• 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 .
College isn't about diversifying your *college* - students come and go rather quickly. They don't hang around for decades. It's about taking in students that have proven their selves worthy of your college name and who will value their education the most.

Education and prowess for knowledge should be the only factors.
Meh, I went to a top 10 college and diversity (in all ways, not just race) was something they emphasized. Most top schools do because having students who offer different perspectives enriches the school environment. My college experience would have been much less fruitful without all the different types of people that were admitted.
 
As I said, it was smarmy and pointless. This is a debate board, the majority of what we write here are opinions. You don't have to point out the obvious. All I wanted to know was if you actually had something worthwhile, or if you were just being smug and trying to feel better about yourself and that's it. It seems that you don't have any worthwhile argument. That's it. I'm not upset, I don't need to relax...already there. Just wanted to know if you have anything of substance or if smarmy and pointless is all we're gonna get. You've answered that, now we're done.
Whatever.

---
 
I would be more content if 'personal' details were exempt: no family history, race - nothing of that nature . . . your educational goals, history and abilities should be heavily relied on.

Not all schools turn students away from general enrollment - I've yet to run into that issue. So to me it seems to be related to the 'higher' end of the colleges. If you don't get in there are always others options open.
 
I would be more content if 'personal' details were exempt: no family history, race - nothing of that nature . . . your educational goals, history and abilities should be heavily relied on.

Yes, particularly at the University level this should be true. All indication of age, race, sex, religion, etc. should be left out. It should be based on measured results and determination, not race. If we are not realizing the proper number of minorities in University that would then be because of failures to properly educate earlier. The solution, thus, is not to allow the unqualified into University; but rather to fix the problems at the lower levels of education. If anyone wanted to truly address the problem, that's where they would focus. Not feel good, but does nothing crap like letting people not prepared for University into University based on nothing more than their skin color.
 
I would be more content if 'personal' details were exempt: no family history, race - nothing of that nature . . . your educational goals, history and abilities should be heavily relied on.

Not all schools turn students away from general enrollment - I've yet to run into that issue. So to me it seems to be related to the 'higher' end of the colleges. If you don't get in there are always others options open.
I disagree. I benefited heavily from being around people of different races, religions, nationalities, etc.. People's "personal details" contribute quite a lot to the quality of scholarship at a school and I agree that the academic factors should be the primary consideration, but the others should still be considered.
 
I firmly disagree. Ireland, Israel, Italy, and Germany do not have racist immigration/citizenship policies. They are not based on any ideas of racial/ethnic/religious superiority.

If you favor one racial group over another, that's racist. End of story.

Thet are based on the desire to preserve their nation-state's cultural balance and heritage. There is NOTHING racist about this.

Nonsense.

Nor is it racist to discriminate based on race in schools, if this is NOT motivated by feelings of racial superiority. Is it racist for Christian schools or Jewish schools to insist on having at least 75% of its students be of a certain faith? Certainly not.

Christianity and Judaism aren't races. Please sit back down. I'm the last person on this forum you want to get in a discussion of race with. Most of all if you don't even have a ****ing clue as to what "race" actually is to begin with. If private Christian/Jewish schools want only Christian/Jewish students in, that's their prerogative. They're bigot at the end of the day, but it's their right to be so.
 
Last edited:
If we're talking actual mechanics, yes I would not have been turned down by University. But that wasn't what you said. You said that if a school essentially doesn't have enough minorities that they keep accepting them over others till some set number of minorities are reached, even if those discarded were more qualified for academia. Academia should not be set by PC crap, particularly on the University level it should be exceedingly elitist. You can do it or you can't, and if you aren't better than the guy next to you....there's the door.

If you want to harp on a hypothetical example, then what happens if the white candidate get 3.55 and the black candidate gets 3.5? These things don't always have clear answers like your example that the white student is some brilliant kid while the minority student is barely passable.


never thought we'd see the day where we treat minorities like pokemon...gotta catch them all.

Better than the days when some minorities and women are treated as property.
 
If you want to harp on a hypothetical example, then what happens if the white candidate get 3.55 and the black candidate gets 3.5? These things don't always have clear answers like your example that the white student is some brilliant kid while the minority student is barely passable.

