• 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!

Hypothetical: Additional Enrollemnt for Minorities in Schools

Read the question and respond accordingly.

  • Yes, this os unfair to white students

    Votes: 29 76.3%
  • No, this is fair to whites since it is additional enrollment

    Votes: 4 10.5%
  • Maybe. I can see the arguments for both sides, it's not clear cut

    Votes: 3 7.9%
  • Other

    Votes: 2 5.3%

  • Total voters
    38
A kind of follow up question: If we changed it from minority students to low income students, would it be unfair to middle class/upper class students?

Now we're getting into what the disparity in education is really all about. If you were going to open the 100 enrollments to students who fell under the title of "disadvantaged" on class/income lines alone, then I think you could get away with it. Even still, you would have to justify these enrollments being restricted along financial lines by tying them to some kind of scholarship or grant where a maximum income would be a mandatory qualifier. I could see the benefit in this much more than I can see the benefit in reinforcing the idea that minorities need a boost that whites don't.

I now invite hazlnut to call me racist or whatever nonsense he was spewing earlier. :doh
 
In my mind, the only way to truly reduce disparity of opportunity is to improve the K-12 education system, not accept lower-quality students because they had less opportunity.

And the key to that is not more money, it's better methods.
 
In my mind, the only way to truly reduce disparity of opportunity is to improve the K-12 education system, not accept lower-quality students because they had less opportunity.

And the key to that is not more money, it's better methods.

I agree...exceptional students make opportunity where there previously was none. However, I would hate to see a brilliant mind wasted for want of funds to pay tuition...
 
I agree...exceptional students make opportunity where there previously was none. However, I would hate to see a brilliant mind wasted for want of funds to pay tuition...
Two reasons that happens, IMO - Tuition prices are to high, and not enough government grants/loans.

A lesser reason is directly tied to poor quality k-12 education - entering college students have to learn things that they should have learned in their k-12 education.
 
I dont think anyone would presume that. But, wealth does not eliminate prejudice against one because of ones skin colour or gender. It does provide more opportunites and a safety net to help overcome difficulties, but it does not prevent race or gender prejudice.

Apparently neither does being white.

Rich Wealthy black family sends thier child off to college. He is a bit of a problem child and hasn't performed well in grades. He gets in college because he is black.

Lower-Middle income white family sends their child off to college. He has worked hard and obtained educational scholarships as well as student loans. His grades aren't THE BEST EVER, but his grades are higher than the average accepted into the college. He is denied because the school needed more "minorities".

How exactly is THIS scenario fair at all?
 
I think it depends upon whether there is some sort of discrimination within the community, or the results of past discrimination that is preventing minorities from being enrolled in universities. In this case I think there is a legitimate case for affirmative action. If both types of discrimination are virtually non-existant I don't think there is a need for it.
 
I think it depends upon whether there is some sort of discrimination within the community, or the results of past discrimination that is preventing minorities from being enrolled in universities. In this case I think there is a legitimate case for affirmative action. If both types of discrimination are virtually non-existant I don't think there is a need for it.

Past discrimination is never a justification for current discrimination.

Two wrongs don't make a right.
 
Of course its discrimination. It is favoring one group over the other. It is just as bad as saying that we will reserve 100 new student seats ONLY for whites.

Oh, and just food for thought: 48% of Americans living in poverty are white.

Another thing: Asian families make more money on average than white families. Yet, as minorities, they would have preference under both this scenario and affirmative action. How is THAT fair?
 
Last edited:
Bottom line folks: The philosophy of many Universities is that diversity benefits the entire student body as a mix of people from different cultural backgrounds and ethnicities enhances the learning environment.

Bigots and xenophobes will disagree.

Bottom line #2 folks: Upper white middle class kids have an advantage over urban kids when it come to gpa and SAT. Universities can certainly take into consideration that a certain student didn't have access to SAT prep classes or may have had to work a part-time job. GPA and Test scores set a baseline for acceptance. The University certainly has a right to decide what mix will lift the cultural/emotional intelligence of the entire class.

My theory on SAT Prep classes is that they are counter-productive. They teach people of average natural intelligence how to become better test takers. They teach kids test tricks and memorization -- not creative thinking or in-depth problem solving. The day will come when college admissions will be partially based on DNA -- your actual potential to learn and contribute -- not a subjective test score.

For now, I'll ignore you're attempt to slander anyone who disagrees with you as a bigot or xenophobe and try to have a civilized, intelligent discussion. I'm hoping you won't make me regret that decision.

Upper middle class minorities don't have the same advantages? And poor whites don't have disadvantages of their own? If the issue you're attempting to address is the affect poverty has on education, why not make these preferences, or quotas, or whatever systems based on income and not race/ethnicity?

The idea of setting any number of slots, however small or insignificant, runs counter to the notion of everyone should have an equal opportunity to succeed based on their ability. Race, sex, ethnicity, sexuality ... these things have nothing to do with ability and should be not be factors in picking the best candidates.

The argument that current level of white enrollment won't be affected because its an expansion, doesn't matter. According to that logic, the school could double its enrollment numbers and set aside half the spots for preferred groups. It too wouldn't affect current levels of enrollment.

As to the question of changing the issue to setting aside slots for underpriveldged students. I have no problem give scholarships to qualified students who could not otherwise afford a college education. I don't think its a good policy to let in underqualified students simply on the basis of their income. I believe there are many studies that show students who get in solely because of quotas, preference programs, ect. flunk out at a much higher rate because they are not equipped to handle the word load in a college. And no amount of guaranteed slots will fix that problem.

We need to fix our eduaction system K - 12 to address that issue.
 
We need to fix our eduaction system K - 12 to address that issue.

And something need to figure out how to do in order to help this is start holding parents accountable. Obviously we can't do this criminally or even fine them, but there has to be SOME WAY that we can get parents to be more like parents rather than just "providers". Far too often children fail to suceed in school because they lack the motivation needed at home to be sucessful. Teachers can only do so much, while in the classroom, and cannot be expected to raise all of these children during this limited time frame. Children have to be encouraged to have a desire to learn, and it needs to come from somewhere other than the classroom if it is to be sucessful.
 
And something need to figure out how to do in order to help this is start holding parents accountable. ... Children have to be encouraged to have a desire to learn, and it needs to come from somewhere other than the classroom if it is to be sucessful.

People tend to overlook that the education of children is primarily the parents' responsibility. The public schools exist to assist those parents who cannot provide for their own childrens' education, but they cannot replace the role of active parents.
 
I voted other. You can not correct racial discrimination by practicing racial discrimination.

I think there are better ways of solving the problem within the enumerations of the constitution, which affirmative action is not.
 
I think the whole premise of they hypothetical situation is wrong to begin with. "Additional" enrollment shouldn't exist anywhere. You just have the max enrollment you can afford with the resources you have at your disposal. That can increase or decrease. So if a school decides it can increase its enrollment by 100, but says it will only offer those slots to certain races/sex/income level, when it comes time to cut enrollment are they going to cut out those first 100? Or in order to keep their precious "diversity" are they going to cut 100 "white" spots?

There should be no mention of race on a college application. Race is not a factor that determines ability, work ethic, community involvement, and achievement. Those are the qualities you look for in a student, rather than skin color. Colleges should accept on merit, and merit alone.
 
Past discrimination is never a justification for current discrimination.

Two wrongs don't make a right.

How is affirmative action discrimination? It results in lowering structural discrimination. If past discrimination is making it very hard for a minority to find its way into universities, simply freezing the status quo is resulting in discrimination to that minority. What is the difference to a person if past discrimination has made it impossible to get into a university or if a case of deliberate racial discrimination makes it impossible? The hypothetical in the OP I may not agree with since it sets a strict quota, but I don't think the principle is wrong.
 
I think the whole premise of they hypothetical situation is wrong to begin with. "Additional" enrollment shouldn't exist anywhere. You just have the max enrollment you can afford with the resources you have at your disposal. That can increase or decrease. So if a school decides it can increase its enrollment by 100, but says it will only offer those slots to certain races/sex/income level, when it comes time to cut enrollment are they going to cut out those first 100? Or in order to keep their precious "diversity" are they going to cut 100 "white" spots?

There should be no mention of race on a college application. Race is not a factor that determines ability, work ethic, community involvement, and achievement. Those are the qualities you look for in a student, rather than skin color. Colleges should accept on merit, and merit alone.

I would agree in a perfect world, but sometimes past discrimination results in lower ability community involvement and achievement. Thats why just eliminating subjective discrimination may not actually help the group that was discriminated against. Here's an extreme exampe to prove my point. In early america we had slaves and we never let them read because they were slaves. Now think one day we decided it was wrong and we can no longer discriminate. How is this going to change their chances to get into a university based on merit if none of them can read?
 
If we let a bunch of people into a university who can't read, how well do you think they will do? Oh wait, we can answer this question based on real world evidence. Students who don't meet the normal entrance standards but get in due to "diversity" programs tend to flunk out at a much higher rate. Meaning we wasted precious resources in the name of the sacred cow of diversity and got nothing in return.
 
I would agree in a perfect world, but sometimes past discrimination results in lower ability community involvement and achievement. Thats why just eliminating subjective discrimination may not actually help the group that was discriminated against. Here's an extreme exampe to prove my point. In early america we had slaves and we never let them read because they were slaves. Now think one day we decided it was wrong and we can no longer discriminate. How is this going to change their chances to get into a university based on merit if none of them can read?

Well the good thing is, is that we provided education somewhere in the k-12 levels where they were taught to read. If you can't read now days, you don't belong in college period. Regardless of past discrimination.

You can create other programs aimed at helping those people learn to read, write, do math etc...not a problem. But it shouldn't be race based either, but need based.
 
If we let a bunch of people into a university who can't read, how well do you think they will do? Oh wait, we can answer this question based on real world evidence. Students who don't meet the normal entrance standards but get in due to "diversity" programs tend to flunk out at a much higher rate. Meaning we wasted precious resources in the name of the sacred cow of diversity and got nothing in return.

Oh really, thats why it was an exteme example. How would we educate the slaves for example then? Or are you ok with a large amount of the remaining structural discrimination. They obviously can't read because we never let them before, it has nothing to do with there abilities to learn.
 
Last edited:
Well the good thing is, is that we provided education somewhere in the k-12 levels where they were taught to read. If you can't read now days, you don't belong in college period. Regardless of past discrimination.

You can create other programs aimed at helping those people learn to read, write, do math etc...not a problem. But it shouldn't be race based either, but need based.

So you are okay with some affirmative action? Those who need to learn because we never taught them before should get help. I guess I can understand your point since some non-minority kids may have a similar problem, but I doubt this would be because of past discrimination. No doubt other factors can play into the situation, and helping a nonminority is not any more noble than helping a minority, but I do not see why treating people as a group instead of as a distinct individual is necessarily bad.
 
Because treating people as groups ignores the fact that some blacks are just as well off and advantaged as richest white kid and some whites are just as gripped by poverty and ignorance as blacks in the worst inner city ghettos. You're right in saying there is nothing more noble in helping a non-minority than there is in helping a minority, but that cuts both ways. Helping a minority is also no more noble than helping non-minorities. Helping PEOPLE is what is noble.
 
This is a hypothetical, though it may very well be something some schools do. Please read the situation and respond accordingly.

A college decides to increase it's overall enrollment by 100 students, but those 100 students would be selected only from minorities. All other enrollment would be decided based on the same process as in the past, with the 100 students being the best of the minority students who would not normally get accepted at the school due to grades or test scores or whatever.

Would white students and potential white students have a legitimate grievance that this is unfair to them?

I see no reason why this would be necessary. When I visit college campuses (campii?), I see a very proportional amount of minority students attending. Possibly even more than proportional. We already have funding and loan programs aimed directly at minorities. This would be overkill.
 
So you are okay with some affirmative action? Those who need to learn because we never taught them before should get help. I guess I can understand your point since some non-minority kids may have a similar problem, but I doubt this would be because of past discrimination. No doubt other factors can play into the situation, and helping a nonminority is not any more noble than helping a minority, but I do not see why treating people as a group instead of as a distinct individual is necessarily bad.

Well I have no problems helping people who want the help. But colleges are institutions of higher learning. There is no place for basic education needs that should have been met in k-12 levels. Now I realize that public schools(as well as some home situations) are increasingly becoming inadequate for producing people who are able to tackle the rigors of higher education. So I wouldn't mind funding for places where people decide they need to learn some of those skills they did not get in high school for whatever reason. But college is not the place to learn how to read or do simple math.
 
Is this college private or public?
 
Can you explain your reasoning? In the situation, white student enrollment would be unaffected. I am not saying ai disagree with you, just pointing out the argument.

of course it violates Title VII since white students are excluded from those spots by virtue of their color.

Can you imagine if a fire department said it was going to add 100 additional spots and only blacks could apply?
 
Is this college private or public?

good point but if a private school accepts federal funding it is within the coverage of title VII
 
Back
Top Bottom