• 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:
I can't comment on how widespread that scenario is since neither you nor I have any clue. However, I know that I went to a school that presumably uses AA and the quality of students was overwhelmingly exceptional (not just in grades, but in quality of thought and intelligence). There were some ridiculous people there, but they were of all races, backgrounds, religions, etc.. My college experience made it clear that AA is not the evil some make it out to be.
Click to expand...

"Presumably?"

And your college experience didn't include the students were denied entry because they had to make room for someone under an AA policy.
 
theplaydrive said:
Some would say the same for AA.
Click to expand...

But it's not, by definition. It is skewing the rules. It is letting blacks have four strikes before they're out, to torture the analogy.
 
theplaydrive said:
He didn't say that anyone who is against AA is a racist. He said that there are racial motivations for those who are against AA, but who support other discriminatory practices. That's a fair point worthy of discussion. The strawman you created out of his post is not.
Click to expand...

Then you need to stop assuming that most people who are against AA are also for other discriminatory practices. This is typical debate 101 tactics. It doesn't matter if there are people who support other forms of discrimination. We are talking about the merit of this particular form of discrimination which is a government or political mandate. I think we can say the discrimination is not good and strive to eliminate all forms including AA.
 
Sig said:
No, no... that is not what you said. What you said was:

"I can't comment on how widespread that scenario is since neither you nor I have any clue."

Excluding your ridiculous assumption in regards to what clues I have or do not have, I shall take you on your word.
Click to expand...
I was correct. We don't have a clue unless you have an analysis of every college's admissions policy that shows that your assumption about how most colleges use AA is better than mine.

...at least until you contradict yourself.

The fact of the matter is that you do not know, nor could you know, all the varioius techniques and policies colleges and universities use to ensure a racially diverse student body. Indeed, the only knowledge you seem to possess is personal experience.

I am not interested in personal experience. I am interested in policy and the degree to which policy is fair in regards to doling out handicaps for socioeconomic status vis-a-vis handicaps for racial and ethnic inclusion. And, although we have not yet addressed the matter to any serious degree, I am interested in the demographic percentages used to determine the "target quota" for racial diversity at colleges and universities and to what degree such policy is fair and practical.
Click to expand...
The fact of the matter is that you do not know, nor could you know, all the various techniques and policies colleges and universities use. Period. And if you're not interested in personal experiences, then I assume you aren't interested in your own arguments because that seems to be all you have as well, if you even have that considering that you've dismissed mine. I've already told you I don't favor a quota system. I've told you what I do favor and why, but it appears that you simply don't like my answer and that you would prefer that I agree with you. That's not going to happen.
 
misterman said:
"Presumably?"

And your college experience didn't include the students were denied entry because they had to make room for someone under an AA policy.
Click to expand...
Yeah, presumably. I don't know for sure, but I went to a top 10 school and they pretty much all use AA. And you're missing my point. The quality of students at the University was great, so the assumptions anti-AA people are making that less qualified students were let in over more qualified students holds no water in my experience.
 
misterman said:
But it's not, by definition. It is skewing the rules. It is letting blacks have four strikes before they're out, to torture the analogy.
Click to expand...
It's actually not like "letting blacks have four strikes" at all. And it is certainly is "leveling the playing field" by certain interpretations which is why I said "some people" see it that way. You're free to disagree, but that's just your opinion.
 
jambalaya said:
Then you need to stop assuming that most people who are against AA are also for other discriminatory practices. This is typical debate 101 tactics. It doesn't matter if there are people who support other forms of discrimination. We are talking about the merit of this particular form of discrimination which is a government or political mandate. I think we can say the discrimination is not good and strive to eliminate all forms including AA.
Click to expand...
I actually didn't make that assumption AT ALL and you would know that if you took Reading 101. The post of mine that you quoted makes it incredibly clear that I'm not making that argument. Read it again and come back.
 
theplaydrive said:
It's actually not like "letting blacks have four strikes" at all.
Click to expand...

Sure it is.

If standards are lower for blacks than whites, that's exactly what it is.
 
theplaydrive said:
Yeah, presumably. I don't know for sure, but I went to a top 10 school and they pretty much all use AA. And you're missing my point. The quality of students at the University was great, so the assumptions anti-AA people are making that less qualified students were let in over more qualified students holds no water in my experience.
Click to expand...

Students with even better academic qualifications were (presumably) denied entry to your school to make room for lower-qualified black students. How else would AA work? If the students are all great regardless of race, what is the issue in this debate? That is an injustice to the students who were denied entry. That is the concern of those who oppose this form of AA.

Perhaps you are arguing that your experience showed that all the students achieved at a high level regardless of admission policies? That's fine, but it simply says admission policies based on race don't affect quality of students, right?

I think the argument you are on the verge of making is that YOU, and your fellow students, actually got a better education because of the other students admitted under AA policies than you would have at a less diverse place. Does that sound right?
 
Last edited:
misterman said:
Students with even better academic qualifications were (presumably) denied entry to your school to make room for lower-qualified black students. How else would AA work? If the students are all great regardless of race, what is the issue in this debate? That is an injustice to the students who were denied entry. That is the concern of those who oppose this form of AA.
Click to expand...
The problem with this argument is that it assumes that kids who benefit from AA are of lower quality than other students. That's not necessarily the case and probably often is not the case. You could easily have two similarly qualified students - one white and one black - and the black one benefits from AA. I don't know why you automatically assume that the black kid is less qualified.

