California Colleges Mull Return of Affirmative Action

some people define diversity by skin color alone. That is not right

 

I'm not here to argue the aesthetics of diversity or theorize about how it does or does not help academic environments. Do you or do you not support SCA-5? The bottom line is that Asian numbers will be reduced if it passes. Thus, in order to justify it while also admitting that Asians contribute to campus "diversity," you either have to believe that lack of discrimination against Asians outweighs their contribution to "diversity" (the same reason why the "diversity" rationale doesn't work for white people) or that their "diversity" critical mass correlates to their percentage of the general population, which has already been reached. If you can come up with another justification that is logically consistent, I'd love to hear it. Otherwise, stop trying to dance around the issue.

 

Why do you think the Rockets backup PG draws a disproportionate attention - and is the reason why a ton of people are even here. Of course the NBA recognizes race and ethnicity.

Race factors into all aspects of life - to declare it off limits here is disingenuous in practice.

 

Grasping? There are studies that indicate the tests are indeed culturally biased. Even the test makers have stated this problem. Look it up.

 

yeah but how much does the bias truly make a difference? by a material amount? or is this just a trumped up excuse to explain results?

 

My position is a little more nuanced than that. I think there is a better way to remedy the problem. I don't oppose SCA-5, but I'm certainly not in favor of it as the way to fix the problem. It's not something I support, but if it passes, I'll understand and won't be too terribly upset.

Sorry I don't have a stronger opinion one way or the other on SCA-5

 

Then the onus is on minorities to broaden their cultural perspectives or sufficiently immerse themselves in the academic and testing criteria to trivialize that perceived disadvantage.

 

I've got a high-achieving HS sophomore and as we look 3 years down the road, all I can tell you is that our current college system is screwy, bloated, way too expensive, extremely focused on class, and in many ways, antithetical to ideas of a classical education.

 

No it is not. What a terrible "solution"

 

Interacting with non-minorities: ie, the majority of people around you, and studying. That's basically what I suggested.

 

I'm a Cal grad who got into Cal at a time when there was AA and even quotas on Asians. As an Asian though I think overall the experience was good to be around students of diverse backgrounds. My freshman roommate was a black guy from Compton (the first of his family to go to college), my sophmore roommate was a white guy from Petaluma, and one of my good friends from architecture studio was the son of illegal immigrants who grew up in the Central Valley and also the first of his family to go to college.

We live in a diverse society and one that is increasingly globalized so the more interaction we have with those of different backgrounds the better it is for future success.

That said I also think the days of racial based AA are over. The bigger issue in my view is economic and a system like what UT has that addresses economic and regional barriers is better than a race based AA. Something like that gives as much ability for a Hispanic student from a very poor school in Salinas to compete with an Asian student from well off Palo Alto.

I also don't like how so many of these discussions get turned into pitting one race versus the other, Asians versus blacks and Latinos. Since most Asians came here after Civil Rights many of us forget or don't realize that segregation also applied to us. This idea that we Asians owe all our success because we are hardworking as opposed to lazy blacks is just another division when without the efforts of primarily blacks leading the fight against segregation and institutional racism we wouldn't have the opportunity to succeed.

 

This is a ****ty red herring/divisive ploy. Until the day comes when they print out sheet that has "Asian-Chinese, Korean, Japanese, Indian" for one Checkbox and another with: "Asian- Other", there is no opportunity for Southeast Asian students of other nations to be "equally represented".

It's a stupid bone thrown that sparks resentment of those listed ethnicities that will continue to happen when this law is passed.

Why so blunt? Because the argument of "Too many Asians on campus" is a perceptual thing and these ****ers can't tell the difference.

This is a ridiculously ham-fisted prescription that falls under the "hell is paved with good intentions" category. If your problem is a class/privilege issue about stereotypical cultures spending and investing above and beyond on their children to gain admissions, then make it a class issue.

I have no problem with AA increasing diversity. The politics underlying it is **** though, and it can be a lot better. And it should be about class and unequal wealth distribution. Then those poor non-Chinese/Korean/Japanese/Indian subsets can be represented, despite the lack of a political windfall when other ethnic group ratios don't increase...

UC curriculum is not easy. Retention studies on historically disadvantaged minorities took a hit after they dropped AA, and there's no guarantee increasing admissions affect that overall ratio.

Despite this, other university systems have already implemented some form of Asian quota policy and justify with similar progressive sounding dreck like your reply.

 

No, it's better for your education to be around as smart a group of learners as possible.

Who cares what race they are.

 

Because the wider the sources of input the more rounded your education is, and isn't just me that knows this.

There have been studies done. Here's one. http://www-personal.umich.edu/~pgurin/benefits.html

Here's another
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/philip-tegeler/diverse-classrooms_b_4057759.html

Here's a third site that talks a lot about it from different sources.
Here's some of what it says

http://www.arizona.edu/diversity/how-do-diverse-and-inclusive-learning-environments-benefit-students

There's a lot more there to check out if you care about it.

 

I don't doubt that there are benefits to learning and discussing in a diverse environment. But I believe the most benefit comes from learning and discussing with the smartest people possible.

What is the sense in associating academically with people of different races if they are not as smart as others? It is much more beneficial to your learning to associate with the brightest people regardless of race.

 

Since you have thought about this then why don't you come up with an answer - what's so different about *knowingly* using other proxy factors (income, geography) for race rather than race itself - with full knowledge that the outcome will disparately impact other groups?

Or is that not OK also? I'm generally interested to hear a response. If I say "I want more kids from Queensbridge" with full knowledge that everybody there is not Asian - why is it any different?

 

That's because you have a limited view of what education entails. College educates you as well on life, culture, life experiences, and not simply textbooks.

 

lol and now the "creativity" and excuse making comes out of the woodwork

I wonder why these valuable aspects of education are only now surfacing...