• 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:
This comment would be more compelling if you hadn't confused "explanation" with "excuse".
Click to expand...

I did not confuse anything, it's an excuse. No one has yet to point out even one legitimate reason why we still need it?
 
Blackdog said:
I did not confuse anything, it's an excuse. No one has yet to point out even one legitimate reason why we still need it?
Click to expand...
Ignoring the fact that "legitimacy" is subjective, legitimacy has nothing to do with the difference between an excuse and an explanation.
 
Blackdog said:
Ummm no, Bakka won that case. Look at my link again.
Click to expand...
Yeah, I know. Their admissions policy was ruled unconstitutional. That's the point. You can list that case along with all the other cases where such systems were ruled unconstiutional and it proves nothing because those policies are illegal and I'm not advocating illegal policies.

Who is talking about just cases? I am talking about others who point out how it is wrong and creating more problems than it is worth. We have plenty of laws against discrimination, we don't need it anymore as I have shown.
Click to expand...
You were. 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?" Since we were talking about a court case, it's clear that "plenty of others" referred to cases and as I said, those "plenty of other cases" don't do much.

Moreover, you haven't "shown" anything. You listed laws against discrimination, SC cases that ruled illegal admissions processes illegal and then you declared that "we don't need AA".

Oh I think I have.
Click to expand...
Still no. You've proved that illegal policies were ruled illegal by the Supreme Court. This is a given.
 
So, now that we've hashed out the four unique civil cases on this matter... Out of the millions of applications every year...

Is there any real evidence to support the statements made by some posters that this goes on 'all the time'.

Anything at all to support the claim made in the OP?

BTW - she jumped shipped rather fast...
 
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...

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.
 
theplaydrive said:
Yeah, I know. Their admissions policy was ruled unconstitutional. That's the point. You can list that case along with all the other cases where such systems were ruled unconstiutional and it proves nothing because those policies are illegal and I'm not advocating illegal policies.
Click to expand...

I know you are not, I was pointing out you were wrong about that.

theplaydrive said:
You were. 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?" Since we were talking about a court case, it's clear that "plenty of others" referred to cases and as I said, those "plenty of other cases" don't do much.
Click to expand...

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.

theplaydrive said:
Moreover, you haven't "shown" anything. You listed laws against discrimination, SC cases that ruled illegal admissions processes illegal and then you declared that "we don't need AA".
Click to expand...

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.

theplaydrive said:
Still no. You've proved that illegal policies were ruled illegal by the Supreme Court. This is a given.
Click to expand...

Still avoiding the question. Yes or no.
 
theplaydrive said:
You came into the thread to berate people who have different opinions.
Click to expand...

WRONG.

I entered the thread in the hope of encountering an intelligent discussion.

I'm not interested. As I said, four "landmark" cases do not prove how widespread an issue is. I've already told you the type of AA I support and it's the type that evaluates the wholeness of a student rather than just race alone (which is illegal) so why on Earth you keep trying to tell me how wrong something I do not support is is beyond me.
Click to expand...

Actually, I recall you saying something like:

"Oh, well I don't support this scenario and I support AA because I don't think most colleges make decisions like this. I don't support quotas, I support choosing students according to what value they will add to the college and this is how I'm quite certain most colleges choose their students."

Thus, while your intentions are all the best, your ignorance and naivete truly disturbing.

I had been inclined to say that you should be ashamed of yourself, but now I believe that you really are the ingenue you seem to be. You have my sympathies.


...and to think that we never even got around to discussing the other half of Bollinger ]

Moreover, "logic" is a poor substitute for actual evidence. Unless you have some kind of study that shows that type of AA that neither you nor I support is widespread, your posts remain irrelevant.
Click to expand...

Logic and sound inferences from the prior case history are more than enough to discuss the topic at hand in an intelligent manner. That being said, you can ease your mind on the strong possibility that even more "actual evidence" will avail with the next SCOTUS case on the subject.
 
interesting addition:



“Academic mismatch” causes many students who are admitted under a substantial preference based on race, but who possess weaker academic skills, to fall behind. The consequences include especially high attrition rates from the sciences, and self-segregation in less-demanding classes, thereby reducing classroom diversity.

Blacks are significantly more integrated across the University of California system than they were before the state eliminated racial preferences in 1996, thereby discouraging enrollment of underprepared minorities in the more elite institutions.

