|
As many know, the Supreme Court of the United States is currently hearing Fisher v. Texas, a case challenging the affirmative action policies put in place by the University of Texas. The result of this case will certainly have a great impact in the admissions policies of colleges nationwide, hence it's importance. So, to start the discussion, the background of the case.
In 2008, Abigail Fisher, a white Texas high school student, was denied admission into UT. UT's admissions work in that 75% of applicants are admitted as part of their "10%" plan. That is, the top 10% of each high school class in Texas has guaranteed admission to UT. Fisher narrowly missed out on the cut-off at her school, and applied as part of the 25% (Comprised of non-10% Texans and out-of-state students). These 25% are judged based on UT's "Holistic admissions process," which takes many factors, including race, into account as a factor in admissions decisions. Fisher sued UT. saying that their admissions process unconstitutionally favors minorities, violating the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th amendment. The case has been tossed around in lower courts, and has now made it to the supreme court.
The act of considering race, religion, ethnicity, sexual orientation, etc. as factors in admissions or hiring processes in order to benefit an underrepresented group is known as Affirmative Action. For the purposes of the thread I would ask that we stick to education for the moment, but the guiding principle is the same. In Grutter v Bollinger in 2003, the supreme court upheld a similar case brought up against the University of Michigan. The landmark decision then was that race could be used as a factor in admissions, but "quota" systems were Fisher is saying that this process in college admissions is unfair, arguing that minority students less qualified than her were admitted to the University, meaning that she was discriminated against. The University of Texas argues that diversity is valuable and a "critical mass" of minorities is necessary to the point that their actions are justified. Fisher counters by saying that UT has achieved great diversity already under their 10% plan (Almost exclusively black or latino schools have top 10%'s comprised of blacks and latinos).
Currently (to me at least) it looks like the Grutter decision will be overturned. Day O'Connor who supported AA has resigned, replaced by Samuel Alito who is firmly against racial preference. Justice Kagan has removed herself from the case due to prior involvement, leaving 8 justices. It will take a 5-3 majority to overturn Grutter, but I think it will happen. Scalia, Roberts, Thomas, and Alito are all firmly against racial preference, while Ginsburg, Sotomayor, and Breyer will all likely support AA. Justice Kennedy is the swing vote, and in the hearings he expressed distaste for UT's admissions process, saying " So what you're saying is that race is above all." Kennedy has in the past supported diversity in the classroom, however.
I'm applying to colleges now, so I'm quite interested in this decision (it will come after decisions about me are made, though). Personally, I believe that if we are after a society with total equality for all races, we should use colorblind admissions processes. Certainly, some children start with disadvantages compared to their counterparts, but it is unfair to assume that they do because of race. Barack Obama's children are candidates for affirmative action while poor white kids with drunks for parents are not. Needs-blind admissions (widely practiced among top universities today) can already somewhat account for socio-economic issues, and the Common App essay along with supplemental essays can have an enormous impact on admissions when children from broken homes describe the challenges that they have overcome. I think that it is in fact racist to assume that simply because one is black or indian that their parents have put them at a disadvantage in their childhood. The best way to stop classifying people by race is to stop classifying people by race, after all. Fisher is not the greatest plantiff for the case though, she probably wouldn't have gotten into UT anyways, she was quite average. But now it's more about the principle than Fisher's personal grievances.
So what do you think? I know this issue is important to many people, both college age and otherwise, so what are your opinions on the case and Affirmative Action as a whole?
|
I think what the University is doing is morally OK, but they may need to rearrange the numbers. For example, perhaps more than the top 10% should have guaranteed admission based on academic excellence. I think they're right when they say that creating an environment where different cultures/races are represented is valuable at a university, but guaranteed admission based on academic merit should play a larger role than 10%.
In other words, academic excellence should be far better represented at a university than culture/race should be, but I'd argue both are important.
|
|
|
On November 02 2012 05:59 sevencck wrote:
I think what the University is doing is morally OK, but they may need to rearrange the numbers. For example, perhaps more than the top 10% should have guaranteed admission based on academic excellence. I think they're right when they say that creating an environment where different cultures/races are represented is valuable at a university, but guaranteed admission based on academic merit should play a larger role than 10%.
In other words, academic excellence should be far better represented at a university than culture/race should be, but I'd argue both are important.
The top 10% of any given HIGHSCHOOL gets automatic acceptance.
These people who are the top 10% from EACH HIGHSCHOOL comprise roughly 75% at the UNIVERSITY.
|
Affirmative Action is degrading. It's nothing more than a modern day "White Man's Burden". As a minority student myself I find it offensive (not really an argument, but those are my feelings on it).
|
Affirmative action was needed 20-30+ years ago to make sure places had to accept minorities. Now a days racism is much much less a factor(Obviously still exists.) so I don't really think it is a needed thing any more. I would like to think we have advanced to a point where we can judge people solely on their merits and whether they deserve acceptance into schools or hiring etc.
|
as a high schooler in Texas from the same city as Fisher, this case hits especially close to home. One problem that a lot of people don't recognize is the effects upon Asians, though. It's been proven multiple times that Asians have to do significantly better than white people, and vastly better than the equivalent black student, just to get in to college. If Fisher wins, I think i'll have a lot easier time getting admitted.
|
Affirmative action is pretty stupid imo. Yes, it is awesome if you have a school with diversity in race but I would rather have school where everyone actually deserved to get in. Race diversity should come second to that. If one student is more qualified than the other, than that student should get priority in getting in regardless of their race. But I guess it is ok to choose the race you have less of if you had to choose between two different people with different race but identical academic achievements.
|
Race obviously shouldnt be considered whatsoever. Its actually just racist thinking to equate race with diversity. There can be a hell of a lot more diversity intracially, in culture, religion and ways of thinking than any interracial combination. Colour has a rough correlation with culture, but its a contigent one. Regardless, diversity and any associated values with that have little purpose for a college. College should be about merit and education. Really, its quite clear diversity as properly understood has no actual value to colleges given there massive restrictions of freedom of speech and debate, nevermind the almost complete homogeneity the teaching staff has in ideology. lol.
|
I do believe people should be accepted based on merit, but at the same time I think diversity is very undervalued in society. I just don't think university is the best place to enforce that. Most people in university will actually just stick with people they ethically feel attached to so the diversity goes to waste. Diversity in schools (primary/middle) is much more effective because sad as it is, kids look past ethnic differences unlike adults.
|
United States462 Posts
On November 02 2012 06:27 aRyuujin wrote:
as a high schooler in Texas from the same city as Fisher, this case hits especially close to home. One problem that a lot of people don't recognize is the effects upon Asians, though. It's been proven multiple times that Asians have to do significantly better than white people, and vastly better than the equivalent black student, just to get in to college. If Fisher wins, I think i'll have a lot easier time getting admitted.
Would you mind presenting these "proofs" to me? I've never had that impression.
|
As an Asian I am split about this. Remove AA and my brethren will have a much easier time getting into college (Can look at the UC schools where race was removed from admission criteria and how many asians there are at Berkeley vs say Harvard where its ~20%). On the other hand, I did benefit greatly from having a diverse student body from which different backgrounds and ideas could merge, I doubt I would gain as much social/culturally from a 100% asian or 100% white student body. On a moral basis AA is definitely wrong, on the other hand I think all should have an equal chance of getting to college. Targeting the root of the problem which is heterogeneous education quality would be a much better solution to that than post-hoc preference.
|
On November 02 2012 06:27 aRyuujin wrote:
as a high schooler in Texas from the same city as Fisher, this case hits especially close to home. One problem that a lot of people don't recognize is the effects upon Asians, though. It's been proven multiple times that Asians have to do significantly better than white people, and vastly better than the equivalent black student, just to get in to college. If Fisher wins, I think i'll have a lot easier time getting admitted.
Have you ever been to UT campus? It's freaking Asian central over there..
|
+ Show Spoiler +On November 02 2012 06:40 ClanRH.TV wrote:Show nested quote +On November 02 2012 06:27 aRyuujin wrote:
as a high schooler in Texas from the same city as Fisher, this case hits especially close to home. One problem that a lot of people don't recognize is the effects upon Asians, though. It's been proven multiple times that Asians have to do significantly better than white people, and vastly better than the equivalent black student, just to get in to college. If Fisher wins, I think i'll have a lot easier time getting admitted. Would you mind presenting these "proofs" to me? I've never had that impression.
From Wikipedia: "At some schools, legacy preferences have an effect on admissions comparable to other factors such as being a recruited athlete or affirmative action. One study of three selective private research universities in the United States showed the following effects (admissions disadvantage and advantage in terms of SAT points on the old 1600-point scale):
Blacks: +230
Hispanics: +185
Asians: –50
Recruited athletes: +200
Legacies (children of alumni): +160[6]
There are many other studies and authors that make similar points, you'd just have to look a little bit.
Perhaps the most glaring proof of what he says is california prop 209. It ended Affirmative Action in california, and afterwards asian populations in UC schools skyrocketed, suggesting that more qualified asians were being passed over in favor of less qualified whites, blacks, and latinos. As an interesting sidenote, graduation rates also increased.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Proposition_209_(1996)#Organizations_in_opposition
|
If you're close to the cutoff, you don't get to bitch when you get cut.
That said, race-blind admissions would be much better. I'm down with lowering expectations for underprivileged folks, if you expect them to perform better once they have a better learning environment, but the focus on race seems anachronistic. Anti-minority laws were abolished two generations ago.
|
On November 02 2012 06:11 Shai wrote:Show nested quote +On November 02 2012 05:59 sevencck wrote:
I think what the University is doing is morally OK, but they may need to rearrange the numbers. For example, perhaps more than the top 10% should have guaranteed admission based on academic excellence. I think they're right when they say that creating an environment where different cultures/races are represented is valuable at a university, but guaranteed admission based on academic merit should play a larger role than 10%.
In other words, academic excellence should be far better represented at a university than culture/race should be, but I'd argue both are important. The top 10% of any given HIGHSCHOOL gets automatic acceptance. These people who are the top 10% from EACH HIGHSCHOOL comprise roughly 75% at the UNIVERSITY.
OK, sounds reasonable then. Maybe 80%-90% would be more appropriate, but I have no problem with this.
On November 02 2012 06:49 ZeaL. wrote:
As an Asian I am split about this. Remove AA and my brethren will have a much easier time getting into college (Can look at the UC schools where race was removed from admission criteria and how many asians there are at Berkeley vs say Harvard where its ~20%). On the other hand, I did benefit greatly from having a diverse student body from which different backgrounds and ideas could merge, I doubt I would gain as much social/culturally from a 100% asian or 100% white student body. On a moral basis AA is definitely wrong, on the other hand I think all should have an equal chance of getting to college. Targeting the root of the problem which is heterogeneous education quality would be a much better solution to that than post-hoc preference.
Why?
|
Because its treating people based on peripheral and irrelevant physical characteristics? Because its discriminatory?
|
On November 02 2012 07:01 whatevername wrote:
Because its treating people based on peripheral and irrelevant physical characteristics? Because its discriminatory?
The principle of affirmative action is to overcome an existing discriminatory / unfair disadvantage based on irrelevant characteristics, often the only way to do that is to offer advantages to the least advantaged. The degree and implementation is up to debate but the principle isn't wrong at all, people only cry about it when they feel that they themselves are being inconvenienced. No body is up in arms about charities helping those in poverty by giving them money or housing for free.
|
On November 02 2012 06:27 aRyuujin wrote:
as a high schooler in Texas from the same city as Fisher, this case hits especially close to home. One problem that a lot of people don't recognize is the effects upon Asians, though. It's been proven multiple times that Asians have to do significantly better than white people, and vastly better than the equivalent black student, just to get in to college. If Fisher wins, I think i'll have a lot easier time getting admitted.
Maybe I'm just dumb, but I don't understand how you came to this conclusion, or what you're trying to get at.
|
On November 02 2012 06:57 sevencck wrote:Show nested quote +On November 02 2012 06:49 ZeaL. wrote:
As an Asian I am split about this. Remove AA and my brethren will have a much easier time getting into college (Can look at the UC schools where race was removed from admission criteria and how many asians there are at Berkeley vs say Harvard where its ~20%). On the other hand, I did benefit greatly from having a diverse student body from which different backgrounds and ideas could merge, I doubt I would gain as much social/culturally from a 100% asian or 100% white student body. On a moral basis AA is definitely wrong, on the other hand I think all should have an equal chance of getting to college. Targeting the root of the problem which is heterogeneous education quality would be a much better solution to that than post-hoc preference. Why?
It boils down to the fact that you are treating groups differentially based on their skin color, i.e. you're force all asians to work harder to get in your school than white kids simply because they're asian and other asians do well. By simply being born into a certain race a criteria is placed on you where it isn't placed on others and that is wrong. Blacks/hispanics do suffer disproportionately from lower socioeconomic status and on average gain poorer quality education but I know plenty of Asians who are poor as fuck too. Should they have to settle for a lower quality school or no college than their black friends simply because of color?
Edit: If the goal is to bring more opportunity to those races which are historically underperforming in school, treat the disease at the cause, not through awkward things like AA.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
