• 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:
You are making false assumptions about me with this statement. I don't know what you mean by "lengthy" life, since everyone has been around the same amount of time by 18, but I had already lived a diverse life by 18 as well so we are not different in our experiences in that manner. You don't know much else about so I'm not sure how you are able to decipher such differences between us. Nonetheless, I greatly benefited from being around even more types of people in college as an older person in a college environment.


I never said your children should "slide their way through life by relying on affirmative action". By claiming that this comment is "substituting your own reality for my reality", you are obviously misrepresenting my arguments.


Sure, but perhaps I should clarify what I meant by "value". I didn't mean value to the student body, I meant inherent value as a person. Race does not influence the latter, it can influence the former.


No, I think past experiences are just as valuable to the student body as future aspirations and "circumstance of birth" certainly influences the former. A campus filled with people who have experienced the world in a diverse amount of ways leads to more productive and valuable class discussion and learning opportunities than a campus filled with a less diverse group.


Well for colleges that have the "limit", they have to choose and I think it's good that they want many different ideas on their campuses and you don't get many different ideas by accepting people who have the same or similar "personal details".
Click to expand...

I have to head out the door right now and I don't have time to fully respond - but I will later on.

I feel I need to apologize if I came across as judgmental or harsh and personally attacking - I wasn't trying to be that way but I managed it anyhow in a typical 'me' fashion.
 
nonpareil said:
Right, one of those can be family background. Extra-curricular activities don't always speak to a person's ability in academia, especially in the US where school makes special exceptions for talented athletes. I don't see how allowing a black person a place over a white student is any worse than allowing an athlete over another candidate when both have lower academic score. Now the university might deem the athlete more valuable, but me personally, I enjoyed having a diverse student body in my university, and in fact it was one of the selling point for me. I see university as more than a place to learn books.
Click to expand...

There are certainly problems when it comes to sports in academia, particularly football. You don't even have to be from a big school to have all the normal problems associated with football players. About the only school which really does it right is Notre Dame which requires that their students actually perform to the academic standards of ND; where as most schools will fudge and lie their players through if they are good enough in order to keep them on the team. Not really for that, not really for the money sink which has become college sports. It "brings money" into the University, but how much of that money does the Physics department get? Not a lot. Most goes towards sports and alumni crap.

Still, it has it's own set of standards and even there you have to perform to them or go away. Football too is fairly elitist. Despite the problems that University can have with its sports programs, in general admission to University should be 100% performance based; sex, religion, sexuality, race, etc. should not be factored in.
 
samsmart said:
The only issue with this is that some ethnic groups have historically had less exposure to college and university education than others, which means those ethnic groups don't know the value of education and prowess for knowledge.


Affirmative Action programs allow those ethnic groups to realize it by experiencing it.
Click to expand...

That's not a real issue, most people understand the value of higher education. There are serious problems well before the University levels that needs to be fixed, affirmative action to get minorities into schools is just a band-aid. And not a very good band-aid either. It's just something to make us all feel a little better. "Oh, I know there are problems, but we use Affirmative Action to get more of those minorities into University...aren't we great.". Something to ease our minds. Meanwhile the problems are not fixed. One of the major problems is overall K-12 funding and the quality of education from public institution to public institution. It's all over the map, the city schools are well worse than others, etc. But there's plenty of socioeconomic reasons for this too. Another major problem is corporate capitalism which shuts down economic mobility. Now people born in the hood stay in the hood, die in the hood; their children repeat the circle. It's harder and harder to get out, which leads to more frustration at the system and a rejection of the "outside" world. There are plenty of issues to tackle, but all anyone seems to want is some cosmetic solution.

We have to get our schools in order, we have to get our affairs in order.
 
MaggieD said:
I guess I didn't say it, but thought it. I hold that position assuming that the minority students meet their minimum qualifications. The best and brightest should get a hand up, in my opinion.
Click to expand...

the problem is that affirmative action doesn't do that, but rather puts people into colleges whose academic rigor has generally already been demonstrated to be at either the top end of their ability set, or beyond it. Colleges that brag about their high minority acceptance rates tend to be quiet about the fact that those students then disproportionately drop out after a couple of years with no degree and high student debt that will burden them for years.
 
So what's next then...only skinny people get in? Or how about only people with blue eyes, everyone knows they're smarter...what a ration of Cr*p.
 
StillBallin75 said:
Well, if you just "try hard enough," you should be able to overcome any supposed disadvantages thrown your way, ain't that right? Ain't that what conservatives always say?

Most folks on this board know that I'm Asian-American. I am ****ing blessed to be from an upper middle-class socioeconomic background. Asian-Americans are probably the group most disadvantaged by affirmative action. But you know what? I don't five a flying ****. My race wasn't enslaved for hundreds of years. My race isn't just pulling its ass out of the ditch that was Jim Crow. My race isn't being stopped for driving while black, and my race isn't the one that's being ghettoized, living in ****ty neighborhoods, and facing housing discrimination. (and if you don't believe me on any of these, the sociological data is out there. Just look for it.) I mean, ****, we have it pretty ****ing good in this country!

So I'm sick of white folks whining and bitching about affirmative action (aka "reverse racism") while failing to acknowledge the existence of white privilege - which is affirmative action for white folks by default. And believe me, it exists. It's just a lot less noticeable when you're white.

Not to mention people focus too much on college admission and job hiring policies - when what affirmative action REALLY refers to is stuff like outreach programs, building better schools in impoverished neighborhoods, job training programs, etc. Nobody ever focuses on that stuff because that stuff doesn't get people riled up. But that's what the meat of affirmative action policies have comprised since the 60s, the hiring/college admissions/quota part is only a small part of what affirmative action policies really are.
Click to expand...
Oh My God!...First we have white guilt and now we have yellow guilt.

What's next, are the native americans going to join in with some red guilt?

No I'm not being insensitive, I'm displaying compassion for the relentless beating that poor dead horse is taking.
 
When colleges being an honest practice of admitting the absolute best qualified student regardless of any other factors, I will get excited about this issue. Until then, not so much.
 
haymarket said:
When colleges being an honest practice of admitting the absolute best qualified student regardless of any other factors, I will get excited about this issue. Until then, not so much.
Click to expand...

I don't appreciate people condemning AA, while ignoring/supporting legacy preferences. Its hypocrisy and wrong.
 
Thunder said:
I don't appreciate people condemning AA, while ignoring/supporting legacy preferences. Its hypocrisy and wrong.
Click to expand...

Exactly. Either it is a core principle that you admit the best qualified student or you do not. AA is merely one example of not doing this. Sadly, it becomes a convenient target for those on the right with racial axes to grind. And then to watch them defend other obviously discriminatory practices is just hypocrisy in the extreme.
 
haymarket said:
Exactly. Either it is a core principle that you admit the best qualified student or you do not. AA is merely one example of not doing this. Sadly, it becomes a convenient target for those on the right with racial axes to grind. And then to watch them defend other obviously discriminatory practices is just hypocrisy in the extreme.
Click to expand...

its especially frustrating when folks say "we should reward the best and the brightest", in order to attack AA...but then defend legacy preferences because "it brings in more money, even at the expense of having the most qualified & skilled student body".
 
haymarket said:
Exactly. Either it is a core principle that you admit the best qualified student or you do not. AA is merely one example of not doing this. Sadly, it becomes a convenient target for those on the right with racial axes to grind. And then to watch them defend other obviously discriminatory practices is just hypocrisy in the extreme.
Click to expand...

Cmon haymarket that is going way to far...I am all for ending Affirmative Action...and accepting students by qualification and Citizenship. That does not translate into me being a racist. Any other examples of not choosing students by qualification in the past are just that in the past...and if it came to be that being white put you to the front of the line just because your white, id be against that too.
There is a true need to stop labeling everyone a racist that is against a racial program or anything else racial...it just makes matters a whole lot worse and not everyone has alterior motives other than what they see and believe is right or wrong about a specific thing.
 
lpast said:
There is a true need to stop labeling everyone a racist that is against a racial program or anything else racial...it just makes matters a whole lot worse and not everyone has alterior motives other than what they see and believe is right or wrong about a specific thing.
Click to expand...

But then you take away their favorite propaganda tool.
 
Aunt Spiker said:
They are important - but not in *that* sense. At least not for me: I don't go there to socialize and concern myself with the overall racial makeup of the school. I go there to learn and that doesn't require anything else. I guess it's just not important to me. School is school - it's not a lifestyle or a social event. Maybe that's what happens when you're older.
Click to expand...

Then let's note that you do not represent most people, and even if you do not care for it, it doesn't mean that it has not benefited you without you realising it. For a long period of time, people thought that trying to push women into top positions is a form of reverse-sexism as well, but many research has now found that women does contribute and improve corporate culture.

A desire to learn - Mom and Dad forcing you to sign up for college doesn't satisfy that.
Click to expand...

And how do you measure that?

All through year 1-12, I only went to school because my parents made me go to school, I did very little and I scored all As. In college, I became truly interested in what I was learning and read beyond the courses required, yet my exams were B average. On academic scores alone, it would seem I had more "desire to learn" in grade schools, it couldn't be more wrong.
 
lpast said:
There is a true need to stop labeling everyone a racist that is against a racial program or anything else racial...it just makes matters a whole lot worse and not everyone has alterior motives other than what they see and believe is right or wrong about a specific thing.
Click to expand...
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.
 
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...

What other discrimatory practices in relation to AA ?
 
Ikari said:
But then you take away their favorite propaganda tool.
Click to expand...

I like haymarket and I agree with him alot more than i disagree...but two men can disagree on specific points thats what makes the world go round :)
 
Thunder said:
I don't appreciate people condemning AA, while ignoring/supporting legacy preferences. Its hypocrisy and wrong.
Click to expand...
I agree. It's especially ridiculous when they harp on the fact that AA is not based exclusively on merit and that college admissions should only be based on merit. Legacy admissions are not based on merit. Consequently, if someone thinks admissions should be only based on merit and they support legacy admissions, but not AA, it's clear there's another reason they have a problem with AA.

It's a lot easier for me to respect the position of those who are against all non-merit based admissions decisions, but when you are against some and not others, I take your position much less seriously.
 
lpast said:
Cmon haymarket that is going way to far...I am all for ending Affirmative Action...and accepting students by qualification and Citizenship. That does not translate into me being a racist. Any other examples of not choosing students by qualification in the past are just that in the past...and if it came to be that being white put you to the front of the line just because your white, id be against that too.
There is a true need to stop labeling everyone a racist that is against a racial program or anything else racial...it just makes matters a whole lot worse and not everyone has alterior motives other than what they see and believe is right or wrong about a specific thing.
Click to expand...

No - I am not accusing you of racial motivations and I am sorry if it came off that way. What am saying is that some folks who scream the loudest about the evils of AA seem to have no compuntion about defending other unfair preferences as well. They key into AA and attack it like a guard dog in a junkyard keeping out a burglar but are so quick to defend the type of discriminatory preferences that benefit them and theirs.

For some of them, their racial motivations become obvious and more than suspect. But I do not think that applies to all critics of AA.

I would hope that everyone who is against AA because it is unfair in not admitting the best qualified college applicant also applies that standard as THE guiding principle across the board for ALL college admissions.
 
lpast said:
What other discrimatory practices in relation to AA ?
Click to expand...
You're creating a strawman out of his position again. He did not say "discriminatory practices in relation to AA". You added that qualification. He said "discriminatory practices". And I don't know which discriminatory practices he was referring to, but a few I can think of off the top of my head are legacy admissions, athletic admissions, nepotism in the workplace, not hiring women because they might get pregnant, etc.
 
theplaydrive said:
You're creating a strawman out of his position again. He did not say "discriminatory practices in relation to AA". You added that qualification. He said "discriminatory practices". And I don't know which discriminatory practices he was referring to, but a few I can think of off the top of my head are legacy admissions, athletic admissions, nepotism in the workplace, not hiring women because they might get pregnant, etc.
Click to expand...

My focus was on University Admissions and not AA in the broader sense...Id bet athletic admissions today are pretty even and thats talent based....nepotism in the workplace is a given...not hiring women and certain groups is also an acknowledged given...maybe AA needs to be broken apart...Get rid of segments that have outlived their usefulness and update others...certainly things have changed dramatically since that law was written
 
Ikari said:
There are certainly problems when it comes to sports in academia, particularly football. You don't even have to be from a big school to have all the normal problems associated with football players. About the only school which really does it right is Notre Dame which requires that their students actually perform to the academic standards of ND; where as most schools will fudge and lie their players through if they are good enough in order to keep them on the team. Not really for that, not really for the money sink which has become college sports. It "brings money" into the University, but how much of that money does the Physics department get? Not a lot. Most goes towards sports and alumni crap.

Still, it has it's own set of standards and even there you have to perform to them or go away. Football too is fairly elitist. Despite the problems that University can have with its sports programs, in general admission to University should be 100% performance based; sex, religion, sexuality, race, etc. should not be factored in.
Click to expand...

So are universities places for academia or not? If yes, then sport programmes is not part of it, and since universities take places away from more academically able candidates for this reason, what's the big deal with doing so to diversify their student body which might benefit other students and their image? And again, I say that your arguement is simplistic. Choosing between candidates is not always so clear cut, for a good school, most applicants would already have high academic score, that's why they have to decide on extra-curricular activities and personal profiles. When it comes to choosing between candidates of seemingly similiar academic abilities, why shouldn't race be a factor when that race is underrepresented in the school?

BTW, schools also make allowance for international students, especially those from developing countries.
 
lpast said:
My focus was on University Admissions and not AA in the broader sense...Id bet athletic admissions today are pretty even and thats talent based....nepotism in the workplace is a given...not hiring women and certain groups is also an acknowledged given...maybe AA needs to be broken apart...Get rid of segments that have outlived their usefulness and update others...certainly things have changed dramatically since that law was written
Click to expand...
Right and you're post illustrates the exact problem that Haymarket illustrates: admonishing certain types of discrimination while either accepting or welcoming others. The idea that AA needs to go, but that nepotism and not hiring women is just "meh, whatever" is hypocrisy because it shows that the person who is against AA doesn't actually have a problem with discrimination, but something else, whatever it is.
 
theplaydrive said:
Right and you're post illustrates the exact problem that Haymarket illustrates: admonishing certain types of discrimination while either accepting or welcoming others. The idea that AA needs to go, but that nepotism and not hiring women is just "meh, whatever" is hypocrisy because it shows that the person who is against AA doesn't actually have a problem with discrimination, but something else, whatever it is.
Click to expand...

First of all not hiring women I should have put in the past tense...i dont believe thats a problem "anylonger" actually everything you read women are doing better than men in alot of areas...i think the playing field has leveled....having said that i do believe there are areas that are still not up to snuff and they could be addressed....but I think AA as it is written is outdated and unfair to more than it is fair now...and it should be broken apart and and certain parts deleted others updated and even some added if necessary...but seriously how long do you want this to go on....
Your talking to a guy that got totally screwed by the quota system..I came home from the military got a job and could not get into the union which was a HUGE raise with benefits until they hired X amount of blacks and women...I dont want to get into how bad some of the employees were and I had to do my job and theirs for alot less...so I took the police test and in the end it was better for me....but AA is just unfair and unbalanced in areas anymore....if not abolished it certainly needs changed and fixed
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom