<p>So what ended up happening today? anything eventful? </p>
<p>I didn’t go (no class on tuesdays).</p>
<p>I didn’t read a lot of the points made. But I just wanted to add something. I see that a lot of people (asians/whites, whatever) protesting the BCRs. I think of them as scumbag…protest the cupcake sales but then complain when their black or latino friends get in and say “he probably only got in because he is black…” …</p>
<p>I am not republican by any means. I dislike racism, but I agree with what the BCRs are trying to say. Affirmative action is racist and whoever votes for SB 131 (or whatever number it is -.-) is a hypocrite, because then they go and complain when their minority friends get into the top schools (yes, i have witnessed this…)</p>
<p>It was very successful. BCR raised over $800 for charity even though people were allowed to name their own price. There was a lot of great debate, some louder and perhaps less informed than others, but no violence or blatant threats that I am aware of. Check the front webpages of CNN/Foxnews or any local outlet for pics. Also I saw a sign that read “pull out of Vietnam” and a bake sale with wizard/muggle pricing structure. Fun stuff! Lol</p>
<p>I don’t know how considering race as a factor in admissions is discriminatory to anyone unless you believe that some people don;t have a race. What are you guys talking about? To consider means to consider. To some people, race is an important aspect of their lives, and to not consider it takes away from the presentation of a student as a whole. White is a race, Asian is a race. </p>
<p>The fact that some people here automatically assume that the only people that have a race are minorities is part of the problem.</p>
<p>I think the argument that admissions should be based on purely test scores is a red herring. I don;t hear these people lamenting that Californians are given preference over out of staters, or foreign student numbers are capped. If you really believed in blind admissions based solely on numbers then you would not be for any of these policies. If you truly believe that then I would call your position an honest one and chalk our differences up to opinion, but detractors want to parse the issues. They want to keep outside factors relevant to them that THEY feel are relevant. It’s not intellectually honest.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Looks like the latest revision shows the “require” struck through, indicating it has been removed. The original seems odd in allowing UC but requiring CSU to consider the various factors listed.</p>
<p>However, the amended text still requires the CSU trustees, but only requests the UC regents, to report in writing about the implementation of the bill.</p>
<p>Seems like the sponsors want to control CSU more tightly than UC in this respect. This is even though many of the CSUs are not selective at all beyond the minimum CSU eligibility criteria.</p>
<p>[Eat</a> Your Racist Cupcakes and Count Your Blessings - Forbes](<a href=“http://www.forbes.com/sites/shenegotiates/2011/09/27/eat-your-racist-cupcakes-and-count-your-blessings/]Eat”>Eat Your Racist Cupcakes and Count Your Blessings)</p>
<p>from olay’s article:
</p>
<p>don’t those two cancel each other out? i don’t see how this bill works at all. what is the concrete implementation of this within the bounds of the law? i just dont see how this thing will even work in the first place.</p>
<p>^that is exactly what I thought when I saw that.</p>
<p>So the bill permits you to use race to the maximum extent permitted by the 14th Amendment which says the “state shall not discriminate against, or grant preferential treatment” on the basis of race.</p>
<p>How is affirmative action possibly justified then?</p>
<p>The bill is not “affirmative action”. All it says is it will consider race in admissions. That does not mean that one race is automatically given preference over the other in admissions. Most people were too busy living in their own worlds to understand exactly what people are arguing.</p>
<p>idgaf whether this is AA or not, WHAT DOES THE THING MEAN. it has no concrete bearings. how can people support something so vague that it won’t even make the slightest difference? what does it mean to “consider” ? </p>
<p>admissions committee:
“oh, this person came from Harlem.”
“oh, that’s nice.”
“yes, cool story.”
“okay, moving on… next we have this one kid from bev hills.”
“yeah, cool story”
etc etc etc ETC.
doesn’t sound like it helps two shakes.</p>
<p>I think it can give a more holistic view of an individual and put their story in context if it necessitates that.</p>
<p>Not allowing the admissions to consider a person’s race when it matters is just giving an advantage to those who haven’t been affected by race in their lives.</p>
<p>basically they’ll consider race.
But they’re not gonna select people to fill a specific quota. </p>
<p>which is essentially a bunch of ketchup sauce.</p>
<p>Wait so . . . why don’t Asians pay the most if they get screwed over the most at the best colleges?</p>
<p>white more privileged in general.</p>
<p>Right, but the cupcake sale is supposed to mock affirmative action . . . where Asians get boned a lot harder than whites because they’ve held to a higher academic standard.</p>
<p>I am confused by the hypothetical admissions discussion a few posts back, where a student from Harlem was compared to a student from Beverly Hills. Isn’t this about noting race, not geography? Except for stereotyping (or generously, demographic probabilities), those two locations don’t say anything about the two students racially.</p>
<p>^sure, what i’m trying to ask is how will things like race be “considered” will they sit around in a circle and say “oh thats interesting. next” or will it be more like “FINALLY WE FOUND A BLACK+NATIVE AMERICAN MIX! ACCEPTED!!!”</p>
<p>
Well to be fair while the Asian groups with the largest populations in America get screwed so to speak (e.g., The Chinese, Indians, Koreans, etc…), they have to average out for the other smaller groups from poorer countries who are de facto URMs, who don’t get the same URM benefits because they happen to be from Asia</p>
<p>Affirmative Action is an abomination. It’s amazing that people in 2011 are pro-AA and that we’re even having this discussion.</p>
<ol>
<li><p>AA is an excuse to not actually improve the conditions of minority groups, because instead of real policy and educational work BEFORE it’s time to apply to college (increasing these groups’ proficiency in math, reading, etc) you simply let them remain under-qualified and then “tip the favor” as a last minute cheat. What hogwash.</p></li>
<li><p>It also destroys the ability for any high-achieving black or Hispanic kid to TRULY claim victory. Instead, no matter how hard you achieve, you’ll always be doubted… “it could have been the affirmative action”.</p></li>
</ol>
<p>Any minority who doesn’t HATE affirmative action is deeply misguided, and in my opinion, a fool. Fight for your pride; destroy this racist lie.</p>
<p>Affirmative action is better served at a socioeconomic level instead of a racial/ethnic level.
The poor are worse off regardless of race/ethnicity and rich are better regardless of race/ethnicity</p>