Race policies at universities questioned

[one...two...tree 2,762]

I am all for an affirmative action style system for all underprivileged people.

I'm for affirmative action for untermenschen. I'm REALLY trying to be more liberal.

What's your definition of an "untermensch"? It's a term that was widely used by the Nazi's to describe what they saw as the non-nordic, non-germanic, sub-human inferior types. Personally, I find the term disturbing.

Nazis believed that Jews, Slavs, Gypsies, Altaic peoples or Africans, and asocial element, as well as the mentally or physically disabled, homosexuals, criminals, prostitutes, beggars, tramps, liberals, political dissidents, Jehovah's Witnesses and so-called morally degenerates were subhuman.

Untermensch

That's the way liberals see people too. I believe all people should treated equally but I'm trying to be more liberal. Affirmative action believes some people are better than others.

People get tripped up on the idea of equality and what that means. It doesn't mean treating people exactly the same. Think that one through and see if you can achieve equality by simple treating everyone in society exactly the same.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Here's an example of how Affirmative Action can and should work - worth reading closely.

May the government use racial classifications when it does so to benefit, not discriminate against, racial minorities that have historically been the victims of discrimination? The Supreme Court first considered that question in 1978, in the case of Bakke v. Regents, University of California. Bakke, a white applicant to the UC-Davis Medical School, claimed that he was denied admission even though his test scores and grades were markedly better than minority applicants who were admitted. The Court found that Bakke had been denied equal protection of the laws by UC-Davis's use of a "two-track" admission system, one track for whites and one for non-whites. Even though Bakke won, many people came to view Bakke as a victory for proponents of affirmative action. Justice Powell, providing the critical fifth vote for Bakke, said in his concurring opinion that increasing racial diversity in classrooms was a compelling state interest, and that a more narrowly tailored program--such as one that gave "pluses" to minority applicants rather than putting them into a seperate admission track--would not violate the Constitution.

http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/f...ativeaction.htm

[Hilarious Clinton 452]

Here's an example of how Affirmative Action can and should work - worth reading closely.

May the government use racial classifications when it does so to benefit, not discriminate against, racial minorities that have historically been the victims of discrimination? The Supreme Court first considered that question in 1978, in the case of Bakke v. Regents, University of California. Bakke, a white applicant to the UC-Davis Medical School, claimed that he was denied admission even though his test scores and grades were markedly better than minority applicants who were admitted. The Court found that Bakke had been denied equal protection of the laws by UC-Davis's use of a "two-track" admission system, one track for whites and one for non-whites. Even though Bakke won, many people came to view Bakke as a victory for proponents of affirmative action. Justice Powell, providing the critical fifth vote for Bakke, said in his concurring opinion that increasing racial diversity in classrooms was a compelling state interest, and that a more narrowly tailored program--such as one that gave "pluses" to minority applicants rather than putting them into a seperate admission track--would not violate the Constitution.

http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/f...ativeaction.htm

Diversity is in nature and acquired through survival of the fittest.

[CarolineM 0]

I'm suspicious of "merit" arguments in education, if only because it's hard to judge what's the student effort and merit and what is just being middle-class. If you go to a poor high school, and you manage, though the teachers suck and there's drugs, to pull a B average and 1250 on the SAT, are you more or less meritorious than the kid, who in our hypothetical situation, had straight As because whenever her grades dropped her parents paid for an expensive private tutor and S.A.T. prep so she could get a 1400?

Is the black kid more or less meritorious because when his grandfather served in the military, he was excluded from the G.I. Bill because he was black, and mine got a free college education and the resulting ticket to the middle class? It was practically affirmative action for white folks.

Most people who are against affirmative action aren't against legacy admits and athletic admits, even though those are usually worth about 100 points on the SAT, too. Merit? Because your parents went to Harvard? Mm, okay. Funny definition of merit.