But there are other factors as well. ACT/SAT scores, extra-curricular activities, community service projects, etc. There's plenty of indicators beyond just the GPA to indicate dedication and drive; which is what University would primarily want. Ability and desire.
 
But there are other factors as well. ACT/SAT scores, extra-curricular activities, community service projects, etc. There's plenty of indicators beyond just the GPA to indicate dedication and drive; which is what University would primarily want. Ability and desire.

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.
 
College isn't about diversifying your *college* - students come and go rather quickly. They don't hang around for decades. It's about taking in students that have proven their selves worthy of your college name and who will value their education the most.

Keeping an alumni association is important, and diversity is a selling point for some university, if not most. Friends that I made and people that I interacted with in university has a profound impact on me as person because at that age I was growing fast intellectually and learning things that would stay with me for life. If those 4 years aren't important, college would not be such a big issue.

Education and prowess for knowledge should be the only factors.

And how do you measure "prowess for knowledge"?
 
College isn't about diversifying your *college* - students come and go rather quickly. They don't hang around for decades. It's about taking in students that have proven their selves worthy of your college name and who will value their education the most.

Education and prowess for knowledge should be the only factors.

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.
 
I would be more content if 'personal' details were exempt: no family history, race - nothing of that nature . . . your educational goals, history and abilities should be heavily relied on.

Well, as I mentioned earlier, most of that kind of information is used more for demographic purposes than for purposes of providing aid of some kind or another.

For example, AARP may need that information to learn how many retirees are seeking university or college education for one reason or another. Or the National Organization of Women uses that information to determine the entrance and drop-out rates of women.
 
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.

Oh, come on. Blacks don't know the value of education? That's both false and insulting.
 
Scholarships based on socio-economic factors would provide the same benefits as racial ones, without disadvantaging anyone due to the level of melanin in their skin.
 
Keeping an alumni association is important, and diversity is a selling point for some university, if not most. Friends that I made and people that I interacted with in university has a profound impact on me as person because at that age I was growing fast intellectually and learning things that would stay with me for life. If those 4 years aren't important, college would not be such a big issue.

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.

And how do you measure "prowess for knowledge"?

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

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.

Well - in it's beginnings that was the reason. But now in the year 2011 - I think everyone's been exposed to the value of higher education by now. And the desire to learn/prowess for knowledge - that doesn't rely on your ethnicity or racial exposure. You either want to learn of you don't. I've met many poor people who want to learn - and do - whenever they can. Money is their own qualm.

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

Isn't that was our public education system is suppose to do? If someone enjoys learning and wants to learn more they should have figured that out by age 18.

Well, as I mentioned earlier, most of that kind of information is used more for demographic purposes than for purposes of providing aid of some kind or another.

For example, AARP may need that information to learn how many retirees are seeking university or college education for one reason or another. Or the National Organization of Women uses that information to determine the entrance and drop-out rates of women.

True - it satisfies the need for statistical data and curiosities.
 
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.
Did you go to a religious, racially, ethnically, nationally diverse school?
 
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.

Thing about it, there are plenty of families of all stripes including whites living in ****ty neighborhoods, facing housing discrimination and having obstacles and difficulties to overcome. And there are and have been plenty of outreach programs, job training programs, special programs for housing and many good schools, as far as buildings and facilities being built in impoverished neighborhoods. You can always find something to complain about, something not quite fair but there is no nation in the world that has put so much effort and spent so much money into improving conditions for the disadvantaged. But there is absolutely no appreciation for it. It is never enough because it’s more about politics than it is real and lasting change. Personal responsibility is ignored. The real truth is that there is something wrong with how we are dong this. It is more about tearing one side down to even up the score instead of inspiring and raising one side up to even the score. Although it will never, ever be perfectly equal so we can always pretend there is discrimination and conspiracies to keep people down. Until we increase our expectations on the people we help to join in the evolution of their success we are going to find ourselves in this endless cycle. I just don't get the idea of punishing someone for doing all the right things to get ahead regardless of whether they have more privileges than somebody else any more than I think we should reward someone who got a free ride because of their privileges.

