California Colleges Mull Return of Affirmative Action

Stupid people would increase diversity. People in class could get perspective from morons that they never thought about before.

Why shouldn't all colleges lower their standards to accept a certain percentage of absolute morons to increase the diversity at the school?

 

Slavery isn't the only injustice African-Americans or any other group has had to face.

 

They're not accepting absolute morons. Only an absolute moron would argue that.

 

But AA isn't lowering the standards. Even with AA only qualified people would get in. If you don't like the studies that show increases in cognitive thinking skills, leadership etc. then take it up with them. I'm only reporting what the studies say.

 

Slavery was certainly an injustice, it wasn't the only one. The only thing falling apart is your trolling.

 

Are you calling people that go to select schools as a result of AA stupid?

I tell you what, how about we do it this way, lets allow colleges to pick whom they do and do not want to attend regardless of any and all test scores or qualifications. If a University allows someone in, there is no questions, it is entirely their decision and there is no appeals process.

 

LOL - so being born with the genetic makeup that makes you a good football player (hint, being born Asian doesn't help this) is, in your definition "merit or ability based " reward.

That's great; " BORN WITH MERIT" may be my new credo.

 

So are you changing your stance? Previously, you said there was never a justification for diversity based policies - Now you are saying "it's the year 2014, racism is over"

Which is it?

I'm still waiting for you to show me somebody for whom this applies. College admissions is a holistic process that involves weighing a nubmer of different factors - most of which are either directly or indirectly random accidents of who your parents are. Race is one of them. I guess if you think of college admissions as some blind mechanical selection of whoever had the highest test scores like it is in some places you can make this argument, but the American university system is differnet, for good reason.

 

When football players are given athletic scholarships its due to their ability on the field. In my mind, that is a fair give and take because they earned it. Similar to regular admissions, theoretically they are the best talent the school can recruit given what they can offer the student or athlete. Supply and demand. Thats how it should be for academic admissions, color-blind screening based on aptitude and results, not the student's race.

 

It's fair to give inferior students not only coveted slots, but free tuition "because they earned it" by being born with the skill to perform an entirely arbitrary task that has no connection to the university's academic mission?

That's a very interesting comment - so you're saying non-academic factors should be factored into college admission, fair enough....


'

....and diametrically opposed to the statement you made here. First, you're making a carve-out for athletes that undercuts pretty much everythign you said in the first sentence. What about the hardworkin' Asians who were better and worked harder in school than Jeremy Lin - yet weren't born as good athletes - why don't you cry for their crushed dreams?

Further you're cofusing being a college student with test taking. What makes somebody a better "student"? Somebody who gets a higher math score? Somebody who can drink lots of beer? Somebody who overcame tough circumstances? All of these things have value and to pretend like you can objectivize them in a way that's optimal is silly.

 

That is true to a certain extent just like firms can hire whoever they want to their liking. But discrimination on the protected classes sex, race, sexual orientation, etc doesn't fly in the professional world and shouldn't be an accepted policy for higher education.

 

You shouldn't try putting words in other people's mouths. However you want to intrepret what I said to your liking, that is totally up to you. I think I clearly said students or athletes should be given admissions based on merit or ability, not skin color. If you want to muddy the waters of my statement (which was in fact a very clear assertion), and attempting to weaken the entire premise of current admissions process thereby hoping it would strengthen yours baseless claim, you can go ahead. But I'm sorry, skin color or race based discrimination will never stand on its own two legs, which is why you're attacking and diverting attention elsewhere.
'

Interesting that you say that in your first sentence. Being that nothing I said was hypocritical. In fact, I was very consistent in the fact I believe AA shouldn't exist in academics OR sports. I'm pointing out the ridiculous hypocrisy in the fact discrimination aka AA policy doesn't exist in any other realm of society. As ridiculous and unheard of idea of putting aside 4 or 5 spots to white and asian basketball players over more talented black players soley because of their skin color, thats a clear indication AA doesn't exist and wouldn't be widely accepted in any other venue in society.

 

Lol. Going to a good school, with quality teachers, a supportive and safe environment is a penalty but going to a **** school with poor teachers and a dangerous environment is a reward.

Brilliant.

 

Maybe it's not de jure AA, but AA most certainly does exist for certain groups. e.g. white people. Also anti-AA definitely exists (anti-AA is basically AA for non discriminated groups) where individuals are discriminated against in their job hunt and in school simply based on their presumed ethnicity. For example Are Emily and Greg More Employable Than Lakisha and Jamal? A Field Experiment on Labor Market Discrimination

AA even exists in certain job sectors for job applicants that are presumed to be Asian. Silent Technical Privilege

Even if it de jure AA as we are talking about in the schooling example isn't acceptable to you, it is practiced in many other societies around the globe. De facto AA is currently accepted in out society and is happening daily. Affirmative action is accepted in all parts of this society.

 

It doesn't fly if you can and will prove it; but lawyers aren't cheap, paperwork takes time and everyone needs references.

 

Nobody's putting words in your mouth, you simply don't realize the implicaitons of what you're saying.

Please note your words:

I think I clearly said students or athletes should be given admissions based on merit or ability, not skin color.

See what you did there? You created a protected class for athletes and separataed them from other students. The NCAA wouldn't see it this way (hence the belabored "student-athlete" idiom).

Why did you create this separate class of students to whom normal "color blind" rules (MUST BE TESTS & GPA!) doesn't matter? Why is being born with the physical qualities to be a good athlete any different than being born with black skin or yellow skin or red skin? let's say you were born seven feet tall - there's a very high chance you will be able to play basketball at some collegiate level as a consequence.

Why does this mean that you have objectively more "merit or ability" than anybody as a student? Why should you be rewarded as a student for being born a certain way? If "ability" means some physical characteristic you are born with - then why does it stop at basketball? Where does it stop? Music? Dance? Art? Oratory? If you're going to construct a rationale - you should be able to explain it.

Ha, see you assume that "best GPA and standardized test score" automatically means "better" - frankly, neither school selection nor life is nearly that binary or objective. We don't select the NBA all-star team based on the players that score the most points, we base it on a number of different critieria. tests and GPA are great but all they do is sort peopel into relative tiers - you err in assuming that the "best" students, whatever that means, are ordered perfectly within those tiers. There's really no reason to believe this or that this correlates to anything else in life, or else we'd be ruled by a legion of 1600 SAT scoring 4.0 GPA geniuses who would consistently rise to the top since Kindergarten onwards.

The world doesn't work that way.

 

Ah, the old "Asian kids aren't well-rounded" argument. Putting aside the fact that the entire "holistic" approach was invented to keep Jews out of elite universities and the idiocy of assuming that Asians are a bunch of test taking study robots, a simple look at California since prop 209 is enough to debunk this borderline racist rationale. Since 96, UC admissions officers have been using holistic criteria to admit students. The only holistic criteria they can't use is race. In fact, there are many stories of admissions officers trying to divine an applicant's race through their extracurriculars and rejecting what they perceive to be "Asian" profiles. The fact that Asian enrollment rates have increased steadily over the past couple decades suggests that the "holistic" qualifications of Asian students as a whole are comparable to or better than their peers.

 

Then that's fine - we shouldn't have people calling for "color blind screening based on aptitude and results" if that's the case.

 

but should we have people calling for using race as an influencer?