|
On July 17 2014 06:18 lOvOlUNiMEDiA wrote:Show nested quote +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?
Because this trickles down into society creating a society where race and class are tied together.
|
On July 17 2014 06:24 Livelovedie wrote:Show nested quote +On July 17 2014 06:18 lOvOlUNiMEDiA wrote: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? Because this trickles down into society to create a society where race and class are tied together.
And, assuming that's true, why should anyone care about that consequence?
|
On July 17 2014 06:27 lOvOlUNiMEDiA wrote:Show nested quote +On July 17 2014 06:24 Livelovedie wrote:On July 17 2014 06:18 lOvOlUNiMEDiA wrote: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? Because this trickles down into society to create a society where race and class are tied together. And, assuming that's true, why should anyone care about that consequence?
Well there are a lot of reasons. First, the representativeness of our democracy erodes. If a large minority of the population is disenfranchised then an extreme amount of ill-will accumulates. If these people believe they don't have a fair chance in this society then problems such as crime and discrimination will increase. Second, you are losing out on the members of that community that have the best potential. There are a lot of people who need the connections that some of these colleges have because they do not have them at home. Again this leads to things like that community being hired at all levels. Also, there is a benefit to the members of the majority community because of the perspective that these minorities bring that enhance their worldview, leading to more empathy for communities they aren't directly involved in.
|
I fear the racism that is bred by these type of laws. If someone not white gets a +1, is that not that same as it used to be in USA following the end of slavery? Majority privileges replaced by minority privileges. If you give something to one group and take from another, you breed animosity between the two.
|
On July 17 2014 06:04 Livelovedie wrote:Show nested quote +On July 16 2014 14:26 FabledIntegral wrote: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 don't really have a strong opinion on the larger issue of using race in the non auto admit cases because I can see both sides of this. It's a tough situation for sure.
However, I don't agree that your assertion is necessarily true. If I understand correctly, this 10% is actually a form of affirmative action already. Otherwise, the richest, most competitive schools (predominantly white) would produce the most qualified students who would dominate the entrance criteria for the best colleges. Even if you account for that, the 10% can feel awfully arbitrary. Accounting for honors/AP classes, people transferring in between schools, different teachers grading of the same class, cheating... the number of factors outside of effort and ability that matter for this 10% are quite high. Not that she was, but plenty of excellent qualified candidates get turned down because of this rule.
|
On July 17 2014 06:43 Yourmomsbasement wrote:
I fear the racism that is bred by these type of laws. If someone not white gets a +1, is that not that same as it used to be in USA following the end of slavery? Majority privileges replaced by minority privileges. If you give something to one group and take from another, you breed animosity between the two.
How can you breed animosity when a disportionate percentage of the white and asian populations are still being represented by these colleges? The African American population is still represented at 1/3 of what it should be based on population, the hispanic population is represented by less than 1/2 of its population. Racism is bred when the US distributes tax resources for schools based on income, yet I don't see anyone rallying around equitable funding for schools.
|
On July 17 2014 06:59 Azuzu wrote:Show nested quote +On July 17 2014 06:04 Livelovedie wrote:On July 16 2014 14:26 FabledIntegral wrote: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 don't really have a strong opinion on the larger issue of using race in the non auto admit cases because I can see both sides of this. It's a tough situation for sure. However, I don't agree that your assertion is necessarily true. If I understand correctly, this 10% is actually a form of affirmative action already. Otherwise, the richest, most competitive schools (predominantly white) would produce the most qualified students who would dominate the entrance criteria for the best colleges. Even if you account for that, the 10% can feel awfully arbitrary. Accounting for honors/AP classes, people transferring in between schools, different teachers grading of the same class, cheating... the number of factors outside of effort and ability that matter for this 10% are quite high. Not that she was, but plenty of excellent qualified candidates get turned down because of this rule.
The University of Texas has actually done a study on this. The students who are admitted via the top 10 percent rule who do worse on the SAT/ACT actually do better in school than the students not admitted under the rule with higher SAT/ACT scores. Essentially grades from high school are a better predictor of success in school compared to test scores.
