<p>Why should it? There’s no evidence that using racial classification (as in slight preferences for historically discriminated against minorities) is unfair or bad for society. There is evidence that it results in different outcomes for Asians, but not evidence that the outcome itself is unfair.</p>
<p>Should universities that show preferences to people who row crew be required to distance themselves from federal funding because it’s not fair to the people who don’t row crew? How about private universities that have preferences for males? Universities that have preferences for students who have the leisure time and transportation to participate in EC’s? Shouldn’t they be expected to fund their choices from their own pocket, rather than getting federal support for that kind of discrimination in favor of the middle class and wealthy?</p>
<p>Yes they do often recieve federal funding, but in theory they shouldn’t. But then again many “independent” banks rely on federal funding. So perhaps they are only superficially private after all? </p>
<p>I am personally against the affirmative action in ANY institution because it is discriminatory, which is considered unjustifiable as a whole by standard American ethical values. Why should it be any different for minorities being accepted by America’s higher educational institutions? Whether they’re public, private, financially independent, whatever.</p>
<p>@deanna57 - to quote a message use the following signs, [Q<em>OTE]EXAMPLE[/Q</em>OTE] Remove stars and replace with U’s, replace “EXAMPLE” with the text you intend to quote.</p>
<p>
viola!</p>
<p>To quote as well as show the poster’s screen name use the following, [Q<em>OTE=EXAMPLE]EXAMPLE[/Q</em>OTE]. Replace stars with U’s and “example” according to text and original poster.</p>
<p>So base the award on the quality of the proposal. I don’t see how my proposal creates a problem here.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>UCLA law professor Richard Sander has put forth the “mismatch hypothesis,” arguing that racial preferences do in fact have a negative impact on society by causing suboptimal “underrepresented” minority graduation rates. Naturally, his hypothesis is not without challenge, but he does provide evidence.</p>
<p>As for unfairness, you can’t produce “evidence” that racial preferences are “unfair” because you can’t empirically determine what’s fair and what’s not. It’s a judgment call. Those who believe in equality of result think that race-blind admissions is unfair. Those who believe in equality of opportunity think using racial classification, even as a factor among many, is unfair. What’s fair to me could be very unfair to you if we have different conceptions of equality.</p>
<p>Your crew example supposes that athlete status is a suspect class and that athlete preferences must be subject to strict scrutiny, neither of which is the case. Racial classification is not the same as your average admissions factor. That’s why its use is subject to strict scrutiny, the most stringest standard of Constitutional review. It just ain’t the same as playing a sport and getting rewarded for it.</p>
<p>Weren’t you just saying that universities that provide a tip for URM’s should be barred from being awarded grants? You don’t see the connection?</p>
<br>
<br>
<p>In your entirely subjective opinion. Objectively, there is no difference between showing a preference to someone whose mother’s schools were fire-bombed to keep her from learning to read, than there is for showing a preference to people who can row really fast…or to someone who had the leisure time and transportation to become an Eagle Scout.</p>
<p>I am a proud supporter of college athletics and of Scouting, but if we are going to take the position that preferential admission is unfair, we should be consistent.</p>
<p>So your point is that we might not be awarding the grants to the best possible candidates because the best possible candidates may have admissions policies that use racial classification as a factor. Sorry for misunderstanding you.</p>
<p>Those “best possible candidates” are welcome to discontinue the use of racial classification in their admissions systems if they feel that its use is ultimately not worth that much to them. After all, proponents of affirmative action always say that it doesn’t have much of an effect on admissions, and so dumping it shouldn’t cause significant changes.</p>
<p>No, not in my entirely subjective opinion. It’s fact that racial classification is a suspect class, and that any policy that discriminates based on a suspect class must be subject to strict scrutiny, which is the most stringent standard of Constitutional review. Athlete status is not a suspect class; therefore, its use is not analyzed under strict scrutiny. Since it is also not a “quasi-suspect” class, its use is not analyzed under intermediate scrutiny, either. Its use therefore is analyzed under rational basis, the weakest of the three levels of Constitutional review.</p>
<p>Your argument only works if athlete status is a suspect class, which it is not. My proposal is my entirely subjective opinion, but the facts I’ve listed above are facts, not opinion.</p>
<p>…and using race as a factor in admissions has already been reviewed under the “strict scrutiny test” by the U.S. Supreme Court, and upheld as Constitutional.</p>
<p>Obviously, you don’t want this to be true, and continually ignore it.</p>
<p>That’s not what you asked. Obviously private universities have a right to change their admissions policies. </p>
<p>You asked if your proposal were fair. It’s not fair IMO, because it would unfairly deprive the taxpayers of vigor in competition for grant awards.</p>
<p>Your rejoinder was the equivalent of saying…it’s fair to limit the competition to universities with orange in their school banners because all schools could have orange if they wanted…</p>
<p>There is simply no objective way to say that Affirmative Action does or doesn’t produce the best qualified freshman class, since qualifications for admission are subjective. Even numbers-only admission is subjective, because the choice of WHICH numbers to evaluate is subjective. If a university feels that what a particular URM brings to the table in terms of life experience and obstacles overcome outweighs what a particular non-URM brings to the table in terms of a score on a test that isn’t a particularly good predictor of college achievement—who is to say they aren’t right? There’s no case for depriving the taxpayers of this university’s services just because someone is in a snit about it.</p>
<p>That Grutter hasn’t been overruled doesn’t mean that any use of racial classification as a factor in admissions is kosher. Moreover, that racial preferences are currently Constitutional when properly implemented doesn’t mean that they have to be implemented. They are optional. I’ve been stressing these points repeatedly. In Gratz, SCOTUS ruled that Michigan’s use of racial classification as a plus factor was un-Constitutional. Four years later, we had Parents Involved. The Seattle School District and Jefferson County both alleged that the plans they created complied with Grutter, but in a 5-4 decision, SCOTUS ruled that the plans did not comply with Grutter. Their use of racial classification was NOT Constitutional because they didn’t use it properly.</p>
<p>You can’t just say, “…using race as a factor in admissions has already been…upheld as Constitutional,” and leave it at that. Gratz and Parents Involved make it clear that there are limitations on how you use racial classification as a factor. Your side definitely does not have carte blanche to design any kind of affirmative action policy you like. You have strict limits to follow, and failure to follow those limits results in decisions like those of Parents Involved and to a lesser extent, Ricci.</p>
<p>I certainly would love to see Grutter overruled, but contrary to your assertion, I haven’t been ignoring that as of now, it’s still legit. Reread my post 61, where I wrote, “Yes, as per Grutter, using racial classification as a factor in admissions is Constitutional.”</p>
<p>Reread what you quoted again. These “best possible candidates” are welcome to discontinue the use of racial classification in their admissions systems if they feel that its use is ultimately not worth that much to them. And if they do, then you’re not paying for substandard work, are you?</p>
<p>I like orange. Why not just limit the competition to schools with orange in their banners?
