<p>Charisma: "how is that not insulting?</p>
<p>It isn't insulting becasue the Today show is assembling a product to sell to a diverse market. It isn't about race. It is about selling the product (the show) to a diverse audience. </p>
<p>And you don't REALLY find it "insulting".</p>
<p>Not according to the US census, which separates Asians by country and region, not that I even believe in the concept of race. Often, members of a "race", as currently defined, have little in common physically or culturally.</p>
<p>edit - Don't act as though you're entitled to tell me what I do or not not feel.</p>
<p>"It isn't insulting becasue the Today show is assembling a product to sell to a diverse market. It isn't about race. It is about selling the product (the show) to a diverse audience."</p>
<p>It doesn't matter WHY something is done, but rather what is done, not that I agree with the why either. So racism is okay if done for profit?</p>
<p>Fabrizio and Charisma: You can debate this matter with me long after the three of us have become bored with it. You can disagree with what is happening in the marketplace. You have a right to your opinion. But you cannot say that it isn't happening. I happen to agree with it. So I guess I am lucky that things are going my way.</p>
<p>Charisma: edit - "Don't act as though you're entitled to tell me what I do or not not feel."</p>
<p>OK - fair enough. You are right in this instance. I will rephrase my statement:</p>
<p>I do not believe that you find it insulting.</p>
<p>And however you do feel about it, it is happening.</p>
<p>
[QUOTE]
What are you trying to say?
[/QUOTE]
</p>
<p>That your attempt at a reductio ad absurdum (not sure if I'm using it right, but it sounds fancy) failed. Essentially, nobody said that an army of accordion players or competitive eaters (and drinkers) has enough diversity to contribute to a free exchange of ideas; what fabrizio and others are trying to say in this context is that racial diversity is not the only type of diversity, and isn't necessarily as important as other types of diversity, but not that a college could accept a bunch of accordion players, competitve eaters, and the like, and still be considered diverse.</p>
<p>"I do not believe that you find it insulting."</p>
<p>Then I must inform you that you are incorrect.</p>
<p>"But you cannot say that it isn't happening."</p>
<p>When did either of us say that it wasn't happening (assuming that you're referring to AA)?</p>
<p>proletariar2: "not sure if I'm using it right, but it sounds fancy"</p>
<p>Fancy is good.</p>
<p>OK, Proletariat. Thanks for elaborating. I wasn't being literal.</p>
<p>Charisma: "When did either of us say that it wasn't happening (assuming that you're referring to AA)?"</p>
<p>I don't even like the term "AA". I look at this issue with a new set of eyes.</p>
<p>I like the term AA because it only requires 2 keystrokes, and AA is already a euphemism, I don't need more of them.</p>
<p>Charisma, spidey's point is that suppose that in the actor pool their were 50 applicants, all of them well qualified, and a few were black, a few were asian, ect. Well if they simply chose the 4 people randomly then the chances of getting both a black anchor and an asian anchor would be very slim. Because of the appeal having a racially diverse team would add, the station made the decision to hire a black anchor and an asian anchor. </p>
<p>It wasn't arbitrary, it wasn't simply because the station liked black or asian anchors better. It's not because it believed them to be more or less confident. There was simply a demand for them.</p>
<p>"Great, so you recognize that there is no such thing as under-representation in free markets. It’s indeed all about “selling product.” What clears the market is the equilibrium quantity, that is, the “right” amount." </p>
<p>Thus, if a school’s black enrollment is lower than Census statistics, there is no under-representation since all the “product” has been sold.</p>
<p>Thank you for seeing that there is no way that minorities could be under-represented at schools your children choose in the future, provided that the markets are free."
-Fabrizio</p>
<p>-You are absolutely correct, if the school does not believe that racial diversity is important in their student body. If a colleges goal is simply to pick the students with the highest SAT scores and GPAs, and the "best" ECs, then their is no possible way for a race to be "underrepresented". But if a school believes that having a racially diverse campus is a valuable and important aspect, then yes ANY race can be underrepresented.</p>
<p>The difference between this and segregation is that racial diversity stems from the positive, inclusive belief that all races have something valuable to add and should be effectively included on campus, while segregation stems from the exclusive belief that certain races are too inferior to attend campus or will corrupt others if in large numbers, or need to be limited.</p>
<p>Charisma: I don't believe that you like the term AA.</p>
<p>(just kidding)</p>
<p>fabrizio: "You wrote that you “do not think that [voters] should be able to impact…how colleges extend offers of admission.” That is, we have no right to complain even if these colleges employ grossly discriminatory policies. So, according to you, the civil rights activists of the 1960s had no right to complain about segregation and Jim Crow and were wrong to do so. Sorry, I can’t agree with you here"</p>
<p>What you wrote has nothing to do with what I think. And I believe you already knew that. As Tyler pointed out, diversity is something positive. Segregation and Jim Crow Laws were negative, evil things. Voters should not be able to hobble institutions which want to honorably become more successful in the marketplace.</p>
<p>Tyler: "Well if they simply chose the 4 people randomly then the chances of getting both a black anchor and an asian anchor would be very slim. Because of the appeal having a racially diverse team would add, the station made the decision to hire a black anchor and an asian anchor."</p>
<p>Seriously, the producers are going to be grabbing at whatever works. A bright smile, a sharp wit - no, a Diane Sawyer type this time (more earnest than funny). With malice towards none of the other 49 candidates, all of whom probably graduated from Wellesley with a 3.9 and interned at the NYT.</p>
<p>"Voters should not be able to hobble institutions which want to honorably become more successful in the marketplace."</p>
<p>So voters should only be able to vote for things you think are good? Wow, you really don't understand the concept of democracy.</p>
<p>The OP has stements about having a "diverse campus" and a "culture of inclusion." Having said that, I'm sure many of you parents remember in the late 1980's when Oprah went to a county in Georgia that was racist! I'm surpirsed they even let her film there. There used to be a sign on the sign of the highway before you got into the county that said ""N" dont let the sun shine on you on you a... in ...........county! Okay, fast foward to 2007, that same county, in which my D attends school, is still only 2.42 black, 3.33 asian, and 6.74 hispanic. This is where my D attends, and she finds it very diverse, even though she is in the 2.42%. Her diversity is not being the 13% minority there, it is the individual tha she is. Diversity is neither a color, culture nor ethnicity, it is just simply differences. Oh, and she was voted "most likely to succeed" yesterday, and the male that was voted that was also black, from Jamaica. I guess this "redneck" school from the late 80's is definately what I would call a role model school for diversity, inclusion and acceptance in 2007.</p>
<p>Charisma: "So voters should only be able to vote for things you think are good? Wow, you really don't understand the concept of democracy."</p>
<p>Voters should not be able to vote to limit the freedoms of others (in this case, the freedom of business owners and boards to run their organizations profitably.</p>
<p>She's right, voters can't vote to limit the freedom of others. We can't decide to reinstate slavery simply because we want to vote for it (purely hypothetical for those who couldn't tell).</p>
<p>Yes they can, and that's exactly what they do, gay marriage, anyone? Being able to favor one race is hardly a freedom granted to businesses. If it isn't on the bill of rights and voters want to limit that "freedom" (really, I could argue that my freedom is being limited because I can't go out and shoot someone), there is nothing stopping them from doing so. Also, preventing voters from voting the way they want is not only limiting their freedom, but also illegal.</p>
<p>Being able to favor one race simply because they are that race is different from seeking more students of a race because they are underrepresented.</p>
<p>Which is still favoring one race.</p>