FT 15.04 - Frémont Fair College Admissions Act of 2020 (TABLED)

[KoopaDaQuick 🇵🇸]

Frémont Fair College Admissions Act of 2020

AN ACT to ‘level the playing field’ in the admissions process for Frémont colleges by protecting applicants from being discriminated against on the sole basis of being a member of a ‘protected class’.

Section I (Title)
i. The long title of this act shall be, the “Frémont Fair College Admissions Act of 2020”. It may be cited as the “Affirmative Action Repeal Act”, or as “FFCAA”.

Section II (Definitions)
i. A protected class is defined as a group of people qualified for special protection from discrimination.
ii. In the context of this act, the following groups are classified as protected classes.
  a. Race
  b. Self-Identified Gender
  c. Sexual Orientation
  d. Income of Parents/Guardians
  e. Religion
iii. In the context of this act, ‘next-of-kin’ refers to all siblings, parents/guardians, grandparents, siblings of parents, and their children, as recognized by the Census Bureau.

Section III (Protections)
i. Any publicly funded college or university in the Commonwealth of Frémont is hereby banned from using status as a member of a protected class as a factor in admissions in any form whatsoever.
ii. Additionally, any publicly funded college or university in the Commonwealth of Frémont is hereby banned from:
  a. considering charitable donations from the applicant’s next-of-kin,
  b. considering the social status (fame) of the applicant, or
  c. considering the social status (fame) of the applicant’s next-of-kin in the admissions process.
ii. Failure to abide by this law shall result a fine not exceeding $25000 for any individuals involved in any form of discrimination in college admissions outlined in Section III.i and Section III.ii. If the university as a whole is involved the judgement and fine will be determined by the courts. The money in this fine from the university will be deducted from the next year's budget.
iii. A publicly funded university shall be defined as one where at least 20% of funding for the university comes from the government.
iv. Private universities shall not be affected by this law.
v. The process of granting academic and need-based scholarships shall not be affected or regulated by this act.

Sponsor: Oregon Blue Dog, MFP (Meadowlark—Labor, Oregon)

The gentleman from Oregon now has the floor to advocate.

[OBD]

Thank you, Speaker.

In recent months, we've seen attempts to reform the college admissions process in Lincoln and Nyman, with the former initiative succeeding - it's past time that Frémont considers this issue as well. This act aims to address the two primary issues with college admissions - the overusage of race as a factor, as well as the increased chances that wealthy benefactors have to get admitted. While the intentions of affirmative action may be honorable, there are superior methods to ensure all  Frémonters have equal opportunities - but not at the cost of others who may be more qualified. By protecting applicants from being discriminated against on the sole basis of race, gender identity, sexual orientation, income level, and religion, as well as stopping wealthy parents from effectively buying admission through 'charitable donations', we can at last make college admissions a fair and unbiased assessment of merit - the way it should be.

Yielding for response.

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

I agree that Frémont is long overdue for a serious discussion of the college admissions process, and as such I thank the honorable member for this bill.

I am sure we will all be in agreement that wealthy individuals should not be able to buy their way in over worthier applicants, though I worry the way this bill is currently phrased could be construed as to prohibit need-based financial aid. (In fairness, parliament moved to abolish tuition to public colleges in 2018, so I suppose that is somewhat of a moot point.) I would like to hear more about how exactly the member from Oregon feels race is an "overused" factor in college admissions, and especially whether he can provide any evidence to support the claim that affirmative action results in less-qualified applicants being admitted to our schools. I presume at some point we will need to discuss just what exactly makes a "qualified" applicant, but we'll cross that bridge when we get there.

[OBD]

I agree that Frémont is long overdue for a serious discussion of the college admissions process, and as such I thank the honorable member for this bill.

I am sure we will all be in agreement that wealthy individuals should not be able to buy their way in over worthier applicants, though I worry the way this bill is currently phrased could be construed as to prohibit need-based financial aid. (In fairness, parliament moved to abolish tuition to public colleges in 2018, so I suppose that is somewhat of a moot point.) I would like to hear more about how exactly the member from Oregon feels race is an "overused" factor in college admissions, and especially whether he can provide any evidence to support the claim that affirmative action results in less-qualified applicants being admitted to our schools. I presume at some point we will need to discuss just what exactly makes a "qualified" applicant, but we'll cross that bridge when we get there.

I think §3(v) will address your concerns about need-based financial aid, though as you said this might not be a major concern. I was previously unaware of the abolition of tuition (also, is the cost of room and board covered?), but I believe my bill will have no effect on these critical scholarships, nonetheless.

Regarding the rejection of "qualified" applicants, I think that this is a reasonable logical conclusion. Firstly, it's a given that certain people would have different admissions outcomes (admission or rejection) if affirmative action was never implemented - if this was false, affirmative action would never have become necessary. To illustrate the effects of affirmative action, let's look at a theoretical case.

Fréemont State University Admissions 1978 (without affirmative action)
Race A 43%
Race B 22%
Race C 15%
Race D 11%
Others 9%

Fréemont Racial Groups 1978
Race B 33%
Race A 30%
Race C 21%
Race D 6%
Others 10%

Fréemont State University Admissions 1979 (WITH affirmative action)
Race A 36% (-7%)
Race B 26% (+4%)
Race C 18% (+3%)
Race D 10% (-1%)
Others 10% (+1%)

Using the assumption that affirmative action can, and will affect admissions outcomes, we can generate a fictitious set of data that reflects the effects of affirmative action on a certain pool of applicants. Let's also assume "qualified" applicants are those who the university in question could plausibly admit, based on academic merit. It's reasonable to believe that, under affirmative action, underrepresented demographics (with a lower % of admittees than % of total regional population) would have more admittees than they would under a non-affirmative action program, and vice versa. Assuming that there are the same amount of applicants in both years, it's a logical conclusion that a significant chunk of the qualified applicants of Race A (who would be admitted without affirmative action, and thus are "qualified" to attend the university) will actually be rejected under an affirmative action program. Meanwhile, applicants of Race B, who were NOT admitted without affirmative action and thus seem to be less qualified (as other applicants would be admitted over them in a race-neutral admissions process), WERE admitted under affirmative action. While this is a theoretical, I believe that the numbers are an accurate representation of the effects of affirmative action on the composition of admitted classes, and the conclusions that can be drawn from said numbers are sound.


https://www.npr.org/sections/ed/2018/07/07/626500660/everything-that-s-going-on-with-race-ethnicity-and-school-admissions-right-now

Sadly, recent actual studies using similar methodology have been rare, as most Atlasian colleges use affirmative action. However, in an 2013 internal study conducted by Harvard University, Harvard found that admissions patterns with and without affirmative action reflected those in my above theoretical. They discovered that if their admissions officers looked solely at academic merit, 43% of their incoming class would be Asian-American - however, only 18.6% of their admitted class were Asian, meaning that 57% of Asians "qualified" to attend by academics would have been rejected, an alarmingly high number. While academics, even excluding race, are not the only important factor in admissions (for instance, community service and quality of essays are also very important considerations), the width of this discrepancy strongly implies that Asian-Americans are being discriminated against in large part due to affirmative action.

I'll be happy to further iterate this argument and mine for more data points if the MP from North Dakota believes the arguments I've laid out here are insufficiently backed by fact or logically flawed.

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

Will the member from Oregon accept, as a valid premise, that in a world without affirmative action or racism, the racial composition of the student body at any particular public college would broadly resemble the actual composition of the public at-large? So, to use your theoretical example, if Group  B accounts for one third of the overall population, they would also account for roughly one third of college students in a system where no racial bias exists?

Setting aside for the moment the question of the precise effect of affirmative action on the racial composition of student bodies, if "merit-only" admissions results in disproportionate representation of one or more racial group among students admitted to public colleges in Frémont than affirmative action, as in the case of your theoretical example, then it seems to me that merit is not the only factor at play here. If the member will humor me, I will submit that if your population looks like this:

Frémont Racial Groups 1978
Race B 33%
Race A 30%
Race C 21%
Race D 6%
Others 10%

and your student body looks like this:

Frémont State University Admissions 1978 (without affirmative action)
Race A 43%
Race B 22%
Race C 15%
Race D 11%
Others 9%

then there are only two valid conclusions: either applicants of Race A are disproportionately deserving of admission than applicants of other races, or "merit-only" admission in fact fails in its mission to select the most deserving applicants due to intentional or unintentional biases present in the system.

I cannot accept, nor do I believe the member from Oregon will agree, that applicants from non-A racial groups are inherently less capable than Group A. Therefore, if Group A constitutes a disproportionate share of admitted students, we must assume there is some racist bias inherent in the system resulting in meritorious non-A students are being passed over, and some corrective action is necessary.

[OBD]

I would agree that in a world where all races were treated equally, were of roughly equal wealth, and had roughly equal opportunities, that the racial composition of the collective student body of public institutions would closely match that of the general population. However, I'm sure the First Minister (apologies for referring to you as an MP earlier) understands that this is not the case.

