• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

High Court Upholds Michigan Affirmative Action Ban

How many schools would dare walk down their path?

The philosophy or communications department isn't the thing that brings a ton of money into Michigan and makes them recognizable on a national stage.

Agreed. But Harvard seems to do okay in the recognition department without Michigan style athletic teams don't they? What is so sacred about athletics that we must sacrifice the principle of academic merit upon that altar?
 
That's great, but since I was referring to the difficulty of identifying and prosecuting white on black racism what you're saying is beside the point. Affirmative Action was created to address that point, though I think we can all agree that in execution it was always faulty from the start. So how would you identify white on black racism when it happens, or are you too going to say that being somewhat less common than the Loch Ness Monster it's pointless to even discuss?

White on black, black on white, it's all racism.

And, while it's less widespread and less acceptable than it used to be, it is a lot more common than sightings of the Loch Ness Monster, and far more real.
 
Just the opposite. Merit is all I am considering.

As to athletic talent.....So is musical talent. So is cooking. So is writing poetry. So is drawing pictures. So is proficiency at sex. So are lots and lots and lots of things.

And while some of those do touch upon things in college, I do NOT want to make them what gets you in or out of an academic institution dedicated to learning and the acquisition of knowledge unless of course it is a cooking school or an art school or a music school where those things are primary at the school and they forgo regular academics. There are no colleges or universities that I know of which only teach team athletics and forgo regular academics.

But you want skin color to be a determinant...
 
Which you must know won't happen. It will simply return to the old system that values legacy or admissions officers whims over merit and diversity will be lost.

Lets try it and find out. If if the old way rears its ugly preferential head - lets deal with that as it happens.
 
It's good to see the racists lose.
 
Universities are made up of colleges. A University can have a College of Arts and Sciences, a College of Engineering, a College of Computer Science, etc...Sometimes they're called schools as well. Basically, the difference between a college and a university is that a college offers degrees in one area, a university offers degrees in multiple areas. One isn't superior to the other academically.

You may want to tell that to the poster who thinks universities are superior to colleges.
 
Agreed. But Harvard seems to do okay in the recognition department without Michigan style athletic teams don't they? What is so sacred about athletics that we must sacrifice the principle of academic merit upon that altar?

Harvard fields some outstanding athletics programs. In fact, at last count, they had over 40 Division 1 teams which I think is still the highest in the country. They hold their student athletes to a higher standard than most schools, both when they are incoming and while they are there.
 
But you want skin color to be a determinant...

The whole idea that we would fix racial discrimination with racial discrimination has always been a non-starter. If minority children can't get in to college because their high school education was poor then fix the high school. If they don't get in because the school discriminated due to skin color then fire the school administrator that made that choice.

Affirmative action in school admissions has always been a unworkable solution to a problem whose root causes were politically protected and deemed not fixable.
 
White on black, black on white, it's all racism.

And, while it's less widespread and less acceptable than it used to be, it is a lot more common than sightings of the Loch Ness Monster, and far more real.

Fantabulous. How does one deal with white on black racism? How does one identify and handle it?
 
My preference would be that public colleges and universities would be a meritocracy. How each individual school wants to weight the actions that factor into admission would be up to them. If they want to go purely academic performance, that's fine. If they want to give weight to extra-curriculars, I'm fine with that. If they want to give weight to an individual with a compelling life story or a compelling essay, that's fine. If they want to look at community or charitable services done and factor that in, cool. I don't think every University has to be absolutely cookie cutter and I'm fine with different ones valuing certain aspects of what a person has done in their life differently.

However, I do think it should be MERIT, not who you are. I'm not in favor of weighing someone's application higher simply because they're a legacy. I'm not in favor of weighing someone higher because they're a minority race. I'm not in favor of a school weighing someone higher because they're male or female because the schools population is heavily slanted in the oppsite direction. I'm not in favor of a school weighing someone higher because they're in-state as opposed to out-of-state. I'm not in favor of a school weighing someone higher because they're from a state the school doens't have a student from (My University actively attempted to get a student from every state in the US).

