The US Military Academy at West Point is being sued for its race-based admissions policies by the same group that won a landmark case against Harvard University and the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill in the Supreme Court over affirmative action earlier this year, according to a lawsuit filed Tuesday.
More racism and more stereotyping is never the answer.
People looking at an issue surface deep is never the answer.
I’d rather use a more important metric like net worth to determine whether or not someone needs help. It doesn’t matter what color your skin is if you have money.
Instead stupid people will use racist ideologies like “It’s okay to make it harder for asians to get into schools, because they all had good upbringings!” No, not all asians are smart or had good upbringings. And yes it’s racist/wrong of you to imply they did.
I get what you’re saying, and I do agree with you to an extent, but
“It doesn’t matter what color your skin is if you have money.”
That simply isn’t true even a little bit. And you more or less disproved it with the second paragraph.
Racism exists in a wide variety of formats. Being wealthy makes everything easier, but easier is a relative term. Affirmative action may not be the best answer, but there’s nothing wrong with asking the question, “how can we ensure the military leadership closely resembles the demographics of the soldiers they are leading?”
Controlled for exact same family income, there are biases against people of color. So you’re not fixing anything.
Centuries of racism can’t be fixed without compensation for those harmed.
Agreed. Though, that compensation should not come from everyone, but rather from the rich assholes who profited.
If you inherit a house with a leaky roof, it isn’t your fault the roof is leaking. It is your responsibility to fix the roof now though.
It isn’t just about the rich people who profited off slavery. It is also about the net effect of the entire society’s racism. Things like black children being given worse education or black families being prevented developing generational wealth through home ownership. We didn’t cause that, but we all inherited the house with the leaky roof and it’s our responsibility to fix it.
I am pretty sure if you inherit a house you can sell the house.
I guess the equivalent of that for a country would be moving to a different one.
If I sold a house in my area I could get about half a million dollars, if I moved to say Canada I would have to spend money to do it.
How is gaining half a million equivalent to losing around ten thousand dollars? Also I don’t exactly have to repair a broken roof, I should but I don’t have to.
Generational sin/debt doesn’t make any sense. People are responsible, sometimes, for what they do not what some ancestor did.
I wasn’t literally comparing selling a house to moving out of the country. It’s a metaphor.
What I am saying is that participating in this society is a choice. Along with our rights and freedoms we also accept responsibilities and debts (just like inheriting a house is a choice and with the property you accept the responsibility of maintaining it).
It isn’t generational sin, it is a debt owed by this country to its citizens. It would be absurd for a new president to say the country didn’t have to pay the national debt because that debt was created by previous administrations, right? We all collectively owe that debt as will future generations of citizens until it is paid off.
Why do you keep comparing unrelated things instead of dealing with what you are arguing directly?
The national debt isn’t reparations, inheriting a house isn’t reparations. Reparations is reparations and is a form of generational debt. No one asked for their ancestors to do things that were awful and no one should have to pay for a sin that they did not committ.
How did you determine this? Because all I see here is an assertion without evidence.
Which part do you doubt?
The idea that people wronged should be compensated is literally the foundation of our legal system. The 14th amendment clearly reads that the State shall not deprive citizens of life, liberty, or property without due process. A similar sentiment was part of the original Declaration of Independence.
If you are questioning the part about home loans, you can read more here https://www.history.com/news/gi-bill-black-wwii-veterans-benefits
That wasn’t what they argued. They argued they would get a specific result from a specific action not if the action was good or not.
I was the one you were responding to, so I think I know what my argument was.
I respond to what is written not to what you claim to be thinking much later on.
You claimed I made an assertion without evidence. Which part of my statement do you think isn’t true?
Try going to college?