I'll freely admit that there are problems with our current system that tend to disadvantage certain minority groups. There is a discrepancy between the education and resources available for rich white suburbanites from Mercer Island and poor, unemployed Hispanic farmers in El Centro. I'd wholeheartedly agree that a problem exists, but I strenuously disagree with the First Minister's characterization of the issue. In his rebuttal, he claimed that:

there are only two valid conclusions: either applicants of Race A are disproportionately deserving of admission than applicants of other races, or "merit-only" admission in fact fails in its mission to select the most deserving applicants due to intentional or unintentional biases present in the system.

I cannot accept, nor do I believe the member from Oregon will agree, that applicants from non-A racial groups are inherently less capable than Group A. Therefore, if Group A constitutes a disproportionate share of admitted students, we must assume there is some racist bias inherent in the system resulting in meritorious non-A students are being passed over, and some corrective action is necessary.

As mentioned earlier, it's very clear that there are unacceptable social constrictions that bar many minority groups from achieving more academically. This should be remedied, and I'd happily back a separate bill (or even an amendment to this one) that would allocate more funding to schooling in vulnerable communities. It's very true that all Frémonters, regardless of racial origin, are on the whole, inherently equal. My quarrel is that the First Minister implies that a college admissions process sans affirmative action would result in racial discrimination against minorities if any minority group was underrepresented relative to their population share. Regardless of inherent equality, it's fairly well-agreed upon that some minorities tend to perform better than others academically due to circumstances. While this is tragic and unfair, it's even more unfair to elevate someone with a somewhat inferior academic record over another prospective applicant with a better academic record who just happens to be a member of an overrepresented race. Spending money on education to boost the academic performance of underserved communities is one thing. Admitting members of these communities to competitive college programs based on the 'everyone's inherently intellectually equal' argument in spite of subpar performance relative to other applicants is a whole different story.

[OBD]

To reference my theoretical, while non-A racial members are indeed inherently equal to members of Race A, it's possible that many Race B residents live in poor farming neighborhoods due to redlining and the like, with the Fréemont government at the time not adequately funding their schools. As a result, academic performance of Race B students has consistently been lower than those of Race A students, resulting in a greater percentage of Race A students getting admitted to FSU. While the situation Race B students are forced into is unacceptable, admitting less qualified (in terms of academics, e.g. GPA, extracurriculars, etc.) Race B students over Race A students is unjustified racial discrimination, and is part of what this bill aims to combat. As I've stated in another thread, equality of opportunity for all races is a great thing, except when implementing it destroys opportunities for others. A better solution to bring true racial equality to Frémont is to go to the source - local schools - and fight the problem there with a mix of funding and specialized teaching efforts. Adding an overtly racist tinge to college admissions is not the solution, and I believe our colleagues in Lincoln and the South have recognized this.

[Former President tack50]

This is an outstanding bill and has my full support! Better than the Lincoln version in fact

[Continential]

This gets my full support!

[Sestak]

I'm sorry, what?

Parents' income as a protected class? You're seriously pushing to ban colleges from admitting students on the basis of lower income? All that does is erase the additional hardships faced by lower-income students, while wealthier parents can use their resources on expensive test prep courses, tutoring, etc. to game the system and leave lower income students in the dust.

Banning affirmative action is already a bad idea. Going this extreme is even worse and is quite simply a blatant attempt by those with ample resources to keep college exclusive to themselves. This bill is disgusting and deserves to go down in flames.

[OBD]

I'm sorry, what?

Parents' income as a protected class? You're seriously pushing to ban colleges from admitting students on the basis of lower income? All that does is erase the additional hardships faced by lower-income students, while wealthier parents can use their resources on expensive test prep courses, tutoring, etc. to game the system and leave lower income students in the dust.

Banning affirmative action is already a bad idea. Going this extreme is even worse and is quite simply a blatant attempt by those with ample resources to keep college exclusive to themselves. This bill is disgusting and deserves to go down in flames.

On the contrary, this act will protect lower-income students. Many institutions, in Frémont and Atlasia, have adopted need-blind admission as a way to ensure that all decisions will be made based on merit, not on the likelihood of the admittee being able to afford college.

Though, the fact that Frémont's public institutions are now free makes this more of a moot point, the fact is that discrimination involving the poor could go either way, and has done so historically. The fairest solution is to ensure that no discrimination based on wealth occurs.

