This is an alt-right piece of shit parodying "left wing" talking points so that other right wing assholes can point to tweets life this as an example of how "the left" thinks.
I'm not sure if she did or not... but at the same time there's a weird irony that her statement contains a kernel of truth when looked at from certain perspectives.
It is not an unknown or unheard of concept that those of colored skin, by various factors, always are "forced" to start further behind the starting line than others, and then when they still manage to succeed that success comes with penalties because you are not seen as "one of those who are jumping through the hoops"
Studies have shown that many who are of a 'discriminatory group' ((in any definition, not just skin color but also gender, disability and the like)) are indeed overlooked for more "majoritive" based candidates. This isn't unknown
However as early as the 1980s people have used "reverse descrimination" to continue to put down these groups just by making things "just easy enough to apply but hard to get in" the wage gap between genders is a good example.
Theres also the belief that affirmative action allows certain institutions ((mostly those passing out grants and scholarships)) to lessen the cost by granting a scholarship to a lower rate student that will likely drop out and pay for fewer semesters than one who would use the money and graduate.
On the flip side, by enforcing the concept of a standardized educational system we have already sown the seeds for the destruction of anything beneficial that affirmative action could give. It's nothing perfect but it was a good foundation for something that could become what we needed.
However affirmative action calls that you don't use aptitude tests to descriminate against minorities in all forms ((the first instance of this was the executive order by LBJ to stop tests being used to auto fail blacks back in the 1960s)) yet standardized testing is exactly that. An aptitude test that is now used by universities as a guide for who to enroll and who not to.
Regardless of the comments that one can make. This isn't good no matter what way the pendulum swings.
I can only hope it makes a better program than what had been made back then.
Hasn't the wage gap case been debunked several times? Women on average tend to work at lower paying jobs and are more likely to take up maternity leaves and stuff which makes the overall wage gap look worse than it is.
This is an alt-right piece of shit parodying "left wing" talking points so that other right wing assholes can point to tweets life this as an example of how "the left" thinks.
Don't be fooled by these assholes.
I'm not sure if she did or not... but at the same time there's a weird irony that her statement contains a kernel of truth when looked at from certain perspectives.
It is not an unknown or unheard of concept that those of colored skin, by various factors, always are "forced" to start further behind the starting line than others, and then when they still manage to succeed that success comes with penalties because you are not seen as "one of those who are jumping through the hoops"
Studies have shown that many who are of a 'discriminatory group' ((in any definition, not just skin color but also gender, disability and the like)) are indeed overlooked for more "majoritive" based candidates. This isn't unknown
However as early as the 1980s people have used "reverse descrimination" to continue to put down these groups just by making things "just easy enough to apply but hard to get in" the wage gap between genders is a good example.
Theres also the belief that affirmative action allows certain institutions ((mostly those passing out grants and scholarships)) to lessen the cost by granting a scholarship to a lower rate student that will likely drop out and pay for fewer semesters than one who would use the money and graduate.
On the flip side, by enforcing the concept of a standardized educational system we have already sown the seeds for the destruction of anything beneficial that affirmative action could give. It's nothing perfect but it was a good foundation for something that could become what we needed.
However affirmative action calls that you don't use aptitude tests to descriminate against minorities in all forms ((the first instance of this was the executive order by LBJ to stop tests being used to auto fail blacks back in the 1960s)) yet standardized testing is exactly that. An aptitude test that is now used by universities as a guide for who to enroll and who not to.
Regardless of the comments that one can make. This isn't good no matter what way the pendulum swings.
I can only hope it makes a better program than what had been made back then.
Hasn't the wage gap case been debunked several times? Women on average tend to work at lower paying jobs and are more likely to take up maternity leaves and stuff which makes the overall wage gap look worse than it is.