a reply to: shawmanfromny
When Obama was president, It was OK to protest and blame police officers for EVERY killing of a black person. He NEVER condemned Black Lives
Matter, for inciting violence and calling for the death of police officers.
That's a whole bunch of conflation and factual inaccuracy that has nothing to do with the topic. Saying that "BLM" incited violence and called for the
death of police officers is worse than blaming Trump for the actions of every idiot in his cult. Also, Presidents don't dictate what is or isn't okay
But hey, I guess you'll be running around to defend anyone who links Trump's anti-media rhetoric with something like the Capital Gazette shooting.
Anyway, on the topic:
What's being rescinded isn't actually Obama-era "Affirmative Action" guidelines at all. That's a hot mess of implication. What's being rescinded is
DOJ guidance on when it's permissible for institutions of higher education to consider race without running afoul of the law.
which by definition is discrimination.
Yes. It's actually referred to as "positive discrimination" in some places. And yes, the purpose is to confer advantage to groups that have been
historically disadvantaged. The whole idea behind it is that a) the current situation is a result of the past b) in the past discrimination was legal
against certain groups c) discrimination in favor of those groups now will offset the past discrimination.
The people who dreamed this stuff up in the first place were trying to take direct, immediate action to bring about integration. It's not supposed to
be a permanent thing. You can argue the effectiveness but dismissing it with "discrimination is bad" is also pretty ridiculous.
Think it through. You had groups of people who were legally discriminated against for centuries. After generations of struggle, that ends, and then
the political group that fought to continue centuries of race-based oppression were suddenly decrying discrimination intended to counteract the
discrimination they'd supported.
I'm sure if this was 1966, you'd have a lot easier time wrapping your head around why somebody would consider positive discrimination as a viable
solution to integrating a segregated society. It's easy to pick apart something like this but there's no guarantee of a perfect solution to an
epically #ed up situation.
That said, social engineering is of course prone to unintended consequences and I actually tend to agree that considering race in admissions today
creates more harm than good and it would be much better to concentrate efforts elsewhere.
improving our schools in the inner cities and hiring better teachers, will increase a minority student's educational opportunities to earn a
I generally agree with this sentiment but I would first point out that it's not strictly an "inner city" issue. I would also point out up front that
anyone who seriously wanted to improve education wouldn't put Betsy DeVos in charge of it.
It's not quite as simple as it sounds either. There's a reason that poor communities produce #ty schools. They've got no tax base. Furthermore, in
poor communities you've got kids whose parents were also products of #ty schools. And that's just one of many social factors to consider that exist
outside of school itself.
If there was a silver bullet solution to the problem of integrated a forcefully segregated society, I'm sure we'd all have some clue about what it was
by now. Personally, I always come back to employment when I look at the 20th century. People having good jobs makes # better all the way around.