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

Regardless of inherent equality, it's fairly well-agreed upon that some minorities tend to perform better than others academically due to circumstances. While this is tragic and unfair, it's even more unfair to elevate someone with a somewhat inferior academic record over another prospective applicant with a better academic record who just happens to be a member of an overrepresented race.

I am going to have to disagree. College admissions should be based on aptitude, right? If you have two applicants for one place in your freshman class, the spot should go to the student with the most potential. There's no way to directly measure intelligence or aptitude —so we use primary school performance (grades, test scores, etc.) as an approximation.

Smart white kids from wealth school districts aren't more deserving than smart black kids from poorer school districts —they have better scores. But scores aren't aptitude —they're an imperfect measure of past performance removed from its appropriate context. If I had to bet, I'd say that many of the applicants the member from Oregon describes as having a "somewhat inferior academic record" will work harder and perform better in a college setting than a student who aced the SAT thanks to an expensive tutoring service the former can't afford but has little motivation of their own. I'll say it again: college admissions should be based on a student's ability to perform in a college setting, and "merit-only" admission does not and cannot achieve this when segregation, redlining, and systemic racism has so thoroughly muddied the waters. You cannot use "height in feet" to determine who the tallest general is when a foot is 12 inches on one side of the channel and 14 inches on the other.

I cannot in good conscience vote to burn down the old house before we have built another. If the member from Oregon would like to elaborate as to what he would replace affirmative action with, I would be genuinely interested to listen. Until then, I must advise the parliament to vote against adoption of this well-intentioned but ill-considered measure.

[OBD]

While aptitude may be a flawed factor in some ways, using 'potential' in the college admissions process is even more sketchy and subjective. How do you define 'potential'? Does a student from a 'ghetto' neighborhood with a 2.7 GPA have more 'potential' then a student from a prosperous suburb with a 3.7 GPA? Yes, smart white kids aren't necessarily more deserving for admission than poor black kids. But how can we separate the kids with 'potential' from kids without it? You can't use grade scores and GPA, and the personal essay, which is likely the best indicator of 'potential', is a mediocre representation of the applicant at best. Using this system if we had a SPT (Standard Potential Test) would be more justified - but arbitrarily admitting underrepresented groups over those who actually have concrete numbers backing their argument for admission with the only deciding factor grounded in fact being race? That's irresponsible and clumsy. Our methods of determining intelligence may be mere approximations, but at least we can tell the rough academic capabilities of applicants. Determining their 'potential', on the other hand, is entirely in the metaphorical eye of the beholder, and no fair and objective college admissions process can possibly admit students based on such a metric tainted with opinion, and potentially racial bias. The First Minister asserts that college admissions should be based on a student's ability to perform in a college setting, and I agree with this assertion. I believe that academic measurements like GPA, extracurricular participation, and test scores (among others) are a concrete and accurate manner of determining whether a student is on par with this expectation. Using 'potential' as a means to near-arbitrarily admit students from certain communities, thus denying students with superior academic records admission, is inappropriate.

And, I take issue with the First Minister's characterization of how the wealthy prepare for college admissions. The assertion that these prospective admittees have acceptance letters handed to them on a silver platter is categorically false (with the exception of those whose parents donate obscene sums to guarantee admission - a problem addressed in full by this bill). To achieve good grades, test scores and academic standing, wealthy students have to work just as hard academically as those in poverty. Wealth and prosperity is not an elixir of intelligence - while wealthy students may have more resources on hand, they still have to work hard to reach academic success and recognition. It's untrue that an expensive tutoring service can magically give a client a perfect SAT (Rick Singer notwithstanding), and personal experience makes me highly offended by this analogy. Getting a perfect SAT (or frankly, a score anywhere above 1500) is an accomplishment that requires consistent academic dedication across years of schooling, even if your family is the richest on the planet. Yes, systematic segregation, redlining, and racism have handicapped many. But that doesn't mean we can portray the wealthy as being able to gain admission to competitive institutions with ease. Yes, they have advantages. But these advantages can only do so much. When it comes down to it, 90% of the work must be done by the student, no matter their race, income, hell, even intelligence level. Those who have proven themselves as hard workers in high school should be rewarded, not shunned because their last name is Martin, not Martinez. This brings up another point -poor Asian people and rich African-American people exist. I fear that the use of affirmative action - especially in the case of Asians - can lead to admissions officers rejecting applications out of hand because the applicant is Asian with test scores not 'becoming of that race'.

