The GOP’s war on racially diverse college campuses was never going to be confined to the party’s war on affirmative action.

  • DreamlandLividity@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    No, I just don’t think it is slippery slope when they say from start what they want to do. Slippery slope would apply if they pretended to do something and once they got it, then tried to move it again.

    It is just one of the clickbait definitions of slippery slope to call anything that is gradual slippery, so I kinda get it. Its just the media misusing words to generate controversy and outrage.

    For me, saying no discrimination either way (affirmitive or negative) and working towards it is normal. Saying you want religious freedom when they don’t allow teaching religious topics in schools and then when they get it trying to undermine real science and hang up commandments in classrooms. That is slippery slope that I am outraged about. I don’t want to water to words down by these clickbaits, hence my comment.

    • BarqsHasBite@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      This is not clickbait, this is what slippery slope is.

      Btw, at risk of you accusing me of changing the topic, they didn’t go after Legacy admissions. Legacy admissions is not the strongest candidate, or the best candidate. It’s the children of people who went there before, take a guess who benefits from that.

      For me, saying no discrimination either way (affirmitive or negative) and working towards it

      If you believe that you’ve been duped. Ever wonder why their public schools are in shambles?

      You should watch “Beau of the fifth column” on YouTube.

      • DreamlandLividity@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        Legacy admissions are some real BS. I guess it does not ring alarm bells in my head as immediately because its not obviously unconstitutional. But it is a rather nice roundabout way of discriminating. For any school that takes public funds, legacy admissions should be forbidden.

        • BarqsHasBite@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Guess which one is much, much larger.

          At its core, legacy admission is discrimination. We don’t have to twist ourselves into knots about legal definitions, we can all see that at its core it’s discrimination. (Or selective picking, if you’d rather use that term, that is not based on merit.) If the heart of this is fairness then why aren’t Republicans chasing after that?

          • DreamlandLividity@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            Yes, I agree. Or rather, I think favoritism is a better word. They prefer the children of their “friends” (alumni). Which is kind of ok as long as it is just their own money, not public funds. But with public funding, it is basically shameless embezelment.