I think Private Schools should be able to do their selections in any legal way they want. In their cases, if they feel artificially creating a racially diverse campus is beneficial then be my guest. If they feel that legacies are important and a grand tradition, then that's fine. But I think in terms of public universities it should be based on what you DO...not who you are.

Then again, I'm one of those strange people that would prefer a society where everyone DOESN'T go to college because to have such a society then the entire notion of college generally has to be watered down to a useless degree.

I think part of this point has been totally lost in this discussion. The talk has all focused on whether or not UM will use race as a criteria; but that's not what the court decided. The court didn't rule against affirmative action, they ruled that voters should be allowed to ban it.


But I totally agree with the rest with one caveat; who you are shouldn't matter, but where you came from should. Admissions should weigh both the wealth of the applicant as well as the school district they came from.
 
The whole idea that we would fix racial discrimination with racial discrimination has always been a non-starter. If minority children can't get in to college because their high school education was poor then fix the high school. If they don't get in because the school discriminated due to skin color then fire the school administrator that made that choice.

Affirmative action in school admissions has always been a unworkable solution to a problem whose root causes were politically protected and deemed not fixable.

The meritocrat is often considered a racist, a bully, and an asshole. This is how the world works.
 
You may want to tell that to the poster who thinks universities are superior to colleges.

Then yeah, that.. Sorry. :)

Although, FWIW Haaaaavaaaad is overrated. They have some great graduate programs, but their undergrad is mediocre at best. And it's not just them, It's a common theme among most of the Ivy schools (Cornell being the exception). Law school; great! Engineering? Don't bother. Humanities? Sure, but you'll never recoup the cost of tuition.
 
Agreed. But Harvard seems to do okay in the recognition department without Michigan style athletic teams don't they? What is so sacred about athletics that we must sacrifice the principle of academic merit upon that altar?

Harvard is one of the few schools in the country that is exceedingly well known and is such largely because of their educational prowess than sports. Yale is another.

Michigan is not. Outside of those living in mitten state, if there wasn't college athletics I highly doubt many average people would give Michigan a second thought as their school of choice as opposed to any other "big" state school. Michigan is a great school, but you're kidding yourself if you think that if college Athletics didn't exist that it'd have the same cache of something like a Princeton.

This isn't a slight on Michigan. It's true of the vast majority of "big name" schools in this country.

Do you think anyone outside of North Carolina or possibly in the legal profession would give two ****s about, or even know of, "Duke" if not for their basketball team?

Do you think Penn State in the middle of bum-****-nowhere would be one of the most well known college that draws from all across the country for it's student body if not for Football?

Hell, I look here in my home state. Virginia Tech is the second best known school in this state behind UVA and that's pretty much singularly due to their athletics. I'd suggest in terms of pure academics, William & Mary would be worlds ahead of Tech. Meanwhile I've witnessed first hand as small schools like George Mason and VCU had their student body, and campuses, explode after sporting success.

And it wasn't just the sports programs that benefited at Mason thanks to their final four run. My wife was going there at the time as multiple academic facilities were being renovated or completely constructed to give updated facilities to those departments thanks to the influx of cash.

Yes...Harvard, Princton, and Yale have done wonderfully over CENTURIES as being schools recognized the country over largely due to their academic successes. You have a few others that get by as being the bell weather of educational universities, such as MIT.

But I'd wager Louisville is more well known, and more likely to attract the average person, than Dartmouth. And I'd say you likely have far more students dreaming and hoping for the chance to be a golden domer over at Notre Dame then they are at walking the halls of John Hopkins. And it's not because of the great academic programs there (even though those programs may be wonderful).

The amount of money that sports brings in, the amount of attention it draws to the school, is something that I can't see the Universities giving up without a strong fight. FAR more than having to forgo race based admissions today. For many of these BIG schools, it's a cyclical thing. Many of those big name schools have a great academic record. But that record is helped out by the fact they can afford robust staffs, great facilities, and well funded departments. And they can help pay for those things thanks to the revenue sports brings in and the additional registration they get thanks to the recognition via sports.

Would Michigian be as big, with as many departments, with as quality of staff, with as many students today if The Big House never existed and was unheard of? If the Fab 5 never captivated peoples attention? If Bo Schembeckler didn't have 20 years of domination? Or if Charles Woodson wasn't heismaning his way into a national championship? Personally, I'd say no. Doesn't mean it wouldn't be a sterling institution, but I think someone would be crazy to suggest it'd be at the same height of recognition and financial prowess that it's at today if not for it's sporting legacy.

While I don't think college sports needs to be removed from the admissions process, I wouldn't shed a tear if it was. But I do think that a large number of universities would fight it tooth and nail. And I think there would be a good chance that many universities would suffer in quality due to the decision, not improve.
 
You don't know the difference between college and university. Harvard College isn't and never will be below Golden Gate University. Or Rutgers University, since I see you live in NJ.

OMG this is a stupid retort. I didn't say they were! Why do you lie and try to make it seem so? Intellectual dishonesty will not win arguments.
 
High court upholds Mich. affirmative action ban | The Detroit News

"The Supreme Court on Tuesday upheld Michigan’s ban on using race as a factor in college admissions.

The justices said in a 6-2 ruling that Michigan voters had the right to change their state constitution in 2006 to prohibit public colleges and universities from taking account of race in admissions decisions. The justices said a lower federal court was wrong to set aside the change as discriminatory."


Students of all races can now know that they got in to Michigan schools on their merit.




I totally support equal rights, but I don't believe that there's a fair way to guarantee equal results.




"Tolerance is giving every other human being every right that you claim for yourself." ~ Robert Green Ingersoll
 
Then yeah, that.. Sorry. :)

Although, FWIW Haaaaavaaaad is overrated. They have some great graduate programs, but their undergrad is mediocre at best. And it's not just them, It's a common theme among most of the Ivy schools (Cornell being the exception). Law school; great! Engineering? Don't bother. Humanities? Sure, but you'll never recoup the cost of tuition.

I agree! If I was going to be a lawyer or doctor, I would consider Harvard. If I wanted to be an Engineer, I'd consider MIT or Stanford before Harvard.
 
I totally support equal rights, but I don't believe that there's a fair way to guarantee equal results.




"Tolerance is giving every other human being every right that you claim for yourself." ~ Robert Green Ingersoll

I think this is the inherit problem. We should only focus on equal opportunity not equal results. Individuals will have different abilities and to say that anything other than opportunity should be equal is to create a losing battle.
 
OMG this is a stupid retort. I didn't say they were! Why do you lie and try to make it seem so? Intellectual dishonesty will not win arguments.

Then you may want to check your own posts before you make them. You said it, I posted what you wrote.
 
Then you may want to check your own posts before you make them. You said it, I posted what you wrote.

But what I wrote doesn't say what you are claiming it says. I didn't say there is a difference, I said there should be a difference. For science sake READ!
 
If you buy a ticket, you have the same chance of winning the lottery as any other person who buys a ticket. I'm surprised you don't get that but hey, you brought in the analogy, not me.

We're all born as Americans, and I've seen Americans from all walks of life fail, and I've seen Americans from all walks of life succeed. I can't help you if you've only seen failure, sorry. I'm not a pessimist. I'm an optimist. I think anyone can do great things - if he sets his mind to it.

Excellent post! :thumbs: This is also why so many people choose to emigrate to this country - to have the chance to improve their lives over what they left behind! I'm thinking of the millions that came through Ellis Island who did just that - and my grandparents from Eastern Europe were among them! They weren't looking for handouts, and none were offered to them, but they worked hard, learned the language, became citizens, and succeeded! I'm proud of every one who did, because it wasn't easy. There were no food stamps and other benefits back then, but they persevered and made it on their own merits!

Gteetings, tres borrachos/ :2wave:
 
I think this is the inherit problem. We should only focus on equal opportunity not equal results.
Individuals will have different abilities and to say that anything other than opportunity should be equal is to create a losing battle.




I'd like to see a lot of people on this planet have a lot more than they have now, but I doubt that we will ever all be billionaires.
 
I totally support equal rights, but I don't believe that there's a fair way to guarantee equal results.

"Tolerance is giving every other human being every right that you claim for yourself." ~ Robert Green Ingersoll


I agree. I think too much government policy that operates under the guise of "equal rights" lean toward "equal outcomes" rather than "equal opportunities".
 
Back
Top Bottom