On the topic of our Asian-American community, I'd like to mention that they have suffered from systematic discrimination in our troubled history as well. We banned all immigration from China for eighty years. We gave them meager wages for dangerous work on the rail lines and in mines. And, we've treated them in the past with the same racism and disregard we've treated African-Americans and Hispanics. Yet, due to the general strength of Asian-American academics, colleges now have the green light to discriminate against them, too, under the guise of making class composition similar to that of the general population.

I do believe that the broken parts of our system need to be remedied. I do believe we need to elevate, not forsake our most vulnerable communities. And, I do believe it is our duty as the elected representatives of Frémont to find a solution to the racial division that has plagued our region and nation since the beginning. A funding program that delivers much-needed resources to the schools and institutions of vulnerable, historically discriminated-against communities would help level the playing field for all Frémonters and truly erase the stench of racial animus from college admissions, once and for all - and I'd like to say that I'd support such an initiative as a companion bill to this one. However, contrary to the beliefs of the First Minister, I believe that a college admissions doctrine that embraces racial discrimination rather than repudiating it is part of the problem, not a response to it. Thus, I hope my fellow MPs will join me in voting to pass this act and take the first step to creating a Frémont where the color of your skin doesn't determine the colleges where you get in.

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

I agree that we should not consider potential based on some undefined and etherial standard as the member from Oregon describes. That is why it is so fortunate that considerable data exists to suggest that "the beneficiaries of affirmative action do just as well academically, if not better, than other students." Extensive research performed in recent years confirms this thesis, with Scientific American concluding, "Affirmative action [...] increases the chances that students of color will be accepted to the schools that match their true ability level, despite test scores that are often depressed by taxing psychological environments."

Yes, white students in wealthy school districts work hard to earn perfect grades and SAT scores. It is simply disingenuous, however, to suggest that a minority student in an underserved, underfunded district has only to work just as hard to perform at the same level. It is the equivalent to running a race with a weight strapped to your back —and with all due respect, someone who has never experienced this disparity first hand is not in a position to judge how great their advantage is. I was raised on the periphery of a wealthy suburb of Indianapolis. Twenty minutes' drive in one direction, or thirty minutes' in another, and I will arrive either at a wealth suburban (predominately white) high school, or a poorer urban (predominately black) high school. The one has an award-winning band program financed by the private contributions of some of the wealthiest individuals in the state. The other has a band program whose instruments are literally falling apart because the district cannot afford to buy replacements. The one hires only the best teachers and directors, and their students benefit from weekly private instruction. The other is so stigmatized that a teacher cannot work there for more than three years without being permanently tainted by its reputation. The one is attended by students whose parents can afford to pay for additional tutoring, extra-curricular activities, and transport them to and from events around the city. The other is attended by students whose parents in some cases cannot even afford to pay their monthly utility bills, who cannot take their children to contests or events because they have to work and the district can't afford a late bus. The one has access to the best and most expensive services the state has to offer. The other can barely pay their teachers, with the result that classes are overcrowded. The one has state-of-the-art academic and athletic facilities. The other does not have air-conditioning, and some classes are taught in abandoned utility closets. You cannot tell me that students pursuing their education in these two environments are playing the same odds. I also had a 4.0 in high school and did well on standardized tests, so I take issue with your right to be offended on behalf of all well-advantaged, high-achieving students. The fact of the matter is that even students who work hard cannot create opportunities out of thin air. If getting an education were as simple as being motivated and working hard, we wouldn't need schools to begin with. Students can only perform well if given the opportunity to do so, and judging students as if they all came from the same background when we know this is not the case is in effect to ratify the effects of systemic racism in the 21st century.

[OBD]

I’ve been busy IRL, so I can’t make a full response to the First Minister tonight due to IRL responsibilities (I’m typing this on a phone), but I’d like to mention another point right now. Let’s say that a certain university has 1 remaining spot in a freshman class, and has three candidates for this spot:

Student A
White
Attended Catholic private school
GPA: 3.9
SAT: 1390
Parental Income: $138,000

Student B
African-American
Attended inner city public school
GPA: 3.1
SAT: 1170
Parental Income: $44,200

Student C
White
Attended public school in rural factory town
GPA: 3.2
SAT: 1160
Parental Income: $29,000

Under a fair system not taking race into account, Student A would almost certainly be admitted, with their academic record being far superior to the other two candidates. However, it is equally obvious who would be admitted under the current affirmative action system, if the university in question was aiming to balance racial composition. Not only is this unfair to Student A (for reasons mentioned earlier, which I will not reiterate here) but this also raises an important point - oftentimes, race does NOT define circumstances. Clearly, using the First Minister’s potential metric here, it’s very possible that Student C, who’s family has a lower income than Student B, had to go through more adversity to achieve a similar academic record to Student B. However, under affirmative action they would almost certainly be rejected, simply because they’re not black. For that matter, wealth often doesn’t define success/opportunity either. Let’s say that Student A’s mom had died in a car crash when they were 2, and that their wealthy father travels 90% of the year as he works in an international field. Student A (and possibly Student C) thus had to go through school alone without parental support, and may have had to contend with a learning disorder as well. On the other hand, it’s also possible that Student B’s parents, while poor, were very strict and nurturing, and gave them a support network Student A may not have nessecarily have. I fear that affirmative action too often disregards the factors above in the name of admitting certain minorities, and that affirmative action can disregard circumstantial difficulties as well. I’d like to share an anecdote that I’ve heard from a friend - an academically solid Asian student was rejected from her dream college because, put simply, they “didn’t need another Asian girl who was good at math”. It’s the system of picking and choosing students based on race that is exceptionally objectable, and it is in that spirit that I oppose affirmative action.

Also, does the gentlewoman from Iowa or the gentlemen from Washington and Guam have any additional comments or amendments to offer?

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

Yes, some white people are poor. This is the result of individual circumstances, and not systemic racism. This has not been addressed sufficiently —really at all —by the member from Oregon, who continues to speak as if racism were a thing that happened once, rather than part of the "software" as it were. Affirmative action exists to correct pervasive injustice that poisons our entire society, not to change individual outcomes.

[OBD]

Perhaps the poverty of white people is circumstantial. But, let's look at the story of another minority that has historically faced much adversity in this region and country - their tale is one of the more bitter and important ones in our region's history. They began emigrating to Frémont in the 1800s, fleeing social unrest in their home countries. At the time, the states that would eventually become Frémont were just developing, so they were forced into menial jobs with pay rates that would make any Frémonter have a coronary today. They worked in dangerous fields, such as mining precious resources. Eventually, we decided that we didn't want them anymore, instituted an 80-year travel ban, and made it extremely difficult for them to achieve citizenship despite their hard work and contributions. In Portland, we forced their communities out of our city center to develop it for whites in the early 20th century, and these redlining-like actions were repeated up and down the West Coast. During World War II, a subset of this minority was shipped off to concentration camps - a fate, I mention, that no African-American or Hispanic ever faced in this country. Even after the Civil Rights Act passed, they still faced localized discrimination. However, all this adversity and systematic discrimination never fazed our Asian-American population. They kept on working hard and believing in the American Dream, and today, some of our best and brightest come from this increasingly prosperous demographic. Our Asian population showed that it was possible to break out of our broken system if you worked hard (unless, of course, you believe that the Deep State was secretly helping Asians to use them as an example of a 'good minority') But, what do they get as a reward for this herculean feat? A fresh dose of discrimination courtesy of our university system.

Yes, affirmative action can be interpreted as correcting some of the injustices done against minorities for a small subset of the minority population (17-18 year old college applicants). But it also represents, frankly, a spit-in-the-face to the one minority that was lucky enough and hard-working enough to actually find a degree of success. The fact that colleges can dismiss any applicant with an Asian-sounding last name - even members of minorities, like the Lao, who are actually just as poor and disadvantaged as Latinos and African-Americans - is unacceptable. You can't solve historical systematic racism against African-Americans, Latinos, Native Americans, and Asian-Americans by endorsing systematic racism against whites and Asian-Americans. Two wrongs does not make a right.

That said, I will reiterate that I am willing to work with the First Minister and my fellow MPs to erase the imbalance between the races in Frémont. I have some ideas as to how we can take steps towards a society where the color of your skin has no bearing on what your options and opportunities are in life - we could intervene in struggling communities by bringing equity to institutional funding, for instance. But, the key difference here is that these policies won't hurt any groups for the wrongs their ancestors did or didn't do to Frémont's minority population. To eliminate racial disadvantage as the government of Frémont, we must lead by example - by removing this very racist program from our lawbooks for good.

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

It is an eloquent appeal. Unfortunately, and to its ultimate detriment, it ignores practically everything that has hitherto been said in opposition to this policy, and crucially this key point —which I will repeal again for the benefit of the house —affirmative action exists to correct systemic racism, but the member from Oregon continues to speak as if racism were a thing that happened once, rather than part of the fabric of our present day. You speak of wrongs committed tens or hundreds of years ago, and it seems as if you really do believe that affirmative action is a reward for surviving history —some kind of indirect reparations for the crimes of slavery and Jim Crow. This is simply not the case. We continue to take affirmative action because the systems we live with now continue to enforce racism in the twenty-first century. To claim that affirmative action is somehow racist against whites by refusing to honor the ill-gotten gains of four centuries of discrimination is ignorant not only of the history of race in this country, but of what racism actually is and how it manifests itself in the modern era.

Your tribute to the prosperity of Asian Atlasians —whom you describe as having "showed that it was possible to break out of our broken system if you worked hard" —is frankly disturbing for its (what I am sure are unintentional) racist undertones and speaks to the heart of our disagreement. I am not sure where to begin in addressing the historical ignorance that underwrites the entire piece. You state, for example, that Asian Atlasians were "shipped off to concentration camps" —which is of course true. Had you stopped there, it would have been a valid enough observation; but you then go on to say that this was "a fate, I mention, that no African-American or Hispanic ever faced in this country." You do realize people of African descent were enslaved for centuries, right? Japanese Internment was an unconscionable and racist chapter in our history that in no way equals the horrors of the Atlantic slave trade, two hundred fifty years of bondage, the Klan, Jim Crow, and ongoing efforts to segregate and disenfranchise African Atlasians. I do not deny that Asian Atlasians have faced enormous obstacles and overcome incredible odds to reach the present day. To suggest that these obstacles were as significant, or more so, than slavery is disingenuous at best.

More concerning still, you over and over again state that Asian Atlasians have worked hard and shown that it is possible to beat the system. I do not believe this is because you would suggest that other minorities continue to experience the effects of poverty, redlining, and racist structures because they were somehow lazier than our Asian Atlasian population. If as you say, Asian Atlasians have beaten the system, then it is certainly less than honest to compare their position to that of African Atlasians or Latinos. While I will not deny that many Asian Atlasians continue to endure race-based discrimination in this country, to suggest their experience is at all comparable to that of African Atlasians is flatly ignorant of how that experience is unique.

The member states that affirmative action punishes white and Asian Atlasians for racist crimes "their ancestors did or didn't do." He ignores, again, that —I repeat myself —ffirmative action exists to correct pervasive injustice that poisons our entire society, not to change individual outcomes. The key phrase here being "pervasive, not individual." The racist structures I am discussing were not merely created by evil people a long time ago; they continue to exist in the present, sustained by the very forward motion of the society they created —often, I will grant, without the conscious knowledge of those who benefit from them. This is a present tense problem, not a past tense problem, and it cannot be ignored simply because my or your ancestors did not own slaves.

Just as importantly, the member speaks of affirmative action as affecting only minorities of seventeen to eighteen years of age —but we both know this is not so. The entire reason a college education is so coveted, the entire reason this debate excites such interest among the population, is that a college degree in the modern day —for good or for ill —is virtually a prerequisite to future success and prosperity in adulthood. We have chosen to address racism in academia because it directly contributes to the tremendous odds that face any disenfranchised minority attempting to climb out of poverty. The abolitionists knew this when they created the Freedmen's Bureau to educate former slaves after the Civil War. The segregationists knew it when they passed laws to enshrine the principle of "separate but equal" in the classroom. So long as higher education remains a ticket out of poverty to professional success, we may not in good faith speak of it as only effecting those who are currently enrolled in or applying for college.

I am perfectly happy to work with the honorable member to reform the college admissions process, which he has correctly observed to be corrupt, byzantine, and without regard for the interests of our students. I am likewise happy to entertain any proposal he may submit for addressing the legacy of racism in our academic institutions, at which time we may discuss when and how to work toward phasing our affirmative action. I will not, however, consent to burn down the barn to get rid of an infestation of rats.

[Continential]

I will withdraw my support of this bill.

[lfromnj]

Can yall also debate the gender aspects of the bill?
The largest benefactors are white women who are already the most represented  group.

[Former President tack50]

And so, Truman wins yet another battle in his personal fiefdom Fremont

[lfromnj]

Also what's the end goal of affirmative action? More URMs in schools or more graduation? By selectively pushing worse performing students to colleges we effectively waste public funding for colleges with every student who fails.

[OBD]

The First Minister makes compelling points, and for the record, I'd like to offer an apology for mischaracterizing the 'concentration camp' analogy. That was definitely an inappropriate oversight on my part.

