• 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 .
misterman said:
So how is it possible to consider race as a factor but not call it discrimination by race?
Click to expand...

Again, from the Michigan case, you can't use race as the basis. In the beginng, the courts said it could be used as one of many facors, but when challenged, the court ruled they could not. Today, it cannot be used as a factor. Michigan did ask if diversity could be used. It can as long as race is not the thing being considered.

As I said earlier, this is waht is interesting to me. It is not the government or the law pushing this diveristy. It is the schools. The issue seems to be with schools and not the law.
 
Boo Radley said:
Again, from the Michigan case, you can't use race as the basis. In the beginng, the courts said it could be used as one of many facors, but when challenged, the court ruled they could not. Today, it cannot be used as a factor. Michigan did ask if diversity could be used. It can as long as race is not the thing being considered.
Click to expand...

Wait, so you're saying race can't be used as a factor, at all, now?
 
Boo Radley said:
According to the Michigan case, "it must not be a “deciding factor.”
Click to expand...

Okay. But race can still be used when considering "diversity" right?
 
Boo Radley said:
GW is a good thinker, but he bases his argument on a false premise. No one is allowed in that doesn't meet the standards.
Click to expand...

I think blackdog has done a pretty effective job of responding to this.
 
cpwill said:
I think blackdog has done a pretty effective job of responding to this.
Click to expand...

The blind in this case can not be made to see because they don't want to admit the reality of the situation. People like Boo would rather dodge around the answers as to not take them on directly because in the end they know they are wrong.
 
Blackdog said:
I know you are not, I was pointing out you were wrong about that.
Click to expand...
I wasn't wrong. My point was that the case you used as "evidence" was ruled unconstitutional and I'm not arguing for unconstitutional policies, so it has no relevance to my argument.

I was talking about the overall situation. Either you accept that or you don't. SO I don't care either way as I have clarified what I said. So either you can call me a liar or move on.
Click to expand...
So when you said, "You know as well as I do their are plenty of others. If I list them, will you just ignore them as well?" right after I was talking about cases, you meant, "You know as well as I do there are plenty of other overall situations. If I list those overall situations, will you just ignore them as well?". LOL, okay.

Exactly, if we have laws against discrimination, do we need affirmative action? You have still not answered that question. It is a simple yes or no.
Click to expand...
I already gave you my answer and you responded, "that's just an excuse". Did you forget that conversation so quickly? It's funny. You ask a question, I give an answer. Then you call that answer an "excuse" in order to dismiss what you do not like. Then you pretend that I never even answered the question. How interesting.

Still avoiding the question. Yes or no.
Click to expand...
See above. Moreover, it's funny that you believe I think so much of your questions and so little of my ability to answer them that I would have reason to avoid them. Like I said, asked and answered. Next.
 
Blackdog said:
Subjective? It is a yes or no answer you are trying to avoid. Either it is still needed or it's not. I have pointed out why it is no longer needed and no one has given any real reason to keep it.
Click to expand...

This is my original post:
theplaydrive said:
Ignoring the fact that "legitimacy" is subjective, legitimacy has nothing to do with the difference between an excuse and an explanation.
Click to expand...

Yes, the "legitimacy" of the explanations I gave you are subjective. It's not a yes or no question. I gave you my answers and first you say that they are "excuses" and now you're saying I "avoided the question" right after you criticized my answer to the question. What a joke.

The reason people disagree on AA and almost everything else in the world is because they have different opinions. So try as you may to say "it's either needed or it's not" that really not how the world works. You don't think it's needed. I and others do. Those are called opinions and trying to pass your opinions off as fact does nothing to affect the reality of what they actually are. You disagree with me and others. Fine. But don't be so arrogant as to assume that in order to have a valid opinion, I have to convince you to agree with me.
 
misterman said:
Okay. But race can still be used when considering "diversity" right?
Click to expand...

Not sure yet. But again, this is the school wanting diverity and not the law or government trying to make them. The law is about not having racial discrimination.
 
cpwill said:
I think blackdog has done a pretty effective job of responding to this.
Click to expand...

Of course you do. Those are your type of sources and arguments.

:2funny: :2funny: :2funny:
 
Blackdog said:
The blind in this case can not be made to see because they don't want to admit the reality of the situation. People like Boo would rather dodge around the answers as to not take them on directly because in the end they know they are wrong.
Click to expand...

Dodge around what? I happen to be the one speaking to the law. I respectfully submit that is the issue. :coffeepap
 
misterman said:
The issue, then is the definition of racial discrimination. I think that if you have two candidates who are otherwise equally qualified, but one is chosen by race, that's racial discrimination by definition. Not that this is always the situation that occurs.
Click to expand...

But if you have two candidates that are equally qualified for one spot, only one will get picked. How do you know what the tipping point was? Someone's going to scream discrimination either way, simply because there was no apparent logical reason to choose one over the other.
 
misterman said:
Okay. But race can still be used when considering "diversity" right?
Click to expand...

naturally. minority students, after all, are a public utility. we need more of them around so that we can have them here and look at them, and feel good about ourselves for letting them into school and even giving them a special scholarship and everything. we are such wonderful people, and this proves it.

sure, it sort of screws them over. but the important thing is we're not racist, we love black people, why, i even said hello to one of them just the other day, and I always make sure to rail against evil racist slaveowners in my papers on American history :).
 
Boo Radley said:
Dodge around what? I happen to be the one speaking to the law. I respectfully submit that is the issue. :coffeepap
Click to expand...

Dodging the issue and the reality of the situation has nothing to do with "speaking to the law." I respectfully submit :eek:uch:
 
Blackdog said:
Dodging the issue and the reality of the situation has nothing to do with "speaking to the law." I respectfully submit :eek:uch:
Click to expand...

Really. So, when you complain about a law, speaking about the law is dodging? You and I ahve very different meanig of the word dodging.

:2funny: :2funny: :2funny:
 
Boo Radley said:
Really. So, when you complain about a law, speaking about the law is dodging? You and I ahve very different meanig of the word dodging.

:2funny: :2funny: :2funny:
Click to expand...

That is nothing more than an appeal to authority. So because it is a law, this makes it right is your argument? Yea that's not dodging. So you can keep avoiding, making excuses etc. It seems to be what you and play are good at.
 
Boo Radley said:
Really. So, when you complain about a law, speaking about the law is dodging? You and I ahve very different meanig of the word dodging.

:2funny: :2funny: :2funny:
Click to expand...

boo, just a suggestion: the :teapap smiley works with your particular brand of vaguery and just so arguments.

the triple-lol's, though, well, just... well, it's weird - clashes with your usual tone. Gives off the impression that you're force-laughing as hard as you can... or possibly high.

i mean, the :teapap can be infuriating when you use it as a tool of smuggery... but at least it works for you.
 
cpwill said:
boo, just a suggestion: the :teapap smiley works with your particular brand of vaguery and just so arguments.

the triple-lol's, though, well, just... well, it's weird - clashes with your usual tone. Gives off the impression that you're force-laughing as hard as you can... or possibly high.

i mean, the :teapap can be infuriating when you use it as a tool of smuggery... but at least it works for you.
Click to expand...

Maybe. I merely only know a few, and I find it funny that people somehow think their false impressions mean more than the actual law.

But, I'll give it a try:

:teapap:

Or did you mean coffeepap

:coffeepap
 
Boo Radley said:
Maybe. I merely only know a few, and I find it funny that people somehow think their false impressions mean more than the actual law.

But, I'll give it a try:

:teapap:

Or did you mean coffeepap

:coffeepap
Click to expand...

False impressions? You mean the fact it caused standards to be lowered and has been shown to hurt minority's rather than help?

Your argument is basically keep it because it is a law. Yea great argument there. :moon:
 
Blackdog said:
False impressions? You mean the fact it caused standards to be lowered and has been shown to hurt minority's rather than help?