I'm not sure that race is a good proxy for affirmative action, but with such a wide range in the quality of high schools, a straight merit measure is inadequate. A socioeconomic tag might work better than a race tag, but allowing legacies & athletic admissions and clucking about "merit" is just nuts.

You are 100% right Caladan. Right now I am very involved with a program for 1st generation college students. Their parents have NO clue what the process involves. Now, it's not race based, but in Jacksonville the majority of these students are black. It is impossible to hold these kids to the same standards of the kids...for example..that I grew up with. My parents had the money to, and the knowledge to, pay money to let me take an SAT course. It was pricey but it increased my score 500 points! That's HUGe. This kids don't usually even know what the SAT is.

Your points about legacy and athletics are RIGHT ON. How can black students...or even recent immigrants for example...be on the same playing field when for many of them they ar ethe FIRST to go to college. No legacies here! The only thing I DISAGREE with you on is that those things add 100 points on the SAT. As a college admissions counselor...TRUST me it adds more than that...WAY more.

I agree with using race as a PARTIAL factor in determining admissions.

[CarolineM 0]

Also i think that ppl get mixed up between affirmative action and QUOTAS. Now...I completely disagree with saying...ok we have to have 100 whites, and 100 blacks and 50 asians...

BUT taking socio economic status into consideration, in my mind, is completely fair!!! Again...it's all about a level playing field.

Erekrose: As for elemtary school and all that..I can ONLY speak for Jacksonville Fl but you're right on. Here in Jacksonville, our public school system is one of the worst. We have schools that are failing left and right. There are a few exceptions and that's the magnet schools. If you can get into one of the two academic magnets for high school, you're ok...but if you can't - our other schools are a travesty!

Ok so let's look at private schools.

1. To know how to navigate the system, you have to be VERY intellenge and knowledgable. Many of these VERY bright kids have parents that either CANT or dont WANT to be able to do this. They'll just throw their kid into the local public school because it's EASY!

Nothing in the WORLD is as heartbreaking as a VERY bright student who is being held back by his or her parents. I had a kid last year...BRILLIANT. I mean SO SMART...but his mother didn't care. She did hair at the local flea market and made him work as well to support the family. He would leave school and sit at the bus stop...to take the bus to the mall to work at Sears. He would get off at 10 p.m. and would then tkae the bus back to school. A VERY prestigious non proft organization offered him admittance to a college prep program...and his mom wouldn't let him do it...because they needed the money. You're telling me that This kid should be held at an equal weight to an upper middle class kid who's parents have the knowledge about what schools and programs will help him?

2. Private schools are also pricey. the HS I went to now costs 12,000 a year...FOR HIGH SCHOOL...but for the most part those kids wtrite their own ticket for college. They get in where they want to....they do well on standardized testing becuase their parents pay for classes to help them - the school helps them...it's all part of the program...these kids should be on the same playing field as the above mentioned student??

Again....

quotas vs. Affirmative action...big difference.

Hope some of this rambling made sense

[Jenn! 918]

Also i think that ppl get mixed up between affirmative action and QUOTAS. Now...I completely disagree with saying...ok we have to have 100 whites, and 100 blacks and 50 asians...

BUT taking socio economic status into consideration, in my mind, is completely fair!!! Again...it's all about a level playing field.

Erekrose: As for elemtary school and all that..I can ONLY speak for Jacksonville Fl but you're right on. Here in Jacksonville, our public school system is one of the worst. We have schools that are failing left and right. There are a few exceptions and that's the magnet schools. If you can get into one of the two academic magnets for high school, you're ok...but if you can't - our other schools are a travesty!

Ok so let's look at private schools.

1. To know how to navigate the system, you have to be VERY intellenge and knowledgable. Many of these VERY bright kids have parents that either CANT or dont WANT to be able to do this. They'll just throw their kid into the local public school because it's EASY!

Nothing in the WORLD is as heartbreaking as a VERY bright student who is being held back by his or her parents. I had a kid last year...BRILLIANT. I mean SO SMART...but his mother didn't care. She did hair at the local flea market and made him work as well to support the family. He would leave school and sit at the bus stop...to take the bus to the mall to work at Sears. He would get off at 10 p.m. and would then tkae the bus back to school. A VERY prestigious non proft organization offered him admittance to a college prep program...and his mom wouldn't let him do it...because they needed the money. You're telling me that This kid should be held at an equal weight to an upper middle class kid who's parents have the knowledge about what schools and programs will help him?

2. Private schools are also pricey. the HS I went to now costs 12,000 a year...FOR HIGH SCHOOL...but for the most part those kids wtrite their own ticket for college. They get in where they want to....they do well on standardized testing becuase their parents pay for classes to help them - the school helps them...it's all part of the program...these kids should be on the same playing field as the above mentioned student??

Again....

quotas vs. Affirmative action...big difference.

Hope some of this rambling made sense

Made sense to me. Very good points.

ETA: I think I mentioned this in another thread on the topic, but I taught at a school with mostly poor white kids. Colleges were rightly giving those kids special consideration.

Edited February 19, 2007 by jenn3539

[DeadPoolX 9]

Your missing the point entirely. First, I'm not comparing a wheelchair bound person to a minority. I used an example of equality in the eyes of the law that doesn't translate into equal treatment. If you want to argue that point then go ahead. Let me ask you this - do you believe that equality means everyone should be treated exactly the same?

Well, don't you think that men and women, Anglo-Americans, African-Americans, Hispanic-Americans, and Asian-Americans should all be treated the same? Shouldn't they all be afforded the same rights and laws, the same decency in society, and the same equal opportunities? I think so. So naturally, they should all be treated the same.

Treating one group better than another is discriminatory, no matter how you slice it. If you treat men better than women or women better than men, it's sexism; likewise, if you treat whites better than blacks or blacks better than whites, it's racism. So the only answer is to treat everyone in a gender-neutral and racially-neutral fashion.

I really don't see any other way around the problem. Using race as a deciding factor is discrimination of the highest order. I could potentially see SES as a method in which to assist the decision-making process, but the final decision would still have to rest on merit.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Using race as a deciding factor is discrimination of the highest order. I could potentially see SES as a method in which to assist the decision-making process, but the final decision would still have to rest on merit.

Well you're pointing out something that CarolineM suggested above - race is a partial (not the sole) determining factor to determining placements. The broad assumption that people seem to be making that college placements are determined purely by ethnicity is a bit of a fallacy IMO. I've yet to see any evidence to prove that this is the case, when Affirmative Action is already illegal in a number of states, including California.

[Fandango 1,440]

I missed what Steve said when he compared certain races to being handicapped.

And that's the most racist statement of this whole thread.

You've used this analogy before, Steven...and your flaw comes in the fact that a handicapped person cannot climb stairs, it is a physical impossibility. Yet that's the way you view miorities in college? Without a handout they're incapable?

Really sad racism tied around a liberal-I'm-such-an-empathizing-human-being-cos-I-care-about-those-poor-black-folk-who-can't-help-themselves mentality.

Lisa, don't be stupid. I didn't make the comparison. Go back and read it carefully.

It's you who is the blind one. We're talking about affirmative action for minorities & you draw a parrallel to wheelchair bound people needing a ramp. And I find that to be a racist attitude, because with minorities...Expanding YOUR THOUGHT.....I believe they don't NEED a ramp....they are more than capable of doing it themselves. You, on the other hand, apparantly feel that without 'white' help, the minority student cannot flourish on his/her own.

I only inferred what you implied...if you were not drawing a parallel, why did you even bring it up???

