<p>
</p>
<p>Despite their repeated claims to the opposite, “blue states” are not immune to abject hypocrisy nor have a monopoly on political intelligence.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Well, if that were true, every municipality would vote to have regional schools, instead of the current “best schools = richest suburb” model.</p>
<p>How would that go over where you live?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Michigan with a 20 percent african american population couldn’t have have stopped it if they wanted to. And that’s the largest african american representation of any state you’ve mentioned. The only reason that AA prevails is not because of the benevolence of the majority but because of the power of the minority that make laws and dictate policy. As a policy maker they are in a situation where they have to appease the majority to a degree and at the same time not alienate the rising minority population. The pendulum is swinging back to a more conservative policy with AA in public matters/institutions, but will not encroach significantly in trying to dictate to private entities into following suit. At least not now…</p>
<p>To the extent that diversity means Balkanization of the polity it ought to be a dirty word. Unless we are all Americans and all Americans are treated equally by the law and social convention we will not be united to anything except our own tribe.</p>
<p>The United States is gradually becomming unglued and I fully expect the ungluing to gather steam in the 21st century. Meanwhile the very idea of the nation state is under increasing pressure from both supra-national organizations such as the United Nations, the EU, the UN and trans-national organizations such as Al Qada, Hexbollah, Fatah, Hamas, the IRA, and drug cartels and international business conglomerates - Big oil, big food processing, big pharmaceuticals etc.</p>
<p>The nation states that claim sovereignty over their national territory cannot exercise it because they are powerless against the aforementioned supra-national and trans-national organization. This renders a lot of international law bothe senseless and useless. People will increasingly turn to the organization that can best deliver the services they need and put their loyalty there. </p>
<p>The situation is akin to the rise of the Guilds and city-states in Europe at the close of the feudal age. OK I have made a long jump from AA to the collapse of the world order but it all begins with the collapse of a common polity in a nation state which begins when you have a multi-national state i.e. diversity. If you want to know what diversity brings to a country look at Austria-Hungary or the Ottoman Empire and their successor states.</p>
<p>We don’t eed diversity in America we need assimilation.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Oh, of course not!</p>
<p>For example, the Supreme Court recently ruled in a 9-0 decision that the teacher’s union of Washington is not allowed to use nonmembers’ mandatory dues to pay for campaign advertising without the consent of the nonmembers. Washington is certainly not immune to abject hypocrisy. The Supreme Court soundly overturned the ruling of the Washington State Supreme Court, and rightly so.</p>
<p>Blue states definitely do not have monopolies on political intelligence.</p>
<p>But, those three blue states did not commit abject hypocrisy when they voted to amend their constitutions to make sure that no one is discriminated against or granted preferential treatment on the basis of skin color.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>We have two public high schools in my city and a handful of private ones. We are so small that we do not have suburbs. We do have subdivisions, though, and my high school alma mater has students from every subdivision in my town.</p>
<p>My state has statewide open enrollment for public schools. There are a few exceptional situations because of previous court orders or because of VOLUNTARY desegregation plans that include magnet schools in certain locations, but in general in Minnesota any student can attend any public school anywhere in the state. I am happy to live in an integrated neighborhood.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Well written. I agree wholeheartedly.</p>
<p>It’s problematic whenever the voices of the few attempt to override the voices of the many (see: BAMN). I quote Perikles in part as follows:</p>
<p>* In name it is called a democracy on account of being administered in the interest not of the few but the many…*</p>
<p>Three states’ citizens have spoken – racial preferences as previously practiced did not make sense. The “diversity” they resulted in was not any better than the real diversity that was achieved later on. Social justice was not implemented as the middle-class blacks were helped more than the underprivileged blacks.</p>
<p>And, next year, the citizens of at least four more states will choose. Long live democracy.</p>
<p>“in general in Minnesota any student can attend any public school anywhere in the state.”</p>
<p>tokenadult - that is an empty promise unless it comes along with transportation. Then there is also the little issue that Minnesota is about 98% white outside of Mineapolis-St Paul.</p>
<p>I take it you haven’t been here recently.</p>
<p>True I haven’t ben to Minnesota in a couple of decades but the census bureau has been. The state was 89% white in the last census. </p>
<p>1st Congressional District 94.7% white
2nd Congressional District 95.6% white
3rd Congressional District 88.7% white
4th Congressional District 79% white
5th Congressional District 72.3% white
6th Congressional District 93 % white
7th Congressional District 94% white
8th Congressional District 95% white</p>
<p>The biggest non-white groups in the 7th and 8th district which cover most of the state are Native American. Guess which 3 districts districts cover Minneapolis-St Paul. So OK I exaggerated a little. The state is only 95% with the rest mostly Native American outside of Minneapolis-St Paul. Either way not exactly divers.</p>
<p><a href=“http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:MN-districts-natat.JPG3[/url]”>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:MN-districts-natat.JPG3</a></p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Makes for a nice soundbyte, but I doubt that’s true. At Swarthmore (a college which practices aggressive affirmative action), African Americans made up 9% of the student body this past year, but 14% of the students receiving financial aid. Latino/a students were also over-represented in the financial aid group (10% of students; 15% of aid students). Asian Americans were slightly over-represented. Whites were the the only students under-represented in the financial aid group.</p>
<p>It’s really simple. If you want a wealthier student body, limit enrollment to white students. Basing admission strictly on SAT scores is a good way to achieve that goal as there is such a strong correlation between white, wealthy, and high test scores.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Sure there’s a point. Really simple to understand, too. Colleges give affirmative action preference to minority students for exactly the same reason they give affirmative action preference to recruited athletes. Without affirmative action, they wouldn’t get as many of them as they want.</p>
<p>BTW, for those of you holding California up as a shining beacon: less than 2% of UCLA’s freshman class last fall was African American. I’ve read about Klan meetings with more black participation. It’s a total disgrace and then entire UCLA community (as well as the state) is worse for it. That percentage is so pathetic that UCLA has essentially zero chance of attracting top African American students. Why would they want to attend such a school?</p>
<p>African American population of California: 6.7%
African American population of UCLA: 3%</p>
<p>Hispanic population of California: 35%
Hispanic population of UCLA: 15%</p>
<p>Asian population of California: 12.2%
Asian population of UCLA: 38%</p>
<p>White population of California: 43%
White population of UCLA: 34%</p>
<p>Interesting, no?</p>
<p>long live affirmative action (especially for the children of immigrants) lol…</p>
<p>california schools do lack some diversity, and they are stingy w/ money… rarely do u see a full tuition scholarship (most are partial)…(except for USC, and california irvine).that is why i won’t apply to any of them.</p>
<p>Makes for a nice soundbyte, but I doubt that’s true. At Swarthmore (a college which practices aggressive affirmative action), African Americans made up 9% of the student body this past year, but 14% of the students receiving financial aid. Latino/a students were also over-represented in the financial aid group (10% of students; 15% of aid students). Asian Americans were slightly over-represented. Whites were the the only students under-represented in the financial aid group.</p>
<p>Why would it be a positive that whites are under-represented in financial aid?</p>
<p>they were RICH!!! and therefore they didn’t need the money. . this way u are allowing poor minorities w/ good grades to afford the college. if whites were over-represened in financial aid…the world would come to an end and minorities???..would have no where to go.</p>
<p>lol
Well, Ive read enough posts on CC to realize that those who do not qualify for need based financial aid at a school like Swarthmore, don’t necessarily consider themselves * rich*, but if your EFC is as much or more than the average national income, you are probably doing well ( or self employed)</p>
<p>interesteddad,</p>
<p>Please ask the user AdOfficer, who wrote several months ago that most of the so-called “under-represented” minorities at Ivies are not, by any means, poor.</p>
<p>Fourteen and fifteen percent are still low numbers.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Who ever said I wanted a wealthier student body? For that matter, has anyone here at CC openly stated, “Hi. I would like to see wealthier student bodies,”? To my knowledge, no.</p>
<p>Who ever said I wanted to base admissions strictly on SAT scores? For that matter, has anyone here at CC openly stated, “Hello. I think affirmative action and holistic admissions are both shams. Therefore, I propose an admissions policy that doesn’t even take into account high school GPA, just a test that you can take multiple times”? Uh, no.</p>
<p>Sure there’s a point. Really simple to understand, too. Colleges give affirmative action preference to minority students for exactly the same reason they give affirmative action preference to recruited athletes. Without affirmative action, they wouldn’t get as many of them as they want.</p>
<p>Would you condone a school that sought to produce a wealthy student body?</p>
<p>So, less than two percent of UCLA’s freshman class last fall was black. What’s your point? Is that supposed to be a problem? I don’t see it as a problem. If that’s the result under race-blind admissions, then so be it. It’s fine with me.</p>
<p>You know what else is fine with me? A UCLA freshman class created through race-blind admissions that was 51% black. You could replace that number with any integer from 1 to 100, and I would not see any problems as long as the admissions were race-blind.</p>
<p>As far as why black students would want to attend a school where the freshman class had two black students out of every 100, maybe it’s because they thought the school was a great fit academically. Maybe they, gasp, liked it?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>It’s only interesting to persons who want “balanced” or “proportional” student bodies.</p>
<p>You see, I’m not interested in any policy that seeks to curb Asian enrollment to 12.2%. Nor am I interested in any policy that caps white enrollment to 43%. Ditto for all the race classifications.</p>