<p>Most people would agree that an element of best practice should be fairness. A fair admissions process should provide all applicants an opportunity to present relevant information about themselves, should not permit personal prejudice or favoritism to influence decisions, should insure that admissions criteria and evaluation guidelines are applied uniformly and that all applicants to a particular program are considered on an equal footing. But, given the many different institutional objectives that an admissions policy needs to satisfy, some students may indeed be given preferential treatment by virtue of some background characteristic or special talent. And in highly competitive situations, the fact that so many highly qualified students will not be admitted can only appear unfair to those students and their families. One of the challenges that the admissions community faces is how to better inform the public about the legitimate need to have flexibility to create a class that supports broad institutional goals. </p>
<p>When you understand the process, you can better understand the outcomes and plan and deal with it accordingly.</p>
<p>You don’t know why I thought “that AA [should] become more in-depth and ask more specific questions regarding race” because I have not written anything like that. I strongly oppose Ms. Aisha Haynie’s proposal to create a modern grandfather clause in college admissions. I have, however, suggested that racial preferences be abolished and that no questions about race be asked.</p>
<p>I “keep” asking you because you had not previously given me a straight answer, and you still have not. I agree that all Americans are entitled equal treatment under the law. Americans who were previously denied equal treatment due to irrelevant factors have the right to be treated equally today. I am for measures to reduce discrimination. I am not for racial preferences.</p>
<p>Anyway, I agree with norcalguy. I think the better goal should be “try to get more ‘under-represented’ students into universities.”</p>
<p>I became more against current affirmative action when I realized that a rather large number of its supporters have double standards. They’ll tell white and Asian students to “look beyond” the Ivy Leagues, MIT, Stanford, and so forth because there are so many other great schools out there. They’re right. There are a lot of great schools out there if you just take the time to look. What’s the problem, then? They tell “under-represented” minorities, “Schools like Harvard provide the best opportunities. We want you there!”</p>
<p>Elite schools can offer great opportunities, this is true. But, why is it that these supporters discourage some students from focusing on these institutions but encourage others to do the same?</p>
<p>There used to be a time when a student from a disadvantaged background was happy that his hard-work and perseverance earned him a spot at his state university. He created his own opportunity, and he deserved every bit of it. Now, we call this “racial stratification” and “resegregation.”</p>
<p>The jurisprudence that has been most followed hasn’t been a case of urm’s clamoring for an opportunity to get into ol’ regular State U. The lawsuits and initiatives on state ballots have been from whites complaining about not getting into FLAGSHIP State U. Why is that? I think we all know why. I find it interesting in the Michigan undergrad case that the plaintiff argued about being passed over by less qualified blacks which were few, but made no reference to the 1200+ whites that were accepted with lower scores and credentials. Her attorneys knew that wouldn’t hold water. They grasped at a straw and the court came up with a “compromise.” It then went to the ballots. African Americans and Latinos do not compromise the majority in any state that the initiatives have been brought to public vote. Without significant support from the white majority at large, NO issue benefitting urm’s that whites perceive, understand, or believe to present them with a disadvantage in a coveted situation is going to prevail. I believe that history proves me correct. The key for AA proponents is to illustrate the real and tangible benefits directly on the minorities that utilize AA, and the community as a whole.</p>
<p>While there may be some demagogues and race hustlers who use some of these situations to elevate their exposure and further some of their agendas by inciting the uninformed, reasonable proponents of AA are able to articulate the need and rationalization for AA policies. So far most in academia are in agreement. As long as the window of opportunity is there for urm’s, I’m going to encourage minorities to capitalize on them. Not because they are entitled to them, not because they are less deserving, not because they are better than other less fortunate urm’s, but because to not seek out to be the best, do your best and to have the best, tarnishes the legacy of those who fought so hard to make these opportunities a reality.</p>