We keep upping the ante. We have entrusted people who have insisted that special programs to help the disadvantaged are needed. School lunch programs, daycare programs, welfare, job training, quota systems, etc., But people like you seem to insist nothing has changed, things haven't gotten better they've gotten worse. Why the hell should any of us trust or believe anybody who says if you just give us more money, and just invest in more programs then things are going to get better? And we are not just asked to give more, we are called racist and elitist and all kinds of names for questioning their failure. We are told we have no compassion. So we give more and the goalposts are moved again. It's the boy who cried wolf syndrome. It is important for ALL people to get a chance to live their dreams and get rewarded for their talent, compassion and hard work. I see disadvantaged people getting rewared for that all of the time. But no, we want to hold up the least common denominator as the model. It is not for their own good that we do this. Its about politics.
 
Did you go to a religious, racially, ethnically, nationally diverse school?

My whole life is diverse - being a non traditional student I don't define my self by my college attendance and who sits in the class with me. My college doesn't seem to come down to the wire like that to add (makes me wonder just how many schools have to pick and choose students and can't just take them all - and why) Anyone who's in my college is in because they applied and not because of the color of their skin.

In the future: my children shouldn't be given special privilege because they look different - They should be given consideration because of their intelligence, creativity - these other skills and elements of being a solid student. Things that can be nurtured, furthered and shaped via schooling, education and homework - etc etc etc. I'm not about to encourage my children to think that their race and skin tone is EVER a determining or defining factor for them.

By the time you get to college you should be a set individual who doesn't need further 'exposure' but rather the ability to attend if you'd like and want.
 
My whole life is diverse - being a non traditional student I don't define my self by my college attendance and who sits in the class with me. My college doesn't seem to come down to the wire like that to add (makes me wonder just how many schools have to pick and choose students and can't just take them all - and why) Anyone who's in my college is in because they applied and not because of the color of their skin.

In the future: my children shouldn't be given special privilege because they look different - They should be given consideration because of their intelligence, creativity - these other skills and elements of being a solid student. Things that can be nurtured, furthered and shaped via schooling, education and homework - etc etc etc. I'm not about to encourage my children to think that their race and skin tone is EVER a determining or defining factor for them.

By the time you get to college you should be a set individual who doesn't need further 'exposure' but rather the ability to attend if you'd like and want.
I don't think anyone is arguing that people should "define themselves by their college attendance and who sits in class with them". What most people, including myself, seem to be trying to communicate is the value that a diverse college atmosphere had to our college experience and can add to a college in general and using that as an explanation for why we believe diversity is a legitimate goal for universities to reach.

While it's an interesting position that 18 year olds should be "set individuals who don't need further exposure", it's not an accurate representation of reality. An eighteen year old is not even close to a set individual. Most people, including me, leave college very different people than they were when they entered. Moreover, while I don't believe anyone "needs" exposure, I recognize that interacting with people of different races, religions, orientations, backgrounds and nationalities gives one a more whole perspective of the world than one would have by only interacting inside and outside of class with straight, white, Christian, middle class Americans.

Moreover, while on the one hand, it's a noble goal to make sure that your child doesn't think their "race and skin tone is ever a determining or defining factor" for them, on the other hand, it's not an accurate portrayal of reality. Race does not "define" a child insofar as it does not determine their value, inherent abilities and potential. With those factors, all "races" are equal. However, race like religion, nationality and sexuality certainly has an impact on how the rest of the world treats them and in turn, how they view the world. Many colleges are starting to understand this.

While academic potential, creativity, curiosity and other similar factors should be the primary factors in determining applicants, there is still a lot to be said for "personal details" being secondary factors. Colleges, particularly liberals arts and higher ranked colleges, like for their campuses to be centers for exchanging ideas and they like their students to be exposed to many different types of ideas because it makes them better students, citizens and workers. You're going to get many more ideas on a campus with a great mix of races, nationalities, orientations, backgrounds and religions than you will otherwise.
 
Last edited:
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.
I just saw this, but I thought it deserved a repost. Good post man.
 
