<p>So the person who is anti-affirmative action wants special treatment in the admissions process to counter past wrongs done to members of their affinity group? Oh, please, is this thread a belated birthday present written just for me???</p>
<p>OK, guffaws aside, if a school is determined to bring more diverse voices to their campus, I am sure that it already happens under the blanket of geographic diversity. </p>
<p>I also think that one needs to show some peer-reviewed data on 90/10. Sorry, throwing statistics out without proof doesn’t fly here on CC or in an academic environment.</p>
<ol>
<li><p>You believe someone is going to risk declaring they are of a sexual orientation that is still heavily stigmatized*, especially in the larger mainstream society outside of most academia. </p></li>
<li><p>You believe that one can change their sexual orientation. Something which has been debunked by modern science. Incidentally, the only groups I know of which believe this are fundamentalist religious groups…some of whom are trying to force the teaching of creationism(a.k.a. “Intelligent Design”) in K-12 science classes. </p></li>
</ol>
<p>*Am talking serious issues such as being physically assaulted on the basis of that orientation, employment discrimination, housing discrimination, etc…not whether someone shows vehement disagreement with your political views or turns you down for a date as a result.</p>
<p>There are also scholarships for “patriotic opinions”, Ayn Rand proponents, even John Birch society. No liberal opinions have ever been chosen as the essay winner for the American Legion scholarship in my recent memory. How private groups want to share this money, whether for LGBT students or NRA members is one of the beauties of America.</p>
<p>True…but they are private groups who aren’t beholden to the public in ways even most private universities are from accepting public subsidies/grants for research and financial aid. </p>
<p>I’d be much more troubled if universities/colleges themselves started to use political affiliations to determine college admissions or to give affirmative-action boosts on that basis. </p>
<p>That is…unless they want to go the route of fundamentalist religious schools like Bob Jones which are able to use admission criteria at variance with Federal regulations because they publicly don’t accept a cent of public subsidies for research or financial aid.</p>
<p>Do we want to provide preferential treatment for people who don’t believe in evolution, the big bang theory, and anthropogenic global warming–views with a high frequency among those who label themselves conservative? Maybe remedial education on the scientific method and critical thinking instead of affirmative action.</p>
<p>“If the opinion is right, they are deprived of the opportunity of exchanging error for truth: if wrong, they lose, what is almost as great a benefit, the clearer perception and livelier impression of truth, produced by its collision with error”</p>
<p>Considering I am familiar with the Columbia campus and know there’s a thriving far-right libertarian contingent…that’s complete baloney. </p>
<p>That is…unless your definition of being “stigmatized” is of the person publicly voices disagreement with my opinions and won’t back down on critiquing/challenging them or being turned down for a date for having such opinions. </p>
<p>Still funny considering I’ve known several radical-left Columbia students who complain Columbia is “far too conservative/corporate.”</p>
<p>^Because you have attended both Brown and Columbia? Places that ARE heavily recruited for finance jobs and consulting jobs? </p>
<p>Here is what I have learned from the late great Christopher Hitchens; when you want to argue a controversial viewpoint, you win with facts first, then with humor and humanity. I have already found links to wage discrepancies on Wall Street for minority workers, the high number of foreign born minority representation and lists of the top recruitment schools and their racial and financial diversity numbers. </p>
<p>There is a reason in America that top investment firms want to hire URMs and it doesn’t have to do with affirmative action, but money. they want to capitalize on the life experiences of others in order to create products and services to make inroads into untapped markets. That experience is worth hiring qualified candidates. Those same kids who got into Harvard, Yale, Princeton etc have now graduated and bring something to the table. </p>
<p>BTW, you seem to want private organizations to adhere to additional regulations or to change their policies with no obvious financial gain…are you sure you are a conservative?</p>
<p>People with sub-100 IQs make up about 50% of the population, but they are WOEFULLY underrepresented at elite colleges. Yet many of them have very interesting and diverse opinions.</p>
<p>Can anyone prove that colleges would have a significant interest in getting more conservative students? There are colleges that are very liberal (Oberlin, Macalester, Vermont), and colleges that are very conservative (Military academies, BYU, most of the Texas schools), and most fall somewhere in the middle. I don’t think it’s necessarily a bad thing to have much more liberals than conservatives, or vice versa.</p>
<p>Also, not many high school seniors have a strong sense of their political affiliation. At their age, they’re just beginning to register to vote. Most are relatively clueless about politics. It would be extremely hard to try to balance the ratio through affirmative action. If a college really did want to balance it, there are other things they could do, like promoting their “college republicans” club, bringing conservative speakers to campus, etc. </p>
<p>Though, this question does make me wonder colleges should try to balance liberal/conservative professors. Obviously not too necessary in the STEM fields, but for Poli Sci, IR, sociology, etc.</p>
<p>I’m not sure I’d agree that US Federal Military Academies are necessarily VERY conservative. My impressions from cousins who have attended and my own visits to one of them(West Point) was that on average…their students tend to be center-right and mainstream.</p>
<p>From a campus admissions perspective:
In this case, state of origin and socio-economic standing might serve as diversity proxies to identify and attract a range of students with different outlooks. As stated in several posts above, there is no one definition of conservative or liberal. People can and do take a range of stands on issues and policy that might not mesh with any party line. One easy example would be a Catholic student who espouses the theology of social justice as well as adhering to traditional Catholic teaching on family. There are campuses out there which are often cited as bastions on the “liberal elite” but seems to graduate quite a few student who go on to jobs on Wall Street or other areas in law or business which might be considered right of center.</p>
<p>From a student perspective:
In most cases, I think it’s a matter of self selection. Some students may like to be the exception, but many will eliminate from contention schools that seem to skew farther in any direction than they are comfortable with. In that case, the student’s own outlook becomes the center of the continuum and left or right are judged based on their own center not some outwardly defined idea of liberal or conservative.</p>
<p>The OP suggests that “liberal” top privates recruit more heavily in politically conservative areas, and offer scholarships for conservatives. But those top privates already recruit heavily across the country in their search for geographical diversity. As for scholarships, most top privates offer little to no merit money. Being GLBT or conservative (or GLBT conservatives) isn’t going to get you any merit aid at those schools.</p>
<p>I’d think that an applicant with significant and deep involvement with conservative causes would actually have a slight admissions hook for some more liberal schools. More likely with economic and social science policies than with science.</p>
<p>Many conservative high school students intentionally search for colleges with significant conservative populations. There are parents who use books like “Choosing the Right College” as a first cut, looking at the schools rated green and yellow. The things that earn a school a “red” unacceptable rating include many things: is there a core curriculum? does it stress classics of the western world? is the on-campus housing comfortable for those who are more socially conservative? what is the political balance? That’s fine by me, because it’s a fit issue. Not every school has to be a perfect fit for every student. Schools don’t have to remake themselves into institutions where absolutely everyone will feel comfortable.</p>
<p>Are you talking about encouraging applications, or by putting a thumb on the scale in admissions? Those are two different things IMO. I suspect a lot of social conservatives live in areas of the country where the state flagships are also seen as “fine / good enough” and aren’t interested in the “better / elite” schools.</p>
<p>Sample of one - my political-science-oriented son wrote about his experiences serving in a capacity with the local Republican party organization, and is now president of his college’s College Democrats Just goes to show …</p>
<p>One younger HS classmate was a staunch member of our High School Republicans Club. </p>
<p>It was only after W was elected and he’s gone through law school and worked as a lawyer for a few years that he started evolving into what he is now…a progressive radical-left person who feels President Obama/Democrats are “too right-wing/conservative”.</p>
<p>Heck, the way he is now…he’d fit in much better at Oberlin College during my time there in the mid-late '90s than I ever did.</p>
<p>Now that both my mother & father are gone, I am the sole liberal from my birth family. Observing the colleges where my nieces & nephews have attended, I would say that colleges already are interested in a range of student backgrounds and viewpoints,which is reflected in admissions.</p>
<p>If someone feels that more conservative viewpoints are needed on campus, one way to insure that students are given that opportunity is to encourage like minded organizations to fund scholarships to enable them to do so.</p>
<p>From reading these boards, I have come across easily as many students who seem socially & economically conservative, as I have those who are more progressive. I think they are probably doing just fine at finding universities to attend.</p>
<p>However, you might also consider that in their youth, conservatives may have been much more liberal than OP realizes. Quite a few neo-cons could refer to themselves as lapsed leftists.</p>
<p>Yes really. I don’t see your point. Who is the speaker in your hypothetical quote? In what possible capacity did I advocate directly or indirectly the indoctrination of youth to the matters you list? What I wrote is not ironic or telling of anti-conservative biases: Liberalism and conservatism are different ideologies, and there’s no reason to pretend that their differences cannot be considered in an unbiased analysis of whether it is problematic for one to be in the minority in a particular context.</p>
<p>Consider, for example, three populations: theists, atheists, and agnostics. Suppose that we use the former two terms in a strict fashion, including only those who are rigid in their belief in God’s or gods’ existences or non-existence. The domination of a debate by one of these two groups may result in the subjugation of the minority opinion if the volume of its voice is not subsidized somehow as emeraldkity4 suggests. This scenario would indeed be a detriment to the search of truth. But would a plurality or even majority of agnostics in addition to smaller populations of theists and atheists be problematic? Inasmuch as agnostics have a truth-seeking-interest to consider both sides of advocacy with an open mind but skepticism, I think not. The analogy is imperfect but approachable and meaningful, I believe.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>When liberalism is adopted by fallible people, it would be absurd to expect absurd things not to happen. There are plenty of close-minded, self-deemed liberals whose enmity toward conservatism, when conveyed, is indeed destructive. This can be said widely and is no critique of liberalism. As an indication of the potential helpfulness of formal exposure to serious conservative positions so that this blanket rejection by some can be assuaged, you have a point.</p>
<p>Indeed, some liberal positions whose intolerance cannot be dismissed by human folly do exist. But there ought be a distinction between the sort of open-minded analysis and tolerant default judgments that characterize liberalism and the eternal perpetuity of that open-mindedness and tolerance even when the analyses and judgments recurrently yield the conclusion that the beliefs at hand warrant rejection and intolerance. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>This would be a reasonable interpretation of what I said if the text around that quote’s appearance in my original post were not contextualized by explanation. Instead, I grounded the claim (in my original post and earlier in this one) in some thought, which while surely not to inspire consensus, is more substantive than you accuse. I don’t think you have reason to know my worldview, in any case.</p>
Just goes to show …</p>