<p>kk - regarding gender preferencing (#191): I agree this could become an issue unless u’s can show a “rational basis” or “compelling need” for 50/50 student body. I don’t think this has ever been challenged.</p>
<p>Tyler,</p>
<p>The core of all my positions on this issue is that every American should be treated equally under the law. If that “[goes] out the window,” then our nation will lose its greatness.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Indeed, I do not like that my racial group is being held to a different standard. I do not like that we are branded as “over-represented.” I do not like that some people desire to cap our enrollments to “proportional” levels. To paraphrase the words of Dr. King, if I have said anything that indicates my having a patience that allows me to settle for anything less than equal treatment under the law, then shame on me.</p>
<p>Interest does not have to be “flakey.” I am referring to demonstrated talents and potential in athletics, oratory skills, journalism, filmmaking, visual arts, performing arts, contest mathematics, engineering prowess (e.g. Science Olympiad), civic service, and so forth.</p>
<p>Since these are all different activities, admitting students who have excelled in these will result in diversity.</p>
<p>If a school accepted a larger number of people from a predominantly black area without considering their race, I’d be OK with that.</p>
<p>It is certainly not wrong to have every race represented in a student body. It is also not wrong to want every race represented in a student body. As I wrote a page ago, it only becomes wrong if the method chosen to produce this result means some students won’t be treated equally.</p>
<p>well then you cant consider economics or geography, because then people who arent poor wont be treated equally or people who dont live in montana wont be treated equally.</p>
<p>You cant support one form and not support all of them. Get off the fence. </p>
<p>Do you believe that it is wrong to treat any individual differently based in aspects beyond their control (ie Race, gender, geography, economics) in order to seek diversity? </p>
<p>Its a yes or no question.</p>
<p>I thought some of you may find this study interesting in the thought processes that go into selecting a freshman class.</p>
<p><a href=“College Board - SAT, AP, College Search and Admission Tools”>http://www.collegeboard.com/research/pdf/gataxonomy030514_23496.pdf</a> </p>
<p>Read this and it will clarify of who is “deserving” and why some get in and some don’t.</p>
<p>Fab, you and I aren’t that far apart. You are against race based preferences because they place limitations on your people. I’m for them because they benefit mine. That’s the real crux of the matter. Blacks and latinos are far behind in most quality of life factors and one of the great equalizers is education.
There is no comparison to the average asian experience in this culture to acessing equality and to african americans. No one here would trade places with us in this society. It is a stigma that is difficult to express. While we aren’t being lynched and jim crow isn’t as relevant, racism is more sophisticated and subtle. It’s not as in your face as in my parents or grandparents day but it is there. Don’t want undesirables in you neighborhood? Artificially set the prices where you can engineer the affordability to the demographics of those you prefer. Merit based aid? Set the numbers where you know that the people of color that will challenge for those monies will be minescule. I could list numerous other examples. Race still matters in this society. I see little difference in stating providing an opportunity for everyone when the powers that be know that 90% or more of those that will benefit will be the majority and stating that a specific policy will benefit a particular underepresented group. </p>
<p>It is nothing but selfishness and denial to not acknowledge the attrocities of the past and not see the tangible negative manifestations in our present and then say, well that’s tough. Affirmative action is not the cure for our social ills, but it serves as a useful treatment until a cure can be found.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Fab,</p>
<p>The process you are proposing could do just that. To their credit, U’s have worked tirelessly (including UC schools via outreach/athletics,etc) to come up with a way to garner URM applicants to keep their student bodies diverse.</p>
<p>Your purely race-blind proposal could easily result in a student body composed entirely of non-URMs, or a miniscule amount.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>CalTech anyone?</p>
<p>Juilliard admissions is also completely based on merit…</p>
<p>Here are raw numbers for the demographic breakdown of the class of 2005:
African American 57<br>
American Indian 2<br>
Asian American 63<br>
Caucasian 239<br>
Hispanic American 20<br>
International 96 </p>
<p><a href=“Edvisors: Financial Aid, Student Loans, Scholarships and Money Management”>Edvisors: Financial Aid, Student Loans, Scholarships and Money Management;
<p>Tyler,</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>First, geography and socioeconomic status can be controlled.</p>
<p>Second, yes, I do believe it is wrong to treat individuals differently based on aspects that have no bearing on university program participation in order to seek diversity. Ideally, merit should trump all.</p>
<p>But, we don’t live in an ideal world. Some students attend poorer school districts with fewer educational opportunities. I don’t mind giving these students preferential treatment, even if it means that they’ll receive some treatment that I won’t receive. That’s all right with me.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Yes, this is true. I am against the current system because they do place limitations on Asians. I do not deny this at all.</p>
<p>Racism is more sophisticated and subtle. As a resident of the Deep South, I know this all too well.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Yes, the race-blind proposals I support could “easily result in a student body composed entirely of non-URMs, or a miniscule amount.”</p>
<p>And I ask, what is wrong with that?</p>
<p>This is the difference between you and me:</p>
<p>I support race-blind admissions even if it means that Asian enrollment decreases. If that happened, then we would just have to work harder. I wouldn’t complain of racial discrimination because there would be no racial discrimination.</p>
<p>By contrast, you do not support race-blind admissions because it might mean that “URM” enrollment drops. You call that “stratification” and “de facto discrimination” and consequently oppose the policy.</p>
<p>Judge Thelton Henderson’s argument that “race-blind is itself racially discriminatory” is not only illogical but also legally bankrupt. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, long criticized by the American Right as activist, flat out rejected his argument.</p>
<p>“Ideally, merit should trump all.”</p>
<p>-Tell me. What exactly do you define as ‘merit’? How do you get to determine who is meritorious of admission to a certain school? </p>
