• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

21st Century Racism Is Thriving In American Academe

Should an applicants race be a deciding factor for admission to a university?

  • Total voters
    68
  • Poll closed .
misterman said:
Oh, gee, that settles it.
Click to expand...

You asked a question, you got an answer. WTF is your problem? This is a debate board with people stating opinions, and that's what happened here. If you don't like it, don't ask questions. Jesus.
 
Ikari said:
You asked a question, you got an answer. WTF is your problem? This is a debate board with people stating opinions, and that's what happened here. If you don't like it, don't ask questions. Jesus.
Click to expand...

You just offered your answer without any justification, that's all.
 
Blackdog said:
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
Click to expand...

Whether they ar elowing their standards or not is a separate issue.

BTW, I would not trust anything that calls itself a guide to the political left. Just saying. Do you have anything more objective? A study not seeped in an idealology? I would like to see what someone not so inclined finds.

And Thomas Sowell says Thomas Sowell just completed a study? And he gives no link to the methodolgy he used, nothing we can examine? Don't you find that odd?
 
misterman said:
You just offered your answer without any justification, that's all.
Click to expand...

I've offered justification all throughout this thread. Do you have anything to add to this, or is it just a worthless post trying and failing to be smarmy because someone on a debate forum on the internet actually put down their opinion on a matter being discussed?
 
misterman said:
Oh, gee, that settles it.
Click to expand...

She's actually right when it concerns private schools. No one is forcing them to take anyone. If they choose to, and don't take government money, that's an entirely different animal than a public school taking public funds.
 
Boo Radley said:
I thought I did. What do you think I didn't address?
Click to expand...

So if a white student had better SATs than a black student but wasn't admitted and the black student was, would you see that as likely discrimination?

That was my question. But you basically said that this never happens, or at least that there is a minimum score that all must have (which apparently doesn't apply to athletes, but whatever).
 
misterman said:
So if a white student had better SATs than a black student but wasn't admitted and the black student was, would you see that as likely discrimination?

That was my question. But you basically said that this never happens, or at least that there is a minimum score that all must have (which apparently doesn't apply to athletes, but whatever).
Click to expand...

I think I said no. I wouldn't. I said this because SATs and ACTs are only used as a bulk cut off. After that, they don't matter. So one may have a 3.5 and another a 3.8. Both qualify. Then when looking at other, often more subjective criteria, the school may choose the the person with the 3.5. This happens, as I said. And it happens between people of the same race. So, no it would not bother me.

Now, if you took someone who did not meet that bulk cut off, I would ask why or how did they get beyond it. A likely answer is his parents donated money. If that was the case, it would bother me, but I would have no recourse. If, however, they said they wanted someone based on race, I could at least sue.
 
Boo Radley said:
She's actually right when it concerns private schools. No one is forcing them to take anyone. If they choose to, and don't take government money, that's an entirely different animal than a public school taking public funds.
Click to expand...

Legally, perhaps. But this debate is about more than that.
 
Boo Radley said:
I think I said no. I wouldn't. I said this because SATs and ACTs are only used as a bulk cut off. After that, they don't matter. So one may have a 3.5 and another a 3.8. Both qualify. Then when looking at other, often more subjective criteria, the school may choose the the person with the 3.5. This happens, as I said. And it happens between people of the same race. So, no it would not bother me.
Click to expand...

So you'd have no problem with a school that, say, admitted whites with a 3.5 but only admitted blacks with a 3.8?
 
misterman said:
No I'm not. If that were true, we'd h
ave 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.
Click to expand...
okay well I just spent the entire post you just quoted answering that question. So you can respond to that long part of my post then instead of the single line you just quoted.
 
misterman said:
Legally, perhaps. But this debate is about more than that.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure be more than that. Thye concern shoudl be what the law says. If you don't want to go to a school operating within the law don't.
 
misterman said:
So you'd have no problem with a school that, say, admitted whites with a 3.5 but only admitted blacks with a 3.8?
Click to expand...

It doesn't work that way, but if that were the outcome, based on the subjective critieria, documentated and eassy to see, no, I would not have a problem. There is virtually no difference between a 3.5 and a 3.8. The question would be what was used after that. Without knowing that, we can only go off what we know. And .3 difference is meaningless.
 
Boo Radley said:
I'm not sure be more than that. Thye concern shoudl be what the law says. If you don't want to go to a school operating within the law don't.
Click to expand...

This debate is about what the law should be. As well as policies the law doesn't forbid.
 
Boo Radley said:
It doesn't work that way, but if that were the outcome, based on the subjective critieria, documentated and eassy to see, no, I would not have a problem. There is virtually no difference between a 3.5 and a 3.8. The question would be what was used after that. Without knowing that, we can only go off what we know. And .3 difference is meaningless.
Click to expand...

Okay, so it's a numbers thing. So what number is going to do it for you? What if whites can have 2.5 but blacks must have 4.0?
 
misterman said:
Okay, so it's a numbers thing. So what number is going to do it for you? What if whites can have 2.5 but blacks must have 4.0?
Click to expand...

I do this experint with students based on the 1978 AA case. I give them 8 students. The low SAT is 3.5 and the high is 4.0. Other information is given. If the choose based on race, I fire them as I would be sued. But, without race, the one student with a 4.0 has never been choosen. The student with a 3.6 is choosen most often, a white female.

