Race policies at universities questioned

[Fandango 1,439]

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.

I don't think I'd have a problem with some kind of economic aa....but when it's based on purely skin color it's wrong.

Oh, and I'm not the one who equates minorities with the physically handicapped without a ramp. You may not find that racist, but I most certainly do.

Why do you keep fixating on specific analogies when the point that was being made was subsequently clarified?

It's not treating someone better than another. Take for example if you are a parent to a son and daughter. As a fair and loving parent you love them equally, yes? Does that mean that whatever you do for your son, you must also do for your daughter? No. Their needs are going to be different. Even if you have two sons, they each have their individual needs. You can't just do exactly the same things with one as to the other to ensure equality - that's a very myopic understanding of equality

I find it offensive in its logic...to suggest they could benefit from help is one thing...to draw a parallel which essentially equates them as being impotent without help is simply wrong, and says a lot more than I think most of you realize.

Minority + college admission = wheelchair bound person + stairs

?????

Seriously?

and not to mention the 'daughter and son' analogy is just classic nanny-state mentality, althought that one is not so much offensive as it is entertaining.

You don't have to agree...I'm sure you won't. But don't sit here and tell me how I'm supposed to digest a post, when to me, the meaning was cquite clear....AND it's not even the first time this analogy or my interpretation of such as racist has been raised. So agree, disagree, whatever...but my opinion stands

I didn't mention it, but the implication on the last page that seemed to suggest ethic minority neurologists were "substandard" seemed a tad more offensive to me, and Charles didn't even clarify that one. It wasn't even an analogy.. There is no justifiable basis for assuming that ethnic minority professionals are of a poorer standard than their white counterparts.

You might not have mentioned it, yet you questioned me why i 'fixated' on it. Don't engage me in a line of questioning and then when I reply to you, come back with the bait and switch. And now that I've explained myself yet again, here you go changing the focus by bringing up an aspect of this conversation that's got nothing to do with me, nothing to do with what you questioned me about, nor did I question you about any aspect of it.

But your segueway of 'hey but that's much worse!' was duly noted. or more simply put, the old point and run.

LOOK! OVER THERE!

As an aside....how *I* interpreted what Charles was saying was for the benefit of that particular scenario, the aa doc was substandard because he was granted a spot not based on merit. Go figure with this being a merit vs aa debate. I don't see anwhere where Charles implied that minority doctors are inherintly substandard or handicapped in any way due to the fact that they are a minority.

Which, funnily enough, is more along the lines of what Steven actually said if you think about it.

Edited February 20, 2007 by LisaD

[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.

I don't think I'd have a problem with some kind of economic aa....but when it's based on purely skin color it's wrong.

Oh, and I'm not the one who equates minorities with the physically handicapped without a ramp. You may not find that racist, but I most certainly do.

Why do you keep fixating on specific analogies when the point that was being made was subsequently clarified?

It's not treating someone better than another. Take for example if you are a parent to a son and daughter. As a fair and loving parent you love them equally, yes? Does that mean that whatever you do for your son, you must also do for your daughter? No. Their needs are going to be different. Even if you have two sons, they each have their individual needs. You can't just do exactly the same things with one as to the other to ensure equality - that's a very myopic understanding of equality

I find it offensive in its logic...to suggest they could benefit from help is one thing...to draw a parallel which essentially equates them as being impotent without help is simply wrong, and says a lot more than I think most of you realize.

Minority + college admission = wheelchair bound person + stairs

?????

Seriously?

and not to mention the 'daughter and son' analogy is just classic nanny-state mentality, althought that one is not so much offensive as it is entertaining.

You don't have to agree...I'm sure you won't. But don't sit here and tell me how I'm supposed to digest a post, when to me, the meaning was cquite clear....AND it's not even the first time this analogy or my interpretation of such as racist has been raised. So agree, disagree, whatever...but my opinion stands

I didn't mention it, but the implication on the last page that seemed to suggest ethic minority neurologists were "substandard" seemed a tad more offensive to me, and Charles didn't even clarify that one. It wasn't even an analogy.. There is no justifiable basis for assuming that ethnic minority professionals are of a poorer standard than their white counterparts.

You might not have mentioned it, yet you questioned me why i 'fixated' on it. Don't engage me in a line of questioning and then when I reply to you, come back with the bait and switch. And now that I've explained myself yet again, here you go changing the focus by bringing up an aspect of this conversation that's got nothing to do with me, nothing to do with what you questioned me about, nor did I question you about any aspect of it.

But your segueway of 'hey but that's much worse!' was duly noted. or more simply put, the old point and run.

LOOK! OVER THERE!

As an aside....how *I* interpreted what Charles was saying was for the benefit of that particular scenario, the aa doc was substandard because he was granted a spot not based on merit. Go figure with this being a merit vs aa debate. I don't see anwhere where Charles implied that minority doctors are inherintly substandard or handicapped in any way due to the fact that they are a minority.

Which, funnily enough, is more along the lines of what Steven actually said if you think about it.

One bad analogy (clarified), one bad scenario (not clarified) - and we're still no closer to answering any substantive questions on this issue.

I'm still wondering where these people are who are being granted university places on the basis of ethnicity rather than merit...

I see a lot of people making a lot of assumptions.

[Fandango 1,439]

One bad analogy (clarified), one bad scenario (not clarified) - and we're still no closer to answering any substantive questions on this issue.

I'm still wondering where these people are who are being granted university places on the basis of ethnicity rather than merit...

I see a lot of people making a lot of assumptions.

Hey, what's that over there?

I have a question for you.....if YOU made a bad analogy and someone pulled you up for it, showed you how it could reasonably be understood as inherently racist, would you make the same exact analogy again?

Edited February 20, 2007 by LisaD

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

One bad analogy (clarified), one bad scenario (not clarified) - and we're still no closer to answering any substantive questions on this issue.

I'm still wondering where these people are who are being granted university places on the basis of ethnicity rather than merit...

I see a lot of people making a lot of assumptions.

Hey, what's that over there?

I have a question for you.....if YOU made a bad analogy and someone pulled you up for it, showed you how it could reasonably be understood as inherently racist, would you make the same exact analogy again?

I wonder why you care - these things are open to any number of degrees of interpretation, you choose not to give Steven the benefit of the doubt that common courteousy would normally allow for because you don't like him. You also seem to be the only person who thinks that what he said was specifically racist. Noone else seems to have reached that determination.

[Fandango 1,439]

One bad analogy (clarified), one bad scenario (not clarified) - and we're still no closer to answering any substantive questions on this issue.

I'm still wondering where these people are who are being granted university places on the basis of ethnicity rather than merit...

I see a lot of people making a lot of assumptions.

Hey, what's that over there?

I have a question for you.....if YOU made a bad analogy and someone pulled you up for it, showed you how it could reasonably be understood as inherently racist, would you make the same exact analogy again?

I wonder why you care - these things are open to any number of degrees of interpretation, you choose not to give Steven the benefit of the doubt that common courteousy would normally allow for because you don't like him. You also seem to be the only person who thinks that what he said was specifically racist. Noone else seems to have reached that determination.

1 - Have you actually given ME the benefit of the doubt that I feel this way based on substance and not personal feelings? Let alone have I *ever* told you my personal feeling about Steven? Why leap to the conclusion that my responses are anything but based on substance? Oh, yet you want me to give someone else the BotD while you jump to your own assumptions? That's so rich! Funny thing is, I've stuck on topic & you're trying to deflect this on a personal or emotional level, which is quite telling.

2 - I don't need my opinions validated for them to be any more real. Do you? However, since we're splitting hairs, you yourself said it was a 'bad analogy'...why was that, if there's nothing wrong?

3 - Also noted that you didn't answer the question. More pointing and running from you. Tsk.

