• 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!

21st Century Racism Is Thriving In American Academe

Should an applicants race be a deciding factor for admission to a university?

  • Total voters
    68
  • Poll closed .
theplaydrive said:
Wow.

------
Click to expand...
Open to interpretation?!

Boo Radley said:
There is no serious number of people telling them they are too stupid. Nor does the law allow us to give anyone admission based on race.
Click to expand...
Why would the democrat party, which presents itself as champions of minorities, promise to provide a government program for each and every need to take them from the moment of conception to the grave unless they believed that for some reason they were incapable of making it on their own?

haymarket said:
And it could not have anything with rational voters makign rational choices based on who they feel best represents their interests the same way everybody else makes up that choice now could it? :doh:roll:
Click to expand...
Of course, it has everything to do with making rational choices which is exactly what I'm talking about...That is if you are satisfied with the bare neccessities which are provided on the bottom rung of the ladder rather than reaching for the limits of your true potential.

One party tells all americans they will strive for a level playing field to ensure all americans will have an equal shot at success if they are willing to work hard and make sacrifices.

The other party tells us they must deprive some americans to provide for other americans who are disadvantaged because of the color of their skin and are unable to provide for themselves.

The two parties will split the members of the group who have been designated to provide, into those who agree to provide out of guilt and those who dissagree to provide because the reasons are bogus.

The americans who are reaping the fruits of labor of others will flock nearly 100% to the political party who is responsible for this endless gravy train and to ensure their future votes the party must maintain their poverty and dependence.
 
Empirica said:
...Why would the democrat party, which presents itself as champions of minorities, promise to provide a government program for each and every need to take them from the moment of conception to the grave unless they believed that for some reason they were incapable of making it on their own?...
Click to expand...

you appear to be projecting your own views upon the Democrats.
 
Empirica said:
Open to interpretation?!

Why would the democrat party, which presents itself as champions of minorities, promise to provide a government program for each and every need to take them from the moment of conception to the grave unless they believed that for some reason they were incapable of making it on their own?

Of course, it has everything to do with making rational choices which is exactly what I'm talking about...That is if you are satisfied with the bare neccessities which are provided on the bottom rung of the ladder rather than reaching for the limits of your true potential.

One party tells all americans they will strive for a level playing field to ensure all americans will have an equal shot at success if they are willing to work hard and make sacrifices.

The other party tells us they must deprive some americans to provide for other americans who are disadvantaged because of the color of their skin and are unable to provide for themselves.

The two parties will split the members of the group who have been designated to provide, into those who agree to provide out of guilt and those who dissagree to provide because the reasons are bogus.

The americans who are reaping the fruits of labor of others will flock nearly 100% to the political party who is responsible for this endless gravy train and to ensure their future votes the party must maintain their poverty and dependence.
Click to expand...

The americans who are reaping the fruits of labor of others will flock nearly 100% to the political party who is responsible for this endless gravy train and to ensure their future votes the party must maintain their bias towards the wealthy.

see how that works?
 
Empirica said:
I ran across this Columbus Dispatch Newspaper article from Feb2011 at AmRen's website.

Why is "skin color" still a qualifying factor for college admission in the 21st century?

I suspect these policies are a whole lot more wide spread than just Ohio State and Miami universities?

I thought liberals and the democrat party were suppose to be champions of the victims of racism?

This is a yes or no/black or white answer with absolutely no grey area to hide behind.

You either condone and defend racism OR you speak up and publicly denounce it here and now.

I believe it is safe to assume that any poster who is afraid to cast a vote most likely condones racism.

I have chosen the username to register with your vote, option...Lets find out who walks the talk.
Click to expand...


Your deduction is lame. They still ask for race in job application forms. To try and and say that it is because they want to discriminate against "whites" is disingenuous - that has never been a factor.

What you are suggesting is that they do away with the "race" question - then it will be impossible to prove that some "whites" are still willing to discriminate and only accept other whites.

And, as for your comment about liberals and democrats being against racism, we show it in the legislation that we support, not in trying to come up with trick questions.

Oh, and I happened to vote wrong, I don't think race should be a factor for admission, so sue me.
 
Last edited:
Empirica said:
The root of the black problem is the democrat party's policies of telling black americans they are too stupid to make it on their own without the assistance of a big government under the control of democrat politicians and that they are victims of all non-liberal whites, a racist system and american history.
Click to expand...

Please post a link to the Democratic party saying this, implying this, or doing anything that would lead a black person to this conclusion.

I can post a link of Newt saying that kids in poor neighborhoods don't know how to work.
 
rocket88 said:
So if their grades and qualifications are equal, how do you know race was the deciding factor?
Click to expand...

Hmmm... interesting question... let's see... how do I know race was the deciding factor?...

[thinking... thinking... ]

Oh wait, I may know!... Could it be because I AUTHORED THE HYPOTHETICAL SCENARIO!!!!

The only place where this situation would happen is in the bottom rung of the class. You're talking about a kid who may or may not have gotten into college, especially in your scenario where they have equal grades. I'd like to hear your case for why they would take the white kid in your scenario. Remember, grades and SATs are equal.
Click to expand...

No, I am talking about two kids, one black, one white, equal academic qualifications, vastly different socioeconomic backgrounds. They are both honor students with good grades and are applying to the same university. However, the upper middle-class black kid gets a bump on his application for being black, while the welfare-class white kids gets nothing. The bump makes all the difference as to who gets admitted and who does not.

Again I ask you, is this not morally obscene?
 
Sig said:
Again I ask you, is this not morally obscene?
Click to expand...

No, it's a made up hypothetical.

It is equally wrong how the stepsisters treat Cinderella.
 
Last edited:
theplaydrive said:
Well yes, the unfairness perpetuated against future Einstein's is the greatest problem plaguing the education system.
Click to expand...

I see you got your courage up after I logged off. Good for you!

Now back to the issue.

The education system is plagued with all sorts of problems, and this is just one of them:

The more successful AA/EO policies are at redressing past racial discrimination practices, the more likely such policies are to become the source of racial discrimination practices.

To put it succinctly: An upper middle-class student, regardless of his race, should NOT be getting equal or better bumps on his college application vis-a-vis less socioeconomically advantaged students. To help you better get a handle on this, imagine if the upper middle-class student and the welfare-class student are both black and they both receive the same bonus for being black. Is this fair?


(And please, do not reply with some lame-ass diatribe about how race-based bonus systems no longer exist. Of course they exist. It would be impossible to implement an AA/EO policy without some such system, however opaque and convoluted it may be made in order to comply with the increasingly inharmonic orders currently resonating from the legislative and judicial branches of government at the same time.)
 
Sig said:
No, I am talking about two kids, one black, one white, equal academic qualifications, vastly different socioeconomic backgrounds. They are both honor students with good grades and are applying to the same university. However, the upper middle-class black kid gets a bump on his application for being black, while the welfare-class white kids gets nothing. The bump makes all the difference as to who gets admitted and who does not.

Again I ask you, is this not morally obscene?
Click to expand...

In a situation where only one of them can get in, that pretty much means that their qualifications put them both on the bubble. So any number of secondary things come into play. Maybe one applicant's essay is slightly better than the other. Maybe one plays the trumpet better than the other one.

No matter what the racial and or socio-economic factors, in this hypothetical, it's essentially 50/50 that either one gets in. So no, I don't think it's morally obscene that one got in and the other didn't, because even if you take race out of the equation, statistically there's a 50% chance that they choose either student.

Should the white kid get in ahead of the black kid? Even if it's utterly equal, why one and not the other?
 
cpwill said:
they do. no one keeps you out. our problem isn't people who have the ability who can't go, it's people who are going who don't have the ability.
Click to expand...

Blame the NCAA and the popularity of college football and basketball.
 
rocket88 said:
In a situation where only one of them can get in, that pretty much means that their qualifications put them both on the bubble. So any number of secondary things come into play. Maybe one applicant's essay is slightly better than the other. Maybe one plays the trumpet better than the other one.

No matter what the racial and or socio-economic factors, in this hypothetical, it's essentially 50/50 that either one gets in. So no, I don't think it's morally obscene that one got in and the other didn't, because even if you take race out of the equation, statistically there's a 50% chance that they choose either student.

Should the white kid get in ahead of the black kid? Even if it's utterly equal, why one and not the other?
Click to expand...

I am asking you a very simple question that requires a very simple answer.

Do you think it would be morally obscene for the black student, in the aformentioned scenario, to be handed an admissions-clinching bump over the white student for no other reason than his being black?
 
Sig said:
I am asking you a very simple question that requires a very simple answer.

Do you think it would be morally obscene for the black student, in the aformentioned scenario, to be handed an admissions-clinching bump over the white student for no other reason than his being black?
Click to expand...

No, because it's statistically 50/50 either way. Even if it's 2 kids of the same race, one gets in and the other doesn't. Meaning that either way, something has to put one of them over the hump. Even if they make the decision by folding the first page of both applications into paper airplanes and pick whichever one goes farther.

It would be wrong if he got in over a more qualified kid based on his race. If the white kid was a slam dunk to get in and didn't because his spot went to a less qualified black kid, I'd buy into it. But that's not the situation you described.

Again. Utterly equal. You can only pick one. Which one and why?
 
rocket88 said:
No, because it's statistically 50/50 either way. Even if it's 2 kids of the same race, one gets in and the other doesn't. Meaning that either way, something has to put one of them over the hump. Even if they make the decision by folding the first page of both applications into paper airplanes and pick whichever one goes farther.

It would be wrong if he got in over a more qualified kid based on his race. If the white kid was a slam dunk to get in and didn't because his spot went to a less qualified black kid, I'd buy into it. But that's not the situation you described.

Again. Utterly equal. You can only pick one. Which one and why?
Click to expand...

Once again, the communication process breaks down.

It's not 50/50. The black student gets a bump for being black while the white student gets nothing for being white. The bump which the black student receives for being black makes all the difference in his getting admitted ahead of the white student.

This is the scenario. What is your answer?

In case you missed it. The black student hails from an upper middle-class background while the white student is from the welfare class. Again, not 50/50, the black student enjoys a socioeconomic advantage over the white student.
 
Last edited:
Sig said:
To put it succinctly: An upper middle-class student, regardless of his race, should NOT be getting equal or better bumps on his college application vis-a-vis less socioeconomically advantaged students. To help you better get a handle on this, imagine if the upper middle-class student and the welfare-class student are both black and they both receive the same bonus for being black. Is this fair?
Click to expand...
First, this comment has nothing to do with our original conversation.
Second, why shouldn't a rich kid get in over a poor kid if the admissions office thinks he'll add more to the college?
Third, sure, it's fair, if the college thinks that both of them will add to the college environment.
 
Sig said:
I am asking you a very simple question that requires a very simple answer.

Do you think it would be morally obscene for the black student, in the aformentioned scenario, to be handed an admissions-clinching bump over the white student for no other reason than his being black?
Click to expand...

Ah, the loaded question... "Would XYZ unfair hypothetical scenario be unfair?"


The white student should have applied to more than one school.
 
theplaydrive said:
First, this comment has nothing to do with our original conversation.
Second, why shouldn't a rich kid get in over a poor kid if the admissions office thinks he'll add more to the college?
Third, sure, it's fair, if the college thinks that both of them will add to the college environment.
Click to expand...

Both kids are NOT admitted in this scenario. Despite his obvious socioeconomic advantages, one student is granted a leg-up because of his race and the other is not. For the sake of argument, let's assume that the black is not getting a leg-up because the admissions office thinks he'll "add more to the college", but because the admissions office fears that it is missing its "target quota" for black student admissions and may be sued by the NAACP.
 
Last edited:
Sig said:
Once again, the communication process breaks down.

It's not 50/50. The black student gets a bump for being black while the white student gets nothing for being white. The bump which the black student receives for being black makes all the difference in his getting admitted ahead of the white student.

This is the scenario. What is your answer?

In case you missed it. The black student hails from an upper middle-class background while the white student is from the welfare class. Again, not 50/50, the black student enjoys a socioeconomic advantage over the white student.
Click to expand...

In the scenario described, you could potentially choose either student over the other one. Black kid gets a little bump for being black and gets in, so what? Do you really think it's an injustice that the white kid didn't get in?

I'm modifying the scenario. No racial bump. Which one do you pick and what's your justification?
 
rocket88 said:
Black kid gets a little bump for being black and gets in, so what? Do you really think it's an injustice that the white kid didn't get in?
Click to expand...

Change it to this and see if it still works:

White kid gets a little bump for being white and gets in, so what? Do you really think it's an injustice that the black kid didn't get in?
 
rocket88 said:
In the scenario described, you could potentially choose either student over the other one. Black kid gets a little bump for being black and gets in, so what? Do you really think it's an injustice that the white kid didn't get in?

I'm modifying the scenario. No racial bump. Which one do you pick and what's your justification?
Click to expand...

No, you could not "potentially choose either student." One student's application is bumped up for no other reason than his race.

Now, either answer the question or get lost.
 
misterman said:
Change it to this and see if it still works:

White kid gets a little bump for being white and gets in, so what? Do you really think it's an injustice that the black kid didn't get in?
Click to expand...

No. Not at all. All other things being equal, something had to put one over the hump.
 
hazlnut said:
Ah, the loaded question... "Would XYZ unfair hypothetical scenario be unfair?"


The white student should have applied to more than one school.
Click to expand...

well that was a racist attack. maybe if the black student put the pipe down and made decent grades he could get into school on his own merits, not his muddy complexion.

get off the cross buddy, we need the wood.
 
Sig said:
No, you could not "potentially choose either student." One student's application is bumped up for no other reason than his race.

Now, either answer the question or get lost.
Click to expand...

I've answered it twice, you just don't like the answer.

No. Because no matter how you cut it, one gets in and the other doesn't. Why should I care which is which?

Now answer my question. Why should the white kid get over the hump?
 
rocket88 said:
No. Not at all. All other things being equal, something had to put one over the hump.
Click to expand...

But all other things are NOT equal. The black student enjoyed socioeconomic advantages which the white student did not.

Why should race trump socioeconomic handicap?
 
Last edited:
3doglife said:
well that was a racist attack. maybe if the black student put the pipe down and made decent grades he could get into school on his own merits, not his muddy complexion.

get off the cross buddy, we need the wood.
Click to expand...

Maybe the white kid should put the pipe down too. Since he apparently got the same grades.
 
Sig said:
But all other things are NOT equal. The black kid enjoyed socioeconomic advantages which the white student did not.

Why should race trump socioeconomic handicap?
Click to expand...

Why should socioeconomic handicap trump race?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom