CLDA -- While I would love a "right-wing fantasy land" this is not what I'm advocating. I do not think it is unreasonable for me to defend a law that has stood the test of time. Millions of people support my view here -- I'm not exactly trotting out some extreme opinion on this one. I would like to marry my pet parakeet, Skinny. I love Skinny and we are a perfect match. Skinny will be my "wife" and the two of us demand the same rights and benefits currently given to married couples. Why should we be denied these rights if we are married? There are *two* of us. This is clearly an example of hyperbole. The point I'm making here is that marriage has a definition in the state of Texas. It is the union of a man and a woman. Unless you fit that definition, you do not deserve to receive the rights and benefits of those that do. Pretty simple, really. Wrong. There *is* logic behind the law. Whether liberal extremists like it or not, many of the laws and fundamental principles that America was founded on were those of the Christian church. The logic behind laws such as the ban on sodomy is that it does not conform with the values advocated in the Christian religion. Before you drop the whole "separation of church and state" argument on me, consider this: There is a strong moral code inherent in *a wide variety* of religions -- not just Christianity. Many Americans -- Christian or not -- religious or not -- agree with this moral code and believe it is a fair and just way to set public policy. It is this type of moral code which factors into the law which prohibits sodomy.
I'm not inclined to debate your numbered points above. I don't necessarily agree with them, but to debate them would be pointless. Instead I quibble with the solution. Are they really advocating that the solution would be to deny admission to a white student because they need one more minority student? If so, how do they choose the white student that gets shafted? These are decisions that will effect the rest of that student's life. I'd hate to think that they chose one white student out of a hat and sent him/her a rejection letter. It is a crappy solution to the problem. It is indefensible. Each school needs to have minimum admisson standards and apply them in a color blind, neutral manner as I described above.
I haven't come to any conclusive opinions about this, but I can't make a justification that says that gay marriages are ok but polygamy should still be illegal. I mean, so often I hear "you shouldn't care about other peoples' relationships" and "it's their own business" and the same can be said about three people who think they have such a relationship. I haven't done enough research into legal definitions of marriage to decide whether gay marriages should be allowed and recognized, but I have a personal belief that the ties of marriage are taken too lightly in today's society and I feel like those ties should not be made even more lax. That said, I am not married and do not personally know what specific legal hurdles need to be jumped in order to get a marriage license.
Well. I have a lot of problems with this. But my solution is not simply "make it fair" or make it conscious of color/ethnicity. First, I will start of saying that I am a white male who currently attends an Ivy League School (I am actually in my second in 2 years, so I have been through the admissions process twice already ) This isn't to say that my argument is smart or anything, just to point out that I have to racial bias or anything. The problem is this: there is an unequal playing field in the U.S. created by past social and economic injustice. If we want a truly more egaltarian society this problem HAS TO be addressed. Otherwise, schools like the ones that I have gone to in the past 2 years would become patriarchal country clubs. The people who had the best opportunities in the past (when there wasn't racial equality legally in the US) who have succeeded in the present could provide the same opportunities for their children. With this increased opportunity their children would have a better chance of getting into a similar school. In effect, we would have created an elite-ish, noble-ish class, even if it wasn't held up by law. Next, the existing system is unfair, and I will tell you why. Schools like the Ivys or whatever (every school really) want to look good. They want to be the "most diverse" or whatever. Therefore, they give minority students a boost. However, due to increased economic opportunity for minorities in the past 35 years (but by no means across the board), there has arisen a significant number of wealthy minorities, especially minorities that have historically received less legal and economic opression in the U.S. (at least not as recently as African-Americans, ie Asians-americans, Indian-americans). I can honestly say that ALL of my minority friends last year were wealthy (and I am not talking about "above average" or anything). This may be a testament to the Affirmative Action of the past, but it is now time for a change that can truly create a more level playing field in the US and a more egaltarian society. I think the best solution to this problem is a type of Socio-Economic Affirmative Action. It will be more equal because it will take into consideration not race but opportunity provided for the child. Sadly, history has created a demographic in the US that has far more minorities at or below the poverty line than whites. This system will still give a boost to many, many minorities and create more diversity. However, at the same time, it won't neglect the poor white kid who has made it on his own either. Can you honestly say that a rich minority should be favored over a poor white with comparable resumes?? Can you honestly say that can you honestly say that a white kid with every opportunity in the world should be admitted over a poorer minority who has not had the opportunity to go to private schools or maybe had to work a job in high school to help out with the family income, if they are academically and extracurricularly similar?? By no means is this a perfect plan. But, I think it is better than the existing one at achieving a truly more cohesive and less divided society. Something has to be done to mitigate class and racial cleavages and tensions, but, at the same time, we can't reversely-descriminate against a poor white kid who has gone through the many of the same trials as minorities.
The argument about affirmitive action as it pertains to college admission is a topic that comes up often at Texas A&M. Not as a problem now, since it's 67% white, 2% black, and 7% hispanic. People here are upset about a plan called Vision 2020 which is a plan to improve the university as a whole and make it one of the top 20 public universities in the country. The plan includes lots of different goals like increasing the faculty, improving the graduate programs, and improving departments like Liberal Arts. One of the goals is that of diversifying and globalizing the student body. This bothers people and the most outspoken critics bash the whole plan because of it. This is a complex issue and I don't know where to begin. Umm, first of all, I have to say that I think some of the most outspoken critics of affirmitive action, just the ones that I have come accross and not everybody or most of them, are prejudiced. Why do I say that? Basically, they automatically assume that a minority student is inferior from the beginning. Every argument is about an inferior student taking the spot of a more qualified one. It's like they believe all the minority students accepted to a university are too stupid and needed the university's standards dropped to get in. As I understand it, Affrimitive Action specifically says that you have to be qualified. So where does the dropping of admission standards come from? It's not the law that's the problem, it's the universities. A good example would be Berkeley, I believe, wanting to add a criteria in admission based on hardships and obstacles that one faced in life. I'm probably wrong, but as I understand it, wasn't Affirmitive Action an Executive Order? It wasn't meant to last forever, just to the point when there is more parity between the races. I agree 100% with rimbaud, most minorities are coming from inferior schools with inferior educations. I think we all know the term "vicious cycle." Well, to end it, you have to break it and that means helping a few people out. I don't believe in letting unqualified people taking the spots of qualified students, but if that were the case, there would be a lot more minority students dropping out or flunking out of college and that doesn't help anybody. So, that's why something has to be done about public education and it has to happen now. If that problem can be solved, everything else will work itself out. I can live with affirmitive action for now, it hasn't even been 40 years since the Civil Rights Act was passed, that's barely 2 generations. It will take more than that to reach parity. It may not happen if our lifetime, but someday, these issues won't even matter because they won't be a problem anymore. I hope we all get to live in that world, even if it's for a short time.
Honestly, it's very easy in most states. I would argue that it's far TOO easy. Getting a marriage license should be even harder than getting a driver's license, IMO. I think we'd see a lot fewer divorces if people had to take a serious "marriage ed." course, with (just like driver's ed.) an old cranky football coach teaching it.
Personally, I have no problem with diversity if it is based solely on merit. I have a huge problem with diversity for diversity's sake. I think everybody should be given the same chance to get in. Whenever you have a goal to diversify the student body, that assumes that some white people will not get in because they are white. Discrimination is WRONG...and that includes reverse discrimination. Remember that two wrongs do not make a right. Also, when I was in college, the mission statement of the public college system in Texas was to educate the students of the state of Texas. Given that it seems strange to me that the goal is to globalize the student body. The reason for that is a) the student body will subsidize that globaliztion in the form of increased fees, and b) Texas residents will be denied admission so that slot can go to somebody from another continent. That's because the only publicized cases are the lawsuits like the one being heard by the Supreme Court. In these cases, the entire theory is that a lesser qualified minority got in and the white student did not. They have some statistical evidence of it in order for the suit to survive a motion for summary judgment. Is this the case all the time? Absolutely NOT. Does it happen? YEP. Is it dead wrong when it happens? YEP. Hell...it even sounds like the argument made by the university in the lawsuit. It sounds a lot like the argument being made by the NAACP. There are scores of minority students that could get in under a color blind policy. The distortion of the facts by those defending lowered standards for minorities is sickening. The policy for admissions needs to be absolutely color blind. Even assuming two highly qualified students, it is dead wrong to reject one solely because he is white. That shouldn't even enter the equation. See my numbered app system earlier in this thread.
What you are arguing just isn't right. NO ONE rejects someone solely because they are white. That could happen under the quota system. However, that was ruled unconstitutional. What Affirmative Action does is it gives an advantage to minority students when students applying are more or less comparable in their academics and extracurriculars. You have to consider that social history in the united states has created strong class/ethnic/racial divisions. The only way to alleviate those cleaveages is to devise a system. If you want to create an America with an mostly white educated elite, then keep arguing for your "system." However, if you knew anything about political theory this would endanger the American political system as we know it. I am not a fan of the existing affirmative action, but something must be done. I already discussed the system that I thought up (and if it has already been presented by someone else then I support it). It is a few posts up if you want to check it out.
but people are rejected because they're not a minority...they're passed over because they're not a minority... you say potato, i say potata
Not quite. The whites are rejected because the (for lack of a better word) sum of their qualifications is less than the sum of the minorities' qualifications. You could argue that it's unfair that a minority's ethnicity (or whatever it is that makes he/she a minority) is seen as a plus, while a white person's ethnicity has no bearing. However, considering the very real disadvantanges that many (if not most) minorities face (which the majority of whites do not), I'd say that whites are not exactly suffering from a lack of fairness.
But I think going back to the idea of leveling the playing field, perhaps the criteria colleges use to determine who gets admitted are not the ones we should be using. If SAT scores do not accurately predict college success, then perhaps they shouldn't be used as an admissions criterion. I guess, to me, it goes back to how well students who are admitted under lower SAT and GPA standards do once they are in college. If they do essentially as well as students who did meet the GPA and SAT criteria, then clearly the GPA and SAT criteria aren't all that useful in determining college success. So maybe we need different ways of judging students that don't necessarily use GPA (or class rank) or SAT scores.... or at least use them at a lesser level. If there are other things that more accurately determine a candidate's potential for success, then perhaps those things should be given more weight. I guess my point is that I think we should take a look at the entire process of how college admissions are determined. Tear down the current system and replace it, if need be, with something that works better.
i understand the inequities...and I'm not trying to be insensitive to them at all...it just seems so blatantly unfair to use race as any sort of qualifier for entry into a public college. to give someone a leg up because of the melanin in their skin is baffling to me....and that's all it is...because not every minority candidate comes from the troubled circumstances we're trying to alleviate here, yet they still get the benefit of this system.
If two students have equal merit and the white guy gets the rejection...why was he rejected? Because he was white. Oh that's CLEARLY more fair than a system that doesn't even allow race to be considered at all. Did you even read my system before posting something asinine like this? I guess not. If students were admitted based SOLELY on qualifications and name and race were not even allowed to be known by the committee...how in the hell would that generate a white elitist system? Don't ever question my motives like that. I agree. But I favor a system in which ethnicity isn't taken into consideration AT ALL in admissions. Discriminating against white students now will never make up for discriminating against minorities in the past.
I was just reading an article about the University of Georgia's admissions policies in regard to race. A Federal Appeals Court ruled that their policies were unconstitutional, by the way. As it was, about 85% of those admissions were admitted based solely on academic considerations (GPA, Class Rank, SAT, etc). The remaining 15% apparently did not meet those academic requirements but were given bonus points for a variety of things, one of which was the race of the applicant. Extracurricular activities were another. The article didn't list others, but there were apparently several possible ways to get additional points. So while the vast majority of students who got into UGA met color-blind academic standards, there was a not-insignificant portion of the student body who apparently did not meet the standards but who were given a bonus for a variety of things that allowed them admission to the University. That sounds like a (EDIT: a relatively fair policy, anyway) fair policy to me since even though race was a factor, it was only one of many factors and was given no more weight than many other things and also was apparently only used for students who didn't otherwise meet the academic standards set by UGA for admissions. As I read it, anyone who met the academic standards got in. Those who did not were given an additional chance to get in based on other factors. Of course, the courts didn't like this policy, either, so who knows what's going to end up being the law of the land.
Speaking of, isn't it already illegal in Texas to use race as a factor in determining admissions? I thought the Top 10% rule was designed specifically because race could not be used as a factor in admissions decisions. But I admit that I don't keep up with these sorts of things in any great detail.
It is illegal in Texas, Louisiana and Mississippi as a result of the 5th Circuit's decision in the Hopwood case.
Finding an alternative to GPA/SAT/ACT is very hard to do. Universities are tackling admission criteria on an ongoing basis. If fixing the system was easy, it would have been done and standardized a long time ago.
So have all the dire predictions about a lilly-white university system come to pass in any way since that decision was handed down?