The problem of rich, high test score not getting into UT could be solved if those parents didn't self-segregate based on income.
|
On July 17 2014 06:43 Yourmomsbasement wrote:
I fear the racism that is bred by these type of laws. If someone not white gets a +1, is that not that same as it used to be in USA following the end of slavery? Majority privileges replaced by minority privileges. If you give something to one group and take from another, you breed animosity between the two.
Perhaps not racism but you can't preach equality and then enforce some form of arbitrary balancing measures. I think this is counter-productive because when you start giving privilages to people they get accustomed to it (which is bad in itself) and it's then really hard to take them away (when they're no longer required for example). You also teach people that they are suddenly eligible for something their peers are not because of something they have no influence on (you don't choose your parents after all). That's just not how the world works...
People are not equal and that's the beauty of it. There's no need for everyone to finish college, just like not everyone is suited to be an electrician or a plumber. Similar stuff has led to many problems in my country already, they've removed schools that taught you mechanics, cooking and other "mundane" stuff, they were shorter than highschool and you didn't get to take the SAT-equivalent after graduation (so you weren't eligible to study at the university) but you got a profession. Now everyone goes to highschool as there's no other option and we end up with a ton of educated unemployed and lack of specialist workers. They did something like that in Germany before but they've woken up already. I remember that there was a time when Germans offered kids from Poland to actually pay for their education, language lessons and other expenses as long as they would be willing to study in their technical schools and work in Germany afterwards.
The bottom line is: Not everyone needs a degree. And for the lower classes it's usually better if they start working at a younger age to help support the family (or start their own). I'm not even mentioning the loss for the entire community/population if there is no one to work. There should be no preference or special treatment during the application process for the college. Everyone should get the exact same chance of getting in, if they come from a poor family and can't support themselves that's the college's job to help them out with that (that's how it's done here, you can get numerous scholarships depending on how well you do and what's your family's situation, for the most part poor people actually get paid during their college instead of having to pay themselves), but during admissions it's fair game for everybody. Back in my day I had really bad scores in highschool, passed my SAT-equivalent with mediocre score at best and entered my chosen faculty at the university from the 6th spot on the list. But those were the beautiful days when unis didn't give a damn about your highschool performance (unless you won some nationwide scientific contests and such) or SAT and had their own internal exams based on which faculty you chose. It had more sense because they got who they wanted and now with standardized stuff it's a complete disaster.
|
Not sure what to think about this. I never understood why universities need to limit enrollment in the first place. Just admit everybody and drop the students who are not able to pass the exams. That system works in several countries (perhaps except some studies which are pretty expensive and pretty popular). So to me all this affirmative action vs no affirmative action discussion sounds like a discussion about which poison to choose.
|
On July 17 2014 07:32 Livelovedie wrote:Show nested quote +On July 17 2014 06:43 Yourmomsbasement wrote:
I fear the racism that is bred by these type of laws. If someone not white gets a +1, is that not that same as it used to be in USA following the end of slavery? Majority privileges replaced by minority privileges. If you give something to one group and take from another, you breed animosity between the two. How can you breed animosity when a disportionate percentage of the white and asian populations are still being represented by these colleges? The African American population is still represented at 1/3 of what it should be based on population, the hispanic population is represented by less than 1/2 of its population. Racism is bred when the US distributes tax resources for schools based on income, yet I don't see anyone rallying around equitable funding for schools.
Texas actually has something like this, I can't say much about how effective it is but http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robin_Hood_plan
The problem of rich, high test score not getting into UT could be solved if those parents didn't self-segregate based on income.
This will basically never happen though.
|
Isn't segregation based on income something that happens naturally?
For example, some hobbies are just more expensive than others and if I pursue those, I tend to only meet people who are also able to afford that hobby. And there is also the issue with the neighbourhood etc.
I mean, I'm not saying that segregation is good, however some people make it sound as if it was a deliberate choice.
|
On July 17 2014 06:04 Livelovedie wrote:Show nested quote +On July 16 2014 14:26 FabledIntegral wrote: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.
First, I would like to comment you are correct, and I was unaware CA had enacted a specific law.
That aside, I find it highly irrelevant if Fisher was a highly qualified student or not. What is relevant is whether the fact her race made it disadvantageous to be admitted into the school. You then go on to state that it's "provided poor populations who are overwhelmingly hispanic and black poor resources."
