POLL: Should your race be a factor in college admissions?

Remove all ads!

http://www.cnn.com/2003/EDUCATION/06/28/texas.affirmative.action.ap/index.html

http://www.civilrightsproject.harvard.edu/policy/court/michigansc.php

http://www.boston.com/dailyglobe2/181/oped/Upholding_racial_division+.shtml

Compelling arguements either for or against are appreciated.

Wait...this the alley. Let me rephrase. Compelling arguements are expected.

[ June 30, 2003, 16:36: Message edited by: Death Rabbit ]

Poll Information
This poll contains 1 question(s). 24 user(s) have voted.
You may not view the results of this poll without voting.

Poll Results: Should your race be a factor in college admissions? (24 votes.)

Should your race be a factor in college admissions? (Choose 1)
* Yes. - 8% (2)
* No. - 92% (22)

 

Briefly, "No Way!"

More Briefly, "No!"

 

Don't get me started on this...I am anti-quota, anti-reparations, and anti-revisionist history!

The Union lost 350,000 soldiers fighting to free slaves in the Civil War. Two of my ancestors died in that fight...Ahh, I'll stop here. I'm getting fired up!

 

No no please...by all means...get fired up! I want to know what people really think about this.

 

Back in the slave days, my ancestors (and Velcro's, for that matter) were subsistence farmers in central Europe. If the American justice system refuses to punish a parent for the sins of his/her child, why should Velcro and I (or our son) be punished for the sins of someone else's forefathers?

 

I wouldnt say race but I do think that people from less fortunate households and areas should get a chance to enter college. Lets say that City X have a college named Y. X has an area with high crime rate, crappy schools and all the rest. Now I dont think it is wrong if that area gets a few admissions into Y that it would not perhaps get if it was solely based on SAT's and the like. Supply some of the kids from that area with a chance to get out of there that they wouldnt have got otherwise as it is neigh on impossible to get decent grades and SAT scores when going to the area schools and growing up among the pimps and hustlers.

Now, most probably this area has a mostly black populace so you might say that race is a factor. But the main thing isnt that they are black, the main thing is to give people that have never had a decent chance in their life a fair chance to pull themselves out of the misery. This is what the quation is about, not about letting people into college just because they are black.

 

Actually I wish that were true, at least in this case. I absolutely support a quota or point system that gives a bit of extra favor to students from poor areas. But that's not what this is about. These schools are specifically giving you a bonus (and a hefty one at that) just for being a minority (ie, anyone but whitey).

So let's say student A grew up in a prestigious suburb, with every available resource to succeed, yet still screwed around in school and graduated with a B average. He participated in a few school clubs and was a good student, but not exactly the valedictorian. Student A is black.

Student B, however, grew up in the mean streets of New York's Hell's Kitchen. Despite his rough surroundings, Student B studied his ass off to make an A- average, and was active in student governent. Student B is white.

Despite Student B's credentials, work ethic and need, Student A will receive 20 extra points in the admissions process at the University of Michigan...for free...just because he's black, no other reason. Is this fair?

 

Actually, I'd be more in favor of giving points based on economics...But I'd also like to see that individual INVOLVED in their high school or local community.

I'm tired of hearing about how people grew up in broken homes and they can't get a break because everyone is against them. My parents divorced when I was 2, and I moved to a new school every year because my mom couldn't keep a job in one place for very long.

I was able to finish high school, earn my bachelors degree (actually double majored) and earn my law degree. I like to think it was all about my desire succeed, rather than the color of my skin.

 

Well, I am happy that my forefathers stayed in Europe and skipped that problem for me. Well, actually no, we have huge problem with immigrants, mainly from Eastern-Europe, which tend to underachive big-time in schools. And people are complaining, because they "lower" the achievment of the whole class.

Now, my judgment from far, far away concerning a different country. Dam, that sucks. In school I've learned, that racial segregation in the US ended in the 1960ies and they had to bring in the military to force people to let blacks into schools. So, it's not that long ago.

Then I know that it was usus in colonies to kill black slaves who have learned to read and write and whites who were caught teaching to blacks had to face severe penalties, mostly long, long jail time. Bahamas in the 19th century was that, I think, I've read that about.

BBC:

Oh, my personal view is, school success is mainly a mix of: Parents, Teachers and the people you are going to school with. Because I think a lot of things you learn, you learn from your classmates and not from teachers. And in Switzerland, the Pisa-study has brought the ugly truth to light. The biggest influence on edcucation here is the eduction of the parents. Everything else fades to insignificance. That's even for foreigners.

 

I am very strongly against any system implemented by a college that gives preference to any person for any reason other than scholastics.

Colleges should not give preference to people from poorer areas. If they have the work ethic and ability to perform well in school, the federal government gives out a lot of money to assist poor people in getting an education. This is different, as the student got into the college based on their academics, but simply couldn't afford to go there.

Affirmative action is supposed to prevent discrimination. It actually creates it. Discrimination is where any racial group gets preferential treatment over another. Gee, isn't this anti-white discrimination?

I'd fully support a college that does not ask for race on their application. That could help remove this consideration and give a purely academic basis.

 

A couple of points since they were mentioned above:

1) Quota systems are explicitly unconstitutional.

2) Automatic point systems are explicitly unconstitutional now.

 

@ Laches

I agree. But here's the rub: if they are unconstitutional, then why do they exist, and why did the supreme court just uphold them?

 

SCOTUS didn't just uphold them. They declared them unconstitutional. Even the generalized articles about it that you linked are about this. The UM undergrad program using a point system was declared unconstitutional - they can't use that system anymore. This case wasn't about quotas because it is well settled they're unconstitutional. What this case did allow was the UM Law School type system, which was similar to the system of Harvard pointed to in Bakke back in the 70's and which doesn't use a quota or a point system.

 

Well here is my local yocal opinion...

In my little neck of the woods, the Lehigh Valley, there are distinct and separate neighborhoods. There are black neighborhoods (rough), latino and black neighborhoods (downright dangerous), latino neighborhoods (rough), and everywhere else is white and pure as freshly fallen snow.

If some members of the rougher neighborhoods get to go to college and then bring back along with them the economic and social rewards, the neighborhood as a whole improves. That is fine by me.

 

It also hurts the black/female/disabled/whatever people who EARNED their place at the school by means of hard work and natural talent, because they will always hear people whispering behind their back, "They probably only got in because of affirmative action". It's no surprise to me at all that "Justice Clarence Thomas, who is black, disagreed with the 5-to-4 ruling. 'Every time the government places citizens on racial registers and makes race relevant to the provision of burdens or benefits, it demeans us all,' he wrote in dissent."

Well said that Justice.

I've had jobs where other women got through with substandard physical fitness scores on the grounds of being female, and it was always assumed that I, too, was let in on a technicality. Very galling. I liked what Dr. Condoleeza Rice said on the subject of affirmative action too: "Don't you tell me about about being black. I've been black all my life."

I agree with what Laches said in the other thread about certain groups interpreting a decrease in their social advantages as some sort of oppression. Minority groups *are* still disadvantaged, even in the enlightened West. Affirmative action may well right a wrong against them, but it does so at the expense of demeaning and patronising the groups it attempts to help - to my mind, that price is too high.

 

First, let me quote and refer to some interesting passages from above:

No, it's not. It would be closer to fair if student B received points for economical background, yet unfair still and I doubt he himself would like the idea.

I couldn't agree more. Additional points for such people diminish the lots of them that don't need any additional points. Not only do such practices blatantly violate the equality of rights in a sane society, but they openly suggests that the people in question are handicapped and require such aid.

There will be no such improvement if the guy who's to civilise his neighbourhood will be admitted to a college while he wouldn't be able to finish highschool under standard rules. Not only does he require heavily tweaked starting points, but he also needs to be pushed through all the time getting passing marks for free and average ones for a minimum of active participation. Eventually he will in fact perform below his documented qualifications. Either he will get sacked and jobless (and unable to work as a qualified craftsman he could have become were it not for the great loss of time under the name of college) or drain on his employer. But well, isn't he supposed to get a nicely paid job in administration and get promoted quickly as a sign of how benevolent and open-minded the government is?

However, it's actually possible that he be intellectually capable but somehow lacking in formal education, his specific neighbourhood being the reason. So, he goes through the college with no additional aid apart from getting in and through the first one or two semesters. The first thing he does after finish the college is moving to some more civilised neighbourhood. What's more, everyone will whisper behind his back that he's achieved everything in life thanks to a few unjust bonuses.

Yes, but then who's going to get how much? Free admission and no fees for poor ones or reduced charges for not so affluent people? Sponsorship for talented students or those with good marks? The problem isn't with people who get good marks despite poor economics, but with those who would have got better marks were it not for meagre financial standing. The only solutions seems investigation. But who would like to show off his poverty or to investigate areas where one shouldn't go without a spec-ops platoon?

I believe that those systems should be combined. College money for people who file an application and have some reasons for it and sponsorship for both talented and hard-studying people of poor financial condition, perhaps some help in getting a job. All education money given from the government or college should be seen to its destination. We must remember that some people, in order to support their family or actually make it possible for them to survive, take a job instead of studying and I see no reason why they should receive less from the society than those who went to college - ie it's not fair if they support their families with their hard work and forsaken chances and the government supports the families of their college-attending colleagues for free.

Finally, to me the best solution seems education supported from tax money. Of course no luxury: someone who wants more comfort will have to pay. This should be followed by making it easier for students (all willing, not only poor) to get part-time jobs.

Edit/PS: But of course not all preferences are nonsense. For example at my university foreigners have oral exams instead of tests, in order for every doubt or misunderstanding to be dealt with at the spot. This seems reasonable to me because they actually don't get anything for free. The exam is still exam, but only their unusual situation is taken in consideration. However, I know some of them who are less than happy with the result - written document is clear evidence, oral exam report isn't and the marking criteria aren't transparent or unshaken.

[ July 01, 2003, 14:12: Message edited by: chevalier ]

 

That sounds like you want to give everyone a free education. See you after I get a dual Ph.D. from Harvard with your money.

What right does the government have to make it easier to get jobs? We live in a capitalist society, the owners of a business have sole say in who gets hired and that's how it should be. Don't force them to waste money on people that don't work.

Explain that one. People that would have gotten better marks were they in better financial shape? Sorry, but I can't believe that financial status plays a role in academic performance. Sure, the quality and funding of your high school will play a role in what you learn, but not the student's own background. The most talented kids in those schools will still get good marks and then recieve grant money (if needed) to go to college. I fail to see the problem.

 

Smells like cultural divide. Here, we have the constitutional right of education for free. Schoolsystems like that in in the UK, were you have to pay for "private schools" (called "public" schools, if I am not mistaken) are a relict of an long gone feudalistic past. There is nothing that a lord fears more then free-market, I've learned from the English-philosphers of the 17th century.

 

Wait-wait-wait:

/me just read the title of this thread

My previous post was about affirmative action in general. If the actual question is "should your race be a factor in college admissions" then my answer is "depends on the college". There are First Nations colleges created by and for people of First Nations ancestry, where as far as I'm concerned it is perfectly appropriate to take that ancestry into consideration. Likewise "black" colleges should give preferences to blacks, "women's" colleges should give preferences to women, etc etc. If a college is ostensibly for everyone, then no, keep race out of it.

And lest the white men think I'm part of the conspiracy against them, let me add: I also think you should have to be a guy of the male gender to compete in a men's golf tournament. If people want to work, study and play with their own kind from time to time, sheesh, let them!