<p>Are you saying that a private college should be ‘forced’ to accept people who meet a minimum numerical standard?? How could such a standard be set? You throw around the word “merit” like there’s some overarching guide to meritorious college admission, some standard by which all colleges should conduct themselves, when there clearly is not.</p>
<p>"And I ask, what is wrong with that?</p>
<p>This is the difference between you and me:"</p>
<p>-And thats why it comes down to whether or not you value racial diversity.</p>
<p>If the best way to reach racial diversity and equal opportunities at this point in time was through programs like AA, would you support it??</p>
<p>And fab, stop complaining that AA caps asian enrollment. The focus of AA isn’t on asians and isnt about asians. It’s just that if those minority groups are well represented then there simply isn’t enough room for asians to make up 30 % of the campus.</p>
<p>kk19131,</p>
<p>Merit is anything that is earned. For example,</p>
<ol>
<li> High test scores</li>
<li> Good grades in difficult courses (e.g. AP, IB, university)</li>
<li> Well-written essays</li>
<li> Top scores at mathematics contests, science contests, and so forth.</li>
<li> Debate and oratory prowess</li>
</ol>
<p>How do I determine who’s meritorious? It can be whoever performs well on tests, in classes, under pressure in competitions, and so forth.</p>
<p>No, I am not saying that a private college should be forced to accept people who meet a minimum numerical standard. It’s not difficult to set a standard, though. Michigan is a public university, but its old point-based system could be implemented by any private university.</p>
<p>Tyler,</p>
<p>I believe I have written many times that I value racial diversity. My attitude is, “Diversity? Yes! Preferences? No!”</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>If the best way…at this point in time was through programs like AA, then yes, I’d support them. As I wrote to you before, I do support the original intent of affirmative action. I do not, however, support its current manifestation as a system of racial preference. You wrote a post suggested that racial preference is separate from affirmative action, but you have never stated that you would have no problems banning racial preferences. Why is that? To you, they’re distinct. So, there should be no problems removing one and keeping the other.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I have no problems if the “well represent[ation]” that you seek occurs under race-blind admissions. If it resulted in Asian enrollment under 30%, that’d be fine.</p>
<p>Indeed, this is the difference between a racial preference supporter and a racial preference opponent. The supporter can’t tolerate low “URM” enrollment. The opponent, on the other hand, can tolerate low “URM” enrollment as well as low “regular” enrollment.</p>
<p>In the end, the opponents will win because they are more flexible. They can accept three outcomes (higher / same / lower “URM” enrollment), but the supporters can only accept two (higher / same).</p>
<p>actually in the end, the supporter will win. Because the supreme court even justified using such programs to meet a specific goal. And most people value urm enrollment and racial diversity much more than you and the opponents do. </p>
<p>I could completely understand the people’s public opinion being twisted enough by scandal to vote AA down in some of the states with a lower representation of prominent minorities, but private institutions are still justified an noble in keeping their programs.</p>
<p>You are still sticking on the fence here. Why is it ok to give benefits to people from underrepresented geography, and people of an underrepresented class, and not to people of underrepresented races?</p>
<p>We have established that they are all equally discriminating, and that AA (my AA which includes “racial/economic/geographical preferences”) does not target asians negatively in anyway, thats just racism. </p>
<p>So why do you support two but deny the other one?</p>
<p>Tyler,</p>
<p>“In the end,” you say? Please keep in mind that in 2003, former Justice Sandra Day O’Connor stated that affirmative action as we know it should no longer be necessary in twenty-five years (2028). I believe that many states will change their constitutions to make sure that no one is discriminated against or granted preferential treatment based on race before that year. Just a few days ago, Colorado’s Ballot Title Board approved a civil rights initiative modeled after Proposition 209. Mr. Connerly is working to put more initiatives on state ballots in time for 2008. I say let the voters decide. The Civil Rights Movement fought to make sure that no one was discriminated against based on race. Now, the term “against” has loosened so egregiously that voters must decide whether it is appropriate to clarify the wording such that no one is discriminated for.</p>
<p>Thank you for finally recognizing that I value racial diversity.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>In the case of “under-represented classes,” which I assume are the poorer classes, we’re helping out students who had a real disadvantage. We’re helping out the students who have to work to supplement their family’s income. We’re helping out the students who receive food stamps. We’re helping out the students who can’t take standardized tests without fee waivers. We’re helping out the students who can’t apply to universities without fee waivers. It is OK to give benefits to these students because they’ve overcome tangible obstacles.</p>
<p>In the case of “under-represented geographies,” it’s not quite as good as socioeconomic status as a driver of difference, but it can still be a good way to obtain racial diversity without discriminating or granting preference based on race.</p>
<p>We have indeed established that all three drivers are discriminating. Two of those drivers, though, don’t take race into account, and they thus can’t discriminate or grant preferential treatment on the basis of skin color.</p>
<p>Btw, Obama has acknowledged that his kids shouldn’t have an admissions advantage based on their race - since they already have every other “advantage.”</p>
<p>That’s right. Senator Obama remarked that his children were “pretty advantaged” and should be treated as such.</p>
<p>John Rosenberg of Discriminations.us praised the senator for his candidness.</p>
<p>“Btw, Obama has acknowledged that his kids shouldn’t have an admissions advantage based on their race - since they already have every other ‘advantage’.”</p>
<p>That still has NOTHING to do with ethnic diversity. If the point of the program were solely to create ECONOMIC diversity, then yes, Obama’s children would not need help from AA. Since it’s not solely about ECONOMIC diversity, then they do (depending on the school). </p>
<p>Either he doesn’t understand fully how AA works, or he’s just pandering to more moderate voters… he is running for president after all…</p>
<p>Say school X wants more Black students… it should seek just that- MORE BLACK STUDENTS. Whether you’re rich or poor, you’re STILL Black.</p>