In summation:

You directly question me why I am 'fixating' on something which I believe to be fundamentally racist. I then explain why, you respond by bringing up Charles and his posts, I call you on your attempt at deflection & then ask you a pointed question, you come back with 'oh you're just saying this cos you don't like Steven, and no one else feels the same as you so NEENER!'

bravo, old man!

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

One bad analogy (clarified), one bad scenario (not clarified) - and we're still no closer to answering any substantive questions on this issue.

I'm still wondering where these people are who are being granted university places on the basis of ethnicity rather than merit...

I see a lot of people making a lot of assumptions.

Hey, what's that over there?

I have a question for you.....if YOU made a bad analogy and someone pulled you up for it, showed you how it could reasonably be understood as inherently racist, would you make the same exact analogy again?

I wonder why you care - these things are open to any number of degrees of interpretation, you choose not to give Steven the benefit of the doubt that common courteousy would normally allow for because you don't like him. You also seem to be the only person who thinks that what he said was specifically racist. Noone else seems to have reached that determination.

1 - Have you actually given ME the benefit of the doubt that I feel this way based on substance and not personal feelings? Let alone have I *ever* told you my personal feeling about Steven? Why leap to the conclusion that my responses are anything but based on substance? Oh, yet you want me to give someone else the BotD while you jump to your own assumptions? That's so rich! Funny thing is, I've stuck on topic & you're trying to deflect this on a personal or emotional level, which is quite telling.

2 - I don't need my opinions validated for them to be any more real. Do you? However, since we're splitting hairs, you yourself said it was a 'bad analogy'...why was that, if there's nothing wrong?

3 - Also noted that you didn't answer the question. More pointing and running from you. Tsk.

In summation:

You directly question me why I am 'fixating' on something which I believe to be fundamentally racist. I then explain why, you respond by bringing up Charles and his posts, I call you on your attempt at deflection & then ask you a pointed question, you come back with 'oh you're just saying this cos you don't like Steven, and no one else feels the same as you so NEENER!'

bravo, old man!

Actually if we're keeping score - your last "on-topic" post was on page 2

[Fandango 1,439]

Actually if we're keeping score - your last "on-topic" post was on page 2

aww bless.

[Boiler 45,553]

Is there a percentage number you need to hit to be considered 'non white' and get the benefits.

I ask as I have 4 grandchildren now, only one of who is 100% white, well I think she is, she also seems the brightest, just as well by the sound of it. The others are varyng percentages.

Or do you get the same percentage of affirmative action as you are non white, is it better to be black, "Hispanic" or what?

Of course Hispanic are also white, so if you can find a trace of Portugese/Spanish ancestory are you good to go under this category? If so what percentage do you need?

Just wondered.

[Heracles 417]

That is why the system should be scrapped and everyone who is underprivileged or to nobody at all.

[Heracles 417]

Is there a percentage number you need to hit to be considered 'non white' and get the benefits.

I ask as I have 4 grandchildren now, only one of who is 100% white, well I think she is, she also seems the brightest, just as well by the sound of it. The others are varyng percentages.

Or do you get the same percentage of affirmative action as you are non white, is it better to be black, "Hispanic" or what?

Of course Hispanic are also white, so if you can find a trace of Portugese/Spanish ancestory are you good to go under this category? If so what percentage do you need?

Just wondered.

I have to start re-reading my posts... Let me start again.. The above case is a great example of why the affirmative action system should be scrapped unless anyone underprivileged, irrespective of race or culture, can apply.

What if in a interracial family one kid is white while the other, from the same parents, looks African-American. Therefore one gets special consideration, under affirmative action, while the other is told 'better luck next time'..

Edited February 20, 2007 by Infidel

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Is there a percentage number you need to hit to be considered 'non white' and get the benefits.

I ask as I have 4 grandchildren now, only one of who is 100% white, well I think she is, she also seems the brightest, just as well by the sound of it. The others are varyng percentages.

