Want diversity w/o Affirmative Action? Don't rely on the SAT

[Drosselmeier]

<p>

First, are you going to acknowledge that I’ve consistently stated my disagreement with Dr. King on several issues, or are you going to continue to depict me as a guy who has never admitted this?

That is not my accusation against you. So you ought not act so ridiculous about it. My accusation is that you appropriate the words of people then exploit the weight of their words and reputation to support what they did not support. You may disagree with them on an issue. You may even state once or twice in response to your critics, I might add, that you disagree with them on an issue. But as long as you attempt to steal the might of these people’s reputations, to associate it with what they patently rejected, you act dishonorably against them.</p>

<p>

Now, in his dissent, I believe that Justice Harlan mentioned the status of the Chinese to demonstrate the gaping weakness in the majority opinion. I agree with you. In addition, his sentence There is a race so different from our own that we do not permit those belonging to it to become citizens of the United States was indeed the majority viewpoint across the United States in the late nineteenth century. In order to quote his ideal of the colorblind Constitution, do I also need to agree with him that the Chinese are “so different” from whites? I don’t think so, but you’ve been suggesting that I do.

I have not suggested any such thing. What you have done and continue to do is misrepresent the people, either directly, as in Harlan’s case, or by implication, as in King’s case. You do not present enough context in your posts to make the accusations you make against Harlan. You do not present enough to imply King’s support. Yet you have tried here to take advantage of both men. It is dishonest.</p>

[Drosselmeier]

<p>

Affirmative Action is often meant to refer to programs to enlarge the pool of applicants to include URM’s. Few people object to these. “Racial preferences” is not a term of art and means what it says. Attempting to infer widespread support for racial preferences from support for “Affirmative Action” is totally disingenuous.

Please. We know none of this based on the Pew study. It could be, and likely is, that “Affirmative Action” is being construed as programs that help qualified blacks, women, etc., while “preference” is construed as meaning quota systems without regard for being qualified. The thing that really matters, as far as I am concerned, and that is shocking really, is that 70% of Americans are allegedly for Affirmative Action. Surprising. I think epiph actually wins the day on this point.</p>

[Bay]

<p>Fab,</p>

<p>Re: your post #274, I only see one Justice using “racial preference” (O’Connor) and one using “race-based preference” (Kennedy). I don’t think you can conclude that the U.S. Supreme Court has therefore “clearly stated” that “racial preference” is the appropriate term.</p>

<p>Re: your post #275. The fact that UC Riverside showed an increase in Black admissions has no bearing on the fact that UCLA and Cal showed a precipitous decline. They are operated as seperate universities for all intents and purposes.</p>

<p>As Epiphany stated, “Bottom line: it’s deemed “discriminatory” when 100% of one ethnic group who applies does not succeed in getting in.” UCLA and Cal’s admission procedures can and should be challenged as discriminatory if they operate to create campuses that are devoid of certain racial groups.</p>

[fabrizio]

<p>epiphany,</p>

<p>You and I both know that Grutter dealt with the University of Michigan’s law school. That you continue to suggest that these preferences don’t exist in spite of Grutter and the Justices’ word choice baffles me.</p>

<p>

…it’s deemed “discriminatory” when 100% of one ethnic group who applies does not succeed in getting in…

</p>

<p>So, there was no discrimination against Jews at the Ivy Leagues in decades past? Nice to know that, epiphany.</p>

[fabrizio]

<p>Re: #277</p>

<p>Drosselmeier,</p>

<p>If you would have read my post #274, you would have noticed that we are talking about the same survey from Pew.</p>

<p>I wrote the following in that post:</p>

<p>

In the survey I cited from, which I doubt you’ll check out because of its implications, it states that “Currently, 70% say they favor affirmative action programs, up from 58% in 1995.”</p>

<p>An overwhelming majority of Americans favor “affirmative action programs.” When probed on just how these programs work, though, Pew found that most Americans are opposed to racial preferences. For the record, Pew themselves used the phrase “racial preference.” Though you may think that they originally used something like “race-conscious admissions” or “inclusion,” they did not.

</p>

<p>Edit</p>

<p>So hilarious that Drosselmeier uses the survey to show that most Americans agree with him even though he completely ignores the aspects of the survey that revealed most Americans don’t support racial preferences.</p>

[Drosselmeier]

<p>

If you would have read my post #274, you would have noticed that we are talking about the same survey from Pew.

I understood this, which is why I actually looked up and read it for myself. There was no “probing” or anything. They simply asked a question that seems to me to invoke quota imagery, which very many people, including blacks, are against. But when mentioning “Affirmative Action” specifically to help blacks, women, and other minorities, a growing number of Americans, now at 70%, value such programs. So much for all this “color-blindness” nonsense you have been talking. Race still matters a great deal, and Americans are apparently aware of this. I find that very surprising - remarkable even.</p>

[epiphany]

<p>I have to go and do some real work now, something that’s more productive than arguing with the same person who for about 2 years now has claimed that he really is not that invested in AA because he’s applying (& now been accepted) elsewhere than at the institutions where this is supposedly such a significant issue. (Not.) Not enough qualified URM’s to make this a significant issue at places like HYP & their cousins.</p>

[cheers]

<p>70% is a heartening number. That’s too big a number to based soley on collective guilt, IMO. There may be ambivalence and tinges of guilt, but I believe the majority want to put the culture on an more accepting, more tolerant plane.</p>

<p>Our children’s generation is more than ready from what I see–having benefitted from the SPLC Teaching Tolerance programs in schools.</p>

[sybbie719]

<p>

You say “preference” is both inaccurate and insincere. Yet, former Associate Justice Sandra Day O’Connor used the phrases “racial preferences” and “preferential treatment” in her concurring opinion in Grutter.

</p>

<p>Fab, </p>

<p>you still pick and choose what you want and ignore the bigger picture if it is not one you want to see. </p>

<p>In the decision O’Connor also wrote (without going through every single page):</p>

<p><a href=“http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/02pdf/02-241.pdf[/url]”>http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/02pdf/02-241.pdf&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

<p>

</p>

<p>Seeking to “admit a group of students who individually and collectively are among the most capable,” the Law School looks for individuals with “substantial promise for success in law school” and “a strong likelihood of succeeding in the practice of law and contributing in diverse ways to the well-being of others.” App. 110. More broadly, the Law School seeks “a mix of students with varying backgrounds and experiences who will respect and learn from each other.”</p>

<p>The hallmark of that policy is its focus on academic ability coupled with a flexible assessment of applicants’ talents, experiences, and potential “to contribute to the learning of those around them.” App. 111. The policy requires admissions officials to evaluate each applicant based on all the information available in the file, including a personal statement, letters of recommendation, and an essay describing the ways in which the applicant will contribute to the life and diversity of the Law School.</p>

<p>In reviewing an applicant’s file, admissions officials must consider the applicant’s under-graduate grade point average (GPA) and Law School Admissions Test (LSAT) score because they are important (if imperfect) predictors of academic success in law school. Id., at 112. The policy stresses that “no applicant should be admitted unless we expect that applicant to do well enough to graduate with no serious academic problems.” Id., at 111.
The policy makes clear, however, that even the highest possible score does not guarantee admission to the Law School. Id., at 113. Nor does a low score automatically disqualify an applicant.</p>

<p>Rather, the policy requires admissions officials to look beyond grades and test scores to other criteria that are important to the Law School’s educational objectives. Id., at 114. So-called “‘soft’ vari-ables” such as “the enthusiasm of recommenders, the quality of the undergraduate institution, the quality of the applicant’s essay, and the areas and difficulty of under-graduate course selection” are all brought to bear in assessing an “applicant’s likely contributions to the intellectual and social life of the institution.</p>

<p>What is more, the Law School actually gives substantial weight to diversity factors besides race. The Law School frequently accepts nonminority applicants with grades and test scores lower than underrepresented minority applicants (and other nonminority applicants) who are rejected.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>Sounds like a wholistic process similar to what is used in undergrad admissions @ elite colleges.</p>

[simba]

<p>"70% is a heartening number. That’s too big a number to based soley on collective guilt, IMO. There may be ambivalence and tinges of guilt, but I believe the majority want to put the culture on an more accepting, more tolerant plane.</p>

<p>Our children’s generation is more than ready from what I see–having benefitted from the SPLC Teaching Tolerance programs in schools."</p>

<p>sorry to bust the bubble, but …</p>

<p>Most Americans (62%) disagree with this statement:“We should make every possible effort to improve position of blacks and otehr minorities, even if means giving them preferential treatment.” Even half of those who favor affrimative action programs dissent from the idea that minorities should be given preferential treatment.</p>

<p><a href=“http://people-press.org/reports/pdf/312.pdf[/url]”>http://people-press.org/reports/pdf/312.pdf&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

[collegealum314]

<p>In response to sybbie: They can say whatever they want, but it’s generally agreed that law school admission is number driven (GPA, LSAT). And if you look at a graph of GPA vs. LSAT and plot the applicants, the non-URM admits are overwhelmingly clustered together. Very small differences in LSAT score and GPA make a big difference too. Med School admission definitely takes more into account these “soft variables” when comparing candidates. Maybe this is why the Michigan Law School was sued instead of their med school, or perhaps it’s because the aspiring lawyers are more litigious in general.</p>

[fabrizio]

<p>Drosselmeier,</p>

<p>I do not see how the statement “We should make every effort to improve the position of blacks and minorities, even if it means giving preferential treatment” invokes quota imagery. Furthermore, 57% of blacks polled supported this statement, which is still a majority, albeit a smaller one than the 93% of blacks who support “affirmative action.”</p>

<p>While “many…blacks” are against the statement, a majority is in favor of the statement.</p>

<p>If I were asked, “Do you support affirmative action?” believe it or not, I would answer ‘yes.’ But, I would then immediately state, “However, I am against racial preferences.” I am for affirmative action – treating all Americans equally without regard to race. I am against racial preferences – treating some Americans preferentially with heavy regard to race.</p>

<p>I hope you aren’t assuming that the 70% of Americans polled have the same conception of “affirmative action” as you do, especially since according to Pew, “…half of those who favor affirmative action programs dissent from the idea that minorities should be given preferential treatment.”</p>

[cheers]

<p>Sorry to burst the contrary bubble but any statement containing the word ‘preferential’ is a statement designed to get negative response. For comparison, how was the Pew statement worded?</p>

[fabrizio]

<p>epiphany,</p>

<p>I appreciate the compliment, but I assure you that two years ago, I knew next to nothing about how entrenched the system of racial preference was. I was blissfully ignorant. In reality, I’ve only been discussing this issue with persons such as yourself since last fall.</p>

<p>In the future, if you still choose to discuss this with other young students opposed to the idea of racial preference, I only advise that you be more fair.</p>

<p>If I were rejected from a university, then you would dismiss my opposition to affirmative action as mere “scapegoating.”</p>

<p>Since I was not rejected and indeed did not even apply to any of those universities in question – I accepted your advice, you say I’m not “invested” in the issue and thus shouldn’t get worked over it.</p>

<p>Wow. So, I’m damned if I do, and I’m damned if I don’t. That’s really fair, epiphany.</p>

<p>By the way, please retract your “discrimination must be 100% against” argument as it is obviously false. I need only one counterexample – Jews at the Ivy Leagues in the early twentieth century. They were discriminated against, but Jews still made up 15% of Harvard’s student body. So much for your argument.</p>

[fabrizio]

