haven't taken away affirmative action and the schools aren't finding an alternative to affirmative action. The courts have taken one method of implementing affirmative action, and the schools will find another method of implementing affirmative action.

Not an alternative to affirmative action. An alternative method of achieving affirmative action.

[Anonymous No.15507800]

>>15507782
It actually took about one day to reverse institutional racism and slavery- the day lawmakers voted.

[Anonymous No.15508640]

>>15507197
Minority cultural festivals are based. And they don't have designated college spots. You're thinking of India. They get bonus points on the college exams. It's not a big deal in China because more than 90% of people are Han.

[Anonymous No.15508823]

>>15507179
No it wouldn't. Only white % would increase

[Anonymous No.15508834]

>>15507782
>So you think 150 years of non-slavery is enough time to reverse 246 years of slavery. While also thinking 50 years non-institutional racism is enough time to reverse 345 years of institutional racism?
Yes it is enough. Chinese landlords had all their property confiscated in the revolution which made them poor yet the grandchildren of those same landlords now have 16% higher incomes than typical Chinese. Similarly the grandchildren of gulag inmates in Soviet Union are now more likely to have college education than average Russian.

When people have innate ability to accumulate wealth they will do it. It' very difficult for the state to suppress this long-term. If blacks had the same ability as whites to acquire wealth they would have done it few generation after slavery ended. This whole idea that after 246 years of slavery blacks need exactly 246 years of equality until they start catching up to whites is ridiculous.

[Anonymous No.15508838]

Every college campus will be 95% asians, jews, and whites

[Anonymous No.15508846]

>>15507782
>So you think 150 years of non-slavery is enough time to reverse 246 years of slavery.
Zimbabwe and South Africa went from apartheid to robbing and slaughtering white farmers in about 30 years. You are a fucking moron if you think 150 isn't enough. Every ethnicity on the planet has gone from oppression to success in less time.

[Anonymous No.15508847]

>>15506828
House of representatives is affirmative action for Republicans. Yet you won't see anyone try to fix that?
Curious.

[Anonymous No.15508860]

>>15508847
House of Representatives was designed to help give influence to regular working class Americans. The republican party is the party of regular working class Americans

[Anonymous No.15508899]

>>15506828
This is probably bad, because jobs are still gonna be forced to hire the same number of blacks. So now they'll probably have to start hiring blacks who didn't even go to college.

[Anonymous No.15508907]

>>15508899
>t. drooling retard

[Anonymous No.15508923]

>>15506828
Enjoy your 80% Asian 20% Jewish campuses.

[Anonymous No.15508924]

>>15508860
Fucking kek

[Anonymous No.15508930]

>>15508923
Ivy league, yes. The rest, I'm guessing it'll be 75% white and 25% liquorice allsorts.

[Anonymous No.15508934]

>>15506828
I'd support affirmative action in the forms of economic package.

Reserve ~40% of the school entrance for lower income families, but they must all compete for the top honors, and the seat winners will should be fully funded by the gov. The ROI would be so much better given that single successful smart person can support tens of poor people as well.

[Anonymous No.15508944]

>>15508934
>Reserve ~40% of the school entrance for lower income families
What the fuck for?

[Anonymous No.15508949]

>>15508944
Because you want top performers to be able to attend schools and succeed in life and not be penalized just because they were born poor. A smart poor person is better than a rich/lazy/child of a millionaire getting into the elite schools because of family connections.

Education centers functions as economic uplifter, but also works doubly as society uplifter. When you have top performers being trained, working in the industry to advance the economy, society, technology, then bottom rung gets pulled up.

The current AA is absolute trash and top performing poor people are absolutely punished by the quota system. Something like 70% of Asian Americans in NYC elite public school live off of food stamps, yet they're asking it to be dismantled because its not "diverse" aka not enough blacks. There's an asian quota/cap of ~20% in the schools. Where ~Asians are penalized by ~20-30% because they do too well. We need hard working, smart people in our society. They produce the most economic goods.

