You got it 🤓 I'm talking about an entirely new system.

Universities (not HBCU's) are now offering separate housing and graduation ceremonies for black students, i don't know if it's yet been implemented, but there's been talk for awhile of separate classes too.....and all of it's defended on the idea of "safe spaces" But....It's just segregation being rebranded.

Where is this happening? I live in NC, USA and worked in both public and private universities for over 40 years. NC has a a total of 174 separate colleges and universities I have never seen separate housing or graduation ceremonies for different.

https://www.campusreform.org/article/dozens-universities-host-segregated-graduation-ceremonies-based-identities/19375: Ohio State University, Columbia University, Harvard University, Illinois State University, the University of North Texas, and the University of La Verne,University of California San Diego, Stanford University, California State University Northridge, Southern Illinois University, California State University Sacramento, the University of California Los Angeles, the University of Washington, and Emory University all offer ceremonies based on race. California Polytechnic State University has an extensive list of minority-centered graduation ceremonies. For Latino's UT Austin, the University of Southern California, Rock Valley College, Case Western Reserve University, the University of Illinois, University of California Riverside, Texas A&M, Loyola Marymount University, DePaul University, and the University of California Santa Cruz. HARVARD held it's first "black graduation" in 2018.

The key word is offering and if no requirement, then no problem.

Yes. This is an accurate statement. There are many examples if you just search of race-based events like college graduation ceremonies and employee "training" sessions that are the opposite of everything the country has worked hard to solve these past many generations.

Yup, we've gone from "don't see color, see people" to "color is the most important aspect of an individual and you should always examine how your actions are racist because of it" So much of the BS that's risen up over the past decade is an attempt to rebrand racism as a beneficial tool.

iseefractals, it is the right-wing conservatives that are trying to re-write history, to not teach about slavery, they are trying to white-wash a lot of $hit.

The left is quite literally supporting segregation, they're simply reframing it as "safe spaces" and i've given specific and ample evidence of that above. But you're trying to equate the actions of a fringe minority, which have been widely and rightfully denounced, with the mainstream, accepted, supported, celebrated and defended actions of a much larger population. It's not the same thing.

Right, “won't abuse children”. Well, the first target will be the mentally ill, since they are what comes to most people's mind when it comes to child abuse, even though mentally ill /= child abuser. However, but then they might get/get someone pregnant without permission, so we must forcibly sterilise all of them for the good of the children. Okay, so what constitutes child abuse? Not being able to give children the best of opportunities? So we must sterilise all of the poor people, because growing up poor is abusive. Abuse is causing pain and suffering yes? So we can't allow anyone to suffer or produce a child that is suffering. So we must sterilise all the disabled, those who have genetic conditions like dwarfism, and everyone who has ever produced a disabled child. They are letting their children suffer by allowing them to be produced, they're child abusers! Oh, what's that? You don't agree with that? You want to vote away protections against child abuse? You're a child abuser!

Uh, now you’re being completely unreasonable. I’m honestly appalled that you put so much thought into deciding who should be forcibly sterilized. Especially your focus on being poor, which I explicitly excluded. Child, take your outrage somewhere else because you’re not getting internet points by insisting that the only solution is the worst possible solution.

I'm disabled and a historian, this is how it ALWAYS goes - in the US, in Germany, in Japan, all the same. What you consider excluding doesn't matter a jot. Regulating who is "worthy" of having children requires full control of the ability of the "unworthy" to have them. 'It won't turn out that way because my cause is just', all of them were claiming to want to prevent suffering of children by not allowing children to be born of "unfit" parents.

So, as an historian you should also know that every time forcible regulation of child birth has been tried it has failed because people eventually get loud and angry enough to have it stopped. Or reality intrudes as countries realize those measures result in badly skewed populations according to gender bias. I lightly posited something along the lines of a driving test to get a license to be able to drive cars. Are you against driving tests because some people are incapable of passing? What about all the other tests that people need to pass to be qualified? How about we do away with all schooling? I understand that I hit a nerve and I’m truly sorry that an offhand comment has triggered this reaction. Just try to understand what I consider to be an idea to prepare people for the reality of having and raising kids in a loving home bears no resemblance to the draconian laws you suggest are the inevitable outcome. History is irrelevant if we don’t learn from it. BTW you forgot China.

They failed because of war, democracy coming in and going "are you bloody insane?" How do you propose stopping the unworthy producing offspring against your wishes? What do you do with the unworthy children? I didn't include China because their policy is still ongoing - the two-child policy if your first child is a girl is still in place, and it very much targets the poor; you can bypass the system if you pay the bribes, and if you can't then your child is forcibly aborted and you're forcibly sterilised. History is indeed irrelevant if you don't learn from it, whih is why I am telling you that licensing who can produce offspring has provably lead to eugenics, always, 'for the greater good', fr the children. As someone who will be an immediate target for eugenics policies, I will not stand for anyone who advocates it.

Well, at least we’re in agreement about one thing. I abhor everything that eugenics stands for. I don’t propose stopping the “unworthy”, accidental or even deliberate pregnancy shouldn’t be punished. I don’t propose aborting and to me there’s no such thing as an unworthy child, nor any reason that isn’t already covered in terms of child protection to remove children from the care of their parents. I’m firmly behind free contraception available to all, and if you don’t live close enough to be able to pick up condoms, then we’ll darn well post em to you. ALL parents *should* have access to prenatal care (yes, I know sometimes they don’t but, since I live in a country with universal healthcare, most here do). So, if someone turns up pregnant and hasn’t taken the test, they get it then… for free. If I were to try to implement such a system, it would possibly be along the lines of driving lessons provided to high school students or perhaps a part of sex ed classes. There’s no pass or fail, you get the certificate or license at the end for having taken it. I’ll acknowledge the driving license is a bad comparison simply because there are punishments for those who drive without a license. Always disproportionately hard on those who can least afford it, so those are a no go. The point is education, which *should* be free to all.