• 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

No, I said compare students with equal qualifications and see whether there are more black students or more white students with those qualifications given admission. If so, then there is racial bias. If not, then not.

What would be the qualifications? Legacy for example would favor whites overall. Test scores and GPAs have limitations as predictors. And are only a small part of any admission process (more a bulk early weed out).


Anyway, this isn't directed at you, but thought I'd post it while I was here:

Myth: Affirmative action forces employers to set quotas for the number of women and minorities they will employ.
Reality: Quotas are illegal in affirmative action programs. Employers set targets (goals) for the employment of women and minorities and a time frame for achieving their targets. There are no legal penalties if goals are not met, as long as good faith efforts to achieve them are made.

Myth: Affirmative action results in "reverse" discrimination against white men.
Reality: A recent report by the Department of Labor found that of more than 3,000 discrimination opinions in Federal district courts from 1990-1994; fewer than 100 were claims of "reverse" discrimination. Of these, discrimination against white men was established in only six cases.

Myth: Unqualified people are being hired and promoted to fulfill affirmative action requirements.
Reality: When affirmative action programs are administered properly, only qualified people are hired. It is explicitly illegal to establish quotas and fill them with regard only to the race or gender of the applicant. Abuses of the programs must not be allowed, nor should they be used as an

fsu.edu | Office of Equal Opportunity & Compliance
 
Let us hope that this is simply one step in getting rid OF ALL PREFERENCES in college admissions. And I do mean ALL. If we want to admit the most qualified based on HS GPA and some test scores like the SAT's - then lets use those and let in the best and deny admission to anybody else not making that standard of admission.

How many here would support that?

I would. This is a very good decision by the Court. :)
 
What would be the qualifications? Legacy for example would favor whites overall. Test scores and GPAs have limitations as predictors. And are only a small part of any admission process (more a bulk early weed out).


Anyway, this isn't directed at you, but thought I'd post it while I was here:

Myth: Affirmative action forces employers to set quotas for the number of women and minorities they will employ.
Reality: Quotas are illegal in affirmative action programs. Employers set targets (goals) for the employment of women and minorities and a time frame for achieving their targets. There are no legal penalties if goals are not met, as long as good faith efforts to achieve them are made.

Myth: Affirmative action results in "reverse" discrimination against white men.
Reality: A recent report by the Department of Labor found that of more than 3,000 discrimination opinions in Federal district courts from 1990-1994; fewer than 100 were claims of "reverse" discrimination. Of these, discrimination against white men was established in only six cases.

Myth: Unqualified people are being hired and promoted to fulfill affirmative action requirements.
Reality: When affirmative action programs are administered properly, only qualified people are hired. It is explicitly illegal to establish quotas and fill them with regard only to the race or gender of the applicant. Abuses of the programs must not be allowed, nor should they be used as an

fsu.edu | Office of Equal Opportunity & Compliance

Reality: In the last 100 years, we have gone from teaching Latin and Greek in high schools to teaching remedial English in college. Anybody besides me see a problem with this? If someone needs remedial English in college, then he doesn't belong in college. He belongs back in high school.
 
What would be the qualifications? Legacy for example would favor whites overall. Test scores and GPAs have limitations as predictors. And are only a small part of any admission process (more a bulk early weed out).

{snip the FSU excuses for AA - or "good" gender/racial discrimination}

That is exactly what the discussion is about - removing race/gender from the qualification process. Whether you call "diversity" a target or a goal, it can no longer be achieved by using race/gender in your qualification/selection process by tax funded institutions.
 
Reality: In the last 100 years, we have gone from teaching Latin and Greek in high schools to teaching remedial English in college. Anybody besides me see a problem with this? If someone needs remedial English in college, then he doesn't belong in college. He belongs back in high school.

Oh, there is a problem. It has nothing to do with Affirmative action, but there is a problem. We've been working on the problem since the 80's and it has only gotten worse. But we might want to stop and really look at what is behind these problems: 1) a new expectation that everyone graduate. Back when they were teaching Latin and Greek, the expectation was about 40% would graduate. 2) Parents who think other kids should be held back, but not their kid. I can tell you a few parent stories that would make you shake your head. 3) state and federal politicians making decisions base on popular whim and not solid data. 4) a culture that has stopped valuing education and no longer believes education leads to success. 5) technology that both distracts and gives the false impression that knowing isn't as important when you can just google it. 5) Money. School for profit means anything that makes money is good. Developmental education brings in money. And publishers like Pearson are running the education world. For profit meas a lot of schools will take anyone who walks in the door and get as much as they can from that person. 6) we measure the wrong things when measuring teachers. The worse teachers are never called on it because they give students grades and avoid any conflict at the college level. Students support them by never complaining that they haven't learned anything.

Those are just a few, but then again, they have nothing to do with affirmative action.
 
We would first need to find a way to ensure that all students, in every classroom, have the same learning opportunities before they go to college.

So are we going to assign them surrogate parents who give a crap?
 
That is exactly what the discussion is about - removing race/gender from the qualification process. Whether you call "diversity" a target or a goal, it can no longer be achieved by using race/gender in your qualification/selection process by tax funded institutions.

It was a minor consideration, never to the point of actually discriminating against anyone or hurting whites. But they win these cases because AA doesn't allow anything that can be called a quote or a set aside. I just wish it bother everyone more when other things that tend to push out minorities, like legacy, or donation, or any of a half dozen preferences more. Race has a law that prevents it. It's not discrimination that bothers most, as they accept it daily. It's discrimination that might benefit someone not "us."

And that's what I'm getting at. what is a qualification, and how do we know someone, anyone is more or less qualified?
 
We would first need to find a way to ensure that all students, in every classroom, have the same learning opportunities before they go to college.

Is this support for vouchers? A giant step in that direction is being able to choose the classroom that your student attends.
 
It was a minor consideration, never to the point of actually discriminating against anyone or hurting whites. But they win these cases because AA doesn't allow anything that can be called a quote or a set aside. I just wish it bother everyone more when other things that tend to push out minorities, like legacy, or donation, or any of a half dozen preferences more. Race has a law that prevents it. It's not discrimination that bothers most, as they accept it daily. It's discrimination that might benefit someone not "us."

And that's what I'm getting at. what is a qualification, and how do we know someone, anyone is more or less qualified?

Grades and standardized test scores are a great starting point since past performance is a good predictor of future success.
 
Reality: In the last 100 years, we have gone from teaching Latin and Greek in high schools to teaching remedial English in college. Anybody besides me see a problem with this? If someone needs remedial English in college, then he doesn't belong in college. He belongs back in high school.

And if you think this is a result of affirmative action, you're delusional.
 
I do not want to see anyone not have an equal opportunity, however I feel that AA basically goes further to say that the races and genders are NOT equal. When a program is put in place giving preference points to minorities and women, that says that on an equal playing field, women and minorities cannot compete with white men. It is almost declaring a superior race and that we must provide a head start for everyone else.

That in itself is propagating racism/sexism.
 
I do not want to see anyone not have an equal opportunity, however I feel that AA basically goes further to say that the races and genders are NOT equal. When a program is put in place giving preference points to minorities and women, that says that on an equal playing field, women and minorities cannot compete with white men. It is almost declaring a superior race and that we must provide a head start for everyone else.

That in itself is propagating racism/sexism.

No, it's saying that women and minorities are victims of institutionalized bias and have been for centuries.

A white man with a felony record has the same likelihood of being given a job offer as a black man with a clean record. Equal playing field my ass.
 
What would be the qualifications? Legacy for example would favor whites overall. Test scores and GPAs have limitations as predictors. And are only a small part of any admission process (more a bulk early weed out).

Legacy is not a qualification.
While grades and test scores may not be perfect, they're way ahead of using ethnicity or race as a qualification.
 
Grades and standardized test scores are a great starting point since past performance is a good predictor of future success.

Not as much as you think. Grade inflation hurts the credibility of grades, and test scores tell us very little. Most schools only use them to shrink the number they need to look at.
 
Legacy is not a qualification.
While grades and test scores may not be perfect, they're way ahead of using ethnicity or race as a qualification.

Legacy is used, and not subject to challenge. After the initial weed out, few care about grades and tests. Michigan uses a point system that includes many things, including legacy, where you live, extra curriculum activities, and athletics. None can be challenged.
 
Not as much as you think. Grade inflation hurts the credibility of grades, and test scores tell us very little. Most schools only use them to shrink the number they need to look at.

Nonsense. What you are trying to sell is the concept that the primary education system produces nothing of value to guide selection into secondary education. If that is the case then a pure lottery system is as good as any other and, as a bonus, would likely yield perfect "diversity".
 
Nonsense. What you are trying to sell is the concept that the primary education system produces nothing of value to guide selection into secondary education. If that is the case then a pure lottery system is as good as any other and, as a bonus, would likely yield perfect "diversity".

I didn't say nothing. I said less than you think. Grade inflation is real.

One day next month every student at Loyola Law School Los Angeles will awake to a higher grade point average. But it’s not because they are all working harder. The school is retroactively inflating its grades, tacking on 0.333 to every grade recorded in the last few years. The goal is to make its students look more attractive in a competitive job market. In the last two years, at least 10 law schools have deliberately changed their grading systems to make them more lenient. These include law schools like New York University and Georgetown, as well as Golden Gate University and Tulane University, which just announced the change this month. Some recruiters at law firms keep track of these changes and consider them when interviewing, and some do not. - See more at: Grade Inflation in American Education - EducationNews.org

So how much can they really mean?

And ACT tests?

A study published Tuesday that probed the success of “test-optional” admissions policies in 33 public and private universities calls into question the need for such testing.

Former Dean of Admissions for Bates College William Hiss led the study which tracked the grades and graduation rates of students who submitted their test results against those who did not over several years.

Hiss’ data showed that there was a negligible difference in college performance between the two groups. Only .05 percent of a GPA point set “submitters” and “non-submitters” apart, and the difference in their graduation rates was just .6 percent.

Do ACT and SAT scores really matter? New study says they shouldn't | The Rundown | PBS NewsHour

So, how much can this mean?

I'm saying colleges think less of them on the whole than you might think. They are not the end of the discussion.
 
Legacy is used, and not subject to challenge. After the initial weed out, few care about grades and tests. Michigan uses a point system that includes many things, including legacy, where you live, extra curriculum activities, and athletics. None can be challenged.

Then the whole selection process needs to be revised. As Ttwtt points out, they'd be just as well off using a lottery system.

And if they don't use grades and test scores as a primary qualification, then they have no business complaining about having to offer remedial classes.
 
Then the whole selection process needs to be revised. As Ttwtt points out, they'd be just as well off using a lottery system.

And if they don't use grades and test scores as a primary qualification, then they have no business complaining about having to offer remedial classes.

Maybe, but Harvard doesn't do remedial. Though they do inflate grades.

I work a lot with placement testing, and I feel confident telling you they are useless. Very good students often score low. And often high scores struggle. There may be good reasons for this, but it calls all of this into question.
 
No, it's saying that women and minorities are victims of institutionalized bias and have been for centuries.

A white man with a felony record has the same likelihood of being given a job offer as a black man with a clean record. Equal playing field my ass.

I agree that they have been victims of institutional bias in the past. But rather than give them a boost in points or preference, laws should be put into place that allow equal footing and equal opportunity for all. I am not a person who wishes to wipe the past away, I fully realize the wrongs that have occurred, as well as those that continue. However, I would rather give those victims the power to walk rather than have them depend on a crutch.
 
Maybe, but Harvard doesn't do remedial. Though they do inflate grades.

I work a lot with placement testing, and I feel confident telling you they are useless. Very good students often score low. And often high scores struggle. There may be good reasons for this, but it calls all of this into question.

All a test can do is determine ability, and not motivation or commitment.

But, things like legacy, athletic ability, and zip code don't predict anything other than athletic ability. Neither does ethnicity. So, where does that leave the university when it comes to picking students?
 
All a test can do is determine ability, and not motivation or commitment.

But, things like legacy, athletic ability, and zip code don't predict anything other than athletic ability. Neither does ethnicity. So, where does that leave the university when it comes to picking students?

Not much. Don't get me wrong, I don't argue they are doing a good job. I am arguing that qualifications may be more than we think. I'd assess motivation, ability to finish, how well they think over memorize. And I'd certainly give a writing test over a multiple choice test. All labor intensive but more meaningful.
 
The key here is ALL admissions based only on academic merit. In the past, some people who have a particular grudge against race based admissions find elaborate ways to excuse or justify other type of preferences. If academic merit is going to be the sole ticket in - lets stick to that for everyone at all colleges.

Look for the University of Michigan to maintain concepts like "race norming" and "centering". These are race-based handicapping systems that higher education has enshrined for half a century. Instead of expecting blacks and Hispanics to compete on the SAT, or on exams during the course of a semester, they're simply given handicaps of 100 points, 200 points, and even up to 400 points on the SAT, while their course load exams will always have a passing grade even if they fail the exam miserably. This is what "centering" is all about.
 
Not much. Don't get me wrong, I don't argue they are doing a good job. I am arguing that qualifications may be more than we think. I'd assess motivation, ability to finish, how well they think over memorize. And I'd certainly give a writing test over a multiple choice test. All labor intensive but more meaningful.

I gave this a "like" because you are finally presenting things to measure "qualifications". The idea of giving credit for "close" (using a written essay) over a "best" of the options presented (multiple choice) test is very subject to bias as well as being more time/labor intensive.
 
I gave this a "like" because you are finally presenting things to measure "qualifications". The idea of giving credit for "close" (using a written essay) over a "best" of the options presented (multiple choice) test is very subject to bias as well as being more time/labor intensive.


Yes there is is a certain amount of subjectivity. But I have tested writing instructors for many years. If we give them four essays and ask them to rank them, the rank will be the same for all instructors. I've never seen the order disputed. However, if I ask for a grade, the grades do vary. So there is some subjectivity. But grades can be trained to limit variance. Removing all subjectivity doesn't necessarily make it a better test. After all, the mere practice of limiting admission implies subjectivity if in only deciding on what I will make that decision, on, what I value (subjective) over something else.
 
Back
Top Bottom