[Anonymous No.15508958]

>>15506828
Since whites benefit the most of affirmative action I'm fine with removing it. Pick yourselves up from your boot straps, mayos.

[Anonymous No.15508966]

>>15508944
I don’t remember the exact term, it’s something like intelligence utilization rate. Basically it measures how well high iq kids are given the right opportunities to succeed. America has an extremely low one whereas China and India are both really good at it.

[Anonymous No.15508983]

>>15508949
>smart poor person is better than a rich/lazy/child of a millionaire getting into the elite schools because of family connections.
lol. The connected person will always bring more value.

[Anonymous No.15509050]

>>15508958
This is a myth
https://ideasanddata.wordpress.com/2022/05/25/white-women-and-affirmative-action/

[Anonymous No.15509087]

>>15508949
>>15508966
>Because you want top performers to be able to attend schools
Reserving spots accomplishes the exact opposite of that. I'm in awe of how retarded you are.
> single successful smart person can support tens of poor people as well
A thief too. Go figure.

[Anonymous No.15509090]

>>15509087
>Reserving spots accomplishes the exact opposite of that
They system is setup so that currently ~40% are reserved by the sons/daughters of older graduates. So reservation system already exists.

The poor reservation is a counter to this.

[Anonymous No.15509094]

>>15509087
Are you saying it would work differently in reality or that top performers never come from low income households?

[Anonymous No.15509107]

>>15509090
>>15509094
If you want top performers to get into educational institutions you base admittance on academic performance and nothing else. How is that not immediately obvious?
>They system is setup so that currently ~40% are reserved by the sons/daughters of older graduates. So reservation system already exists.
>The poor reservation is a counter to this.
Ah, so the answer to my initial query is "the poor need to take their turn at shitting things up with nepotism too." Good statecraft.

[Anonymous No.15509125]

>>15508924
Yeah, it is pretty funny how retarded and oblivious Dems are these days. Literally the entire blue collar working class is Trump's base, and the Dems hate every single one of them. Thank god for the House of Representatives and Electoral College for preserving a shred of working class solidarity.

[Anonymous No.15509131]

>>15509125
Fucking kek

[Anonymous No.15509144]

>>15509107
Yeah that’s ideal but I don’t really think that will ever happen. So having reserved spots for top performing lower income kids would be a step in the right direction. Just anything to try to stop higher iq children from lower income households from getting lost in the system. It’s like pissing away valuable resources from a country/society perspective.

[Anonymous No.15509187]

>>15508923
Not to mention 80% male. If they truly do a meritocracy then they need to establish all women's colleges to be right next to the prestigious ones so they don't raise a generation of incels.

[Anonymous No.15509192]

>>15509187
Actually, they'd be even more female dominated outside of a handful of small engineering schools

[Anonymous No.15509243]

>>15508860
This. The Republicans are the party of the proletariat.

[Anonymous No.15509387]

Many probably already realized that AA can't fix lower avg IQ.

[Anonymous No.15509424]

>>15509144
>having reserved spots for top performing lower income kids would be a step in the right direction
It wouldn't. Implementing what you proposed would depress the quality of the student body. A system in which 40% of spots are reserved for the rich kids and the rest is picked through a meritocratic process has a higher average student competence than the one in which there are 40% quotas for both rich and poor kids. You must be retarded not to understand something this obvious.

[Anonymous No.15509456]

>>15508899
Nope. The standard in court would probably be based on the demographic distribution of people with the credentials.
That's how elon justified 20% women or whatever the number was when the libs gave him shit.
If anything, you could sue the big companies that are aiming for demographics proportional to the entire population since that distribution differs from the relevant distributions (degree holders, applicants, recent college grads).

[Anonymous No.15509481]

>>15509424
I’m not the anon who said it had to be 40%. I just think America should make a better effort to support its high iq children that come from lower income households. I don’t know why you are getting so worked up over this. Is it possible for you to respond without calling someone a retard?

[Anonymous No.15509560]

>>15509481
>Is it possible for you to respond without calling someone a retard?
Sure, but you'd have to not be a destructive retard for that to happen.