No harm done the taxpayers, because these “best possible candidates” are welcome to discontinue the non-use of orange in their banners if they feel that its non-use is ultimately not worth that much to them.</p>
<p>Look, whether you like it or not, racial classification is just not the same as many other factors. It is a suspect class, and it is not treated the same as school colors or athlete status. That’s not opinion, that’s the way it is. Now, my opinion would be that because it’s not the same, it shouldn’t be treated the same as the other factors. You are free to disagree and argue that because it’s not the same, it should be treated the same as the other factors or argue anything else that you like.</p>
<p>My proposal would only “deprive” the taxpayers of vigor in competition for grant awards if these “best possible candidates” decide that keeping racial classification as a factor in their admissions systems is worth losing federal funding and potential grants. If they decide that keeping it simply isn’t worth it, then no taxpayer has been “deprived” of anything.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Do you feel a particular need to keep bringing up “numbers-only admission,” particularly since I’ve expressed my dislike of it in a previous post on this thread?</p>
<p>You’re entitled to your own opinions, but facts are different. The SAT predicts first-year performance in college very well. You may dislike that fact, but you can’t ignore it.</p>
<p>Now, if the hypothetical private university is admitting this “underrepresented” minority candidate because he has unique life experience and has overcome significant obstacles, my proposal would not stop that from continuing. Racial preferences do not have to be involved here. If the applicant can describe his life experiences and obstacles overcome eloquently in an essay, then under a race-blind holistic admissions process, the university can still admit him over other applicants who may have had higher SAT scores. My proposal does not stop this from happening.</p>
I don’t understand your argument here. There’s only one thing that matters to me: whether my dollars are being used in the most effective way possible. If my taxpayer dollars are being used to pay for a third-rate institution becuase the best universities for the job all have affirmative action, it is of zero consolation to me that the best universities could have stopped using AA. They didn’t change their policy, so U of Third-rate is doing shoddy work with my money.</p>
<p>What if it just so happened to be that the best proposal submitted for X was written by a private organization that openly espouses white supremacy and eugenics? Do you care about that? If not, then I quite admire you if for believing that the only thing that matters is whether your tax money is being used in the most effective way possible.</p>
<p>I’m saying “If they decide that keeping it simply isn’t worth it.” I don’t know how they’ll react. Yet you say “They didn’t change their policy…” How do you know they won’t change?</p>
There are no universities like that. It is a fact that today, the best universities have AA. Your plan is to attempt to strongarm them into accepting your ideal admissions system by withholding essential research money, taking the risk that they won’t go along with it. Good luck getting public support with Harvard saying “we won’t be able to research a cure for cancer if this passes”.</p>
<p>What happened to Mr. “There’s only one thing that matters to me: whether my dollars are being used in the most effective way possible”? If there were, would you care?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>You’re still assuming that these universities will definitely continue to use racial classification as a factor in their admissions. How do you know?</p>
Don’t worry, I’m consistent. I would also be outraged if my dollars went to a university that doesn’t exist. Hopefully the bureaucrats who distributed the stimulus money aren’t involved.</p>
<p>
No, I’m assuming that universities would threaten to beforehand, killing the policy (truthfully saying that it would ban them from doing research). If it somehow happened anyways, they may or may not follow through. I imagine that they’d just make their research and undergraduate components legally distinct and be unaffected.</p>
<p>Last I heard, college was four years. If all the SAT can predict well is first-year performance, it seems to me that it is only measuring the prior knowledge a person is taking into first year courses, not the student’s aptitude for college work in general.
The best universities are more concerned with the latter than the former.</p>
<br>
<br>
<p>Your opinion is that federal policy should be dictated by something completely arbitrary.</p>
<p>You want to make receiving federal grants predicating on universities tailoring their admissions practices to meet your preferences and not theirs…although you can show nothing objective to show that their preferences produce a freshman class in any way inferior to the freshman class your preferences would produce.</p>
<p>You’re just avoiding the question. It looks like you don’t actually have such an idealistic view of “only one thing…matters to me: whether my dollars are being used in the most effective way possible.” If you did, you’d easily say, “If there were such an institution, I wouldn’t care if the money went to them.” But you haven’t said that yet, and I don’t blame you.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>They probably would. And I’d give them the answer I gave. Your “legally distinct” idea is a very smart one. What a good way to respond to the proposal! I hadn’t thought of that. I like it, though, as it just goes to show that institutions adapt. I see no problem in keeping the research and undergraduate components legally distinct. The undergraduate component continues to use positive racial discrimination to achieve the desired level of diversity, thus forgoing federal funding. The research component, which wouldn’t use much racial preferences anyway, stops and continues to receive potential grants.</p>