The entire point is that if economic played a heftier role, it would indirectly benefit the hispanics and blacks as you are stating, alleviating the issue. If your goal is to have heavier hispanic/black representation, simply make this a significantly more important factor than it is currently in the evaluation process and you can achieve near identical results. It is only a matter of tweaking the variables.
You state that UT is underwhemingly black but fail to point out the benefit in having more blacks for the simple sake of having black people. This is utter nonsense, in my opinion. I do not think being black in itself has any merit, in the slightest, above being white, hispanic, or anything else. Affirmative action is stating it is a superior factor [because they are currently underrepresented]. Straight up racism.
|
On July 17 2014 07:32 Livelovedie wrote:Show nested quote +On July 17 2014 06:43 Yourmomsbasement wrote:
I fear the racism that is bred by these type of laws. If someone not white gets a +1, is that not that same as it used to be in USA following the end of slavery? Majority privileges replaced by minority privileges. If you give something to one group and take from another, you breed animosity between the two. How can you breed animosity when a disportionate percentage of the white and asian populations are still being represented by these colleges? The African American population is still represented at 1/3 of what it should be based on population, the hispanic population is represented by less than 1/2 of its population. Racism is bred when the US distributes tax resources for schools based on income, yet I don't see anyone rallying around equitable funding for schools.
if african americans aren't getting into college, they probably aren't performing as well in school. so instead of unfairly putting them into colleges over students with more merit, maybe we should be focusing on helping these communities perform better in school.
I don't even understand the logic for affirmative action anyways. Does anyone actually think it's common for schools to give white people preference? Anyone?
|
We had some irony problems with relatively rich, expensive areas not being able to raise enough taxes to make ends meet because the extra money would be automatically diverted to poorer districts.
|
On July 18 2014 13:45 travis wrote:Show nested quote +On July 17 2014 07:32 Livelovedie wrote:On July 17 2014 06:43 Yourmomsbasement wrote:
I fear the racism that is bred by these type of laws. If someone not white gets a +1, is that not that same as it used to be in USA following the end of slavery? Majority privileges replaced by minority privileges. If you give something to one group and take from another, you breed animosity between the two. How can you breed animosity when a disportionate percentage of the white and asian populations are still being represented by these colleges? The African American population is still represented at 1/3 of what it should be based on population, the hispanic population is represented by less than 1/2 of its population. Racism is bred when the US distributes tax resources for schools based on income, yet I don't see anyone rallying around equitable funding for schools. if african americans aren't getting into college, they probably aren't performing as well in school. so instead of unfairly putting them into colleges over students with more merit, maybe we should be focusing on helping these communities perform better in school. I don't even understand the logic for affirmative action anyways. Does anyone actually think it's common for schools to give white people preference? Anyone?
The first part sounds about right. As for the second part yes it absolutely is. It's not always hey lets help this white guy instead of this non-white person. The hardest part about affirmative action is it's trying to correct intentional and unintentional behavior.
White names got about one callback per 10 resumes; black names got one per 15. Carries and Kristens had call-back rates of more than 13 percent, but Aisha, Keisha and Tamika got 2.2 percent, 3.8 percent and 5.4 percent, respectively. And having a higher quality resume, featuring more skills and experience, made a white-sounding name 30 percent more likely to elicit a callback, but only 9 percent more likely for black-sounding names.
Even employers who specified "equal opportunity employer" showed bias, leading Mullainathan to suggest companies serious about diversity must take steps to confront even unconscious biases - for instance, by not looking at names when first evaluating a resume.
Source
Legacy admissions and other issues play a role in white preference too. I think how some people get lost is that they think all discrimination has to be malicious and intentional in order to need correction.
|
On July 17 2014 06:18 lOvOlUNiMEDiA wrote:Show nested quote +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?
State funded schools should be spending state taxes according to the wishes of those that live in the states. That was the initial idea anyway. I doubt it works like that anymore.
|
On July 18 2014 14:48 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On July 18 2014 13:45 travis wrote:On July 17 2014 07:32 Livelovedie wrote:On July 17 2014 06:43 Yourmomsbasement wrote:
I fear the racism that is bred by these type of laws. If someone not white gets a +1, is that not that same as it used to be in USA following the end of slavery? Majority privileges replaced by minority privileges. If you give something to one group and take from another, you breed animosity between the two. How can you breed animosity when a disportionate percentage of the white and asian populations are still being represented by these colleges? The African American population is still represented at 1/3 of what it should be based on population, the hispanic population is represented by less than 1/2 of its population. Racism is bred when the US distributes tax resources for schools based on income, yet I don't see anyone rallying around equitable funding for schools. if african americans aren't getting into college, they probably aren't performing as well in school. so instead of unfairly putting them into colleges over students with more merit, maybe we should be focusing on helping these communities perform better in school. I don't even understand the logic for affirmative action anyways. Does anyone actually think it's common for schools to give white people preference? Anyone? The first part sounds about right. As for the second part yes it absolutely is. It's not always hey lets help this white guy instead of this non-white person. The hardest part about affirmative action is it's trying to correct intentional and unintentional behavior. Show nested quote +White names got about one callback per 10 resumes; black names got one per 15. Carries and Kristens had call-back rates of more than 13 percent, but Aisha, Keisha and Tamika got 2.2 percent, 3.8 percent and 5.4 percent, respectively. And having a higher quality resume, featuring more skills and experience, made a white-sounding name 30 percent more likely to elicit a callback, but only 9 percent more likely for black-sounding names.
Even employers who specified "equal opportunity employer" showed bias, leading Mullainathan to suggest companies serious about diversity must take steps to confront even unconscious biases - for instance, by not looking at names when first evaluating a resume. SourceLegacy admissions and other issues play a role in white preference too. I think how some people get lost is that they think all discrimination has to be malicious and intentional in order to need correction.
An interesting study, which I can see being believable. However that study is in regards to employment and I really do think that at this point in time the results of such a study would be a bit different with schools than with employment. Diversity is very desirable to schools, and the kind of people in charge of admissions tend to have that kind of mindset.
You do make me think, though. Maybe I am wrong. I am less confident than I was coming in.
|
On July 19 2014 00:08 travis wrote:Show nested quote +On July 18 2014 14:48 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 18 2014 13:45 travis wrote:On July 17 2014 07:32 Livelovedie wrote:On July 17 2014 06:43 Yourmomsbasement wrote:
I fear the racism that is bred by these type of laws. If someone not white gets a +1, is that not that same as it used to be in USA following the end of slavery? Majority privileges replaced by minority privileges. If you give something to one group and take from another, you breed animosity between the two. How can you breed animosity when a disportionate percentage of the white and asian populations are still being represented by these colleges? The African American population is still represented at 1/3 of what it should be based on population, the hispanic population is represented by less than 1/2 of its population. Racism is bred when the US distributes tax resources for schools based on income, yet I don't see anyone rallying around equitable funding for schools. if african americans aren't getting into college, they probably aren't performing as well in school. so instead of unfairly putting them into colleges over students with more merit, maybe we should be focusing on helping these communities perform better in school. I don't even understand the logic for affirmative action anyways. Does anyone actually think it's common for schools to give white people preference? Anyone? The first part sounds about right. As for the second part yes it absolutely is. It's not always hey lets help this white guy instead of this non-white person. The hardest part about affirmative action is it's trying to correct intentional and unintentional behavior. White names got about one callback per 10 resumes; black names got one per 15. Carries and Kristens had call-back rates of more than 13 percent, but Aisha, Keisha and Tamika got 2.2 percent, 3.8 percent and 5.4 percent, respectively. And having a higher quality resume, featuring more skills and experience, made a white-sounding name 30 percent more likely to elicit a callback, but only 9 percent more likely for black-sounding names.
Even employers who specified "equal opportunity employer" showed bias, leading Mullainathan to suggest companies serious about diversity must take steps to confront even unconscious biases - for instance, by not looking at names when first evaluating a resume. SourceLegacy admissions and other issues play a role in white preference too. I think how some people get lost is that they think all discrimination has to be malicious and intentional in order to need correction. An interesting study, which I can see being believable. However that study is in regards to employment and I really do think that at this point in time the results of such a study would be a bit different with schools than with employment. Diversity is very desirable to schools, and the kind of people in charge of admissions tend to have that kind of mindset. You do make me think, though. Maybe I am wrong. I am less confident than I was coming in.
I know the more I look into the whole race debate, the less I am convinced that things are even corrected for by things like affirmative action. So much rolls down to the next generation, and knowing that legal segregation was only 50 years ago, it's much easier to imagine that the damage that was done back then is still felt today. We spent generations legally creating socioeconomic despair on a single race of people, and it's not going to magically disappear because we stopped 1 generation ago. We're not THAT great of a country...
On July 17 2014 07:46 Manit0u wrote:Show nested quote +On July 17 2014 06:43 Yourmomsbasement wrote:
I fear the racism that is bred by these type of laws. If someone not white gets a +1, is that not that same as it used to be in USA following the end of slavery? Majority privileges replaced by minority privileges. If you give something to one group and take from another, you breed animosity between the two. Perhaps not racism but you can't preach equality and then enforce some form of arbitrary balancing measures. I think this is counter-productive because when you start giving privilages to people they get accustomed to it (which is bad in itself) and it's then really hard to take them away (when they're no longer required for example). You also teach people that they are suddenly eligible for something their peers are not because of something they have no influence on (you don't choose your parents after all). That's just not how the world works...
Prove that this is happening. That these "privileges" are being are coddling these people into laziness. When this ACTUALLY happens, we will see it very noticeably and it will be VERY easy to take away due to how damaging it is to everybody else. You sound just like the people that justify taking away welfare because "when people aren't starving, they aren't willing to work an awful job for absolutely awful pay!"
People are not equal and that's the beauty of it. There's no need for everyone to finish college, just like not everyone is suited to be an electrician or a plumber. Similar stuff has led to many problems in my country already, they've removed schools that taught you mechanics, cooking and other "mundane" stuff, they were shorter than highschool and you didn't get to take the SAT-equivalent after graduation (so you weren't eligible to study at the university) but you got a profession. Now everyone goes to highschool as there's no other option and we end up with a ton of educated unemployed and lack of specialist workers. They did something like that in Germany before but they've woken up already. I remember that there was a time when Germans offered kids from Poland to actually pay for their education, language lessons and other expenses as long as they would be willing to study in their technical schools and work in Germany afterwards.
As for this part, college isn't something that should be reserved for families that are already educated or "rich." Everybody SHOULD strive to go to college, not because we need more sociologist majors, but because we need more machinists with CAD and materials experience. We need more welders with chemistry and physics understanding. We need more business and IT specialists with SQL experience. You don't learn these things in a 6 month vocational school, but you can learn them in a 2-4 year college. College education is a way to raise all boats, not just those that do go. Sending "poor" people to vocational training is a way to raise their boat above those other "poor" people around them, and make them vulnerable and replaceable by the next technological surge.
|
On July 19 2014 00:08 travis wrote:Show nested quote +On July 18 2014 14:48 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 18 2014 13:45 travis wrote:On July 17 2014 07:32 Livelovedie wrote:On July 17 2014 06:43 Yourmomsbasement wrote:
I fear the racism that is bred by these type of laws. If someone not white gets a +1, is that not that same as it used to be in USA following the end of slavery? Majority privileges replaced by minority privileges. If you give something to one group and take from another, you breed animosity between the two. How can you breed animosity when a disportionate percentage of the white and asian populations are still being represented by these colleges? The African American population is still represented at 1/3 of what it should be based on population, the hispanic population is represented by less than 1/2 of its population. Racism is bred when the US distributes tax resources for schools based on income, yet I don't see anyone rallying around equitable funding for schools. if african americans aren't getting into college, they probably aren't performing as well in school. so instead of unfairly putting them into colleges over students with more merit, maybe we should be focusing on helping these communities perform better in school. I don't even understand the logic for affirmative action anyways. Does anyone actually think it's common for schools to give white people preference? Anyone? The first part sounds about right. As for the second part yes it absolutely is. It's not always hey lets help this white guy instead of this non-white person. The hardest part about affirmative action is it's trying to correct intentional and unintentional behavior. White names got about one callback per 10 resumes; black names got one per 15. Carries and Kristens had call-back rates of more than 13 percent, but Aisha, Keisha and Tamika got 2.2 percent, 3.8 percent and 5.4 percent, respectively. And having a higher quality resume, featuring more skills and experience, made a white-sounding name 30 percent more likely to elicit a callback, but only 9 percent more likely for black-sounding names.
Even employers who specified "equal opportunity employer" showed bias, leading Mullainathan to suggest companies serious about diversity must take steps to confront even unconscious biases - for instance, by not looking at names when first evaluating a resume. SourceLegacy admissions and other issues play a role in white preference too. I think how some people get lost is that they think all discrimination has to be malicious and intentional in order to need correction. An interesting study, which I can see being believable. However that study is in regards to employment and I really do think that at this point in time the results of such a study would be a bit different with schools than with employment. Diversity is very desirable to schools, and the kind of people in charge of admissions tend to have that kind of mindset. You do make me think, though. Maybe I am wrong. I am less confident than I was coming in.
That's why I bolded the part about people who are trying to be equal opportunity employers (or admissions) still showing unintentional bias. Most people aren't intentionally or overtly racist/prejudiced, but just because one doesn't think race/gender/economic standing/etc... influence your decisions doesn't mean they don't.
Don't get me wrong affirmative action is a clunky old piece of legislation but the problems it was intended to resolve have improved but still remain. Also in practice it isn't supposed to help a lesser candidate get a spot over a better one. It's supposed to be used in a way where if you have 2 otherwise equal candidates academically and so on and you are choosing one, you would choose the one from a more disadvantaged background and/or brings ethnic diversity to institutions, many of which would not have let black people sit in their classrooms at all, no matter how overqualified, prior to laws like AA being written.
Where it tends to have the most unintended consequences is when you have wealthy minorities pushing out disadvantaged whites. And or when you have people using it for a justification for practices it was never intended for.
|
On July 18 2014 14:48 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On July 18 2014 13:45 travis wrote:On July 17 2014 07:32 Livelovedie wrote:On July 17 2014 06:43 Yourmomsbasement wrote:
I fear the racism that is bred by these type of laws. If someone not white gets a +1, is that not that same as it used to be in USA following the end of slavery? Majority privileges replaced by minority privileges. If you give something to one group and take from another, you breed animosity between the two. How can you breed animosity when a disportionate percentage of the white and asian populations are still being represented by these colleges? The African American population is still represented at 1/3 of what it should be based on population, the hispanic population is represented by less than 1/2 of its population. Racism is bred when the US distributes tax resources for schools based on income, yet I don't see anyone rallying around equitable funding for schools. if african americans aren't getting into college, they probably aren't performing as well in school. so instead of unfairly putting them into colleges over students with more merit, maybe we should be focusing on helping these communities perform better in school. I don't even understand the logic for affirmative action anyways. Does anyone actually think it's common for schools to give white people preference? Anyone? The first part sounds about right. As for the second part yes it absolutely is. It's not always hey lets help this white guy instead of this non-white person. The hardest part about affirmative action is it's trying to correct intentional and unintentional behavior. Show nested quote +White names got about one callback per 10 resumes; black names got one per 15. Carries and Kristens had call-back rates of more than 13 percent, but Aisha, Keisha and Tamika got 2.2 percent, 3.8 percent and 5.4 percent, respectively. And having a higher quality resume, featuring more skills and experience, made a white-sounding name 30 percent more likely to elicit a callback, but only 9 percent more likely for black-sounding names.
Even employers who specified "equal opportunity employer" showed bias, leading Mullainathan to suggest companies serious about diversity must take steps to confront even unconscious biases - for instance, by not looking at names when first evaluating a resume. SourceLegacy admissions and other issues play a role in white preference too. I think how some people get lost is that they think all discrimination has to be malicious and intentional in order to need correction.
I agree with you about legacy admissions. In a way, affirmative action balances that out, though imperfectly.
The issue with black names is not just race, but class. There was (is still?) a trend among poorer black mothers, many of whom are single mothers, to create made up names when naming their children. So when people see those names, race preferences get mixed in with class preferences. Middle class and above don't really use those names as much.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