Sander and Taylor report: “Research suggests a similar pattern nationally; scholars have found that the use of large racial preferences by elite colleges has the effect of reducing diversity at second-tier schools.”

Another study showed that even if eliminating racial preferences in law schools would mean 21 percent fewer black matriculants, there would still be no reduction in the number of blacks who graduate and pass the bar exam...

In six devastating words, the Heriot-Kirsanow-Gaziano brief distills the case against the “diversity” rationale for racial preferences: “Minority students are not public utilities.”
Click to expand...
 
Blackdog said:
Just for clarity Boo and play, I do not mean to insult your intelligence or anything like that. I just seriously think it is an antiquated law that partly because of all the controversy around it, needs to go away because it really is no longer needed. It is not the 1950's anymore.

Heheh "Boo & Play" sounds like a new hiphop group.
Click to expand...

:2funny: We're a new group now.

Let me ask you, should we make changes based on people's misunderstandings, or what the law actually says. Frankly, if white males are concerned about getting into college, they have more trouble filling out the apper work than they face from AA. Minorities, eccept for maybe women, are not taking seats from white males. It just isn't happening.
 
Boo Radley said:
:2funny: We're a new group now.

Let me ask you, should we make changes based on people's misunderstandings, or what the law actually says. Frankly, if white males are concerned about getting into college, they have more trouble filling out the apper work than they face from AA. Minorities, eccept for maybe women, are not taking seats from white males. It just isn't happening.
Click to expand...

We have to be careful even with perceptions. In this case it is just not needed anymore. Most if not all university's go above and beyond to recruit minority's. Since quotas are unconstitutional anyway and anti discrimination laws cover the rest, it is absolutely unnecessary anymore. It is more trouble than it is worth now days.

In the end anything that will help close the racial divide is a good thing. AA going away is at least a good start.
 
Blackdog said:
We have to be careful even with perceptions. In this case it is just not needed anymore. Most if not all university's go above and beyond to recruit minority's. Since quotas are unconstitutional anyway and anti discrimination laws cover the rest, it is absolutely unnecessary anymore. It is more trouble than it is worth now days.

In the end anything that will help close the racial divide is a good thing. AA going away is at least a good start.
Click to expand...

Why do you suppose they do that? There's no law requiring they do? Even when they lost the Michigan case, they saw a need to ask about diversity. All this for a very small number of students? All things considered, why are they asking? And white are white males whinning?
 
Im not convinced AA has outlived its neccessity. However, it should take into account income & socio-economic status more than JUST skin color.
 
Thunder said:
Im not convinced AA has outlived its neccessity. However, it should take into account income & socio-economic status more than JUST skin color.
Click to expand...
Why should economic status be considered?
 
Boo Radley said:
Why do you suppose they do that? There's no law requiring they do? Even when they lost the Michigan case, they saw a need to ask about diversity. All this for a very small number of students? All things considered, why are they asking? And white are white males whinning?
Click to expand...

Because it is not needed, and it is not helping at this point. How many times will you ask me to repeat the same thing?
 
Thunder said:
Im not convinced AA has outlived its neccessity. However, it should take into account income & socio-economic status more than JUST skin color.
Click to expand...

Did you read George Will's most recent editorial about how affirmative action for black law or engineering students actually decreases the number of black lawyers or engineers?

The unintended consequences of racial preferences - The Washington Post

Academic mismatch” causes many students who are admitted under a substantial preference based on race, but who possess weaker academic skills, to fall behind. The consequences include especially high attrition rates from the sciences, and self-segregation in less-demanding classes, thereby reducing classroom diversity. Blacks are significantly more integrated across the University of California system than they were before the state eliminated racial preferences in 1996, thereby discouraging enrollment of underprepared minorities in the more elite institutions.
 
Boo Radley said:
What should be considered and who decides?
Click to expand...
Academic accomplishments and not much else this is school after all. As for who decides, I'd say the faculty of the school would still hold the responsibility. Just without the added pressure of trying to meet bull**** quotas that benefit no one.
 
Empirica said:
This is a yes or no/black or white answer with absolutely no grey area to hide behind.

You either condone and defend racism OR you speak up and publicly denounce it here and now.

I believe it is safe to assume that any poster who is afraid to cast a vote most likely condones racism.

[/I]
Click to expand...
Those are nonsensical declarations and not all issues are simpleton yes-no questions.
 