Your argument is basically keep it because it is a law. Yea great argument there. :moon:
Click to expand...

You have not proven it caused standards to be lowered. None of your sources show method or link to actual studies. instead you have wild eyed conservatives saying it's true, and one only asked people if they thought it was true. WOOOO, now that's some tough standard to beat.

But yes, if someone breaks the law, you can't blame the law. As I work in education, and speicificly with underprepared students, AA has next to nothing to do with any actual lowering of standards. As one administrator at a private school said, if they pay their money, they will get the grade. Now that's lowering standards, and AA is not the cause.
 
Boo Radley said:
You have not proven it caused standards to be lowered. None of your sources show method or link to actual studies. instead you have wild eyed conservatives saying it's true, and one only asked people if they thought it was true. WOOOO, now that's some tough standard to beat.

But yes, if someone breaks the law, you can't blame the law. As I work in education, and speicificly with underprepared students, AA has next to nothing to do with any actual lowering of standards. As one administrator at a private school said, if they pay their money, they will get the grade. Now that's lowering standards, and AA is not the cause.
Click to expand...

Your anecdotal evidence is as worthless as your argument.

My evidence is pretty good compared to your non-existing evidence.
 
Last edited:
Blackdog said:
Your anecdotal evidence is worthless as your argument.
Click to expand...

Agreed, but I do know enough to know you have it wrong. No one is really concerned about AA in the profession. There are much bigger problems.

But, you need an objective, fact based (not opinions) study. And you must show specifically that AA is the cause for any lowering of standards. And we must be able to view that study.
 
Boo Radley said:
Agreed, but I do know enough to know you have it wrong. No one is really concerned about AA in the profession. There are much bigger problems.

But, you need an objective, fact based (not opinions) study. And you must show specifically that AA is the cause for any lowering of standards. And we must be able to view that study.
Click to expand...

AA is causing problems, this is a fact. A large majority has issues right or wrong with it. It is antiquated and no longer needed as we have discrimination laws to protect against it. At this point it is overkill and not worth the problems it is causing.

No evidence I know of says it is helping at all, and evidence does exist (even though not great) that it is hurting non-minority students as well as minority's themselves.

If we have "bigger problems" and I agree we do, why do we need to keep it??? Why do you argue to keep it? You have not given one valid reason to keep it yet? I have given multiple reasons it needs to go.
 
Blackdog said:
AA is causing problems, this is a fact. A large majority has issues right or wrong with it. It is antiquated and no longer needed as we have discrimination laws to protect against it. At this point it is overkill and not worth the problems it is causing.

No evidence I know of says it is helping at all, and evidence does exist (even though not great) that it is hurting non-minority students as well as minority's themselves.

If we have "bigger problems" and I agree we do, why do we need to keep it??? Why do you argue to keep it? You have not given one valid reason to keep it yet? I have given multiple reasons it needs to go.
Click to expand...

You are wrong. It is not a fact. It's an opinion, and one you have not yet supported.

As AA calls for us to prove we are not discriminating, how can that not be helping? Remember, before the alw, racial discrimination was rampant. Now it isn't, and it is likley AA helped that a lot.

But what you're really upset about is schools want diversity. AA doesn't call for it. no law calls for it. But schools think it has some value. You want a law to say schools can't value that. That has nothing to do with AA, but schools.
 
Boo Radley said:
Not sure yet. But again, this is the school wanting diverity and not the law or government trying to make them. The law is about not having racial discrimination.
Click to expand...

Of course it's about "having racial discrimination." Racial discrimination is simply an act, not a motivation. The school may view it as "good" discrimination, but that doesn't make it not discrimination.

The school may value diversity. That may be a good thing for the school, and for the students it accepts, and for society. It does mean that certain students are denied entry to the school due to their race though. That is the unavoidable consequence, even if it is muddled by the complexity of admissions policies that consider other factors too. A policy that considers race makes a choice based on race, thereby excluding someone who didn't have the right race to meet the policy.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom