• 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!

"Diversity" Can Include Normally Successful Minority Groups Too

JBG

DP Veteran
Joined
May 8, 2017
Messages
2,578
Reaction score
697
Location
New York City area
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
The fodder for this thread are two articles in the past several weeks' New York Times:

  1. Education Dept. Reopens Rutgers Case Charging Discrimination Against Jewish Students;
  2. U.S. Argues Harvard Admissions Policies Harm Asian-Americans.

Restrictions or attempts to tilt the ethnic makeup of schools and the workplace have an ugly history. Back in the 1920's universities imposed quotas limiting the number of Jewish students they accepted, fearing that they'd be overrun with them. Jews' valuing education led and continues to lead to spending money on tutors, and parents enforcing iron discipline on the completion of school work; qualities that now mark many Asian families. The practice was also prevalent in the workplace, as highlighted by Alan Dershowitz in his book Chutzpah. Despite top grades at Harvard Law School he had trouble getting a job after law school. When the world learned of the Holocaust this became less acceptable.

A new label for the policy was needed. For a while it was called "affirmative action." Now it's called "diversity." The push for "diversity" has run into the shoals of the demands of people who succeed in the higher education settings and the workplace, namely Asians and Jews.

With regard to Asian-Americans:
New York Times discussing U.S. Attorney General Jeff Sessions said:
The department, which has been investigating Harvard for potential civil rights violations over its affirmative action policy, made its argument in documents filed in federal court in Boston, where the case is scheduled to go to trial in October.

The Justice Department argued that Harvard had failed to prove that its use of race as a factor in deciding which students to admit had not resulted in it illegally discriminating against Asian-Americans.
Instead, the department said the evidence in the lawsuit by Students for Fair Admissions showed Harvard's admissions process "significantly disadvantages" Asian-Americans compared with other groups.
With regard to Jewish people, Kenneth L. Marcus, the assistant secretary of education for civil rights is readying to reopen a lawsuit dropped by the Obama Justice Department about anti-Jewish discrimination.
New York Times discussing Kenneth L. Marcus said:
In a letter to the Zionist Organization of America, obtained by The New York Times, Mr. Marcus said he would vacate a 2014 decision by the Obama administration and re-examine the conservative Jewish group’s cause not as a case of religious freedom but as possible discrimination against an ethnic group.
Pro-diversity policies have become a cover for favoring certain vote-rich minority groups. Diversity should be inclusive of all groups, not just groups that have less than their share of success. Perhaps those groups should do what the Asian-Americans and Jews do; try at work and school.

No one's stopping them.
 
The problem that I see with many "diversity" programs is that they seek to achieve equality of outcome rather than equality of opportunity. You simply cannot fix a cake after it has been baked so these "diversity" efforts must start long before the college or workplace hiring/promotion stage in the education, training and employment cycle.
 
The problem that I see with many "diversity" programs is that they seek to achieve equality of outcome rather than equality of opportunity. You simply cannot fix a cake after it has been baked so these "diversity" efforts must start long before the college or workplace hiring/promotion stage in the education, training and employment cycle.

This is what I don't understand. I have no idea how doing things like drastically lowering entrance requirements to places law schools actually benefit minorities, it just brings the quality of the school down, is unfair to everyone else, and the student being admitted will most likely be overwhelmed by the work.
 
This is what I don't understand. I have no idea how doing things like drastically lowering entrance requirements to places law schools actually benefit minorities, it just brings the quality of the school down, is unfair to everyone else, and the student being admitted will most likely be overwhelmed by the work.

That (bolded above) might be true if they graduated enough lower achievers but if that is not the case then it makes their degrees no less valuable. I have not been able to find graduation statistics by race/ethnicity but can easily find feshman admission staitistcs by race/ethnicity.
 
When group X are given college degrees based on their ethnicity, not their merit, it only makes everyone in group X suspect as to his/her abilities.

And it is not fair to group X members who ARE competent.

Merit, however, cannot be the sole criterion for college entrance, for societal peace depends on letting in a percentage of every group in this unique nation.

Jewish and Asian students must accept this painful reality.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom