• 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 .
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.

AA, at least the kind that actually uses race as a factor in admission, is racial discrimination by definition.

To not discriminate, you'd need to not use race as a factor.
 
AA, at least the kind that actually uses race as a factor in admission, is racial discrimination by definition.

To not discriminate, you'd need to not use race as a factor.

If used in admissions, that isn't AA. AA has no call or mandate to use any such element as a factor. AA only calls on institutions to show they do not discrminate. Again, it is colleges that want diversity and not AA or the law.

BTW, race is not the only form of discrmination there is. And most discrimination is leagal. Only race, sex, and religion are specifically prohibited.
 
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.

Again, a school issue and not an AA issue. Schools value all kinds of things that are not objective. Money. Location. Parentage.

And frankly, few to no white folks are denied entry because of seeking diversity. The numbers just don't support the claim that whites are being denied entry.
 
If used in admissions, that isn't AA.
That's not true. Grutter v. Bollinger upheld using race in admissions as a constitutional form of Affirmative Action. It's certainly AA, it's just not government mandated AA.
 
That's not true. Grutter v. Bollinger upheld using race in admissions as a constitutional form of Affirmative Action. It's certainly AA, it's just not government mandated AA.

I linked that earlier. They said it could not be the determining factor, which is what I have been saying. And it is not AA demanding it, but schools seeking diversity on their own. Again, not the law mandating, but schools wanting soemthign and trying to find a legal way to do it. So, the law itself that is AA does not call for race to be used in admissions. It calls for schools and business to show they are not discriminating. This is my point.
 
I linked that earlier. They said it could not be the determining factor, which is what I have been saying. And it is not AA demanding it, but schools seeking diversity on their own. Again, not the law mandating, but schools wanting soemthign and trying to find a legal way to do it. So, the law itself that is AA does not call for race to be used in admissions. It calls for schools and business to show they are not discriminating. This is my point.
Yeah, the bold part is what I've emphasized as well in this thread. However, you seem to be using AA to refer only to the law. AA is a term that refers to more than just the law. It also refers to the admissions policies themselves.

But as I'm writing this, I'm starting to realize that this doesn't really factor into the current topic of discussion as Blackdog said he had a problem with the law and the law doesn't have anything to do with the specific AA admissions policies created by colleges.
 
Yeah, the bold part is what I've emphasized as well in this thread. However, you seem to be using AA to refer only to the law. AA is a term that refers to more than just the law. It also refers to the admissions policies themselves.

But as I'm writing this, I'm starting to realize that this doesn't really factor into the current topic of discussion as Blackdog said he had a problem with the law and the law doesn't have anything to do with the specific AA admissions policies created by colleges.

I think it is wrongly used in those terms. It is not by definition AA, which is a law. I think people just wrongly connect the two. Schools, for their own reasons, want to add diverity to their schools. Some have more valid reasoning than others, but they tend to lose in court.

My biggest problem with Blackdog, who wants the law changed, is that he makes leaps concerning cause and effect, and all without any real evidence.

But I'll continue that with him.
 
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.

This is exactly what I mean, you say "you have not yet supported." I have supported it, you don't want to accept it because you say you don't have access to the information. One of the articles posted links to every source they used and you ignore it. So yes I have, and you still have shown nothing, nothing at all.

Then you add something that is completely irrelevant. It is just another fallacy. What I want or not has nothing to do with this debate. Then to make such an asinine Ad Hominem just shows a weak position and even weaker argument.

Are you even reading what I am saying?

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
 
I think it is wrongly used in those terms. It is not by definition AA, which is a law. I think people just wrongly connect the two. Schools, for their own reasons, want to add diverity to their schools. Some have more valid reasoning than others, but they tend to lose in court.

My biggest problem with Blackdog, who wants the law changed, is that he makes leaps concerning cause and effect, and all without any real evidence.

But I'll continue that with him.

No I don't want it "changed" I want it gone because it is no longer needed and is adding to the racial divide rather than helping. HUGE DIFFERENCE.

What part of that are you not getting?

I have posted evidence you have not. At the very best it is useless and at the most it is a determent. So why do we need it again?
 
Last edited:
No I don't want it "changed" I want it gone because it is no longer needed and is adding to the racial divide rather than helping. HUGE DIFFERENCE.

What part of that are you not getting?
As the law asks that we show we are not discirminating, exactly what about the law isn't needed?
 
This is exactly what I mean, you say "you have not yet supported." I have supported it, you don't want to accept it because you say you don't have access to the information. One of the articles posted links to every source they used and you ignore it. So yes I have, and you still have shown nothing, nothing at all.

Then you add something that is completely irrelevant. It is just another fallacy. What I want or not has nothing to do with this debate. Then to make such an asinine Ad Hominem just shows a weak position and even weaker argument.

Are you even reading what I am saying?

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

No, you talk about things that are not in the law, and then say that is why the law needs to go. To me, that isn't logical.

And no, you have not supported you claims. You gave opinion pieces that mentioned studies, but we see no real study, and the one only talks about asking people their opinion on it. That is not a valid study.
 
Last edited:
As the law asks that we show we are not discirminating, exactly what about the law isn't needed?

Now you are cutting out my comments.

You have a good one.
 
I think it is wrongly used in those terms. It is not by definition AA, which is a law. I think people just wrongly connect the two. Schools, for their own reasons, want to add diverity to their schools. Some have more valid reasoning than others, but they tend to lose in court.

My biggest problem with Blackdog, who wants the law changed, is that he makes leaps concerning cause and effect, and all without any real evidence.

But I'll continue that with him.
Fair enough. I generally agree.
 
If used in admissions, that isn't AA. AA has no call or mandate to use any such element as a factor. AA only calls on institutions to show they do not discrminate. Again, it is colleges that want diversity and not AA or the law.

No, that is not what AA is, in general terms. AA as referred to here, at least by me and probably most people on this thread, is policies designed to give groups that have been discriminated against in the past some kind of boost, such as by considering their race as a factor in admissions.
 
????? I didn't cut out anything. I asked a question. :shock:
He added something to his post, presumably after you clicked it to respond, and now it seems that he assumes that you saw it before his edit.
 
I linked that earlier. They said it could not be the determining factor, which is what I have been saying. And it is not AA demanding it, but schools seeking diversity on their own. Again, not the law mandating, but schools wanting soemthign and trying to find a legal way to do it. So, the law itself that is AA does not call for race to be used in admissions. It calls for schools and business to show they are not discriminating. This is my point.

Apparently "AA" is a government policy written down somewhere that you're following, or even some agency somewhere. To the rest of us, it's simply a policy concept that involves trying to get more members of historically-disadvantaged minority groups into schools (or jobs) they'd been banned from in the past, using many possible techniques that run the gamut from just trying to find more qualified candidates to using their race as one factor to just imposing quotas. AA may have started as a specific government policy, but the term has become much more general since then. That may be a source of confusion here.
 
I think it is wrongly used in those terms. It is not by definition AA, which is a law.

Which law is that?

The rest of us are referring to AA as a general policy goal, not a specific law.

But I'm still curious which law you're referring to.
 
Again, a school issue and not an AA issue.

(I think we've figured out the disconnect between your use of the term AA and the rest of us. Hope we can clear that up.)

Schools value all kinds of things that are not objective. Money. Location. Parentage.

Of course. But those are legal. Using race is illegal.

And frankly, few to no white folks are denied entry because of seeking diversity. The numbers just don't support the claim that whites are being denied entry.

How is that possible though? If you're using race as a factor, and that results in a black student being chosen who might not be chosen otherwise, it means a white student is denied entry. If not, you aren't really using race as a factor, so what's the point?
 
This is affirmative action by definition...

Affirmative action is a federal agenda initiated in the 1960s that’s designed to counteract historic discrimination faced by ethnic minorities, women and other underrepresented groups. To foster diversity and compensate for the ways such groups have historically been excluded, institutions with affirmative action programs prioritize the inclusion of minority groups in the employment, education and government sectors, among others.

Legal definition...

Affirmative action is the process of a business or governmental agency in which it gives special rights of hiring or advancement to ethnic minorities to make up for past discrimination against that minority...

Another central issue of contention is whether members of affected groups may receive preferential treatment and, if so, the means by which they are to be preferred. This issue is sometimes referred to as the debate over quotas. Though affirmative action programs came under heavy attack during the Reagan and Bush administrations, the principles of affirmative action were reaffirmed by the Civil Rights Act of 1991. In 1997, however, California's Proposition 209 banned affirmative action in that state. In 2003 a group of affirmative action opponents began a campaign to challenge its use in Michigan. Ward Connerly, a California businessman and national leader in the campaign to end affirmative action, has pushed for the Michigan Civil Rights Initiative, which would bar the use of race and gender in government hiring, contracting, and university admissions. As of early 2006, and barring legal appeals to the contrary, the Michigan Civil Rights Initiative will be on the November 2006 Michigan ballot. The legal battles over affirmative action and how it may and may not be used continue. On a state-by-state basis, challenges to affirmative action programs are being made.


It is a series of initiatives and overlapping laws, so I have no clue what this mysterious "AA law" is you speak of Boo.
 
(I think we've figured out the disconnect between your use of the term AA and the rest of us. Hope we can clear that up.)



Of course. But those are legal. Using race is illegal.



How is that possible though? If you're using race as a factor, and that results in a black student being chosen who might not be chosen otherwise, it means a white student is denied entry. If not, you aren't really using race as a factor, so what's the point?

Not using it as a deciding factor. That is how it is possible. By and large, the smae whites who were getting in are still getting in.
 
This is affirmative action by definition...

Affirmative action is a federal agenda initiated in the 1960s that’s designed to counteract historic discrimination faced by ethnic minorities, women and other underrepresented groups. To foster diversity and compensate for the ways such groups have historically been excluded, institutions with affirmative action programs prioritize the inclusion of minority groups in the employment, education and government sectors, among others.

Legal definition...

Affirmative action is the process of a business or governmental agency in which it gives special rights of hiring or advancement to ethnic minorities to make up for past discrimination against that minority...

Another central issue of contention is whether members of affected groups may receive preferential treatment and, if so, the means by which they are to be preferred. This issue is sometimes referred to as the debate over quotas. Though affirmative action programs came under heavy attack during the Reagan and Bush administrations, the principles of affirmative action were reaffirmed by the Civil Rights Act of 1991. In 1997, however, California's Proposition 209 banned affirmative action in that state. In 2003 a group of affirmative action opponents began a campaign to challenge its use in Michigan. Ward Connerly, a California businessman and national leader in the campaign to end affirmative action, has pushed for the Michigan Civil Rights Initiative, which would bar the use of race and gender in government hiring, contracting, and university admissions. As of early 2006, and barring legal appeals to the contrary, the Michigan Civil Rights Initiative will be on the November 2006 Michigan ballot. The legal battles over affirmative action and how it may and may not be used continue. On a state-by-state basis, challenges to affirmative action programs are being made.


It is a series of initiatives and overlapping laws, so I have no clue what this mysterious "AA law" is you speak of Boo.

I see no link to this.

You may learn about it here:

The basic statutory framework for affirmative action in employment and education derives from the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Public and private employers with 15 or more employees are subject to a comprehensive code of equal employment opportunity regulations under Title VII of the 1964 Act.3. The Title VII remedial scheme rests largely on judicial power to order monetary damages and injunctive relief, including “such affirmative action as may be appropriate,”4 to make discrimination victims whole. Except as may be imposed by court order or consent decree to remedy past discrimination, however, there is no general statutory obligation on employers to adopt affirmative action remedies. Official approval of “affirmative action” remedies
was further codified by federal regulations construing the 1964 Act’s Title VI, which prohibits racial or ethnic discrimination in all federally assisted “programs” and activities,5 including public or private educational institutions. In Justice Powell’s view, neither the state’s asserted interest in remedying “societal discrimination,” nor of providing “role models” for minority students was sufficiently “compelling” to warrant the use of a “suspect” racial classification in the admission process.

(snip)

The “quota” in Bakke was infirm, however, since it defined diversity only in racial terms and absolutely excluded non-minorities from a given number of seats.
 
I see no link to this.

You may learn about it here:

The basic statutory framework for affirmative action in employment and education derives from the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Public and private employers with 15 or more employees are subject to a comprehensive code of equal employment opportunity regulations under Title VII of the 1964 Act.3. The Title VII remedial scheme rests largely on judicial power to order monetary damages and injunctive relief, including “such affirmative action as may be appropriate,”4 to make discrimination victims whole. Except as may be imposed by court order or consent decree to remedy past discrimination, however, there is no general statutory obligation on employers to adopt affirmative action remedies. Official approval of “affirmative action” remedies
was further codified by federal regulations construing the 1964 Act’s Title VI, which prohibits racial or ethnic discrimination in all federally assisted “programs” and activities,5 including public or private educational institutions. In Justice Powell’s view, neither the state’s asserted interest in remedying “societal discrimination,” nor of providing “role models” for minority students was sufficiently “compelling” to warrant the use of a “suspect” racial classification in the admission process.

(snip)

The “quota” in Bakke was infirm, however, since it defined diversity only in racial terms and absolutely excluded non-minorities from a given number of seats.

It's the dictionary you know "Websters" and any law dictionary online will do.

So keep saying "I think it is wrongly used in those terms. It is not by definition AA, which is a law." According to a law dictionary and the regular dictionary, that is bull****. Much like your argument.
 
Last edited:
It's the dictionary you know "Websters" and any law dictionary online will do.

So keep saying "I think it is wrongly used in those terms. It is not by definition AA, which is a law. According to a law dictionary and the regular dictionary, that is bull****. Much like your argument.

Link it.

And I gave you a link to read.
 
Link it.

And I gave you a link to read.

Don't have to, it is any online dictionary or law dictionary. Google is your friend. You don't even have to search hard, just put in affirmative action and the definitions pop right up. :lol:

And no, you gave no link to anything.

Changed my mind here you go...

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/affirmative action
http://racerelations.about.com/od/diversitymatters/g/WhatIsAffirmativeAction.htm
http://www.investopedia.com/terms/a/affirmative-action.asp#axzz1fmdWnDZt

Law dictionary...

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/affirmative+action
http://www.nolo.com/dictionary/affirmative-action-term.html
http://dictionary.law.com/Default.aspx?selected=2362

Need anything else?
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom