This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.
Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.
We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:
-
Shaming.
-
Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.
-
Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.
-
Recruiting for a cause.
-
Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.
In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:
-
Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.
-
Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.
-
Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.
-
Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.
On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
The most likely reason for that is they came up with ways around the ban.
The percentage of Asian students kept climbing at places like UCB, but white enrolment is essentially the same as it was before prop 209 passed in ‘96. All the data is publicly available.
According to the interactive graph at kidsdata.org, the proportion of young (<18 years old) white persons in California has fallen from 40% in 1995 to 28% in 2010, and still remains under 30% as of 2021. The percentage for Asian increased slightly from 2000 to 2021. Latino went from 41% to 51% from 1995 to 2010. Perhaps it's partially a flight from white as @jeroboam suggested, but likely it's mostly just the Great Replacement doing its thang.
So if percentage of enrolled students at UCB being white is "essentially the same" in 1995 as it is now, that does imply affirmative action was disadvantaging whites prior to the 1998 admission class (first class in which the ban went into effect).
This graph, for UCLA, also suggests affirmative action disadvantaging both whites and Asians. In the first admission year after the affirmative action ban went into effect (1998), the percentage of UCLA acceptances that went to whites increased from about 29% to 31%, and the percentage of acceptances that went to Asians went from 37% to 40%. Latino decreased from 20% to 10%, and black from 7% to 3%.
However, one can Notice that the percentage of Unknowns going way up from 1995 to 1998 (from 6% to 15.5% or so), before decreasing thereafter. Possibly, with affirmative action in the spotlight in California, due to Asians and white applicants going "oh shit" and selecting "Unknown" or "Prefer not to disclose" on their applications. Adjusting for this, the percentage white increases from about 31% to 37% from 1995 to 1998, and Asians 39% to 47%. Latinos decrease from 21% to 12%, and blacks 7% to 4%.
This reinforces my earlier recollection that the affirmative action ban led to UCB and UCLA white and Asian numbers spiking up, and latino and black numbers going down, the effects receding only slightly in the years thereafter. It does however look like, at least for blacks, UCLA found some way to increasingly put their thumbs on the scale starting around 2005.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link