Do you consider yourself more left or right wing?

[sc94597]

curl-6 said:

sc94597 said:

If people still find other ways to not hire people on the basis of race (and they do to this very day, this is a fact) then yes there is a lack of opportunity. 

If people are unbanked on the basis of the ethnic group they were born in, then yes there is a lack of opportunity. This happens today. 

If people live in a food desert because of the racial group they were born in, then yes there is a reduction in opportunity. 

If a person starts out it a worse school district because they were born in a segregated location (and yes American cities, especially in the North, are still very much segregated) then yes there is a lack of opportunity.  

Racial quotas were banned in the 1970's in the U.S.

Positive discrimination/Affirmative Action (until last year) in the U.S had very little to do with racial quotas and much more to do with assessing what a person has done with the opportunities they had available to them on the basis of various socioeconomic factors, including race and gender but also things like zip code, familial education background, and familial income. 

If access to education is the issue, then the solution is better funding for schools.

Food deserts are a tricky one cos in very poor areas (regardless of race) there's the risk that shoplifting due to said poverty could discourage supermarkets and the like.

Unbanking isn't something I'm particularly familiar with, but that would fall under the basic principle of that people should be treated equally, same as hiring. How best to realistically achieve this I can't say; if I had all the answers for solving inequality I wouldn't be spending my day on a niche video game forum.

Many poor-performing districts already get better state and federal funding on a per student basis than high-performing districts. The problem is that it can cost more to educate a student in a low SES district than it does in a high SES district because they often have more needs/deficits and fewer resources outside of school. 

How do you fundamentally see this as different from affirmative action? Is the major difference that it isn't explicitly racial and it applies to a group (the district) and not an individual as a member of said group? 

Underlying any of these policy change recommendations is the fact that white-americans want segregation because they think it benefits them, so it isn't clear to me that they'd support increased public funding to mostly non-white districts systematically. The main advantage of integration/desegregation is that the racial aspect is de-emphasized because you have a decent proportion of white and non-white students mutually in the district and the parents have to be invested in the education standards of non-white children in the same district as their white children. 

One solution to unbanking is to bring back postal banking