Question about race and admissions

fabrizio
Fri, 14 Mar 2008 12:36:43 +0000

IsleBoy, it seems that you are forgetting that the current status quo is racial preferences. A handful of states have restricted their use via initiatives, yes, but overall, the standard practice today is preferential treatment. It is interesting that you accuse opponents of racial preferences as being “for the status quo” when they are fighting to change it. In reality, you represent the status quo because you support what is today’s standard fare.

There is no reason why race-blind admissions does not allow for the consideration of inequity at various levels. As Justice Powell wrote in Bakke, “the purpose of helping certain groups…perceived as victims of “societal discrimination” does not justify a classification that imposes disadvantages upon persons like respondent…” Thus, historic discrimination is not an appropriate rationale for racial preferences. As somedumbnoob correctly observed, socioeconomic affirmative action can address inequity without considering race.

Race-blind does not “deny” anyone’s ethnicity. It does not say, “You are not [insert ethnicity here].” It says, “We will treat all equally regardless of race.”

You say that race-blind would favor those that have “traditionally” had the power. Let’s be direct and just say whites. As research by Espenshade et al. has shown, that’s not true. The elimination of racial preferences barely affects whites. It greatly affects Asians, though. Simply take a look at UC post Proposition 209. The defenders of the status quo, that is, people sharing your viewpoint on this matter, wailed about how it would benefit whites at the expense of “under-represented” minorities. Is that what happened? No. In many UC campuses, white enrollment as a percentage of the total student body declined after 1996. Whose percentage numbers increased? Asians, and not just those Asians who are “over-represented.”