I can't really understand what you're saying there. There are actively racist institutions now, their systemic racism is affecting people today, and they are continually pushing for more racism. The racists are becoming more emboldened and blatant -- look at California prop 16, there was a push to explicitly repeal the constitutional prohibition against racial discrimination! And it was only narrowly defeated! Does that not ring any alarm bells with you?

I oppose all racism. "Oh but we can just be racist in this case because..." - nope. Doesn't cut it for me. Racism is non-negotiable. Racism can never be a tool for improving anything, because it hurts the individual in in unjust way, that's the problem with it. "It's fine Asians are privileged they can easily get into college" doesn't help the Asian kid from the poor family who came as a refugee, didn't speak English and was picked on at school for not fitting in.

I have no problem with institutions giving consideration to people who have experienced certain disadvantage. The income their parents made, for example. And if that consideration turns out to benefit some races more than others that's perfectly fine. "We have too many Asians at our college, increase the cutoff for them" is just disgusting vile discrimination though. I don't care what justifications I hear, what gaslighting, or how much people falsely accuse me of being the racist, I will never accept or agree with that.

I know some people think they can use racism "for good" as it were (isn't that always the story?). They need to own it though. Rather than accuse other people of being racist for opposing their racism, if they believe racism is the best tool for the job they should just be honest and admit it.

> I have no problem with institutions giving consideration to people who have experienced certain disadvantage. The income their parents made, for example

Just wanted to note that this is partly why the SAT was stopped from being used at MIT and other universities - because it tend to score lower for people who are considered to be under disadvantage. In other words, I'm not sure that this approach necessarily leads to a more positive outcome.

Edit: Looks like HN resolve this and it's ranked properly now (no offense meant to the OP).

Here's a hint. The real anti-racists are the people who are against actual racism. The people who are instituting racist policies and trying to repeal constitutional prohibitions against racism are not anti-racists. They're the opposite.

Hint, Thanks to Critical Race theory your children will learn to think about race in a way that has been accepted by academics for a long time and eventually we'll make a lot more progress since we won't waste time with parrots like you. Goodbye.

We've banned this account for egregiously breaking the site guidelines. You can't do that here, regardless of how right you are or feel you are.

If you don't want to be banned, you're welcome to email [email protected] and give us reason to believe that you'll follow the rules in the future. They're here: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html.

Bye, get well soon.

You also broke the site guidelines badly in this thread. We ban accounts that do that, regardless of how bad someone else's comments are or you feel they are. We had to warn you about this once already: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29085513.

I'm not going to ban you right now because you've also posted good comments on unrelated things, but if this pattern continues, we're going to have to, so please review https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and stick to the rules from now on.

I'm trying to understand how Scantron can be racist. It does not know the identity, race, demographic or the economic class of the test taker. It literally just scans the test takers responses and scores it based on a preset solution. You are not given extra time because of your demographic nor are certain demographics punished or given extra points, everybody has access to the same learning resources, and one can take mock exams in preparation based on previous Scantron exams. The test producers do not know the race, demographic of the test taker or think about race when creating exam questions. They write questions to filter out those who demonstrate the best aptitude. Do you feel that this is unfair? What alternative do you forsee that could measure the aptitude of the test takers? Is this attitude limited only to academia or does it apply to professional sports? Do you think knowledge of game theory and physics should be an important part of aptitude tests for atheletes? Should pianists be subject to athletic requirements to measure their aptitude to enter Carnegie Hall?

I don't know if this is the case, but presumably the questions themselves could advantage or disadvantage people from a particular background.

Are you saying you support racial discrimination?