<p>
[quote]
If it doesn't say that, then there is no requirement to consider either race or gender. Only "Information allowing you to select a diverse student body."
[/quote]
Well it's more than implied. That's like saying that a corporation does not have the right to "free speech" because no where in the 1st Amendment is the word "corporation" used.</p>
<p>Anyways, most schools want to create racially diverse and gender balanced student bodies... so what's your point?</p>
<p><a href="%5Burl=http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/1059962400-post377.html%5D#377%5B/url%5D">quote</a> You can't solve a race-based problem without a race-based solution.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>For thousands of years humans believed in the Geocentric</a> Model: the Sun and other objects going around the Earth. The scientific-based arguments of Copernicus, Galileo and Kepler resulted in [replacing Geocentrism. </p>
<p>Similarly, many humans perpetuate the mis-notion of race in spite of the [url=<a href="http://www.aaanet.org/stmts/racepp.htm%5Dscientific">http://www.aaanet.org/stmts/racepp.htm]scientific</a> arguments against it](]Heliocentrism[/url):</p>
<p>
[quote]
...physical variations in the human species have no meaning except the social ones that humans put on them...
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Lest we educate ourselves, we're destined to keep thrashing in the eddy of [Tribalism[/url</a>]. </p>
<p>An alternate solution is to starve private and public institutions of the self-assessment data they/we use to perpetuate 'race'. College applicants (and for that matter, [url=<a href="http://home.cinci.rr.com/justamerican/%5Dall">http://home.cinci.rr.com/justamerican/]all</a> of us during the next Census](<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tribalism%5DTribalism%5B/url">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tribalism)) can simply self-assess as 'Human'. </p>
<p>Our generation should not wait for some future generation to evolve from the mis-notion of race. We should take responsibility for our own actions.</p>
<p>As noted[/url</a>], one institution - [url=<a href="http://collegesearch.collegeboard.com/search/CollegeDetail.jsp?collegeId=3346%5DSavannah">http://collegesearch.collegeboard.com/search/CollegeDetail.jsp?collegeId=3346]Savannah</a> College of Art and Design (59% Race/ethnicity unreported) - is almost there. This goal is achievable with the proper application of heart and mind.</p>
<p>I saw the factual statement, "You can't solve a race-based problem without a race-based solution" and then asked in reply, "Do you have any historical or international comparative evidence for this factual assertion?" Then another participant responded, "There is no way to prove or disprove that, so let's not even go down that path." Well, I just happen to be really curious, because I care about making sure that social policy is based on fact and not on suppositions. I agree with the goal that society here in the United States and elsewhere should be full of people who get along with their fellow human beings without invidious racial prejudice. That policy goal is so important, in my opinion, that I would definitely want to consider all of the 5,000 years of recorded human history in various cultures and all of the approximately 200 different countries in the world to make sure that we choose the best policies to achieve that important goal.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Race-based sounds like a quota system where race is the only consideration. Race-blind sounds like gender-blind, wealth-blind, talent-blind, athletic-blind, SAT-blind, etc. We could eliminate all criteria and admit by lottery!
[/quote]
</p>
<p>If you don't like the term, then you're free to call it whatever you want. There's no point in arguing semantics, unless someone is trying to claim that a person who opposes the status quo is for the status quo since there exists opposition to the status quo.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Well it's more than implied. That's like saying that a corporation does not have the right to "free speech" because no where in the 1st Amendment is the word "corporation" used.</p>
<p>Anyways, most schools want to create racially diverse and gender balanced student bodies... so what's your point?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>As far as I know, it took a Supreme Court case, Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad Company, for the idea that corporations have rights to free speech to be legitimate.</p>
<p>Eighty years ago, most Ivy Leagues wanted to discriminate against Jews. Does that mean that they were right to do so? Besides, weren't you the one talking about the "tyranny of the majority?"</p>
<p>
[quote]
As far as I know, it took a Supreme Court case, Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad Company, for the idea that corporations have rights to free speech to be legitimate.
[/quote]
Not sure what this has to do with anything unless you are suggesting that no corporation excercised their right to "freedom of speech" until this case was decided. If that's what you're suggesting then you would be incorrect.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Eighty years ago, most Ivy Leagues wanted to discriminate against Jews. Does that mean that they were right to do so? Besides, weren't you the one talking about the "tyranny of the majority?"
[/quote]
What's issue regarding Affirmative Action, racial diversity, etc. are you trying to address with that comment? Please at least put your comments in context.</p>
<p>
[quote]
If you don't like the term, then you're free to call it whatever you want. There's no point in arguing semantics, ...
[/quote]
Expressing opposition (to colleges' including race as one of many criteria) by pejoratively calling such admissions race-based is the "name-calling" debate technique. The technique is effective here because nobody wants solely race-based college admissions.</p>
<p>Newjack88,</p>
<p>
[quote]
Not sure what this has to do with anything unless you are suggesting that no corporation excercised their right to "freedom of speech" until this case was decided. If that's what you're suggesting then you would be incorrect.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I am not suggesting that. I am pointing out that the idea that corporations are persons and thus have the right to free speech was not fully codified until Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad Company. Prior to that case, saying that a corporation does not have the right to "free speech" because no where in the First Amendment is the word "corporation" used was debatable. After Santa Clara County, it was still debatable but much less so.</p>
<p>
[quote]
What's issue regarding Affirmative Action, racial diversity, etc. are you trying to address with that comment? Please at least put your comments in context.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>You stated that "...most schools want to create racially diverse and gender balanced student bodies...," which seemed to suggest that because most schools want to create "diversity," then it's OK simply because most schools want it. I'm asking you whether that's true for all cases or only true for "diversity."</p>
<p>
[quote]
Expressing opposition (to colleges' including race as one of many criteria) by pejoratively calling such admissions race-based is the "name-calling" debate technique. The technique is effective here because nobody wants solely race-based college admissions.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Again, if you think it's pejorative, that's fine with me. This is an issue of semantics, not substance.</p>
<p>Personally, I thought I made myself clear in post #376. We are talking about race. Thus, admissions that does not use race is race-blind. You seem to have no problem with this. Under my terminology, since we're focusing on the variable race, admissions that uses race, even as one of many factors, is race-based (i.e. it is based on race, a factor.) If we were talking about the SAT, admissions that does not use it is SAT-blind. Admissions that does use it as one of many factors is SAT-based.</p>
<p>You don't have to like my wording. The only thing that matters is that when we discuss this issue, we each know what the other is talking about.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Again, if you think it's pejorative, that's fine with me. This is an issue of semantics, not substance.
[/quote]
I think it is a bit unfair and misleading to say it's "race-based." Why not use more specific language? I hate these sorts of tactics. It's like how all of the Republicans were calling McCain's immigration reform plan "amnesty." But you know it's just one of those things... all it does is let people know where you stand on the issues.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I am not suggesting that. I am pointing out that the idea that corporations are persons and thus have the right to free speech was not fully codified until Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad Company. Prior to that case, saying that a corporation does not have the right to "free speech" because no where in the First Amendment is the word "corporation" used was debatable. After Santa Clara County, it was still debatable but much less so.
[/quote]
True, but, obviously, making the case that corporations were not given the right to "freedom of speech" simply because the Constitution did not literally say the right applied to them was a losing battle.</p>
<p>
[quote]
You stated that "...most schools want to create racially diverse and gender balanced student bodies...," which seemed to suggest that because most schools want to create "diversity," then it's OK simply because most schools want it. I'm asking you whether that's true for all cases or only true for "diversity."
[/quote]
Earlier, you were saying that, "If it doesn't say that, then there is no requirement to consider either race or gender." By me saying that colleges want those types of diversity, I was just pointing out that there isn't any logical reason why most colleges would not choose to interpret that line to mean that they are required to seek to create racially diverse and gender balanced student bodies.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Again, if you think it's pejorative, that's fine with me. This is an issue of semantics, not substance.
[/quote]
The problem is that I'm not explaining it well. We previously had some race-based admissions where races were admitted by quotas. Within these quotas, the other usual measures were applied, but the race-based quotas were the primary factors. For some (am I the only one?), saying "race-based" conjures up these old quotas. I agree that this is an issue of semantics, but I find it substantive.</p>
<p>The standard definitions of the importance of various admission criteria are Very Important, Important, Considered and Not Considered; factor-based and factor-blind are not used.</p>
<p>I do appreciate that you feel race should not be considered at all, but why do you single out this one factor over which students have no control? Why not say that other such factors should not be considered, like gender, athletic prowess, musical talent, first generation, legacy, state residency? Where is the fairness (to other applicants) in such factors being considered?</p>
<p>I have a genuine question for affirmative action supporters. How does varying skin pigmentation (by itself) help a class to prosper? i.e. what can a lower class urm bring to the table that a lower class orm (who grew up in the same neighborhood) cannot? I curious as to the benefits of this practice.</p>
<p>Exposure of the ORMs to the URMs (and to the majority) and vice versa. The bringing together of URMs, ORMs and majority, upper classes and lower classes, and various pigmentations is beneficial for everyone!</p>
<p>
[quote]
I have a genuine question for affirmative action supporters. How does varying skin pigmentation (by itself) help a class to prosper? i.e. what can a lower class urm bring to the table that a lower class orm (who grew up in the same neighborhood) cannot? I curious as to the benefits of this practice.
[/quote]
You're talking about at top schools like the ivies, etc., right?</p>
<p>Well, since one is a URM and the other is an ORM, one will experience life as a URM while the other as an ORM. Honestly, though, if both individuals were qualified, I would bet that both would get in because both would be considered URMs in terms of socio-economic class. Personally, I've heard of all sorts of underpriveleged kids of all races getting a "boost" in the application process. (I hate to call it a "boost" because I mean it'll probably be the only time in their life that being from a lower socio-economic class would "help" them.)</p>
<p>
[quote]
How does varying skin pigmentation (by itself) help a class to prosper?
[/quote]
Improper way to phrase it. Colleges are looking for racial diversity not varying skin pigmentations.</p>
<p>Ok, I agree but...how what does this mean "Colleges are looking for racial diversity not varying skin pigmentations". What is is "racial diversity" other then skin color? Are you referring to cultural diversity (which has nothing to do with skin color)? I don't know any of my very ethnically diverse friends who embrace their culture other then the language if there parents were immigrants. (And if they do it's not at school where it would be beneficial to me).</p>
<p>
[quote]
What is is "racial diversity" other then skin color? Are you referring to cultural diversity (which has nothing to do with skin color)?
[/quote]
Race is more than just "skin pigmentation." There are some Indians who are darker than most African (Black) Americans yet these Indians are still considered to be Indian. "Skin pigmentation" is just a characteristic of a race.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Are you referring to cultural diversity (which has nothing to do with skin color)? I don't know any of my very ethnically diverse friends who embrace their culture other then the language if there parents were immigrants. (And if they do it's not at school where it would be beneficial to me).
[/quote]
It's not really about you experiencing experiencing their culture with them i.e. learning their language, customs, etc. It's more about you and them learning how to get a long with one another and realizing that you are not all that different. Since they are your friends and you have a hard time distinguishing yourself from them, I would have to say that your exposure to diversity has benefited you.</p>
<p>"It's not really about you experiencing experiencing their culture with them i.e. learning their language, customs, etc. It's more about you and them learning how to get a long with one another and realizing that you are not all that different. Since they are your friends and you have a hard time distinguishing yourself from them, I would have to say that your exposure to diversity has benefited you."</p>
<p>I completely agree with you. But don't you think making it easier for a URM to get in over others races only puts space in between the two? It's as though colleges are implying there is a difference between races and when they apply different standards it is quite demeaning in my opinion.</p>
<p>Edit: Since some people don't see eye to eye with me I want to assure everyone I am in no way racist or anything. I just see a general and arguably counter productive flaw in the system.</p>
<p>
[quote]
It's as though colleges are implying there is a difference between races ...
[/quote]
Quite so. My example is the white prep-school kid with SAT 2310, and the black inner-city kid with SAT 2300. Which is likely to enrich a college campus more? Which likely had more obstacles to overcome to reach the score, as an indicator of character? Given one last seat to fill, which would be chosen?</p>
<p>"Quite so. My example is the white prep-school kid with SAT 2310, and the black inner-city kid with SAT 2300. Which is likely to enrich a college campus more? Which likely had more obstacles to overcome to reach the score, as an indicator of character? Given one last seat to fill, which would be chosen?"</p>
<p>You make me sad...do you even understand what I am saying? And since when are all white kinds rich? And since when are all african american kids destitute? Anyone would take the african-american kid in that situation...but what would you do if it was the white kid that is from the city? Who would you pick? What if not "enough" african-american kids had applied this year? Harder choice, huh?</p>
<p>Edit: Upon second reading I may have misunderstood your post, please correct me if I have.</p>
<p>Haha, if only it were like that! Then everyone would choose the URM, without a doubt. But it's not like URM - 2300 and ORM; 2310. It's more like ORM: 2310 and URM: 2000... which will enrich the campus more? Most people still choose the URM. I don't think the scores were even the crux of your argument, but then again, they weren't very realistic either. If all the URMs were scoring just 10 points lower than their counterparts, nobody would be arguing about AA anymore.</p>