Of course we all want this to be true, but the fact that individuals and companies are folding to twitter mobs mean there is real power; and why would people with power want to give it up
For me personally, the phrase "anti-gay group" muddies the waters because although Salvation Army (1) does (or did) have some anti-gay policies, and (2) is a "group", its main purpose is to be a food or shelter charity; not to pursue the disenfranchisement of gays through say, political compaigning.
To illustrate, I might refer to an organization under religion X as an "anti-women religious group" because perhaps religion X had some policy on women's activites that I believed were sexist; then for me "anti-women religious group" would be a technically correct phrase in that X is "anti-women" and "a religious group", but the phrasing would probably be objectionable to practitioners of the religion who don't see those particular policies as fundamental to their religion, and perhaps didn't even consider the policies sexist in the first place.
In general, I don't think I often see this loose use of terminology applied to other cases; like I don't think people call Nike a pro-child-labor company, although if that were the topic of discussion I might say Nike uses child labor. To me it's about avoiding ambiguity.
I think there’s plenty of nuance here. Taking your position consistently, would you be comfortable referring to any christian X as “anti-gay X” or any muslim Y as “anti-women Y”? I think the label would be out of place in most cases, and needlessly divisive.
I think there's a real possibility that the new Google employees and their kids would "make" the schools in their Kansas town better, through a bunch of different mechanisms. I live in an excellent school district in the rural middle of nowhere, and it's 100% because of the large state university that happens to be here.
In the long term for sure, but for individual families considering to relocate they're looking at the short term. How long does it take to "make" the schools better, and how many of the ten or so years your child is in education before the level gets back to what they already have.
Kansas City already has a mix of great and terrible schools, like every metro area, segregated mostly by the cost of living in that particular district.
They'd probably just move to the wealthier suburbs or send kids to high quality private schools.
Longer term, having a solution for schools that doesn't create such radical disparities between districts mere miles apart would be in everyone's interest, but that's a broader national problem.
Can someone explain this to the uninitiated? I remember when that black hole picture came out, it turned out actually to be: "how this algorithm we invented generates an image of a black hole", so not really a "picture" in the colloquial sense.
Here I'm having trouble understanding how we could actually "record video" of a bond forming and I'm not even sure the words "record" and "video" are what I think they mean. For instance, could the frame rate of our video-recording technology really be high enough to "capture" something that probably happens near-instantaneously? And what "wavelength" is the light used to record these videos -- wouldn't it need to be tinier than the kind of light we usually use, in order to capture atoms? I'm sorry if this is vague, but I don't know enough terms to pose this question rigorously.
With you on 1 and 3 and I'm curious how this decision polls with other stakeholders (i.e. alumni with college-age children whom they want the best for).
Your #2 is basically a restatement of mismatch theory[1] which has generated tremendous controversy when applied to the affirmative action debate.
Talking about affirmative action, what a horrible system. If you're unlucky enough to be born Asian, your difficulty of getting into college has just been doubled.
It baffles me that such racist policies are so prominent at some of the best universities in the world. "Personality scores" too. What an inane cover-up for rejecting people and races you don't like. While we're at it, lets get rid of legacy admissions too.
In college admissions, a student's name, race, and background should be obfuscated. Test scores and rhetorical skills should be the sole measure of a student. Maybe a boolean telling us if a student was below the poverty line or not. It's not perfect, but this would be far better than what we have today.
At least California law prohibits affirmative action, and I was able to go to a fantastic university without having to worry about institutional racism.
So I think it's possible for colleges to make progress on the legacy admissions front without even touching affirmative action. I would just hope the courts make the right decisions in the future. I doubt affirmative action is a solution that really makes anyone "happy", including the people it is intended to benefit.
Mismatch is a very real thing, at least at the extremes.
My friend was a teacher at a private technical school (for manufacturing, electrician work etc) that started having revenue problems. The attempted fix was to lower the bar of candidates they took in and pushed them through more and more remedial classes, including basic maths. Their graduation rate plummeted, enrollment kept shrinking, and they went under.
I also saw a less extreme version of this in college and university while I was a student. Kids were being accepted well below standard, then pushed through remedial (aka developmental) courses to get them up to par on reading / writing / maths. The graduation rate for these students was far lower than those who didn't take the courses.
Mind you, this isn't (or at least, just because of) affirmative action. The state in question had a massive gap between what high school students graduated knowing, and what colleges required, and so was a systemic issue that affected all races.
Since then, common core was supposedly attempted, and colleges were banned from testing students into remedial courses if they met certain conditions. The end result is fewer students spending money without earning credit (remedial courses didn't count towards a degree) but it has been too recent to know whether it has had a positive impact on graduation rates or if the students who would have been forced to take them but now aren't are floundering.
Suppose for a moment that for whatever reason, airbnb has a vested interest in preventing sex workers from using their platform to pursue their sex work. And suppose that sex workers are disproportionately from the LGBTQ+ community. If airbnb aggressively targets and removes sex workers from its platform, does that automatically mean they are "abusing" LGBTQ+ people, or could it mean they just do not want their platform associated with sex work?
Those two aren't mutually exclusive, and attempting to frame it in this manner is disingenuous.
The ability to book a place to stay is regulated by hospitality law to prevent exactly this type of discrimination by AirBnB against Cadence Lux's non-work related usage of AirBnB.
