|
On June 26 2013 00:16 Risen wrote:Show nested quote +On June 26 2013 00:02 Yorke wrote:
Affirmative action is racism, pure and simple. I don't think anyone is arguing that it's not. The argument is that it is necessary racism.
I think many people would say the same about segregation just about less than 100 years ago.
|
On June 25 2013 07:04 bugser wrote:Show nested quote +On June 25 2013 03:46 NEOtheONE wrote:On November 02 2012 07:04 ZeaL. wrote:On November 02 2012 06:57 sevencck wrote: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. This is the primary issue with AA. It tries to treat a symptom without addressing the real problem. The real issue is that schools are grossly disproportionate in level of funding due to the primary source of funding coming from the local level. Low income neighborhoods have low income schools, which have underfunded education programs. The education system is "going to hell in a hand basket" in the US. And it will continue to get worse until we change how public schools are funded. It's actually a myth that the achievement gap is caused by school funding. In fact some of the highest spending per student in America happens in majority black schools. Yet this spending doesn't reduce the dismal failure rates. Eventually people are going to have to accept that not everyone has equal potential. It doesn't matter how much money someone has to spend on education if they lack the brains to be educated.
We're okay with flagrant racism here at TL.net....? Surely this was overlooked? Shocking post
|
On June 28 2013 01:41 FallDownMarigold wrote:Show nested quote +On June 25 2013 07:04 bugser wrote:On June 25 2013 03:46 NEOtheONE wrote:On November 02 2012 07:04 ZeaL. wrote:On November 02 2012 06:57 sevencck wrote: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. This is the primary issue with AA. It tries to treat a symptom without addressing the real problem. The real issue is that schools are grossly disproportionate in level of funding due to the primary source of funding coming from the local level. Low income neighborhoods have low income schools, which have underfunded education programs. The education system is "going to hell in a hand basket" in the US. And it will continue to get worse until we change how public schools are funded. It's actually a myth that the achievement gap is caused by school funding. In fact some of the highest spending per student in America happens in majority black schools. Yet this spending doesn't reduce the dismal failure rates. Eventually people are going to have to accept that not everyone has equal potential. It doesn't matter how much money someone has to spend on education if they lack the brains to be educated. We're okay with flagrant racism here at TL.net....? Surely this was overlooked? Shocking post
do you know what the mushroom cloud next to his name means?
(also, that's arguably not a racist post)
|
On June 28 2013 01:41 FallDownMarigold wrote:Show nested quote +On June 25 2013 07:04 bugser wrote:On June 25 2013 03:46 NEOtheONE wrote:On November 02 2012 07:04 ZeaL. wrote:On November 02 2012 06:57 sevencck wrote: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. This is the primary issue with AA. It tries to treat a symptom without addressing the real problem. The real issue is that schools are grossly disproportionate in level of funding due to the primary source of funding coming from the local level. Low income neighborhoods have low income schools, which have underfunded education programs. The education system is "going to hell in a hand basket" in the US. And it will continue to get worse until we change how public schools are funded. It's actually a myth that the achievement gap is caused by school funding. In fact some of the highest spending per student in America happens in majority black schools. Yet this spending doesn't reduce the dismal failure rates. Eventually people are going to have to accept that not everyone has equal potential. It doesn't matter how much money someone has to spend on education if they lack the brains to be educated. We're okay with flagrant racism here at TL.net....? Surely this was overlooked? Shocking post
It's not really that bad of a post if it's true. I'm not saying it is however.
|
On June 26 2013 12:46 docvoc wrote:Show nested quote +On June 26 2013 00:16 Risen wrote:On June 26 2013 00:02 Yorke wrote:
Affirmative action is racism, pure and simple. I don't think anyone is arguing that it's not. The argument is that it is necessary racism. I think many people would say the same about segregation just about less than 100 years ago.
And their arguments would be based on shoddy science and probably some religious text. The "racism" involved in affirmative action is based on verifiable data showing that minorities are not given equal opportunities. Affirmative action seeks to correct that.
|
On June 28 2013 05:18 Klondikebar wrote:Show nested quote +On June 26 2013 12:46 docvoc wrote:On June 26 2013 00:16 Risen wrote:On June 26 2013 00:02 Yorke wrote:
Affirmative action is racism, pure and simple. I don't think anyone is arguing that it's not. The argument is that it is necessary racism. I think many people would say the same about segregation just about less than 100 years ago. And their arguments would be based on shoddy science and probably some religious text. The "racism" involved in affirmative action is based on verifiable data showing that minorities are not given equal opportunities. Affirmative action seeks to correct that.
The main issue with affirmative action is that no one made a system to check if it was necessary with a specific case or group. Because of that, it is an endlessly debated issue with no end. The one side claims that any attempt to limit it is racism and the other side claims that they are put at an unfair disadvantage because of affirmative action.
|
There are also majorities that don't get equal opportunities. There are plenty of poor white people in America. Affirmative action should be more about a person's economic status instead of the racial status, so it can help out those poorer majorities and the poorer minorities, and also not give a free pass to upper class minorities.
|
On June 28 2013 05:18 Klondikebar wrote:Show nested quote +On June 26 2013 12:46 docvoc wrote:On June 26 2013 00:16 Risen wrote:On June 26 2013 00:02 Yorke wrote:
Affirmative action is racism, pure and simple. I don't think anyone is arguing that it's not. The argument is that it is necessary racism. I think many people would say the same about segregation just about less than 100 years ago. And their arguments would be based on shoddy science and probably some religious text. The "racism" involved in affirmative action is based on verifiable data showing that minorities are not given equal opportunities. Affirmative action seeks to correct that by institutionalizing racism.
Fixed that for you. 2 wrongs does not make a right. It is a disgrace for a modern society to violate basic human rights of any group, majority or minority.
|
On June 26 2013 03:00 Phael wrote:Show nested quote +On June 25 2013 23:01 Stratos_speAr wrote:On June 25 2013 11:00 Phael wrote:On June 25 2013 10:38 Livelovedie wrote:
See but the problem if you allow these extracirriculars that are subjective then you are automatically allowing people of higher economic classes to get an advantage over lower income students (who are more likely to be minorities). The student from a more privileged background has the ability to connect with people like doctors for shadowing and internships, work for their dads company, or do research at a school. The problem with just going on different socioeconomic backgrounds alone is it does not take into cultural considerations like Asian parent's focus on education even in poorer income levels, though I would support some sort of socioeconomic affirmative action boast. Affirmative action may have been used to account for past wrongs but now it has another purpose that the courts and I personally deem legitimate. First of all, I never alluded to any extracurricular activities. Secondly, yes, of course rich kids are going to be more advantaged than poorer kids, that's how the world works. The question is though, are poor kids and their families are given enough of an opportunity to succeed? and my answer is overwhelmingly - yes.My parents are immigrants. Until I was in high school, my dad worked as a post doc for about $20k a year. My mom can't speak English and it's fairly difficult to get a job as anything other than a salary-less waitress at a Chinese restaurant. They worked hard enough to afford a half million dollar house in one of the better school districts by the time I hit high school to give me the opportunity there. In that school district, I've had friends whose parents made even less, as free-lance janitors/handymen. We're talking way-below-poverty level, as in the entire family probably brought in under $10k a year. They somehow managed to scrounge and save enough to afford an overpriced apartment in the area, and could send their kid to $2000 SAT classes. This requires hard work and dedication on the behalf of the entire family. Your one line of "The problem with just going on different socioeconomic backgrounds alone is it does not take into cultural considerations like Asian parent's focus on education even in poorer income levels" completely invalidates all this hard work. I mean, WTF? "sure, lets help out the people who could do it but were too lazy to try, and screw those who worked their asses off for it." I don't have a problem with allowing everyone who wants to go to college, go to college. I'm almost certain that if you wanted to go to school, you can. I took community college classes in high school for $10 a semester at the local CC. The problem starts to occur when you're giving limited positions to those who are unqualified for them at elite schools. Your anecdote is great and all, but (and I'll put it more nicely than Manifesto does) using Anecdotal evidence to make a general point isn't a very strong argument. Just because you had dedicated parents that were able to raise you in a way that taught you to value hard work and dedication doesn't mean that everyone's parents do that. In fact, that goes contrary to a LOT of social scientific evidence. You're essentially advocating that we say, "Fuck off" to the children of lazy people (and generalizing them as lazy is incredibly disingenuous) and punishing their future for what their parents did to them. Oh, and you are literally pulling numbers out of your ass. It is mathematically impossible for a family to make less than $10k a year and survive, let alone send their kid to school, have an overpriced apartment, pay for $2000 SAT classes, etc. A single individual would have an EXTREMELY hard time surviving off of less than $10k a year. That is less than the federal minimum wage, and to say that a FAMILY can survive on that is laughable. I'm extremely skeptical of your "20k a year family" affording a $500k house, let alone staying afloat on one $20k/year salary while saving money, and it just reeks of an individual trying to make his anecdotal evidence sound far more persuasive than the real story actually is. The point I was trying to make is: are disadvantaged (socioeconomic) families able to send their kids to an elite school? Yes. The existence of a single case validates the statement, which is what I've given. Am I saying "fuck off" to those children of lazy parents? They have a bigger hurdle to overcome, but it's not insurmountable. Before high school, I lived among the poorest communities with the worst schools. My elementary/middle school days were spent in the ghettoest schools. I still managed to pull off a Mathcounts state championship, if that means anything. The point is, while unlikely, there is no room for people to say "you must be this rich to be that successful" because the presence of one counterexample is enough to disprove the statement. I am also not pulling numbers out of my ass. My family did subsist on roughly $500 a month - rent, gas, food, clothing combined ($300, $~40, $~150, ~$10 breakdowns) - for years and years, enough to save up for a down payment for a house during the booming economy so we were also able to get a loan. $10k is indeed less than the federal minimum wage. That family was illegal, so they can't exactly complain to anyone.
I'm not sure what kind of job your parents were working. I make $8/hr in a research lab (the janitors make more than I do) and I work about 35 hours a week. I get paid biweekly, and my paychecks have been around $500 after taxes. I spend around $20-30 on food a week.
I don't know what bank would be willing to give a 500K mortgage/ loan to a family that made 20K a year. I know they approved some pretty crazy loans before the bubble burst, but that's ridiculous. Besides, a 500K house in 99%+ of this country's neighborhoods is really nice. My family's house in one of the *nicer* parts of my city was purchased 200K, thought the tax people like to pretend it's worth twice that.
