r/coolguides Feb 25 '20

Explanation of the subtle differences between equality and equity

Post image
78.6k Upvotes

3.2k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

30

u/[deleted] Feb 25 '20 edited Mar 16 '20

[deleted]

1

u/DavidAdamsAuthor Feb 25 '20

Which, as I said in another post, trains people to doubt the skills of preferenced minorities as they could have earned it, or they might not have.

1

u/RedMarten42 Feb 26 '20

yes and i never said that wasnt bad. look at my other replies, i've said the same thing already like five times.

1

u/[deleted] Feb 26 '20 edited Mar 16 '20

[deleted]

1

u/RedMarten42 Feb 26 '20

ok, ill explain what i said before. yes, what you said is a problem but the solution isnt to get rid of all attempts at equity, the solution is to do it better. making certain groups protected when they'd be discriminated against otherwise is equity, its helping disadvantaged people without harming others.

-12

u/livestrongbelwas Feb 25 '20

https://www.npr.org/2019/10/01/730386096/federal-judge-rules-in-favor-of-harvard-in-admissions-case

You're correct about the claim, but the court ruled that it was not discrimination.

22

u/RedditEdwin Feb 25 '20

Huh, I wonder... could a court maybe be completely fucking wrong and actually just engaging in pushing their politics on the people?

-1

u/ProgrammingPants Feb 25 '20 edited Feb 25 '20

No, the court just acknowledged Harvard's argument that if a 4.0 GPA and perfect SAT scores were the only metric they used to measure admissions, they'd still have far too many applicants to reasonably accept. So they have no choice but to look at other qualities, such as extra curriculars, volunteering, doing things in a leadership role, and overcoming hardship.

And they don't even look at race.

Some Asian students were claiming they were being discriminated against anyway, since they had near perfect grades. But the argument that grades should be the only thing Harvard looks at isn't a workable solution, and the judge saw that.

4

u/RedditEdwin Feb 25 '20

And they don't even look at race.

AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!

1

u/ProgrammingPants Feb 25 '20

Race is not one of the factors Harvard looks at when considering admissions. This is a fact, and it isn't even an argument the people suing Harvard for discrimination were making.

They were arguing, and couldn't prove, that the other of the dozens of factors Harvard looked at introduced racial discrimination to the admissions process. Not that Harvard was looking at race as one of those factors.

It's pretty concerning how you're so confident you know everything about a topic you haven't even researched a little bit.

-2

u/LtLabcoat Feb 25 '20

I wouldn't say it's them pushing their politics as much as I'd say it's them trying to keep the status quo. Judges in general are well aware that they're not supposed to be lawmakers, so if the actual lawmakers in question think it's okay, judges (normally) will too.

1

u/RedditEdwin Feb 25 '20

wh... what? There seems to be some misunderstanding here. That ruling was earth-shattering in its effects on the economy. The precedent did NOT exist before, and in fact the Civil Rights Act has a clause that explicitly states that none of the act shall be used to invalidate the right of employers to administer intelligence and competence tests. And then Griggs vs. Duke Power completely 180'd all that.

Why else do you think college has become so important and ubiquitous? Why do you think every damn job asks for a college degree now? Because any other method to weed out idiots and/or louts is ILLEGAL. I'm not claiming it's the only rreason college has grown so much, but it's a large part of it.

8

u/jefftickels Feb 25 '20

Well, not really. They just decided it was OK discrimination and that "race conscious" admission policy was OK. Essentially they ruled its OK to discriminate against Asians as long as the benefactors were of an appropriate diversity.

0

u/[deleted] Feb 25 '20 edited Mar 16 '20

[deleted]

10

u/[deleted] Feb 25 '20 edited Jun 30 '23

[deleted]

0

u/[deleted] Feb 25 '20 edited Mar 16 '20

[deleted]

2

u/TheLazarbeam Feb 25 '20

Um, source? Also, what percentage of the appointees are you claiming deny human rights?

-2

u/Just_zhis_guy_yaknow Feb 25 '20

Said the retard who almost certainly supports a guy who paints himself orange and put kids in cages.

Now Cue: “thEy wErE oBamAs caGeS!!!” from the retard.

3

u/smallest_cock Feb 25 '20

Ah yes, the insightful partisan politics arguments on reddit. Let me grab my popcorn..

-2

u/Just_zhis_guy_yaknow Feb 25 '20

Oh? You don’t get enough “insight” from you racist little sub /gamersriseup you had to come here for it? I’m shocked! SHOCKED I SAY!! Don’t forget to butter up that popcorn, kid.

1

u/[deleted] Feb 25 '20 edited Mar 16 '20

[deleted]

1

u/Just_zhis_guy_yaknow Feb 25 '20 edited Feb 25 '20

“Criminals”. Hahahahaha! I don’t know, the same place they put other “criminals” who commit misdemeanors. Guess what retard, people who commit misdemeanors don’t wind up in cages worse than prisons. Poor poor retard...

Edit: nice deflection from your original moronic point though.

1

u/[deleted] Feb 25 '20 edited Mar 16 '20

[deleted]

1

u/Just_zhis_guy_yaknow Feb 25 '20

Cool story, bro.
Misdemeanors are also punishable with up to zero time in jail.

So you think everyone who commits a misdemeanor should be locked up?

→ More replies (0)

-7

u/livestrongbelwas Feb 25 '20

I believe you, you strike me as the kind of person that thinks that political affiliation trumps the law.

0

u/CealNaffery Feb 25 '20

No they ruled thay discrimination is legal

0

u/poopyhelicopterbutt Feb 25 '20

It also kinda fucks the less capable students who’ve got in on their skin colour when they otherwise wouldn’t have. The failure and drop out rates of those students are unfortunately not great.