Justice Dept. to Take On Affirmative Action in College Admissions

No, I don't assume that, I find it to be irrelevant.

Oh, I'm not denying racism, I'm calling people out for their support of outright racist policy.

 

Only for UT, which has been forced by previous cases to be much more transparent on its admission policies and how much it uses race in the admission process. This new inquiry is regarding schools whose admission process is much more opaque.

 

I've only been able to read a little bit of this thread but I don't see much about what exactly is being done by the Justice Dept. on this issue. Does anyone know what concrete actions the Justic Dept. is taking?

 

As someone who is Asian and went to UC Berkeley at a time when there were quotas on Asians I've never felt discriminated against because of AA. My first roommate at CAL was a black guy from Watts who came under a program that was very similar to AA. It didn't bother me and I think there was a lot of value to getting to know him and many of his friends who also got there under that program. I think diversity is a good goal and I thnk it was in providing more opportunities for those historically disadvantaged was in the interest of California. My second roommate was a white guy from Sonoma County who came in on a soccer scholarship. By his own admission academicaly he didn't belong there. As far as it being unfair that maybe an Asian student didn't get in the place of my first roommate one could just as easily note that my second year roommate might've taken the place of an Asian student who was academically better.

Anyone my own view these days is that race is important but I think class is a bigger issue. I think programs that take the top students from regional schools is a better solution than addresses race and class.

 

Having a blanket assertion that white people are able to get in without being qualified is different than me assuming all white people are wealthy. That's clearly not the case.

It doesn't have to be wealthy whites (you incepted yourself). Whites who have families who attended or families networked through work/fraternities also benefit from preferential treatment. Race still matters in this case because the admissions staff from those colleges are still predominantly white.

None of those qualities are virtues of that student's material achievements.

As for the poor bit, we had a previous convo that I'd rather emphasize income and location disparities over race.

 

Ah so in your mind only white people would have parents who went to college that networked through work/fraternities? Or are you suggesting that those kinds of things only help white people?

Are you also suggesting that the race of someone who works in a college admissions staff wouldn't admit black students?

You make a LOT of assumptions here and pretty much all of them are ridiculous. Kind of a lot of mental gymnastics just to attempt to justify racist policy simply because you approve of those it benefits and those it hurts. You'd be better just admitting that you think racism is pretty great depending on who it is directed towards because that seems to be the truth and it doesn't require mental gymnastics.

 

If you think this about Asians being discriminated against....then u are delusional. This is about Sessions and Trump, 2 bigots trying to bow down to white supporters.

 

So...if we assume that's true, does it mean that institutionalized racial discrimination should continue since they are against it just to spite them?

 

Is affirmative action like telling a group of people "a B is good enough for you"?

 

Which honestly is something they should do. They ought to know that racial discrimination against Asians isn't okay.....it's only culturally acceptable to racially discriminate against "white" people.

If you stick to culturally acceptable racism, then you can get away with it.

 

Yes, but it is often very discriminatory.

FWIW, universities have already been sued in the past over these things. University of Texas lost such a suit about 20 years ago, and had to revamp many of its admissions and scholarship policies. I believe other universities have had similar issues. So, this isn't anything new.

Given that, this strikes me as more rhetoric than anything else. However, given that universities have previously lost such cases, the rhetoric isn't outlandish. Affirmative action programs that were deemed too discriminatory have lost in other areas as well.

The implications of this came (the UT case) came up in a meeting the next day in the department I was working at at Texas A&M at the time. Their concern was basically 'if we can't pay minority students to come here, how do we attract them?'. My thought, at the time and still, was 'you make the environment attractive for them, and they will come. You shouldn't need to pay them to come there.' If a University truly braces multi culturalism, it shouldn't need to paper it over with what amounts to a bribe. This was the crux of the UT case.

 

That ignores the reality that a greater rate than for Caucasian students, qualified minority students won't be able to afford to go to the University no matter how attractive the University makes it for them to be there.

 

It was easy for it to not bother you...you got in anyway. What would your position have been if, as in the UT case, you found out that you did NOT get in because of your roommate, even though you were clearly a more qualified candidate?

 

That's very hypothetical as if I didn't get in I wouldn't have known my roommate and CAL would not have said that my spot was taken by someone from Watts. There's no way I would've known any particular person had taken my spot, which wouldn't have been mine to take in the first place since CAL decides who gets in not me.

Leaving aside that logical fallacy. I would've been dissapointed but at the same time I had several opportunities. I was already admitted to UT and had a full ride at UH. For my roommate he had fewer opportunities and while it was a big deal for me to get into CAL for him to get into CAL was very important. People talk about punishing success but my success wasn't punished I was still given several opportunities and I took the best one. For my roommate that might've been his only one.

Anyway for all of the upset regarding affirmative action what about things like legacy and athletic scholarships. My sophmore roommate was there on a soccer scholarship. By his own admission he didn't deserve to be in CAL academically and did poorer on the SAT than my first roommate. He was a good guy and I didn't begrudge him going to CAL either even though one could argue he was taking a spot from someone who was more deserving academically. He is a white guy from Santa Rosa FYI.

 

Need is already a factor in financial aid. It is the primary, and basically only, factor. So no it doesn't ignore that. That is already incorporated in the process. Need based scholarships also already exist.

 

More qualified is harder to define. If an applicant is qualified then they are qualified. Additional qualifications tend to vary a great deal. They can include outside of school work, community service, showing extraordinary perseverance etc. Certain minorities are under-identified as gifted and talented despite actually being gifted and talented and over-identified as special education when they aren't truly special-education. So overcoming those obstacles could weigh in their favor as far as being qualified. They have overcome obstacles that white students never even had to face in their education. That's only one example. The fact that diversity at a university benefits all students is a plus for any student that adds to that diversity.