Out of curiosity, what state and what year? I did Mathcounts when I was in middle school-- I'm a little surprised you would cite that as the pinnacle of your academic career when you could have done MAO, AMC, ARML or any other high school level things.
I don't think anyone disputed the fact that you can start from the very bottom and have your kids end up at the very top. We hear success stories in the news, from friends, etc. etc. Still, the reason we're like "omg that's so cool and great" is because it's so rare. For every guy who made it to Harvard from some ghetto in Chicago, there's a thousand who never got more than a couple hours away from where they were born.
Nuking affirmative action could really only help me, haha. I'm already semi-screwed because of all the other Asians, but if AA was gone at least a few of the URM's that are currently in front of me would be booted out.
|
I mentioned Mathcounts because my dad gave up on research and sold out to a semiconductor company by high school, so my "dirt poor ghetto" conditions only really applied up to that point. I did qualify for a few USAMOs but never made the IMO team - more of a science than pure math guy - did much better in science bowls. Also, California, '98, iirc.
My family made more than $500 a month - like $2000 - but we only spent a quarter of that for a decade so there was enough saved and a good enough history to prove that we were careful with finances to get the loan, I guess?
I'm saying that socioeconomic reasons are not the limiting factors on whether you go to a good college or not. It's much more about drive, goals, peer pressure, and perception. The general idea that I get from interacting with the black people I meet is that they idolize gangsters and entertainment stars. They laugh at kids who want to get better at academics. Changing that culture will be orders of magnitude more valuable than any amount of planting underperforming students into environments that they aren't prepared for while simultaneously stealing the opportunity of more qualified applicants.
|
On June 28 2013 07:40 Phael wrote:
I mentioned Mathcounts because my dad gave up on research and sold out to a semiconductor company by high school, so my "dirt poor ghetto" conditions only really applied up to that point. I did qualify for a few USAMOs but never made the IMO team - more of a science than pure math guy - did much better in science bowls. Also, California, '98, iirc.
My family made more than $500 a month - like $2000 - but we only spent a quarter of that for a decade so there was enough saved and a good enough history to prove that we were careful with finances to get the loan, I guess?
I'm saying that socioeconomic reasons are not the limiting factors on whether you go to a good college or not. It's much more about drive, goals, peer pressure, and perception. The general idea that I get from interacting with the black people I meet is that they idolize gangsters and entertainment stars. They laugh at kids who want to get better at academics. Changing that culture will be orders of magnitude more valuable than any amount of planting underperforming students into environments that they aren't prepared for while simultaneously stealing the opportunity of more qualified applicants.
I think from your story the real issue is made clear. It isn't really a matter of race, and even to an extent it doesn't depend on socioeconomic status. You said that your dad gave up on research and began working for a semiconductor company. I would assume that he was someone who was an academic and instilled a strong value on learning and science.
What made you successful was not where you were placed in life or what color your skin was, but it was what you valued. You valued academics; this is what led to you being successful. Obviously there are exceptions, but I think this is the general trend. You really have to be at rock bottom for you to not have a chance to succeed. Sure it may be harder depending on whether you are black, white, or asian, but it can happen. After all, how many things that are worth doing are easy?
I agree that a big detriment to blacks in general is the value that they place on "gangsters and entertainment stars." I remember my brother saying that if blacks memorized and put the emphasis on school work that they did on rap lyrics, they would be the smartest people on the planet. I have to agree with him. In the end though, I am just thankful that my father also instilled the importance of science and learning into me. That is really why I am doing somewhat alright.
|
It isn't really "a matter of" one specific factor to the exclusion of all others. Race (as a proxy for cultural environment, as well as the possibility of discrimination), socioeconomics, natural ability/genetics, internal factors (eg willpower), developmental environment all have an impact on the final outcome.
|
AUSTIN, Texas (AP) — A federal appeals court panel ruled Tuesday that the University of Texas can continue using race as a factor in undergraduate admissions as a way of promoting diversity on campus, the latest in an ongoing case that made it to the U.S. Supreme Court last year only to be sent back to lower courts for further review.
In a 2-1 ruling, judges from the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals found that barring the university from using race would ultimately lead to a less diverse student body in defiance of previous legal precedent that promoting diversity was an important part of education.
"We are persuaded that to deny UT Austin its limited use of race in its search for holistic diversity would hobble the richness of the educational experience," the opinion stated.
The case began in 2008 when Abigail Fisher, who is white, was denied admission to the University of Texas's flagship Austin campus because she did not graduate in the top 10 percent of her high school class — the criterion for 75 percent of the school's admissions. The university also passed her over for a position among the remaining 25 percent, which is reserved for special scholarships and people who meet a formula for personal achievement that includes race as a factor.
The case went to the U.S. Supreme Court in June 2013. But rather than issue a landmark decision on affirmative action, it voted 7-1 to tell a lower appeals court to take another look at Fisher's lawsuit. That meant the university's admissions policies remained unchanged.
In November, the New Orleans-based 5th Circuit held a rare hearing in Austin where it again listened to arguments on both sides of the case.
University of Texas President Bill Powers called it "a great day for higher education nationwide."
"As a teacher and as president of this university I know the value of diversity of all kinds," Powers said at a news conference. "And our state and our nation won't advance unless we're training leaders in all parts of our society."
Between 2000 and 2010, Texas' population increased by more than 4 million with minorities, especially Hispanics, accounting for nearly nine out every 10 new residents, according to census figures.
The University of Texas has become more-diverse — but much more slowly. It's percentage of white students declined from 53.5 percent in 2009 to 47.7 percent last fall. The percentage of Hispanic students increased from 18.5 percent to 21.7 percent over the same period, but lags the 38.4 percent of the Texas population which is Hispanic. Black student enrollment has declined slightly since 2009 and was 4.3 percent last year, compared with 12.4 percent of the Texas population who are black.
Edward Blum, one of the attorneys representing Fisher, called the ruling "disappointing but not unexpected." He said the legal team could next appeal to the full 5th U.S. Circuit, or directly back to the U.S. Supreme Court.
"I think we need a little more time to more carefully study the opinion and weight the pluses and minuses of both avenues," Blum said by phone.
Fisher said in a statement that she too was disappointed "that the judges hearing my case are not following the Supreme Court's ruling last summer."
"I remain committed to continuing this lawsuit even if it means we appeal to the Supreme Court once again," she added.
The NAACP Legal Defense and Education Fund was among the groups that helped argue in favor of the University of Texas and its admissions policies. It called the ruling a victory but conceded that the disputes over affirmative action are not over.
"It's going to be a conversation that we need to continue and a difficult one," said Janai Nelson, associate director counsel of the NAACP Legal Defense and Education Fund. "But what this decision emphasizes is that there are ways in which we can use race in a positive and progressive manner."
http://news.yahoo.com/appeals-court-texas-race-admissions-205554424.html
Very happy with this ruling. As a country that continues to go down the road of pretending that racism doesn't exist anymore, and as our primary education system becomes more and more segregated, I'm glad that Fisher lost. While Affirmative action doesn't completely draw lines amongst the classes, the connection between race and class is heavily correlated. One day affirmative action won't be needed, we aren't at that day.
|
Affirmative action is 100% racism. Just because it only hinders white people doesn't change this fact. Race, sex, sexual orientation, religion and nation of birth should NEVER be used as a means of determining anything. The best should get in regardless of those criteria.
UT's top 10% of highs chool students get admission is fine. Be the best, you're in. Simple and fair. The secondary process is however very unfair. I'm kinda surprised the SC just threw it back down...that should have been shot up to peices
|
On July 16 2014 13:48 Livelovedie wrote:Show nested quote +AUSTIN, Texas (AP) — A federal appeals court panel ruled Tuesday that the University of Texas can continue using race as a factor in undergraduate admissions as a way of promoting diversity on campus, the latest in an ongoing case that made it to the U.S. Supreme Court last year only to be sent back to lower courts for further review.
In a 2-1 ruling, judges from the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals found that barring the university from using race would ultimately lead to a less diverse student body in defiance of previous legal precedent that promoting diversity was an important part of education.
"We are persuaded that to deny UT Austin its limited use of race in its search for holistic diversity would hobble the richness of the educational experience," the opinion stated.
The case began in 2008 when Abigail Fisher, who is white, was denied admission to the University of Texas's flagship Austin campus because she did not graduate in the top 10 percent of her high school class — the criterion for 75 percent of the school's admissions. The university also passed her over for a position among the remaining 25 percent, which is reserved for special scholarships and people who meet a formula for personal achievement that includes race as a factor.
The case went to the U.S. Supreme Court in June 2013. But rather than issue a landmark decision on affirmative action, it voted 7-1 to tell a lower appeals court to take another look at Fisher's lawsuit. That meant the university's admissions policies remained unchanged.
In November, the New Orleans-based 5th Circuit held a rare hearing in Austin where it again listened to arguments on both sides of the case.
University of Texas President Bill Powers called it "a great day for higher education nationwide."
"As a teacher and as president of this university I know the value of diversity of all kinds," Powers said at a news conference. "And our state and our nation won't advance unless we're training leaders in all parts of our society."
Between 2000 and 2010, Texas' population increased by more than 4 million with minorities, especially Hispanics, accounting for nearly nine out every 10 new residents, according to census figures.
The University of Texas has become more-diverse — but much more slowly. It's percentage of white students declined from 53.5 percent in 2009 to 47.7 percent last fall. The percentage of Hispanic students increased from 18.5 percent to 21.7 percent over the same period, but lags the 38.4 percent of the Texas population which is Hispanic. Black student enrollment has declined slightly since 2009 and was 4.3 percent last year, compared with 12.4 percent of the Texas population who are black.
Edward Blum, one of the attorneys representing Fisher, called the ruling "disappointing but not unexpected." He said the legal team could next appeal to the full 5th U.S. Circuit, or directly back to the U.S. Supreme Court.
"I think we need a little more time to more carefully study the opinion and weight the pluses and minuses of both avenues," Blum said by phone.
Fisher said in a statement that she too was disappointed "that the judges hearing my case are not following the Supreme Court's ruling last summer."
"I remain committed to continuing this lawsuit even if it means we appeal to the Supreme Court once again," she added.
The NAACP Legal Defense and Education Fund was among the groups that helped argue in favor of the University of Texas and its admissions policies. It called the ruling a victory but conceded that the disputes over affirmative action are not over.
"It's going to be a conversation that we need to continue and a difficult one," said Janai Nelson, associate director counsel of the NAACP Legal Defense and Education Fund. "But what this decision emphasizes is that there are ways in which we can use race in a positive and progressive manner."
http://news.yahoo.com/appeals-court-texas-race-admissions-205554424.htmlVery happy with this ruling. As a country that continues to go down the road of pretending that racism doesn't exist anymore, and as our primary education system becomes more and more segregated, I'm glad that Fisher lost. While Affirmative action doesn't completely draw lines amongst the classes, the connection between race and class is heavily correlated. One day affirmative action won't be needed, we aren't at that day. From current discussion on "that day," I know it will never come. Utopia isn't for this world, and that's exactly what is demanded for race and class before we can "move on" in their words. If different modes of behavior, some of which are cultural and predominant in some ethnicities rather than others, didn't lead to different results ... why even have freedom at all? If it all had the same results then bring in the engineered society at once, baby, since it's all the same at the end of the day.
I don't know if our society will ever be free of intellectuals and their destructive meddling in the lives of others. It was the white man's burden in Africa and now its the white man's guilt in America. That guilt might just lead the superiority complex of the few to triumph over the healthy dose of common sense that used to be the curse of the many. It comes up in beautiful schemes like forced busing and the campaigns against charter schools. It destroyed inner city schools that at one time graduated skilled students. It will keep advancing minorities into tougher schools they are unprepared for, whose academic success did not warrant their admission, and then their glimmering success scrapes by with low grades or drops out, another successful failure and reason enough to claim again that minorities can't make it on their own. The cycle continues, whites feeling good about themselves while others suffer.
|
On July 16 2014 14:15 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On July 16 2014 13:48 Livelovedie wrote:AUSTIN, Texas (AP) — A federal appeals court panel ruled Tuesday that the University of Texas can continue using race as a factor in undergraduate admissions as a way of promoting diversity on campus, the latest in an ongoing case that made it to the U.S. Supreme Court last year only to be sent back to lower courts for further review.
In a 2-1 ruling, judges from the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals found that barring the university from using race would ultimately lead to a less diverse student body in defiance of previous legal precedent that promoting diversity was an important part of education.
"We are persuaded that to deny UT Austin its limited use of race in its search for holistic diversity would hobble the richness of the educational experience," the opinion stated.
The case began in 2008 when Abigail Fisher, who is white, was denied admission to the University of Texas's flagship Austin campus because she did not graduate in the top 10 percent of her high school class — the criterion for 75 percent of the school's admissions. The university also passed her over for a position among the remaining 25 percent, which is reserved for special scholarships and people who meet a formula for personal achievement that includes race as a factor.
The case went to the U.S. Supreme Court in June 2013. But rather than issue a landmark decision on affirmative action, it voted 7-1 to tell a lower appeals court to take another look at Fisher's lawsuit. That meant the university's admissions policies remained unchanged.
In November, the New Orleans-based 5th Circuit held a rare hearing in Austin where it again listened to arguments on both sides of the case.
University of Texas President Bill Powers called it "a great day for higher education nationwide."
"As a teacher and as president of this university I know the value of diversity of all kinds," Powers said at a news conference. "And our state and our nation won't advance unless we're training leaders in all parts of our society."
Between 2000 and 2010, Texas' population increased by more than 4 million with minorities, especially Hispanics, accounting for nearly nine out every 10 new residents, according to census figures.
The University of Texas has become more-diverse — but much more slowly. It's percentage of white students declined from 53.5 percent in 2009 to 47.7 percent last fall. The percentage of Hispanic students increased from 18.5 percent to 21.7 percent over the same period, but lags the 38.4 percent of the Texas population which is Hispanic. Black student enrollment has declined slightly since 2009 and was 4.3 percent last year, compared with 12.4 percent of the Texas population who are black.
Edward Blum, one of the attorneys representing Fisher, called the ruling "disappointing but not unexpected." He said the legal team could next appeal to the full 5th U.S. Circuit, or directly back to the U.S. Supreme Court.
"I think we need a little more time to more carefully study the opinion and weight the pluses and minuses of both avenues," Blum said by phone.
Fisher said in a statement that she too was disappointed "that the judges hearing my case are not following the Supreme Court's ruling last summer."
"I remain committed to continuing this lawsuit even if it means we appeal to the Supreme Court once again," she added.
The NAACP Legal Defense and Education Fund was among the groups that helped argue in favor of the University of Texas and its admissions policies. It called the ruling a victory but conceded that the disputes over affirmative action are not over.
"It's going to be a conversation that we need to continue and a difficult one," said Janai Nelson, associate director counsel of the NAACP Legal Defense and Education Fund. "But what this decision emphasizes is that there are ways in which we can use race in a positive and progressive manner."
http://news.yahoo.com/appeals-court-texas-race-admissions-205554424.htmlVery happy with this ruling. As a country that continues to go down the road of pretending that racism doesn't exist anymore, and as our primary education system becomes more and more segregated, I'm glad that Fisher lost. While Affirmative action doesn't completely draw lines amongst the classes, the connection between race and class is heavily correlated. One day affirmative action won't be needed, we aren't at that day. From current discussion on "that day," I know it will never come. Utopia isn't for this world, and that's exactly what is demanded for race and class before we can "move on" in their words. If different modes of behavior, some of which are cultural and predominant in some ethnicities rather than others, didn't lead to different results ... why even have freedom at all? If it all had the same results then bring in the engineered society at once, baby, since it's all the same at the end of the day. I don't know if our society will ever be free of intellectuals and their destructive meddling in the lives of others. It was the white man's burden in Africa and now its the white man's guilt in America. That guilt might just lead the superiority complex of the few to triumph over the healthy dose of common sense that used to be the curse of the many. It comes up in beautiful schemes like forced busing and the campaigns against charter schools. It destroyed inner city schools that at one time graduated skilled students. It will keep advancing minorities into tougher schools they are unprepared for, whose academic success did not warrant their admission, and then their glimmering success scrapes by with low grades or drops out, another successful failure and reason enough to claim again that minorities can't make it on their own. The cycle continues, whites feeling good about themselves while others suffer.
You are delusional if you even think we are moving towards that day. We have said screw the day let's go back to before the 60's. White flight destroyed inner-city schools along with our stupid property tax based system where the richest schools get the bulk of the funding. If you want to talk about perpetuating a cycle of poverty this is where the discussion starts. Our schools are more segregated now than ever with the erosion of the civil rights act, but hey, let's get rid of affirmative action so the poor inner city black or hispanic student doesn't have a chance in college either.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/answer-sheet/wp/2013/08/29/report-public-schools-more-segregated-now-than-40-years-ago/
|
On July 16 2014 14:19 Livelovedie wrote:Show nested quote +On July 16 2014 14:15 Danglars wrote:On July 16 2014 13:48 Livelovedie wrote:AUSTIN, Texas (AP) — A federal appeals court panel ruled Tuesday that the University of Texas can continue using race as a factor in undergraduate admissions as a way of promoting diversity on campus, the latest in an ongoing case that made it to the U.S. Supreme Court last year only to be sent back to lower courts for further review.
In a 2-1 ruling, judges from the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals found that barring the university from using race would ultimately lead to a less diverse student body in defiance of previous legal precedent that promoting diversity was an important part of education.
"We are persuaded that to deny UT Austin its limited use of race in its search for holistic diversity would hobble the richness of the educational experience," the opinion stated.
The case began in 2008 when Abigail Fisher, who is white, was denied admission to the University of Texas's flagship Austin campus because she did not graduate in the top 10 percent of her high school class — the criterion for 75 percent of the school's admissions. The university also passed her over for a position among the remaining 25 percent, which is reserved for special scholarships and people who meet a formula for personal achievement that includes race as a factor.
The case went to the U.S. Supreme Court in June 2013. But rather than issue a landmark decision on affirmative action, it voted 7-1 to tell a lower appeals court to take another look at Fisher's lawsuit. That meant the university's admissions policies remained unchanged.
In November, the New Orleans-based 5th Circuit held a rare hearing in Austin where it again listened to arguments on both sides of the case.
University of Texas President Bill Powers called it "a great day for higher education nationwide."
"As a teacher and as president of this university I know the value of diversity of all kinds," Powers said at a news conference. "And our state and our nation won't advance unless we're training leaders in all parts of our society."
Between 2000 and 2010, Texas' population increased by more than 4 million with minorities, especially Hispanics, accounting for nearly nine out every 10 new residents, according to census figures.
The University of Texas has become more-diverse — but much more slowly. It's percentage of white students declined from 53.5 percent in 2009 to 47.7 percent last fall. The percentage of Hispanic students increased from 18.5 percent to 21.7 percent over the same period, but lags the 38.4 percent of the Texas population which is Hispanic. Black student enrollment has declined slightly since 2009 and was 4.3 percent last year, compared with 12.4 percent of the Texas population who are black.
Edward Blum, one of the attorneys representing Fisher, called the ruling "disappointing but not unexpected." He said the legal team could next appeal to the full 5th U.S. Circuit, or directly back to the U.S. Supreme Court.
"I think we need a little more time to more carefully study the opinion and weight the pluses and minuses of both avenues," Blum said by phone.
Fisher said in a statement that she too was disappointed "that the judges hearing my case are not following the Supreme Court's ruling last summer."
"I remain committed to continuing this lawsuit even if it means we appeal to the Supreme Court once again," she added.
The NAACP Legal Defense and Education Fund was among the groups that helped argue in favor of the University of Texas and its admissions policies. It called the ruling a victory but conceded that the disputes over affirmative action are not over.
"It's going to be a conversation that we need to continue and a difficult one," said Janai Nelson, associate director counsel of the NAACP Legal Defense and Education Fund. "But what this decision emphasizes is that there are ways in which we can use race in a positive and progressive manner."
http://news.yahoo.com/appeals-court-texas-race-admissions-205554424.htmlVery happy with this ruling. As a country that continues to go down the road of pretending that racism doesn't exist anymore, and as our primary education system becomes more and more segregated, I'm glad that Fisher lost. While Affirmative action doesn't completely draw lines amongst the classes, the connection between race and class is heavily correlated. One day affirmative action won't be needed, we aren't at that day. From current discussion on "that day," I know it will never come. Utopia isn't for this world, and that's exactly what is demanded for race and class before we can "move on" in their words. If different modes of behavior, some of which are cultural and predominant in some ethnicities rather than others, didn't lead to different results ... why even have freedom at all? If it all had the same results then bring in the engineered society at once, baby, since it's all the same at the end of the day. I don't know if our society will ever be free of intellectuals and their destructive meddling in the lives of others. It was the white man's burden in Africa and now its the white man's guilt in America. That guilt might just lead the superiority complex of the few to triumph over the healthy dose of common sense that used to be the curse of the many. It comes up in beautiful schemes like forced busing and the campaigns against charter schools. It destroyed inner city schools that at one time graduated skilled students. It will keep advancing minorities into tougher schools they are unprepared for, whose academic success did not warrant their admission, and then their glimmering success scrapes by with low grades or drops out, another successful failure and reason enough to claim again that minorities can't make it on their own. The cycle continues, whites feeling good about themselves while others suffer. You are delusional if you even think we are moving towards that day. We have said screw the day let's go back to before the 60's. White flight destroyed inner-city schools along with our stupid property tax based system where the richest schools get the bulk of the funding. If you want to talk about perpetuating a cycle of poverty this is where the discussion starts. Our schools are more segregated now than ever with the erosion of the civil rights act, but hey, let's get rid of affirmative action so the poor inner city black or hispanic student doesn't have a chance in college either. http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/answer-sheet/wp/2013/08/29/report-public-schools-more-segregated-now-than-40-years-ago/
Who cares that they are black or hispanic? Sounds like poverty is the issue at hand, use that as a metric, not race.
Major step backwards for the U.S.
Stating race plays any true factor is just a slap in the face anyways by insinuating legitimate inferiority, while not addressing the root cause. To state Fisher is less valuable because the color of her skin is white is a blemish on the U.S. education system. To deny her entrance compared to another student who may have had the same marks, but had a more difficult struggle due to socioeconomic status is legitimate.
Today, many black children still attend schools in racially and economically isolated neighborhoods, while their families still reside in lonely islands of poverty: 39 percent of black children are from families with incomes below the poverty line, compared with 12 percent of white children (U.S. Census Bureau(a)); 28 percent of black children live in high-poverty neighborhoods, compared with 4 percent of white children (Casey 2013).
If blacks truly are held back because of such an environment, they still would have an advantage because of that and be admitted in higher proportions.
Maybe Asians coming from a poor family wouldn't be denied entrance because they are Asian - they suffered segregation as well, yet are at an even more significant disadvantage than whites in California. What a joke.
|
On July 16 2014 14:11 Orcasgt24 wrote:
Affirmative action is 100% racism. Just because it only hinders white people doesn't change this fact. Race, sex, sexual orientation, religion and nation of birth should NEVER be used as a means of determining anything. The best should get in regardless of those criteria.
UT's top 10% of highs chool students get admission is fine. Be the best, you're in. Simple and fair. The secondary process is however very unfair. I'm kinda surprised the SC just threw it back down...that should have been shot up to peices
at the highest tier of universities (ivy leagues), it hurts asians a lot more than white people.
|
On July 16 2014 14:26 FabledIntegral wrote:Show nested quote +On July 16 2014 14:19 Livelovedie wrote:On July 16 2014 14:15 Danglars wrote:On July 16 2014 13:48 Livelovedie wrote:AUSTIN, Texas (AP) — A federal appeals court panel ruled Tuesday that the University of Texas can continue using race as a factor in undergraduate admissions as a way of promoting diversity on campus, the latest in an ongoing case that made it to the U.S. Supreme Court last year only to be sent back to lower courts for further review.
In a 2-1 ruling, judges from the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals found that barring the university from using race would ultimately lead to a less diverse student body in defiance of previous legal precedent that promoting diversity was an important part of education.
"We are persuaded that to deny UT Austin its limited use of race in its search for holistic diversity would hobble the richness of the educational experience," the opinion stated.
The case began in 2008 when Abigail Fisher, who is white, was denied admission to the University of Texas's flagship Austin campus because she did not graduate in the top 10 percent of her high school class — the criterion for 75 percent of the school's admissions. The university also passed her over for a position among the remaining 25 percent, which is reserved for special scholarships and people who meet a formula for personal achievement that includes race as a factor.
The case went to the U.S. Supreme Court in June 2013. But rather than issue a landmark decision on affirmative action, it voted 7-1 to tell a lower appeals court to take another look at Fisher's lawsuit. That meant the university's admissions policies remained unchanged.
In November, the New Orleans-based 5th Circuit held a rare hearing in Austin where it again listened to arguments on both sides of the case.
University of Texas President Bill Powers called it "a great day for higher education nationwide."
"As a teacher and as president of this university I know the value of diversity of all kinds," Powers said at a news conference. "And our state and our nation won't advance unless we're training leaders in all parts of our society."
Between 2000 and 2010, Texas' population increased by more than 4 million with minorities, especially Hispanics, accounting for nearly nine out every 10 new residents, according to census figures.
The University of Texas has become more-diverse — but much more slowly. It's percentage of white students declined from 53.5 percent in 2009 to 47.7 percent last fall. The percentage of Hispanic students increased from 18.5 percent to 21.7 percent over the same period, but lags the 38.4 percent of the Texas population which is Hispanic. Black student enrollment has declined slightly since 2009 and was 4.3 percent last year, compared with 12.4 percent of the Texas population who are black.
Edward Blum, one of the attorneys representing Fisher, called the ruling "disappointing but not unexpected." He said the legal team could next appeal to the full 5th U.S. Circuit, or directly back to the U.S. Supreme Court.
"I think we need a little more time to more carefully study the opinion and weight the pluses and minuses of both avenues," Blum said by phone.
Fisher said in a statement that she too was disappointed "that the judges hearing my case are not following the Supreme Court's ruling last summer."
"I remain committed to continuing this lawsuit even if it means we appeal to the Supreme Court once again," she added.
The NAACP Legal Defense and Education Fund was among the groups that helped argue in favor of the University of Texas and its admissions policies. It called the ruling a victory but conceded that the disputes over affirmative action are not over.
"It's going to be a conversation that we need to continue and a difficult one," said Janai Nelson, associate director counsel of the NAACP Legal Defense and Education Fund. "But what this decision emphasizes is that there are ways in which we can use race in a positive and progressive manner."
http://news.yahoo.com/appeals-court-texas-race-admissions-205554424.htmlVery happy with this ruling. As a country that continues to go down the road of pretending that racism doesn't exist anymore, and as our primary education system becomes more and more segregated, I'm glad that Fisher lost. While Affirmative action doesn't completely draw lines amongst the classes, the connection between race and class is heavily correlated. One day affirmative action won't be needed, we aren't at that day. From current discussion on "that day," I know it will never come. Utopia isn't for this world, and that's exactly what is demanded for race and class before we can "move on" in their words. If different modes of behavior, some of which are cultural and predominant in some ethnicities rather than others, didn't lead to different results ... why even have freedom at all? If it all had the same results then bring in the engineered society at once, baby, since it's all the same at the end of the day. I don't know if our society will ever be free of intellectuals and their destructive meddling in the lives of others. It was the white man's burden in Africa and now its the white man's guilt in America. That guilt might just lead the superiority complex of the few to triumph over the healthy dose of common sense that used to be the curse of the many. It comes up in beautiful schemes like forced busing and the campaigns against charter schools. It destroyed inner city schools that at one time graduated skilled students. It will keep advancing minorities into tougher schools they are unprepared for, whose academic success did not warrant their admission, and then their glimmering success scrapes by with low grades or drops out, another successful failure and reason enough to claim again that minorities can't make it on their own. The cycle continues, whites feeling good about themselves while others suffer. You are delusional if you even think we are moving towards that day. We have said screw the day let's go back to before the 60's. White flight destroyed inner-city schools along with our stupid property tax based system where the richest schools get the bulk of the funding. If you want to talk about perpetuating a cycle of poverty this is where the discussion starts. Our schools are more segregated now than ever with the erosion of the civil rights act, but hey, let's get rid of affirmative action so the poor inner city black or hispanic student doesn't have a chance in college either. http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/answer-sheet/wp/2013/08/29/report-public-schools-more-segregated-now-than-40-years-ago/ Who cares that they are black or hispanic? Sounds like poverty is the issue at hand, use that as a metric, not race. Major step backwards for the U.S. Stating race plays any true factor is just a slap in the face anyways by insinuating legitimate inferiority, while not addressing the root cause. To state Fisher is less valuable because the color of her skin is white is a blemish on the U.S. education system. To deny her entrance compared to another student who may have had the same marks, but had a more difficult struggle due to socioeconomic status is legitimate. Today, many black children still attend schools in racially and economically isolated neighborhoods, while their families still reside in lonely islands of poverty: 39 percent of black children are from families with incomes below the poverty line, compared with 12 percent of white children (U.S. Census Bureau(a)); 28 percent of black children live in high-poverty neighborhoods, compared with 4 percent of white children (Casey 2013).If blacks truly are held back because of such an environment, they still would have an advantage because of that and be admitted in higher proportions. Maybe Asians coming from a poor family wouldn't be denied entrance because they are Asian - they suffered segregation as well, yet are at an even more significant disadvantage than whites in California. What a joke.
Fisher wasn't in the top 10 percent at her school, don't make it seem like Fisher was some highly qualified student because if she was she would have been autoadmit anyways. I agree its a blemish on the education system, an education system that has systemically provided poor populations who are overwhelmingly hispanic and black poor resources and receive a poor education because of it. Despite this, they are competitive applicants. UT is underwhelmingly Hispanic and Black, composing 17 and 4 percent of the university respectively, in a state that is 38 percent hispanic and 12 percent black. If Asian students were having the same problems getting into colleges that black students were then there would be need for affirmative action there, but there isn't.
You are totally disregarding the culture that enables certain students to succeed when you think the system should be based just on economics. In addition to this, even with affirmative action in the job market, people are more likely to hire people like themselves, so if you aren't getting minorities in some of these management companies in the positions then the cycle of poverty will continue.
What are you even talking about? California outlawed affirmative action. Look at UCLA's demographics, its overwhelmingly Asian, and underwhelmingly black.
|
On July 16 2014 13:48 Livelovedie wrote:
What are you even talking about? California outlawed affirmative action. Look at UCLA's demographics, its overwhelmingly Asian, and underwhelmingly black.
Why should anyone care if Universities have a preponderance of one race or another?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
