"Bring on Oxbridge quotas"

obnoxious meme removed

Stop being a bigot, and I'll happily save my breath.

Without continuing to go off-topic, your comments on other threads make it very clear you have no interest in anything other than continuing the degradation of marginalised groups by ignoring the fundamental race issues at hand and perpetuating the equally damaging and racist approach of "colour blindness" by pretending that you don't see race at all and thus it is not an issue.

This is while using Western white standards as the metric to compare others and holding and furthering the view that deviation from this as being bad and the fault of those failing to live up to these standards - despite the fact that necessarily impossible to do so due to the entrenched racial dynamics of the country (and many others, albeit with different characteristics). Quotas are not bad because "sad little white child" can't get in because of them, quotas are bad because it doesn't do anything to help marginalised groups and merely sweeps the problem under the table.

Also if it wasn't clear, white people are not a marginalised group by any reason except being a member of another marginalised group - and even then these frequently flagrantly engage in casual racism, be it white women playing into the "men of colour as sexual aggressors", white gay men saying that it's "just a preference" to completely refuse to date black men and not acknowledge the damaging white Anglo-European beauty standards which are at best the cause of this and that these need to be unlearned, white working class people acting as those immigrants of colour are the reason they can't get a job.

For the record, I will abuse those who use their privileged position to abuse, or further the abuse of, marginalised people until my dying breath. You don't want that? Stop being a bigot, and I'll happily save my breath.

You literally have made about 20 comments on another thread espousing offensive ideas and commentary, some of which have actually been removed by moderators due to the offensive nature of the commentary.

My intention is to defend those from abuse and being intolerant of intolerance is the first step towards that.

tl;dr: There is clearly a problem that should be resolved, but the increasingly common attitude of "meet inequality with pushing the inequality the other way", is fundamentally problematic and will do nothing to resolve the issues at hand.

Raising a marginalised group;s ability to achieve the same level as the group that is the dominant power is not pushing the latter into a state of inequality - by definition it is creating equality. Even creating tailored increases to certain marginalised groups is not "over-privileging them" over another group which already has a powerful base platform it exists on. Removing systematic barriers to attainment is not imposing them on the privileged group.

It's a fallacy to claim otherwise, and this fallacy is the cornerstone of modern fascist rhetoric. Putting a ramp in for wheelchair users does not prevent those who do not require a wheelchair from accessing a location. Allowing LGBT* people to marry and have the same employment protections and tax allowances as heterosexual people does not remove them from those groups. Allowing Muslims to wear Hijabs if they so choose does not force Christians to do so. Putting in place targeted education programmes to improve education for those in low performing inner city schools whose parents are unable to move to affluent country schools that achieve high results consistently does not prevent those who are able to from doing so.

The reverse is not true. Expecting wheelchair users to navigate steps or require a carer to lift them over steps directly limits their ability to access areas. Preventing LGBT* from marrying stops them benefiting from the tax allowances associated with marriage and prevents them from having the same privilege, rather than "identical but in another name". Banning Muslims from wearing hijabs while allowing Christian nuns to maintain their formal attire necessarily affords the latter the privilege of covering their hair in accordance to their religion but not the former. Not putting in place educational achievement programmes for inner city school students whose parents have no choice but to have them attend those schools materially disadvantages those compared to other families who are more affluent, have jobs which are more able to move location and more able to accommodate such moves.

It is staggeringly ignorant to suggest what you are.

the increasingly common attitude

"meet inequality with pushing the inequality the other way"

Either you're extremely dumb and don't even understand the bigotry you're espousing, or you're trying to save face by claiming what you said is not what you mean.

This is nothing new. Guardian writers have been coming out with this kind of nonsense for a long time. Thankfully it's never going to happen because no-one who matters in this context cares what they think.

hehe. Other than a few tens of millions of pounds and a few acres of real estate. Perhaps Gap College might be an appropriate start for such an initiative, or River Island Hall, or maybe Next College. Presumably FCUK wouldn't be acceptable.

Oxbridge should accept the best students that can, regardless of social class or ethnicity. If those happen to mostly be from the top two then so be it. They shouldn't influence their admissions system to let in less able (if underprivileged) students.

That said you must also consider potential. Who's more likely to succeed in a degree, some who has worked hard with little or no encouragement or soneone who's education has been a 13 year coaching routine paid for with daddy's money? It's a question of training vs natural ability and tbf Oxbridge already take this into account by considering gcses in the context of applicants school.

Ah, if only they could make some complex software that applies a weighted value to people's GCSE, A-Level and entrance exam scores based on their race, home income, school, parental status, medical circumstance etc.

That said you must also consider potential. Who's more likely to succeed in a degree, some who has worked hard with little or no encouragement or soneone who's education has been a 13 year coaching routine paid for with daddy's money? It's a question of training vs natural ability and tbf Oxbridge already take this into account by considering gcses in the context of applicants school.