• frozen@lemmy.frozeninferno.xyz
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    1 year ago

    Yesterday they made higher education less accessible to non-whites, today they made it harder for the poor…

    I wonder if there’s a pattern here.

    • amanneedsamaid@sopuli.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Yes, higher education is now less accessible to non-whites. Which is good, because affirmative action was never a fair solution to the issue and was simply unfair in principle imo. We shouldn’t raise the eligibility of people based on their race, college admissions and race should have nothing to do with one another. Class-based affirmative action actually makes sense instead of deciding off race.

      • SeaJ@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        We have class based affirmative action. Rich people buy their kids into school all the time.

      • withdrawn@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 year ago

        Yes, higher education is now less accessible to non-whites. Which is good,

        Jesus H. Christ. Either stop being a racist or learn to organize your thoughts.

        • whatsarefoogee@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          1 year ago

          You literally cut his quote in the middle of the sentence. He says its good specifically because it was not a result of fair treatment, right after you cut him off.

          The world is upside down when you can someone saying “it’s unfair to judge people by race” a racist.

          • withdrawn@lemmy.world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

            I think you can call someone saying “it’s unfair to judge people by race” a racist when they’re using that line to applaud the removal of protections against institutional racism. We can argue the merits of AA as a form of protection, but it was protection nonetheless. To say that it was unfair is to entirely ignore the unfairness which necessitated its existence.

          • withdrawn@lemmy.world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

            How was it not? How is non-whites having less access good?

            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
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              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
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                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
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  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.

    • mcc@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      Why does this make it harder for the poor to access higher education? A debt forgiveness will make current debtors less burdened but will probably make it more expensive for new applicants. Isn’t it the other way around?

      • Matt@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 year ago

        Chances are loan forgiveness would push a conversation regarding tuition fees in general, and would ultimately make university free / affordable instead.

        Maybe.

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

            Well, around 20 states right now offer free community college if you’re a resident through first/last dollar programs. Meaning, they will cover the costs after any other financial aid. Other qualifications vary.

            Some States schools offer debt relief if you hold a regional residency for X-years (usually 5) after graduation. So for example, if there’s an area of a State that needs more investment (like Upstate NY versus Downstate), these programs are designed to increase GDP and strengthen the talent pool.

            Of course, you can get a tuition waiver in like half the states if you’re over 60. 🙄

            I’m not saying any of this is ideal by any stretch if the imagination. Just saying there’s some headway here and there in terms of precedent for tuition-free college education.

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

    Friendly reminder Biden lost the battle but he hasn’t lost the war. He is currently working out an income related savings plan and doing a hail mary long shot roundabout come in the back door play using the Authority he has from the Higher Education Act to create debt forgiveness regulation. He’s still out there trying, though anything through the Dept of Education will take a while because of how policy works there.

  • Kururin@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    Unless the dems take back court we would be all living through a nightmare.

    • Hot Saucerman@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Maybe Hilldawg could have campaigned in Wisconsin or taken seriously that even if she won the popular vote, that the Electoral College actually mattered.

      Reminder, she did win the popular vote. The majority did vote for her.

      Or maybe Obama could have kept his campaign promise that codifying Roe vs. Wade in law was his first order of business.

      But sure, it’s our fault, Hilldawg, because we didn’t vote hard enough.

      • Pacifist@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        I fail to see why you’re turning this around on her. She simply stated a fact that became reality.

        • Ado@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          This happens every election cycle. We do our job by electing them. They are privy to what will happen and fail to act when they have the power to do so. Who else do we blame? The universe?

          • Pacifist@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            If Hillary were president instead of Trump we wouldn’t see this stacked court.

            That has nothing to do with Obama’s promise or whatever.

            • Hot Saucerman@lemmy.ml
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              It has everything to do with Obama’s promise. By not following through on his promise to legislate it into law, the opportunity to reverse the previous court decision was always a thing that could happen. Acting like them not taking the opportunity when they had it means its the fault of the voting public is pure bullshit.

              Instead, Obama used his political capital to pass Romneycare, which while it helped a lot of poor people, has made the insurance market even worse for many, who still have insurance that they can’t afford to actually use.

    • Hot Saucerman@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Downvoted by people who refuse to look at when Democrats make stupid decisions that fuck us.

      I thought Lemmy was supposed to be full of tankies, not milquetoast centrist capitalist apologists…

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

      If there is a minimum age in government, there needs to be a maximum. I’m over these 70 year olds running things.

  • klieg2323@lemmy.piperservers.net
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 year ago

    My “favorite” part of the majority ruling is how the loan forgiveness was struck down because it would harm the loan servicers. Not the government, not the people, the companies that have been contracted to collect the loans. That’s who SCOTUS is most concerned with. Should tell us everything we need to know about who’s interests are most important - capitalists

    • Hot Saucerman@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Not only did they admit that MOHELA didn’t have standing, MOHELA itself said this wouldn’t impact them and they didn’t ask to be part of the case.

      Funny how it turns out that standing doesn’t matter when they don’t want it to.

      Kinda similar to the other case they dropped this morning, allowing LGBT discrimination… despite the fact that it turns out that no gay person ever actually asked this bakery to make them a website for their wedding. When contacted, the man who purportedly sent the email claimed he never sent it and has been married to a woman for years. They don’t even give a shit if it’s made up they will sign off on it.

  • ramblechat@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 year ago

    I don’t have kids but am perfectly happy to pay more tax to make education free or cheaper. How can anyone argue that a less educated society is better? The more people that can experience higher education is plainly a good thing. There could be someone out there who could make a medical or technological breakthrough but doesn’t get the chance because they can’t afford to go to college.

    • Lev_Astov@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      I think the main argument is that this isn’t the way to go about that. The universities are totally out of control and need to be forced to curb their spending to make things more affordable before we just start handing them public funding like this.

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

        need to be forced to curb their spending to make things more affordable

        How? Students are choosing more expensive places. The market is driving this.

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

        Well I think this move is only going to hurt people in the short run, it was just asking for further dive in a recession, I do agree with this sentiment of it.

        Tuition prices are absolutely insane. Colleges and universities are spending money on ridiculous nonsense, and that needs to be reigned in severely before Just throwing billions more taxpayer dollars at them.

        That said, these funds weren’t going to the universities. They were going to the banks, so cutting this off isn’t going to influence tuition rates in any way.

      • KairuByte@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 year ago

        I don’t really think anyone in the government has a good solution for this, do they?

        Remove the available money? Only the rich go to college. Add more money? The prices go up.

        You could try regulating it, but then you just get colleges that refuse to accept government money, while simultaneously asking for the same amount.

        I’m sure someone has a solution that would work, but it’s not anyone with the power to implement it, that’s for sure.

        • freo3579@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          just make public universities cheaper, private sector will feel the competition and lower prices.

          • KairuByte@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            I honestly don’t think so. Private universities are already more expensive, why would they care if that gap widened more?

  • Randy_Bobandy@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    Who here still thinks republicans should be allowed to vote and hold elected office and write and pass laws?

    Show of hands?

    Great, everyone who raised their hand deserves this shit. Everyone wants to hate on Republicans, but when it comes to the voting booth, everyone defends them to the death. Well this is what you get. But DeMoCrAcY is more important than anything and everything, right?

    • stown@sedd.it
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 year ago

      Come on, you play right into their bullshit propaganda with that message. If they go low we don’t stoop to their level. We do not win elections by removing voting rights for those we disagree with - that is an authoritarian tactic.

      • Adlach@lemmygrad.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 year ago

        “sure, we let fascism run rampant over society, but that was the respectable thing to do”

      • BunkerBusterKeaton@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        there isn’t really any ‘nobility’ in ‘taking the high road’ while marginalized communities continue to get owned and killed. Trans kids are being targeted, women are being targeted, BIPOC are being targeted.

        what good is civility? authoritarian leftism is the only way to get results

    • zombuey@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      most of what’s happening in todays world is not a W for capitalism. Modern conservative thoughts on capitalism have long abandoned the necessary regulation of free markets we enforced for 2 centuries. capitalism only works if markets continually divide winners at the top. If you don’t bust monopolies then capitalism begins to rapidly break down. We’ve known that for a long time and only recently stopped. You lose all the benefits of capitalism without that feature. What we have in America isn’t capitalism really at all anymore. This whole concept that the government has no role in capitalism and free markets will always correct themselves is a myth and we’ve known that since before America. John Locke knew that he was a tax collector for the english crown.

  • SpaceBar@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    Vote! Encourage those around you to vote. Help drive someone to the polls. If you know a young person who’s never voted, get them to vote.

    Don’t care who they vote for, just get them to the ballot box.

    The more people vote, the better things turn out for the majority.

  • derf82@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    A very poor application of standing doctrine. Kagan cuts right to the heart of it when she asks “Where is MOHELA” as well as if anyone honestly thinks Missouri is there over MOHELA losing some fees. Heck, MOHELA wanted nothing to do with the suit and that the payments Missouri claimed MOHELA made back actually were never paid.

    Then the recurrence of the “major questions doctrine,” this invented idea that lets them throw out the plain text when they disagree.

    That said, I did disagree with the plan. It was poorly targeted, hitting wealthier grads that still had loans, while ignoring poor people that never went in the first place, or were frugal and had limited loans. As someone that saw the Great Recession hit just after graduation, I wonder where my relief was from that emergency, as my lifetime earning took a massive hit, all while still having to pay my loans, with not so much as a payment pause or interest forbearance. To me, it was a thinly veiled attempt to buy votes for the midterm. Had it any other goal, Biden wouldn’t have waited so long.