Or do you get the same percentage of affirmative action as you are non white, is it better to be black, "Hispanic" or what?

Of course Hispanic are also white, so if you can find a trace of Portugese/Spanish ancestory are you good to go under this category? If so what percentage do you need?

Just wondered.

Or perhaps it doesn't play a part at all

[CarolineM 0]

There are definitely some people that take advantage of it - but those kids are, from MY experience, the ones in the private school, with the parents that care, with all the advantages. Almost EVERY time i've seen a kid take advantage of it, it's been a mediocre upper middle class student who can't get in where he or she wants to go - so they pull the race card (cause they can't pull the economic one) to TRY to get into the college they want to., It RARELY works.

I went to school with a girl who was white as white could be. Her last name was Spanish sounding, so on her apps she claimed she was Hispanic. Even joked about it. How 'bout a kid a few years ago in my bro's class...(private school) who was like 1/16 native american (which...come on...we prolly ALL are) and claimed to be Native American. The tihng is, college admissions boards see THROUGH this!! Neither kid had their "Scheme" work...

Which says to me...it's NOT JUST RACE they are looking at. Just checking a box on your app saying you're native american doesn't give you a racial preference. They really are TRULY looking at SES and kids who are disadvantaged and have overcome obstacles to succeed in HS.

As for the med school and law school thing...as many have said, I don't think that argument holds water. First of all, any person who applies to these grad schools has already had a college experience, which while not 100%, but it DOES level the playing field some. Granted someone from Harvard is going to have prolly more pull then someone from somewhere else...but if you can graduate from Harvard ... you're no dummy.

[CarolineM 0]

Also - on those race boxes you can check "White" or "White, of Hispanic Origin" just to answer the above question.

To answer your OTHER question...there is no percentage, because as I said in my post above it NOT A QUOTA SYSTEM. They arne't just letting kids in because they need more black kids!!!!

Also...why does your 100% white grandchild seem the brightest?? (Well, that is you THINK she's 100% whitE).

[Boiler 45,553]

Also - on those race boxes you can check "White" or "White, of Hispanic Origin" just to answer the above question.

To answer your OTHER question...there is no percentage, because as I said in my post above it NOT A QUOTA SYSTEM. They arne't just letting kids in because they need more black kids!!!!

Also...why does your 100% white grandchild seem the brightest?? (Well, that is you THINK she's 100% whitE).

So can you be Hispanic not White as well? All the forms I have seen allow to tick mutiple boxes, so you could be Hispanic White, Hispanic Black etc. Which makes sense as Hispanic is not a race, and there are Black Mexicans for example. Like being Nordic, Slavic, Gaelic White whatever

The charmer is 50% White, the other 50% Latino, well that is what the Father calls himself. I have no idea if the father has any Caucasian ancestory.

I know you should not have favourites but 75% white and 25% Black as in African American Black, not the Obama variety, who according to a Black activist on The Colbert Report is not Black in the Amercan sense.

The 100% white one, well as far as I know, may be the smartest but also can be a total pain.

And another 50/50, the loudest, not absolutely sure, Mother would be perceived Hispanic but I have never asked, did not seem relevant.

I volunteer at the local school, as it is a small town we do not have any issues with selection. But the nearest main town, perceived as ultra liberal, does. Basically one School is 70% whatever Hispanic and all the others tokenistic. They do have a policy to change this. At the Uni level, representation of different ethnicities seems a constant local issue, I always have had the perception that they do favour 'minorities', there seems more financing available at least. But we are some way off that age.

[DeadPoolX 9]

As for the med school and law school thing...as many have said, I don't think that argument holds water. First of all, any person who applies to these grad schools has already had a college experience, which while not 100%, but it DOES level the playing field some. Granted someone from Harvard is going to have prolly more pull then someone from somewhere else...but if you can graduate from Harvard ... you're no dummy.

Meanwhile...people claim President Bush is a complete moron, even though he graduated from both Harvard and Yale.