Hare said:
Academic accomplishments and not much else this is school after all. As for who decides, I'd say the faculty of the school would still hold the responsibility. Just without the added pressure of trying to meet bull**** quotas that benefit no one.
Click to expand...

Those are considered. But, tell us very little as one school isn't equal to another. GPA doesn't mean much, and without knowing each school, it is next to impossible to determine how much rigor was involved. Mulitple choice tests have limits, and again, only tell us som much. They are a little better than GPA's, but not much better. And the law says we can consider all kinds of things outside of race, sex, and religion. And schools do. They have all kinds of subjective measures to help select the student they want. And all perfectly legal, and largely don't rile many up. Rich? No problem, we can disciminate with no one being upset. Parents? Sure, you have the right parents, we'll skip the standards, and not only is it legal, but few to none get upset. An athlete? Again, we'll discrminate with no consequences.

And this is the schools decision. Plain and simple. No one is outside asking them to do anything other than meet the law and show that they don't discriminate for reasons of race, sex, or religion. All of which suggests you complaint is more than a little miss directed.

BTW, quotas are against the law. No school legally has a quota.
 
cpwill said:
interesting addition:
Click to expand...

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. Like too many, he starts witht he assumption that isn't really grounded in fact.
 
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. Like too many, he starts witht he assumption that isn't really grounded in fact.
Click to expand...

Yes but colleges much like public schools today are lowering the standards so more can meet them. So I think your rebuttal is based on a false premise.

The study's findings show that college diversity programs fail to raise standards, and that a majority of faculty members and administrators recognize this when speaking anonymously...

If diversity works as advertised, we surmised, then those at institutions with higher proportions of black enrollment should rate their educational and racial milieus more favorably than their peers at institutions with lower proportions...

The results contradict almost every benefit claimed for campus diversity. Students, faculty members and administrators all responded to increasing racial diversity by registering increased dissatisfaction with the quality of education and the work ethic of their peers. Students also increasingly complained about discrimination' - Is Diversity Overrated? - The New York Times

At America's top law schools, blacks are admitted at fully 17 times the rate that a colorblind process would allow. At UCLA Law School in 1994, a black applicant with a college GPA between 2.5 and 3.5, and an LSAT score between 60 and 90, had a 61 percent chance of admission. The corresponding rates for similarly qualified Asians and whites were 7 percent and 1 percent, respectively. Consider also Texas Law School, which in 1992 rejected 668 white applicants before rejecting a single black. Fully 100 percent of blacks who scored between 189 and 192 in the school’s academic rating system were admitted, as compared to just 6 percent of whites. - Affirmative Action: Double Standards & Lowered Standards - Discover the Networks

Thomas Sowell recently concluded a study of affirmative action programs around the world, from India and Malaysia to Nigeria and the United States. His findings? Such programs have at best a negligible impact on the groups they are intended to assist. - Affirmative Action around the World | Hoover Institution
 
Boo Radley said:
I wouldn't see it a discrimination either way, as I know something of the process. Once everyone has meant the cut off, they are no longer considered. This is the same process even between peole of the same race. SUch scores are only used to shrink the number of possible candidates. No one puts much more stock in them than that.
Click to expand...

But you didn't answer my question, you changed it's premise.
 
theplaydrive said:
The problem is that you are treating affirmative action as if it makes race the sole criterion for determining whether a student should be accepted.
Click to expand...

No I'm not. If that were true, we'd have 100% black schools with SATs not even asked for. Obviously other factors are considered. But should race be one of them? That's the question, yet again.
 
misterman said:
But should race be one of them? That's the question, yet again.
Click to expand...

Depends. Private schools, it's up to them. They should be able to set that standard as they see fit. Public school maybe depending on level. University level, no. University, being the highest tier of all higher education, the most competitive and most elitist; admissions here should be completely performance/drive based. College and Community College can have less stringent constraints. Maybe race can even come in there if you want it to. Tech School...actually probably not once again as this is essentially just job training.
 
Ikari said:
Depends. Private schools, it's up to them. They should be able to set that standard as they see fit. Public school maybe depending on level. University level, no. University, being the highest tier of all higher education, the most competitive and most elitist; admissions here should be completely performance/drive based. College and Community College can have less stringent constraints. Maybe race can even come in there if you want it to. Tech School...actually probably not once again as this is essentially just job training.
Click to expand...

Oh, gee, that settles it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom