The battle for new college

What "sort of philosophy"? Are you talking about the specific statement about capitalism and racism or a broader philosophy?

That's a dodge of the issue. Your arguments against affirmative action apply as much in 1965 as they do now. You're not arguing that there's true equality of opportunity. You're arguing that racial discrimination is unacceptable, even if it's aimed at remedying past discrimination.

Genuine equality of opportunity, or at least something close to it.

 

That statement isn’t necessarily Marxist, although it probably needs a qualifier to be more accurate, American capitalism can never be separated from racism.

That’s inexorably a true statement in a country that was literally built by slave labor, and even in modern times still exploits and demeans an “undocumented” minority underclass of laborers - a group which a certain political faction essentially views as sub-human.

 

All immutable characteristics are protected classes, gator_lawyer? All of them?

Okay, what's your proposition and at what point are marginalized communities made whole?

 

And what does that look like to you?

 

Consensus that the data shows that race has no or minimal effect on one's chances of success in this country and the way one is treated by our governments.

If you're going to try to erect straw men because you've painted yourself in the corner, don't be so obvious about it.

See above. As for how we get there, there are many potential solutions. I'd defer to the experts on that. I think education would have to be at the center of it, though, due to the strong connection between educational attainment and "success" in this country.

 

Whether “all” immutable characteristics are protected is irrelevant, legally we *do* protect people on basis of age, color, disability, and gender, as well as certain “mutable” characteristics like religion.

None of the civil rights laws should have been necessary under a plain reading of the constitution. That it required a civil war, numerous amendments, and civil rights to even get to basic human dignity pretty much blows up the originalist argument on this front (the idea the states are good arbiters of our constitutional rights) and current empirical data blows away the nonsensical arguments as to how diversity and inclusion is really “reverse racism”. It’s not superfluous to the law until hard data shows it is! Going after diversity is little more than pandering to disaffected whites who view minorities as “invaders”, and amplified by white nationalists who would like to actually reverse civil rights protections. It is, essentially, the Southern Strategy part deux.

 

By "effect on success" do you mean for example studies that show "people with characteristic X are less likely to be hired" and "people with characteristic Y are less likely to move up an income class?"

You are absolutely ridiculous.

 

Those are a couple examples.

 

1. It is relevant as to equity being something that matters and is inseparable from civil rights law. There are all sorts of immutable characteristics that don't have equity protections under law or policy that we don't really consider to be problems. Civil rights law and policy regarding DEI is largely justified by a combination of history and narratives, not equity for the sake of equity.

2. That was a direct response to nonsensical snark from gator_lawyer, where he implied that all it takes for a protected class to be protected is for it to involve an immutable characteristic. Either make a marginal effort to understand the purpose of my comment or mind your own business.

 

Can you name me one prosperous society in human history that didn't have any inequities like that based on race/ethnicity/gender?

 

I have no idea. My job isn't studying prosperous societies in human history, nor does it matter to me. Our goal should be to make America the best, most equal, freest place it can possibly be.

 

If you have a rationale for pushing policy that has negative consequences, and that policy is meant to be temporary, and we're discussing the endgame for that policy, shouldn't a priority be ascertaining whether that goal is realistic while simultaneously maintaining a prosperous society?

 

I have no idea what your word salad is getting at, but I’ll ask the one follow up that jumps out, since you seem to take issue with the immutable characteristics being “incomplete”, what characteristic that isn’t covered ought to be? This seems to be meaningless sniping, a faux point of contention to be snarky, rather than a legitimate point of debate.

 

No, it's an incredibly important point regarding the importance of equity in civil rights law.

For some reason, we consider equity to be incredibly important to warrant a protected class for race, but not height for example despite both being immutable characteristics. In other words, the justification for equity is almost always historical injustice or an effort to avoid history repeating itself. There are disparities in outcomes based on height. Height is certainly a factor that affects success in America, yet we don't have equitable systems to remedy THOSE disparities.

We pick and choose what we focus on for purposes of protected classes based on historical injustice. And my point is, even those classes don't need equity in America in 2023 to achieve justice or success. They need equal protection under the law and they need the freedom to play by the same rules as everyone else. THAT is essential, not equity.

 

If your question is whether we should stop trying because it's difficult and is going to take time to fix, my answer is no.

 

There has never been a melting pot society such as the United States. The U.S. is effectively a global nation, an amalgamation of all cultures which has created something unique. The biggest danger to our continued success is a relapse into pre-Civil rights strife, which would likely bring about societal breakdown. The Desantis strategy puts us on that path. Is he an accelerationist? Or just exploiting the tried and true Southern Strategy for personal gain? Those are your two options.

 

No my question is "shouldn't we look two steps ahead of where our logic takes us before throwing caution to the wind in favor of one priority goal that has no historical evidence of ever having been achieved in a prosperous society?"

This is especially considering the fact that "equity" in this context is someone or some organization arbitrarily picking winners and losers based on (normally) immutable characteristics they choose to hyperfocus on, normally to remedy historical injustices. At some point, equity without consideration of choices and consequences, cause and effect, becomes the antithesis of justice.

 

Every society in human history has had men and women, we can use that for a standard.

 

My answer remains the same. Do it, regardless of how difficult it is or long it takes. Do it because it's the right and just thing to do.

 

Outside perhaps the NBA, is there a meaningful disparity based on height like there is for race? You’d need to show data. There is ample data on race, and part of the issue on the race front is even today with the post civil-rights law technically on their side and giving them the ability to sue, they do not in-practice have equal protection under the law when it comes to racial profiling, educational opportunities (especially the condition of secondary schools), and in interactions with the criminal justice system. The laws need to be hardened against discrimination to continue rooting it out. Your argument comparing legally protected classes who faced real persecution and discrimination (including evils such as violence and death at the hands of the Klan) to a more superficial characteristic like height is in essence, nonsensical.