Anyway, what I would like you to understand is that once you get to 3.5, schools are largely satified. The public often mistakenly thinks these grades mean more to us than they do. Other than as a bulk cut off, to lower the numbers we have to look at, they mean very little.
 
misterman said:
This debate is about what the law should be. As well as policies the law doesn't forbid.
Click to expand...

I think what the law is fine. You can't driscrminate due to race and you have to affirmative show you're not. I find nothing wrong with this.

Private is often seen as separate. There is some reluctance to tell a private agency what can and can't be the critieria. But there is often civil remdies.
 
Boo Radley said:
Whether they ar elowing their standards or not is a separate issue.
Click to expand...

No it's not. It is directly caused by AA, nothing else.

Boo Radley said:
BTW, I would not trust anything that calls itself a guide to the political left. Just saying. Do you have anything more objective? A study not seeped in an idealology? I would like to see what someone not so inclined finds.

And Thomas Sowell says Thomas Sowell just completed a study? And he gives no link to the methodolgy he used, nothing we can examine? Don't you find that odd?
Click to expand...

One is from the NY Times, The one from the guide lists it sources and the last is from Stanford University.

That's OK you can ignore the facts, but we know the truth.
 
Blackdog said:
No it's not. It is directly caused by AA, nothing else.
Click to expand...


That's nonsense. If, and I say IF, the standards are being lowered overall, it has nothing to do with AA or race. On this you need to do a little more research.


One is from the NY Times, The one from the guide lists it sources and the last is from Stanford University.

That's OK you can ignore the facts, but we know the truth.
Click to expand...

But it says something entirely different. And it's dated. Michigan lost. This means Michigan can't do what it was doing. They were breaking the law.

But the issue in the NYT was whether diversity, which is different from AA, is overrated.

From the article:

One of the most comprehensive studies ever undertaken of diversity in higher education indicates that this contention is at least questionable.


It does not address AA and the law. It is really a different issue.
 
Boo Radley said:
I do this experint with students based on the 1978 AA case. I give them 8 students. The low SAT is 3.5 and the high is 4.0. Other information is given. If the choose based on race, I fire them as I would be sued. But, without race, the one student with a 4.0 has never been choosen. The student with a 3.6 is choosen most often, a white female.

Anyway, what I would like you to understand is that once you get to 3.5, schools are largely satified. The public often mistakenly thinks these grades mean more to us than they do. Other than as a bulk cut off, to lower the numbers we have to look at, they mean very little.
Click to expand...

Is that a yes?
 
Boo Radley said:
I think what the law is fine. You can't driscrminate due to race and you have to affirmative show you're not. I find nothing wrong with this.
Click to expand...

The issue, then is the definition of racial discrimination. I think that if you have two candidates who are otherwise equally qualified, but one is chosen by race, that's racial discrimination by definition. Not that this is always the situation that occurs.
 
Boo Radley said:
That's nonsense. If, and I say IF, the standards are being lowered overall, it has nothing to do with AA or race. On this you need to do a little more research.
Click to expand...

I just posted 3 articles on the subject and you said "Whether they ar elowing their standards or not is a separate issue." So either you agree and somehow think it is a separate issue or you disagree and don't think it is a separate issue. So stop the bobbing and weaving.

Boo Radley said:
But it says something entirely different. And it's dated. Michigan lost. This means Michigan can't do what it was doing. They were breaking the law.

But the issue in the NYT was whether diversity, which is different from AA, is overrated.

From the article:

One of the most comprehensive studies ever undertaken of diversity in higher education indicates that this contention is at least questionable.


It does not address AA and the law. It is really a different issue.
Click to expand...

Wait so now AA has nothing to do with diversity? :doh

OK I am done here. You can keep denying and trying desperately weave around it. It's not worth my time.
 
misterman said:
The issue, then is the definition of racial discrimination. I think that if you have two candidates who are otherwise equally qualified, but one is chosen by race, that's racial discrimination by definition. Not that this is always the situation that occurs.
Click to expand...

Again, it is against the law to choose by race. But any number of subjective standards can legally be used, and many favor whites. Legacy, for example, tends to favor whites. And it is legal.

But, by all, according to AA, you cannot discriminate due to race.
 
Blackdog said:
I just posted 3 articles on the subject and you said "Whether they ar elowing their standards or not is a separate issue." So either you agree and somehow think it is a separate issue or you disagree and don't think it is a separate issue. So stop the bobbing and weaving.
Click to expand...

Actually, you did not. You oftered two very questionable articles that offered nothing we could examine. Until they do, no one can accept or reject them. The tird article, the NYT artilce actually speaks to diversity, and tries to make a connection that isn't clear, and offeres nothing to bakc it up. The snipet was so short, I can't really figure out who wrote it, but I suspect it was an Opinion piece.

SBut it is important to note you ahve not done what you claim.


Wait so now AA has nothing to do with diversity? :doh

OK I am done here. You can keep denying and trying desperately weave around it. It's not worth my time.
Click to expand...

No, diversity can cover any number of things. Economic background, political persusation, regional differences, and cutural differences. Anyone from any political persuasion limiting diversity to just race misunderstands the emaning of the word.
 
Boo Radley said:
Again, it is against the law to choose by race. But any number of subjective standards can legally be used, and many favor whites. Legacy, for example, tends to favor whites. And it is legal.

But, by all, according to AA, you cannot discriminate due to race.
Click to expand...

So how is it possible to consider race as a factor but not call it discrimination by race?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom