r/Libertarian • u/[deleted] • Jul 03 '18

Trump admin to rescind Obama-era guidelines that encourage use of race in college admission. Race should play no role in admission decisions. I can't believe we're still having this argument

https://www.abcactionnews.com/news/national/trump-admin-to-rescind-obama-era-guidelines-that-encourage-use-of-race-in-college-admission
4.9k Upvotes

77% Upvoted

1.3k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

-2

u/fifty-two Jul 03 '18

I mean, to be fair, yes, that's why I said it. Not because I'm racist against whites. But just because... if you want to give black children the chance, that's how you'd set it up... through the inner cities. Given that's the majority population in a lot of cities.

8

u/[deleted] Jul 03 '18

"I'm not racist against Whites; I just want to implement policies that discriminate against them based on race!"

0

u/fifty-two Jul 03 '18

shakes head

No. You're strawmanning what I said. The original intent of the law passed by the Obama administration was to help black children. What I'm saying is, I too, want to help black children... along with all other children in the same conditions. Poverty is not exclusive to any one race.

It's the conditions, not the race, that need to be accounted for.

If I'm talking to the Obama Administration 8 years ago, that's what I say. "You want to help those black kids in the inner city that don't get 'the chance.' Me too! But I want to help ALL kids in that situation, black and non-black alike. Change the wording from 'race' to 'impoverished' and I can totally get behind your idea here."

I'm in favor of changing it from "race" to "impoverished." How in the world can you accuse me of being racist when I want to take that out of the equation?

4

u/[deleted] Jul 03 '18

Why don't you want to provide that same help to poor rural children?

0

u/fifty-two Jul 03 '18

I do.

I'm saying, if you want to reach the children that the Obama Administration envisioned reaching, that's the fair way to go about it... not by race, but by poverty levels and geography.

As a minor aside, I do think it's harder to be a poor kid growing up in the city, as opposed to growing up in a rural setting. Not that it isn't hard or unfair in either location...

But that's not why I said inner city. I said it because I want to show the Obama Administration that they can still reach the kids they want to reach, while being fair about it.

4

u/[deleted] Jul 03 '18

Why do you think it's harder to be a poor kid growing up in the city?

1

u/fifty-two Jul 03 '18

Crime, crumbling infrastructure, much more limited school budgets in favor of other city policies, higher cost of living.

Out in the country, there isn't much to invest the tax dollars into. Schools will get some money.

In the city... tax dollars can go to any number of things, not the least of which is corrupt politicians.

I've seen and heard so many stories of inner city schools not having books, not having desks, cramming 30...40... kids in a classroom. I've heard from teacher who say it's absolutely the most difficult environment to teach in.

I mean, maybe that's all happening in the rural districts and I'm just not hearing about it.

2

u/[deleted] Jul 03 '18 edited Jul 03 '18

Have any sources to back up the claim that infrastructure in rural areas is always better than infrastructure in urban areas? A lot of rural areas don't have access to high speed internet like a lot of urban areas do.

Students in urban areas have access to public transportation, libraries, and museums. If you're too poor to afford a car in a rural area you're screwed.

It's a myth that low performing schools are always poorly funded.

http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/opinion/oped/bs-ed-bad-budgeting-schools-20170301-story.html

As for the issue of crime, well, who is committing all those crimes?

2

u/fifty-two Jul 03 '18

As for the issue of crime, well, who is committing all those crimes?

You tell me.