You follow what I quoted by claiming it wasn't fair ("imo") because, as you say, "we shouldn’t raise the eligibility of people based on their race" which is great if you ignore the fact that nearly every institution in the US treats people differently based on race, whether intentional or not. It is exceedingly rare for that bias to swing in the favor of non-whites.

With no meaningful alternative to AA, what exacxtly is the win here?

[–] amanneedsamaid@sopuli.xyz 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Non-whites having less access is good in this context, because they were being unfairly given an advantage before. I agree with your premise about bias, but why should the solution to that be to artificially inflate the people being discriminated against, instead of trying to provide a system that doesn't have room for discrimination?

Class based alternative action, along with anonymizing applicant details pertinent to their race is a meaningful alternative to AA.

[–] withdrawn@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I agree on the last point, but there isn't a class based system in place, nor is there a plan to implement one (that I can find).

That, I shall continue to argue, makes this very not good.

[–] amanneedsamaid@sopuli.xyz 1 points 1 year ago

I agree with no proper replacement this will overall have a negative effect. I think the method race-based AA uses was very flawed.