My quarrel with affirmative action is that it, at least to me, does not seem to be the right way to correct modern racism. I actually do recognize that there is severe, regionwide disadvantages for people of color across all fields of society, and I will reiterate that I desire, along with the First Minister and Parliament, to see this disparity corrected. I recently introduced an act that would create an experimental UBI-like program in a poor, majority-minority county to see if direct financial aid to those disadvantaged by racial profiling could potentially improve the balance between the races. I'd also back other initiatives, like bringing much-needed but absent funding to inner-city schools, or a legislative amendment that erases policies that encourage racial discrimination from the lawbooks. All these programs benefit minorities, but also have the advantage of not hurting other groups. Affirmative action, while giving more minorities opportunities to get a well-paying job and break out of their malaise, can also prevent other groups from doing the same. I don't want to support this 'zero-sum' system where the benefits of one can directly alter the trajectory of another in a negative manner. And, there is evidence that academic mismatch is a real phenomenon. You mentioned earlier how students admitted through affirmative action perform just as well in university, but there's also evidence suggesting that they can still suffer from academic mismatch (https://www.aei.org/carpe-diem/the-downside-of-affirmative-action-academic-mismatch/). It may be better for them to go to a college (whether a lesser state school or a community college) that they're better qualified for. And, as I've said earlier, I don't believe fixing systematic racism with systematic racism is a good look, or the best possible solution.

In the spirit of compromise, I ask the First Minister (and for that matter, my fellow MPs as well) what metaphorical rat poison he would use to fix our broken college admissions system, whether it be by cleaning up this bill with amendments or by finding a way to keep opportunities for African-Atlasians and Hispanics to get into top-tier public institutions while also remedying the stunningly unfair cards Asians have been dealt recently in this process. I haven't really heard a concrete compromise proposal from the other side thus far, but I'm eager to see what such a proposal would look like.

[OBD]

Frémont Fair College Admissions Act of 2020

AN ACT to ‘level the playing field’ in the admissions process for Frémont colleges by protecting applicants from being discriminated against on the sole basis of being a member of a ‘protected class’.

Section I (Title)
i. The long title of this act shall be, the “Frémont Fair College Admissions Act of 2020”. It may be cited as the “Affirmative Action Repeal Act”, or as “FFCAA”.

Section II (Definitions)
i. A protected class is defined as a group of people qualified for special protection from discrimination.
ii. In the context of this act, the following groups are classified as protected classes.
  a. Race
  b. Self-Identified Gender
  c. Sexual Orientation
 d. Income of Parents/Guardians
  ed. Religion
iii. In the context of this act, ‘next-of-kin’ refers to all siblings, parents/guardians, grandparents, siblings of parents, and their children, as recognized by the Census Bureau.

Section III (Protections)
i. Any publicly funded college or university in the Commonwealth of Frémont is hereby banned from using status as a member of a protected class as a factor in admissions in any form whatsoever.
ii. Additionally, any publicly funded college or university in the Commonwealth of Frémont is hereby banned from:
  a. considering charitable donations from the applicant’s next-of-kin,
  b. considering the social status (fame) of the applicant, or
  c. considering the social status (fame) of the applicant’s next-of-kin in the admissions process.
ii. Failure to abide by this law shall result a fine not exceeding $25000 for any individuals involved in any form of discrimination in college admissions outlined in Section III.i and Section III.ii. If the university as a whole is involved the judgement and fine will be determined by the courts. The money in this fine from the university will be deducted from the next year's budget.
iii. A publicly funded university shall be defined as one where at least 20% of funding for the university comes from the government.
iv. Private universities shall not be affected by this law.
v. The process of granting academic and need-based scholarships shall not be affected or regulated by this act.

Proposing an amendment for this act, as that clause is just adding another layer of controversy to an already controversial bill.

[KoopaDaQuick 🇵🇸]

Okay. Initially, I was in support of this act and banning affirmative action. However, after looking at the debate that has sparked across Atlasia in regards to this issue, I cannot deny that affirmative action has a right and reason. As someone who is a transgender gal, and as someone whose boyfriend is an African-American African-Atlasian trans guy, I think it's important for me to understand that within our society, there are certain groups of people who are privileged in life. As someone who is white, and presents as male in real life due to still being in the closet, I receive certain benefits in life that someone who society sees as a woman and/or a person of color may not receive. This also applies to applying for higher education. African-Atlasians, who tend to grow up in lower-income neighborhoods due mostly to systemic oppression that still lingers within our culture, generally tend to have a worse shot at achieving the higher education that they desire. You can try and pretend that we've already fixed racism, or misogyny, or homophobia, or transphobia/enbyphobia, while in reality we are far from done. Until we somehow find a way to be certain that certain minority groups are no longer oppressed, we will still need AA to help level the playing field for those who need it.