Where did you get that? I'm pointing out that inequalities continue to exist with regard to women and minorities. Equality doesn't mean equal treatment. For example (hopefully Lisa won't get unhinged on this one again) a wheelchair bound person and I are equal in the eyes of the law, but that doesn't mean that whatever works for me in terms of access to buildings, should work for them as well. Building a ramp for them isn't preferential treatment. It may be different from the way I'm treated, but the end result is that both of us now have equal access to the building.

racist thinking in a compassionate ribbon. It's so ingrained in your white guilt-ridden psyche that you won't have the first clue what I'm talking about. But as they say, there are none so blind as those who will not see. Or however the saying goes.

Oh, and I am more than capable of kicking your azz without a handout, or a ramp

Edited February 19, 2007 by LisaD

[Caladan 19]

Getting accepted to something based on something other than your own merits is a cop out, and is charity. And to fully empower someone, you shouldn't 'make exceptions' because of it.

Oh come on. Read CarolineM's post. To whom the merit? The kid whose parents paid for SAT prep and Choate and the guidance counselor who knew people on the board at Harvard? How on earth is that more meritorious?

What about legacy admits? Or the requirements that you're well-rounded? Being well-rounded, of course, means your parents bought you ballet lessons and tae kwon do and you spent your summers in Honduras doing something noble. Are any of these merit? So far the argument seems to be "You're meritorious if your parents buy you things."

Steven isn't racist; he's saying that if you take a poor kid and put him in a shitty school, even if he does his best, he's going to have a hard time competing against mommy-bought-me-a-pony types. To give him equality of opportunity -- black, white, rural, whatever -- is going to require allowing that different background to count as much as a mommy-paid-for-my-important-life-experience-in-london.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Getting accepted to something based on something other than your own merits is a cop out, and is charity. And to fully empower someone, you shouldn't 'make exceptions' because of it.

Oh come on. Read CarolineM's post. To whom the merit? The kid whose parents paid for SAT prep and Choate and the guidance counselor who knew people on the board at Harvard? How on earth is that more meritorious?

What about legacy admits? Or the requirements that you're well-rounded? Being well-rounded, of course, means your parents bought you ballet lessons and tae kwon do and you spent your summers in Honduras doing something noble. Are any of these merit? So far the argument seems to be "You're meritorious if your parents buy you things."

Steven isn't racist; he's saying that if you take a poor kid and put him in a shitty school, even if he does his best, he's going to have a hard time competing against mommy-bought-me-a-pony types. To give him equality of opportunity -- black, white, rural, whatever -- is going to require allowing that different background to count as much as a mommy-paid-for-my-important-life-experience-in-london.

Seems clear to me...

Edited February 20, 2007 by erekose

[Heracles 417]

When they eliminated race from the admissions criteria in the University of California system the main beneficiaries were not white people. All the white people with good but not amazing grades/SAT scores who claimed they lost their place to a black applicant discovered that without affirmative action, they were now more likely to lose their place to an Asian

Exactly because Asian students study harder. Yet affirmative action ensures people of one race a right of way into college, irrespective of their performance...

[Heracles 417]

LMAO... :lol: :lol:

no.. generational poverty is still haunting families, same as racism..

Are unlawful immigrants help this or what? or are they benefiting themselves at the expense of Americans living in poverty??

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

When they eliminated race from the admissions criteria in the University of California system the main beneficiaries were not white people. All the white people with good but not amazing grades/SAT scores who claimed they lost their place to a black applicant discovered that without affirmative action, they were now more likely to lose their place to an Asian

Exactly because Asian students study harder. Yet affirmative action ensures people of one race a right of way into college, irrespective of their performance...

Does it... Noone has shown any concrete proof that this is the case, or that affirmative action (such as it is) is a major consideration for awarding college / school places...

Are you talking specifics here, or just general theoretics?

[Ban Hammer 13,676]

It's not four generations though, nor about slavery. We're talking about changes that happened within my parents' lifetimes. When my mother was born, my university was single-sex. Schools were segregated, and black soldiers were excluded from the G.I. bill. It's not about addressing ancient wrongs, but ones about 40 years old.

sure, so let's send grandpa and grandma to college and be done with this as an excuse.