<p>madville, I’m not completely clear on the details of the U of Mich. case, but I think the lawsuit was based on the fact that admissions was based on a point system and a lot of points were awarded for being a URM. State U.'s are more easily sued than private universities because admissions is more murky at private universities.</p>
<p>Again, I don’t know how U. of Mich. admissions works exactly, but perhaps the “unqualified” people of other races could be socioeconomically underpriveleged or athletes? Just a guess.</p>
<p>A quote from an op-ed discussing the Michigan case on <a href=“http://www.timwise.org;%5B/url%5D”>www.timwise.org;</a></p>
<p>Likewise, the ongoing backlash against affirmative action, by those who seem to believe that opportunity would truly be equal in the absence of these presumably unjust efforts to ensure access to jobs and higher education for persons of color. We are to believe that things were just fine before affirmative action, and that were such efforts abolished now, we could return to this utopic state of affairs: to hell with the persistent evidence that people of color continue to face discrimination in employment, housing, education and all other institutional settings in the U.S. </p>
<p>So if the University of Michigan gives applicants of color twenty points on a 150-point admission scale, so as to promote racial diversity and balance out the disadvantages to which such students are often subjected in their K-12 schooling experience, that is seen as unfair racial preference. But when the same school gives out 16 points to kids from the lily-white Upper Peninsula, or four points for children of overwhelmingly white alumni, or ten points for students who went to the state’s “top” schools (who will be mostly white to be sure), or 8 points for those who took a full slate of Advanced Placement classes in high schools (which classes are far less available in schools serving students of color), this is seen as perfectly fair, and not at all racially preferential. </p>
<p>What’s more, the whites who received all those bonus points due to their racial and class position will not be thought of by anyone as having received unearned advantages, in spite of the almost entirely ascriptive nature of the categories into which they fell that qualified them for such bonuses. No matter their “qualifications,” it will be taken for granted that any white student at a college or University belongs there. </p>
<p>This is why Jennifer Gratz, the lead plaintiff in the successful “reverse discrimination” suit against Michigan’s undergraduate affirmative action policy, found it a supreme injustice that a few dozen black, Latino and American Indian students were admitted ahead of her, despite having lower SATs and grades; but she thought nothing of the fact that more than 1400 other white students also were admitted ahead of her and her co-plaintiffs, despite having lower scores and grades. “Lesser qualified” whites are acceptable, while “lesser qualified” people of color must be eliminated from their unearned perches of opportunity. This is the kind of racist logic that people like Gratz, who now heads up the state’s anti-affirmative action initiative with the financial backing of Ward Connerly, find acceptable.</p>
<p>When i think about it, i think that racial preference doesn’t exactly fit AA.</p>
<p>Preference is like: “i prefer mcdonalds over wendys.” Schools that practice AA aren’t like “we prefer black people over asian people” or else there would be a lot more black students at those colleges. It’s just that they WANT more generally underrepresented. </p>
<p>Racial preference is more like those schools or secret societies or country clubs that say “we are open to all races, but we PREFER white people.” and those institutions end up being almost uniformally white (or whatever race they prefer").</p>
<p>So fabrizio, the word racial preference that you keep using doesn’t really fit the situation of AA.</p>
<p>But, anyway, tons of critics use that word so i won’t blame you. </p>
<p>*on a complete sidenote. i do believe that if after AA was completed and underrepresented groups weren’t having any problems being well-represented, income medians were about the same, and opportunities were truly equal, and AA was abolished that’d be perfect. </p>
<p>And if after that point any group began to slide down the achievement ladder, we would know whether AA was truly helpful based on whether it was the same groups lagging.</p>
<p>If you think that racial preferences and affirmative action are separate from each other in today’s world, then we may be in agreement. I fully support the original definition of affirmative action, namely, that no one be discriminated against based on his race, gender, ethnicity, national origin, sexual orientation, religion, and so forth. I support ballot initiatives that redefine state constitutions such that the state neither discriminates nor grants preferential treatment based the aforementioned factors. After all, since you believe that “racial preference doesn’t exactly fit AA,” then banning racial preference won’t affect affirmative action, yes?</p>
<p>In addition to “tons of critics,” the United States Supreme Court also used the term in Gratz. Chief Justice William Rehnquist wrote for the majority, “We granted certiorari… to decide whether ‘the University of Michigan’s use of racial preferences…”</p>
<p>Affirmative action that you talk about isn’t really affirmative action because it’s not ACTION. Its more of a “sit back and let things take care of themselves” approach. </p>
<p>but before we go back in that circle where u basically say “but we could do other things, just not consider race in college admission”. And then i’ll go back to the whole thing about the importance of racial diversity, and you’ll deny it’s importance and its effectiveness. </p>
<p>Ultimately, it comes down to whether or not you value racial diversity. </p>
<p>If you do, then you support colleges seeking that diversity in admissions. </p>
<p>If you don’t, then you’re going to be mad at the concept.</p>
<p>The twenty points were available only to “under-represented” minorities. They received them by virtue of being designated a protected minority.</p>
<p>A perfect SAT score got 12 points. It should be noted that 20 > 16 > 12 > 10 > 8 > 4.</p>
<p>Compare an “under-represented” student and his “regular” classmate. Assume both took a full slate of AP classes at their high school. Also assume that both earned perfect SAT scores. The first student would get 40 points while the second student would get 20. Is this fair? The Supreme Court didn’t think so, which is why they ruled Michigan’s point-system unconstitutional in 2003 in a 6-3 decision.</p>
<p>A few years later, Michigan’s voters soundly repudiated racial preferences, 58-42.</p>
<p>I believe that if “diversity” must be promoted, then geography and socioeconomic status should be the drivers, not race.</p>
<p>I have always laughed at how race-based “diversity” is marketed as the most inclusive mechanism. It’s actually the least inclusive. Geography includes students of all races in a certain area. Socioeconomic status similarly includes students of all races in a certain status. Race? It includes students of some races.</p>
<p>As far as legacies go, hey, they keep the alumni in question happy. Happy alumni might translate into more donations. More donations means the educations of disadvantaged students can be funded. That’s a good thing. Besides, overwhelmingly white or not, legacy preferences are still more inclusive than racial preferences. There is such a thing as a non-white alumna.</p>
<p>Making “preferences” based on race is just as inclusive as making “preference” based on geography or class.</p>
<p>Race includes people of every geography and class, but not of every race.</p>
<p>Geography includes people of every race and class, but not all locations</p>
<p>Class includes people of every race and location, but not every class</p>
<p>-the only reason it seems exclusive to you is that you only look at each one as to whether or not it includes every race.</p>
<p>The underlying goal of AA is to promote racial diversity and the representation of those urms. Look above, which is the most effective way to do that?</p>
<p>(the answer is A- by targeting the races that need the affect)</p>
<p>“it assumes that two wrongs will make a right, which is never true.”</p>
<p>-Wrong is subjective. Like the above posts, it could be said that it is just as wrong to ‘prefer’ middle class applicants, or Southern applicants, etc. There has to be a solid reason why it’s bad, other than just because you think so. If we can’t look at applicants’ races, then why look at where they live… their economic status… etc?</p>
<p>In your analysis, race is common to both geography and class. If either mechanism is used as the driver for diversity, racial diversity will inevitably result. In addition, other types of diversity will also result. Using geography or socioeconomic status as bases for creating diversity uphold the spirit of the Civil Rights Movement by ensuring that no one is discriminated against or granted preferential treatment based on his race.</p>
<p>Of those three factors, race is by far the most explosive, polarizing, and sensitive one. Its consideration has caused much anguish, pain, sorrow, and sin in our nation’s history. Consequently, its consideration should be minimized as much as possible. Racial preferences do the opposite by maximizing its importance.</p>