[Anonymous No.15509576]

>>15509481
IQ isn't real so how can there be high IQ children from lower income households?

[Anonymous No.15509632]

>>15508934
>>15508949
There's a compelling reason for giving low income students a bump in the admission process. For about everyone, being poor is detrimental to academic performance. So if there're two guys with same grades, it's reasonable to assume the low income guy had to compensate for the grade with something else, like having more grit to overcome poverty.
The same can't be said about race, though. If a black guy and a white guy have both the same grades, there can be a wealth of possible explanations that do not imply one is better than the other. For example, both may have been raised in a household that values studying. They could have similar IQ, or whatever.

[Anonymous No.15509655]

>>15509632
Exactly. If a poor kid was applying for a top college with top grades, they are much more likely to have the work ethics necessary to succeed in life. Vs generational wealth/family who are always worse off than their parents due to easy life.

[Anonymous No.15509666]

>>15509632
>For about everyone, being poor is detrimental to academic performance.
It isn't.
> it's reasonable to assume the low income guy had to compensate for the grade with something else, like having more grit to overcome poverty
It's not reasonable and he had nothing to overcome. School spending does not contribute to academic performance. Post-WWII poverty did not cause an intellectual collapse in Europe, or East Asia. Sharing a room or whatever you think is poverty is not detrimental if far worse adversity has nil impact.
>So if there're two guys with same grades, it's reasonable to assume the low income guy [...] having more grit
The exact opposite is true, if the grades are equal, the man from the better family should be picked as he is more likely to have positive qualities. Especially if you're going off a single test. Learn to think like a statistician.

[Anonymous No.15509670]

>>15509655
>If a poor kid was applying for a top college with top grades, they are much more likely to have the work ethics
Factually untrue, the wealthier candidates with equal grades would be the ones with better qualities.
> generational wealth/family who are always worse off than their parents due to easy life.
Children of successful parents are worse off due to regression to the mean. "Easy life" does not make one lazy, or stupid. Delicious cope though you jealous little shit.

[Anonymous No.15509883]

>>15509666
School spending isn't the same as family income. And it's absurd to claim family income has no effect on academic performance. Even when controlled for potential confounders it is highly significant.

[Anonymous No.15509912]

>>15509560
>>15509666
>>15509670
Is there a particular reason you’re so aggressive?

[Anonymous No.15510062]

>>15509883
>School spending isn't the same as family income.
Sure, money works differently when it's mom and dad spending it, kek.
>Even when controlled for potential confounders
Certainly that includes genetic influence, right? ...Right?

[Anonymous No.15510086]

>>15506828
they'll probably just find a roundabout way of achieving the same result.

[Anonymous No.15510113]

>>15510062
If the identification strategy is properly done, then it should control for genetic influence too, yes. Take this study, for example: https://econweb.ucsd.edu/~gdahl/papers/children-and-EITC.pdf which uses Income Tax Credit as instrumental variable to estimate the effect of income on educational outcomes.

[Anonymous No.15510386]

>>15508958
I always find this funny
>End affirmative action!
>But white women benefited the most you hypocrite!
As if affirmative action for women wasn't another progressive policy.

[Anonymous No.15510659]

>>15508923
and that is wrong because?

[Anonymous No.15510672]

>>15506828
Good, maybe I'll go to grad school now that it's fair and I don't have to be in a program with quota-filled retards.

[Anonymous No.15511138]

>>15507254
science is a subset of politics

[Anonymous No.15511162]

>>15511138
Sure. Then /sci/ is for that subset and shouldn't have to deal with the rest of the cancerous set.

[Anonymous No.15511675]

>>15510659
nothing wrong with it. If they're better they're better. That being said to maximize potential I think there needs to be some way to mix the intelligence elite and the social/economic elite but there should be a clear difference in prestige between the two.

[Anonymous No.15513144]

>>15510113
>https://econweb.ucsd.edu/~gdahl/papers/children-and-EITC.pdf
>take a bunch of low scorers
>watch them regress to the mean
>think the gibs did it
Great success comrade. Thanks for the laugh.