I don't think anyone is arguing that people should "define themselves by their college attendance and who sits in class with them". What most people, including myself, seem to be trying to communicate is the value that a diverse college atmosphere had to our college experience and can add to a college in general and using that as an explanation for why we believe diversity is a legitimate goal for universities to reach.

While it's an interesting position that 18 year olds should be "set individuals who don't need further exposure", it's not an accurate representation of reality. An eighteen year old is not even close to a set individual. Most people, including me, leave college very different people than they were when they entered. Moreover, while I don't believe anyone "needs" exposure, I recognize that interacting with people of different races, religions, orientations, backgrounds and nationalities gives one a more whole perspective of the world than one would have by only interacting inside and outside of class with straight, white, Christian, middle class Americans.

Well my exposure and view of college is just completely different - I'm an adult - and I already lived a lengthy and diverse life before the age of 18 . . . so I didn't need a school to foster and cultivate my exposure.

Our experiences have shaped us differently per our views.

Moreover, while on the one hand, it's a noble goal to make sure that your child doesn't think their "race and skin tone is ever a determining or defining factor" for them, on the other hand, it's not an accurate portrayal of reality. Race does not "define" a child insofar as it does not determine their value, inherent abilities and potential. With those factors, all "races" are equal. However, race like religion, nationality and sexuality certainly has an impact on how the rest of the world treats them and in turn, how they view the world. Many colleges are starting to understand this.

Well - then I suppose I reject your reality and substitute my own :) I'm not about to hold faith that my children are going to slide their way through life by relying on affirmative action to skip them through.

And when you uphold measures like affirmative action you certain are applying 'value' to race when there should be none at all.

If it comes down to 50 that all have the same GPA they should set the determining 'who goes/who doesn't' factor on non-race things - essay, Q and A - future aspirations, etc. . . not circumstance of birth.

While academic potential, creativity, curiosity and other similar factors should be the primary factors in determining applicants, there is still a lot to be said for "personal details" being secondary factors. Colleges, particularly liberals arts and higher ranked colleges, like for their campuses to be centers for exchanging ideas and they like their students to be exposed to many different types of ideas because it makes them better students, citizens and workers. You're going to get many more ideas on a campus with a great mix of races, nationalities, orientations, backgrounds and religions than you will otherwise.

Well you do hit a good point: I'm not striving to achieve in a liberal arts or higher ranked college. Thus - my institution doesn't have this 'applicatory limit' hurdle - we are diversified purely from our students who apply (which is everyone) and was accepted. Not because of those who applied and did or didn't make it. . .with so few colleges in the state and such a large % of poor - they don't have the freedom to pick and choose between colleges.
 
Well my exposure and view of college is just completely different - I'm an adult - and I already lived a lengthy and diverse life before the age of 18 . . . so I didn't need a school to foster and cultivate my exposure.

Our experiences have shaped us differently per our views.
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.

Well - then I suppose I reject your reality and substitute my own :) I'm not about to hold faith that my children are going to slide their way through life by relying on affirmative action to skip them through.
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.

And when you uphold measures like affirmative action you certain are applying 'value' to race when there should be none at all.
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.

If it comes down to 50 that all have the same GPA they should set the determining 'who goes/who doesn't' factor on non-race things - essay, Q and A - future aspirations, etc. . . not circumstance of birth.
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 you do hit a good point: I'm not striving to achieve in a liberal arts or higher ranked college. Thus - my institution doesn't have this 'applicatory limit' hurdle - we are diversified purely from our students who apply (which is everyone) and was accepted. Not because of those who applied and did or didn't make it. . .with so few colleges in the state and such a large % of poor - they don't have the freedom to pick and choose between colleges.
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".
 
Education and prowess for knowledge should be the only factors.
It's not though. I find this link interesting
SAT scores show disparities by race, gender, family income - USATODAY.com
Some tidbits from it (SAT scores by demographics)
1702: Average for students reporting family incomes of more than $200,000 a year
1506: Average for students reporting family incomes of $60,000-$80,000 a year



1623: Average for Asian students
1581: Average for white students
1448: Average for American Indian or Alaskan native students
1364: Average for Latino students


The fact is, if you have the resources (good private schools, tutors, parents with college educations to help you in doing your homework) it's much easier to do well.
 
Back
Top Bottom