Perhaps you are arguing that your experience showed that all the students achieved at a high level regardless of admission policies? That's fine, but it simply says admission policies based on race don't affect quality of students, right?

I think the argument you are on the verge of making is that YOU, and your fellow students, actually got a better education because of the other students admitted under AA policies than you would have at a less diverse place. Does that sound right?
Click to expand...
I made that argument earlier in a different conversation. In this conversation, my argument is simply that the AA had no apparent effect on the quality of students. Consequently, all these arguments that AA substitutes worse students for better ones holds no water in my experience with AA.
 
Getting back on topic...

Empirica said:
Why is "skin color" still a qualifying factor for college admission in the 21st century?
Click to expand...

Um... it's not a qualifying factor.

Never was.

Your entire thread and premise is a fail.

Perhaps you should put down the Ayn Rand and spend some time getting up to speed on CURRENT admissions practices.
 
misterman said:
Sure it is.

If standards are lower for blacks than whites, that's exactly what it is.
Click to expand...

There is no law that requires lower standards for anyone. Bush was admitted eventhough he didn't meet the standards others did, but there was no law making that mandatory. However, unlike AA, there was no law saying that they couldn't hold Bush to a lower standard. AA, however, says you can't use race to discriminate with.
 
theplaydrive said:
Well the type of AA that I support doesn't lower any standards.
Click to expand...

What kind do you support? Is this going to be a semantic discussion about what "standards" are?
 
Boo Radley said:
There is no law that requires lower standards for anyone.
Click to expand...

Didn't say that. But AA policies often do end up admitting those with lower qualificiations than others need to get into the school.

AA, however, says you can't use race to discriminate with.
Click to expand...

Huh? AA (at least the kind we're discussing) is racial discrimination, by definition.
 
hazlnut said:
Perhaps you should put down the Ayn Rand and spend some time getting up to speed on CURRENT admissions practices.
Click to expand...

Why don't you simply tell us what those admission practices are and how race isn't a "qualifying" factor?
 
misterman said:
What kind do you support? Is this going to be a semantic discussion about what "standards" are?
Click to expand...

Sematics? I doubt that. However, I don't think most actually know what the standards really are. Test scores, for example, mean much less than some think. As does GPA. Those things are used mostly just to reduce the numbers you're going to look at. After that, and all who are considered meet those standards, you look for other, more subjective standards.
 
misterman said:
Didn't say that. But AA policies often do end up admitting those with lower qualificiations than others need to get into the school.



Huh? AA (at least the kind we're discussing) is racial discrimination, by definition.
Click to expand...

The only AA there is the one that is within the law. All others mean you can sue and win. The law,AA, syas you cannot discriminate due to race.
As for qualifications, which qualifications? Read what I say above.
 
misterman said:
Why don't you simply tell us what those admission practices are and how race isn't a "qualifying" factor?
Click to expand...

Please show me ONE U.S. university that won't even consider an application based on race.

Then look up the word 'Qualify'. As in, 'In order to qualify for admissions to our school, you must be black'...

Simple enough for you?
 
theplaydrive said:
The problem with this argument is that it assumes that kids who benefit from AA are of lower quality than other students. That's not necessarily the case and probably often is not the case. You could easily have two similarly qualified students - one white and one black - and the black one benefits from AA. I don't know why you automatically assume that the black kid is less qualified.
Click to expand...

If the black kid isn't less qualified, why have AA? Is AA nothing more than a way to decide between equally-qualified kids? Are there no cases where a black kid with SATs lower than a white kid gets in due to his race?

(I should stipulate here that I'm not competely against using race as a factor in admission, but I'm keeping you honest).

I made that argument earlier in a different conversation. In this conversation, my argument is simply that the AA had no apparent effect on the quality of students. Consequently, all these arguments that AA substitutes worse students for better ones holds no water in my experience with AA.
Click to expand...

Okay. I would not want to go to an all-white or all-male school myself, and I think my own education was better for that too. But the flip side is that in order to get that good education, someone else had to be denied entry to the school.
 
hazlnut said:
Please show me ONE U.S. university that won't even consider an application based on race.

Then look up the word 'Qualify'. As in, 'In order to qualify for admissions to our school, you must be black'...

Simple enough for you?
Click to expand...

Ah, I see your point. You could have made it with a little less attitude.

But if there is a quota system for minorities, that would make race a qualifying factor for those slots. I don't think quotas are really legal in college admissions though (though I'll bet they still exist unofficially).
 
Boo Radley said:
The only AA there is the one that is within the law. All others mean you can sue and win. The law,AA, syas you cannot discriminate due to race.
Click to expand...

So you don't think AA is racial discrimination, is that it?

As for qualifications, which qualifications? Read what I say above.
Click to expand...

Look up the word "qualifications." It's not the same as "qualifying."
 
What's most disturbing about this thread is that people with high SAT/ ACT scores think they're more qualified than people who scored slightly lower. As if that is the ONLY thing an admissions office should look at.

That's like saying the cadet who can do 20 pull-ups is more qualified to be a solider than one who can only do 18...

And, as I've mentioned, football and basketball players can be on the bottom end of the qualifying range of SAT/ACT scores, however they get a free ride and are considered heros.

But the same white kids drunk at football games will bitch about their friends who didn't get accepted because some minority got his spot.... Maybe the minority who got your friend's spot is the dude running with the balll... you know, the one you are cheering.
 
misterman said:
Look up the word "qualifications." It's not the same as "qualifying."
Click to expand...

Qualifying was the word used in the OP.

Qualifying was the word I used.

You have failed to make a relevant point.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom