Giving diversity its due.

Applying to College
61

<p>Also, i think the problem with the opposition to AA (current AA, for fabrizio's sake) is that they are seeing the university's admittance of more urm students as a benefit, as bonus points. </p>

<p>It's not. The university needed more urm students for it's goal and it admitted more. It wasn't bonus points because the students were filling a niche that other students could not fill. Just like a university may want more med students or more football players. Its not "bonus points" for the applicant, its a niche.</p>

62

<p>Tyler,</p>

<p>You asked, "So why can't a university work to close the racial equality gap by admitting more minority students if they are qualified to do the work?"</p>

<p>I responded, "Another straw man. Did I ever say that they can’t? If a university is able to admit more minority students while holding them to the same standard as their peers, that’s better for the university and for the incoming students."</p>

<p>You then said that it's impossible to admit more of any single group if one standard is applied to all applicants. Are you suggesting that a university can only admit more minority students if the standards are lowered for them? I don't buy that at all for it is quite an insulting suggestion.</p>

<p>Perhaps I have misunderstood your question, which is possible since we often view the same event from two opposing perspectives. Are you proposing a 1970s-style quota system where a certain number of seats are reserved for minority students and only minority students? What you described in your post 40 was exactly such a system, which the Supreme Court deemed illegal 29 years ago.</p>

<p>I'm definitely not setting the standards. I hope your question isn't your way of saying that I don't have a write to opine on this issue. If three-quarters of all applicants meet the standards, why use modern affirmative action to "boost" certain applicants? There's no need.</p>

<p>If every "URM" admit was qualified to begin with, then modern affirmative action is unnecessary.</p>

63

<p>
[quote]
Also, i think the problem with the opposition to AA (current AA, for fabrizio's sake) is that they are seeing the university's admittance of more urm students as a benefit, as bonus points.</p>

<p>It's not. The university needed more urm students for it's goal and it admitted more. It wasn't bonus points because the students were filling a niche that other students could not fill. Just like a university may want more med students or more football players. Its not "bonus points" for the applicant, its a niche.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>A "niche" that only students of a certain color can fill. You know, back in the day, we called this segregation and apartheid.</p>

<p>Now we call it "diversity."</p>

<p>Word games are so wonderful to play.</p>

64

<p>your still dodging the question fabrizio, you refuse to answer it without adding on to it. </p>

<p>So i can assume that if it means not necessarily being held to the same non-existent standard that you oppose universities admitting more minority students, that are qualified, in order to help them and benefit that social cause?</p>

<p>"You then said that it's impossible to admit more of any single group if one standard is applied to all applicants. Are you suggesting that a university can only admit more minority students if the standards are lowered for them? I don't buy that at all for it is quite an insulting suggestion."</p>

<p>-O yeah? So you are saying that it is possible to admit more underrepresented minority students in race blind admissions? With what, magic? luck? And wouldn't that still be discrimination in your eyes if a school seeks to admit more urm students?</p>

<p>And yes all of the minority students they admit are "qualified" or they meet the "standards". 3/4 of applicants at elite universities are "qualified". So nobody is being held to different standards if they already meet the standard.</p>

<p>"If three-quarters of all applicants meet the standards, why use modern affirmative action to "boost" certain applicants? There's no need."</p>

<ol>
<li>I'm missing your chain of thinking here, you're missing some links, please elaborate</li>
<li>it's not a matter of "boosting" certain applicants, college admissions is not a competition. There are no "points", any system like that is and should be illegal as determined by the supreme court. </li>
</ol>

<p>"Are you proposing a 1970s-style quota system where a certain number of seats are reserved for minority students and only minority students?"</p>

<p>-That was a hypothetical question and you know it, i made it obvious. But in order to avoid confusing you in the future i will mark them out more clearly. </p>

<p>"If every "URM" admit was qualified to begin with, then modern affirmative action is unnecessary."</p>

<p>false. Not every qualified applicant is admitted in college admissions, you should know that. I'm suprised you even made such a statement. You just said that 1/2 of urm students at Iv league universities are unqualified.</p>

<p>"A "niche" that only students of a certain color can fill. You know, back in the day, we called this segregation and apartheid."</p>

<p>-First of all, we never called it apartheid, and segregation and modern AA are completely different. A star volleyball player is a niche only somebody tall and athletic can fill. A tuba player is a niche only somebody who plays the tuba and is musically inclined can fill. </p>

<p>So you compare a kids tv show wanting child actors of all races to segregation, calling it discrimination? A TV channel wanting to create a good amount of shows targeted towards african americans is racist? A Sports News Network wanting to have at least one black anchor should be propositioned against?</p>

<p>Why should you be able to deny a school the right to provide students with an environment representative of that of the real world in all of its diversity?</p>

65

<p>Fabrizio:</p>

<p>Ideally, admissions should be race blind. Ideally this race blind system would yield student bodies that somehow resemble proportional representaion. Unfortunately, we are not dealing with the ideal. We are dealing with the fallout from historical discrimination. Does the remedy (AA) unfairly victimize some? I agree that it does.
Would the alternative (abolishing AA) make the overall situation better or worse? In my view, worse.
Hopefully we are moving toward the day when raceblind admissions will result in both diversity and inclusion.</p>

66

<p>
[quote]
"I don't think anyone should be given an advantage because of the color of their skin.", but by favoring one race for diversity, they automatically have an advantage.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I'd think that very FEW of the 85 plus million African Americans, Latino, and American Indians, would share their experiences of their advantages in America due to their skin color. What ever minescule advantages that there may be for a few in certain situations are paled in comparison to mainstream society.</p>

<p>
[quote]
If a university is able to admit more minority students while holding them to the same standard as their peers, that’s better for the university and for the incoming students."

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Many students who weren't up to those exacting standards somehow manage to graduate at or above the percentages of the majority at many of these selective schools. For the most part, whether they are at the top of the class or lower, to have that diploma, and the experiences puts them ahead of their racial peers.</p>

<p>Idealistically it would be better to address these deficiencies at the secondary school level or sooner. We are not there. But to many of these schools credit, they are putting the necessary resources in place at the college level to facilitate those who have the potential and desire to succeed. They are presenting an opportunity for those who have been and are not granted equal access. For those who argue socio-economic as opposed to racial diversity, in the AA community for example, those AA households whose income is above $70,000, avg SAT score is less than whites whose income is less than $10,000. The reasons are complex, but adcoms know explicitly the low numbers of URM's within certain academic and economic thresholds that they believe can meet their "institutional needs." They also realize that while this is a sensitive issue, they believe that presenting these opportuities have huge benefits that serve the individual, the institution and society at large. After all, isn't this in part, is what college is supposed to be about?</p>

67

<p>I'll clarify: "but by favoring one race for diversity, they automatically have an advantage" solely in regards to college admissions (in and of itself, not including whatever may have led up to that point or anything else.)</p>

<p>"What ever minescule advantages that there may be for a few in certain situations are paled in comparison to mainstream society."</p>

<p>I'm well aware that racism is still well and alive (and hardly just focused on only URMs).</p>

68

<p>I'm having trouble understand how being rich or poor influences academic ability. That's where the problem is. Ok, you have more money, it means you get access to other resources (though I don't really se what those are), etc. Well, the way to fix this would be to put a focus on activities and abilities which can't be so directly and easily influenced by income, but rather only by personal qualities. For example, academic competitions, rather than attending paid summer programs, or hanging out with top politicians because your parents are well connected. Colleges could easily do this, if they wanted to. They obviously don't. That's why they need AA, for balance - get some kids who are only "good" because they had resources, get some who had none. Of course it's not fair, everyone in between gets screwed over, with no fault of their own.</p>

<p>So, back to the point. How does having "resources" help you, academically? Last I heard, the only things that should matter are personal motivation, personal wisdom, whatever. If anything besides those matters, then the system is ****ed up, and plain wrong. </p>

<p>How does having money help you solve a math problem, or read a lot? How does having money make you smarter? What I'm actually asking, why if you don't have money does it mean you need any kind of academic boost? What resources other than a pen and paper do you need? What difference does it make if your school is poor or rich?</p>

69

<p>"How does having money help you solve a math problem, or read a lot? How does having money make you smarter? What I'm actually asking, why if you don't have money does it mean you need any kind of academic boost?"</p>

<p>You're not serious are you? </p>

<p>... Ask the student who has to work a nearly full-time job to help support her family because her mother can't afford to pay all the bills. Ask the young boy who goes to the school with barely enough textbooks and teachers for all the students.... or the boy who has to walk through a crime-ridden neighborhood to get to his overcrowded school..... Ask the very poor "why if you don't have money does it mean you need any kind of academic boost?" and see what they say....</p>

<p>"What resources other than a pen and paper do you need?"</p>

<p>Well, if a person cant afford the pen and paper in the first place, then I guess she's out of luck in your eyes, huh?</p>

70

<p>
[quote]
“You do not wipe away the scars of centuries by saying: Now you are
free to go where you want, and do as you desire, and choose the leaders you
please,” Johnson told the graduating class of Howard University. “You do
not take a person who, for years, has been hobbled by chains and liberate
him, bring him up to the starting line of a race and then say, ‘You are free
to compete with all the others,’ and still justly believe that you have been
completely fair. Thus it is not enough just to open the gates of opportunity.
All our citizens must have the ability to walk through those gates. This is
the next and the more profound stage of the battle for civil rights. We seek
not just freedom but opportunity. We seek not just legal equity but human
ability, not just equality as a right and a theory but equality as a fact and
equality as a result.”

[/quote]
</p>

<p>We're not there yet, and until we are AA is necessary.</p>

<p>Why is having URM's vital in selecive schools admissions? Another perspective:</p>

<p>
[quote]
Bob Laird, former head of undergraduate admissions at UC Berkeley,
is unsettled by the fact that blacks and Latinos are increasingly relegated
to the less prestigious schools. “The truth is,” he added, “there’s kind of an
apartheid developing in the UC system, with big numbers of students of
color being shunted to the least competitive of the campuses. And it does
make a difference, in my view, when it comes time to get interviews with
the best private and public sector organizations or when it’s time to apply
to graduate schools.”Birgeneau agreed: “You asked, ‘Why Berkeley?’ You
can say, ‘Why not a community college?’ And the dean of our law school
has an answer to that: ‘Take a look at the Supreme Court. Take a look at the
leadership of the United States.’ Whether we like it or not, in the United
States, attendance at a flagship university is with you for the rest of your life.
It has a huge impact on the probability of success.”

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Fabrizio & others supporting race neutral policies; Is this a good thing?</p>

71

<p>negru: "So, back to the point. How does having "resources" help you, academically? Last I heard, the only things that should matter are personal motivation, personal wisdom, whatever. If anything besides those matters, then the system is ****ed up, and plain wrong. </p>

<p>How does having money help you solve a math problem, or read a lot? How does having money make you smarter? What I'm actually asking, why if you don't have money does it mean you need any kind of academic boost? What resources other than a pen and paper do you need? What difference does it make if your school is poor or rich?"</p>

<p>I think you must be pulling my leg.</p>

<p>How would any of the following impact YOUR academic performance?</p>

<ol>
<li><p>getting dragged out of bed every day in the middle of the night (years K-4, until you were supposedly old enough to remain home alone) so your grandmother could drop you off at a friend's before her shift started (a boy in my daughter's school was in this situation).</p></li>
<li><p>Arriving at school without breakfast, still hungry from not having enough dinner the night before</p></li>
<li><p>Being born without adequate nutrition or prenatal care </p></li>
<li><p>Not having parents who speak English, or having parents who cannot read (so you never were read to)</p></li>
<li><p>Managing constant anxiety about becoming homeless yet again</p></li>
<li><p>Having a learning disability which goes undiagnosed because your parents don't have the money for testing or treatment (being placed in special ed classes even though you are super bright and have dyslexia or ADD).</p></li>
<li><p>Living in a home where there are no books.</p></li>
<li><p>Growing up in a home built before 1978 with paint chipping off the walls.</p></li>
</ol>

<p>Do you need more?</p>

72

<p>Fabrizio: "spideygirl, How you live your life is none of my business. It affects me not at all where you send your children in the future. If your kids wanted to attend a school that they liked but you felt wasn’t “diverse,” that’d be fine with me. After all, it wasn’t any of my business to begin with."</p>

<p>Exactly. And that is why I hope that voters with your opinion are unsuccessful at advancing a viewpoint which certainly does aim to effect the choices that my children can make (and also aims to effect the ability of colleges and businesses to exercise creativity and freedom in their decision making).</p>

73

<p>spideygirl,</p>

<p>Your response makes me chuckle.</p>

<p>You started off by writing, “Serious, all bull and debate aside, do you really think it would be cool for me to send my kids off to a campus where there were hardly any URM students (because the applicant pool had a bunch of great ones but they were about 50 SAT points or a tenth or two GPA points lower - in addition to on average having only about 20% of the income advantages)?”</p>

<p>I responded by saying that it’s none of my business and deferring to the wishes of your children.</p>

<p>You then replied with a “Exactly [it’s none of your business].”</p>

<p>So, why ask me in the first place?</p>

<p>You may hope all you like, but the tide is against you.</p>

<p>55/45 California (1996)</p>

<p>59/41 Washington (1998)</p>

<p>58/42 Michigan (2006)</p>

74

<p>Tyler,</p>

<p>I don’t understand your “So i can assume…” question. Please reword it.</p>

<p>If your original question is still, “So why can't a university work to close the racial equality gap by admitting more minority students if they are qualified to do the work?” I fail to see how I am dodging the question and refusing to answer it. A university can admit more minority students if it so wishes as long as these students aren’t held to higher or lower standards (i.e. they must be treated equally). If you’re proposing a 1970s-style quota system where extra seats are reserved exclusively for minority students, then I don’t support that at all. It is not legal and it is not fair to non-minority students. We do not correct injustices with more injustice.</p>

<p>Yes, I am saying that it is possible to admit more “underrepresented minority” students in race-blind admissions. That you believe that it is not possible shows what you think of their abilities. See UC Riverside as an example of admitting more “URM” students under race-blind admissions. A school can seek all it likes. There’s no problem there. A problem only arises if they ensure that there is a certain representation.</p>

<p>We were talking about elite university admissions, that is, schools that typically admit fewer than twenty-five percent of all applicants. According to you, seventy-five percent of all applicants meet the standards. All of the incoming students can be culled from this seventy-five percent group. Why use modern affirmative action to “boost” certain applicants if enough applicants to be admitted without boosts already exist?</p>

<p>College admissions is a competition. This is the United States. We are capitalist. We are not communist. Communism died out in 1991 with the dissolution of the CCCP. It doesn’t work. </p>

<p>If it was a hypothetical question, then I didn’t see that since you asked me if I would support it.</p>

<p>Not every qualified applicant is admitted, of course. I did not dispute that. But, if the applicant is qualified, then he needs no boost from modern affirmative action. I did not say that half of all “URM” students at Ivy League universities are unqualified. Rather, it is you who is making this suggestion since you believe that without race-based admissions, they can’t get there.</p>

<p>Are you suggesting that “diversity” is something only [insert race here] can provide? That’s a pretty insulting and racist suggestion. It’s no different from our old mores that dictated that “leadership” was something only whites could do.</p>

<p>-First of all, we never called it apartheid, and segregation and modern AA are completely different. A star volleyball player is a niche only somebody tall and athletic can fill. A tuba player is a niche only somebody who plays the tuba and is musically inclined can fill.
A TV show is scripted. Unless the producer wants to risk the ire of the NAACP, a black role typically can’t be played by a white actor. College is different. There are no “niches” that can only be filled by [insert race here] students.</p>

<p>Environment representative of that of the real world…yes, quite interesting. Are you talking about quotas?</p>

75

<p>are you saying that there are no roles for minority students in a university?</p>

76

<p>
[QUOTE]
58/42 Michigan (2006)

[/QUOTE]
</p>

<p>One of the best decisions we Michiganders ever made.</p>

<p>But seriously, it seems like people on these forums just start threads like this for the sole purpose of starting an argument.</p>

<p>
[QUOTE]
are you saying that there are no roles for minority students in a university?

[/QUOTE]
</p>

<p>Those are the types of comments that just endlessly prolong this debate. Please, if you're going to say something, say something that hasn't been addressed before.</p>

77

<p>
[quote]
are you saying that there are no roles for minority students in a university?

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Where did this come from?</p>

<p>I disagree with your concept of “niches” and “only [insert race here] students can provide diversity,” and you respond with this question?</p>

<p>My answer is “no, you have blatantly misunderstood my positions.”</p>

<p>I do not view minority students as some exotic species that should be sought after because of their rarity. That’s an insulting, degrading, and condescending viewpoint. I see minority students as fellow students and possible classmates and friends. No more, no less.</p>

<p>A minority student does not have some special “role” or “niche” on campus that he and only he can provide. That is racial essentialism and is no different from what our society felt a century ago, namely, that whites and only whites should be in power. You’ve simply changed the group; the principle and idea remain the same.</p>

78

<p>wrong, it stems from the belief that ALL races have a "niche" on campus. And the belief that minority students should be sought after isn't insulting, degrading, or condescending. If anything it's empowering and uplifting to be valued and included. </p>

<p>The society a century ago believed that only whites had a role on campus. It was an exclusive society while today it is inclusive.</p>

79

<p>Tyler,</p>

<p>I still disagree that all races have their own “niches” on campus. </p>

<p>You first used the term “niche” in this context in post 61 – “…the [URM] students were filling a niche that other students could not fill.” You thus suggested that there is something that “URM” students and only “URM” students can do. What is this something? “Diversity.” I absolutely disapprove of this ideology. It is offensive to non-“URM” students to suggest that they cannot provide diversity.</p>

<p>The belief that minority students should be sought after isn’t insulting at all. However, the belief that minority students should be sought after because they fill a “niche” and provide “diversity” that others can’t is highly insulting, degrading, and condescending to all parties involved.</p>

80

<p>it does not mean that non urm students can't provide diversity, in fact it means the opposite. Non-urms provide diversity as well, they just aren't underrepresented.</p>