<p>sybbie,</p>

<p>What is your point?</p>

<p>None of what you wrote contradicts what I posted.</p>

<p>Justice O’Connor wrote the following selected (keyword) statements:</p>

<ol>
<li> We acknowledge that “there are serious problems of justice connected with the idea of preference itself.” Bakke, 438 U.S., at 298 (opinion of Powell, J.).<br></li>
<li> We are mindful, however, that “[a] core purpose of the Fourteenth Amendment was to do away with all governmentally imposed discrimination based on race.” Palmore v. Sidoti, 466 U.S. 429, 432 (1984). Accordingly, race-conscious admissions policies must be limited in time. This requirement reflects that racial classifications, however compelling their goals, are potentially so dangerous that they may be employed no more broadly than the interest demands. Enshrining a permanent justification for racial preferences would offend this fundamental equal protection principle.</li>
<li> In the context of higher education, the durational requirement can be met by sunset provisions in race-conscious admissions policies and periodic reviews to determine whether racial preferences are still necessary to achieve student body diversity.</li>
</ol>

<p>Unlike you, Justice O’Connor was comfortable using the phrase “racial preferences.”</p>

<p>I’m comfortable with holistic admissions. Holistic admissions does not need to include race. See UCLA for an example.</p>

[fabrizio]

<p>Bay,</p>

<p>Your analysis of the wording is duly noted. I remind you that Justice O’Connor’s opinion in Grutter was the Court’s opinion. Furthermore, in her opinion, she cited Justice Powell’s opinion in Bakke, where he used the term “preference.” Moreover, I remind you that Chief Justice Rehnquist used “discrimination” while Justice Scalia and Justice Thomas used “racial discrimination.”</p>

<p>I never suggested that “UC Riverside show[ing] an increase in Black admissions has no bearing on the fact that UCLA and Cal showed a precipitous decline.” I brought up Riverside to respond to MarathonMan88’s statement “…if a college were truly color-blind in every way, it would exclude African-Americans and Latinos in large numbers.” Riverside disproves that statement.</p>

<p>I find it interesting that by agreeing with epiphany’s “not discrimination unless 100% barred” reasoning, you have completely forgotten about how Jews were discriminated against at the Ivy Leagues in decades past. Even with such biased questions like</p>

<ol>
<li> What’s your mother’s maiden name?</li>
<li> What is your religion?</li>
<li> Have you changed your last name?</li>
</ol>

<p>Jews still made up around 15% of the student body at Harvard. Do you still want to suggest that they weren’t discriminated against?</p>

[fabrizio]

<p>

Sorry to burst the contrary bubble but any statement containing the word ‘preferential’ is a statement designed to get negative response. For comparison, how was the Pew statement worded?

</p>

<p>Really? Care to explain why 57% of blacks polled agreed that “We should make every effort to improve the position of blacks and minorities, even if it means giving preferential treatment”?</p>

<p>To clarify just for you, the above statement was how Pew worded it.</p>

[JHS]

<p>Sorry, collegealum, but at the elite level (which includes Michigan) law school admissions is no more number-driven than elite college admission. Yale, Harvard, Stanford do NOT have classes full of 4.0/80 students. As with college admissions, a 4.0/80 student probably has a better chance of admission at an elite school than a 3.5/70 student, but the probability of the former’s admission is a lot lower than 1.0. One may have a 50% chance of admission, and the other a 5% chance, but there are a lot more of the latter, so the class may include equal numbers of each. What will really matter, though, is what ELSE they have done.</p>

[curious14]

<p>Drosselmeier,</p>

<p>I have thought for some time Fabrizio was besting you on every point but the online equivalent to a high five seems silly. </p>

<p>My point is straghtforward. You can’t ask people about Affirmative Action and get an answer to their feelings on racial preferences. The fact that you think you can only shows how close minded you choose to be on this issue.</p>

[curious14]

<p>Cheers, </p>

<p>“Sorry to burst the contrary bubble but any statement containing the word ‘preferential’ is a statement designed to get negative response.”</p>

<p>Of course the word gets a negative response the overwhelming proportion of people are opposed to it. You can’t get people to approve of it unless you trick them into thinking you are talking about something else.</p>