<p>enderkin quote: "colleges aren’t using race just as one factor among many, but as a factor that trumps others"</p>
<p>Every single time a decision is made on an applicant (any applicant), some factors trump others.</p>
<p>kk19131,</p>
<p>I wasn’t aware that discrimination was an academic freedom of universities. </p>
<p>I think that if a majority of voters of a state want their public universities to be under the restrictions of positive discrimination, then their wishes should be carried out. Of course, I also think that if a majority of voters of a state want their public universities to be free of positive discrimination, then their wishes should likewise be carried out.</p>
<p>No holes in your support for diversity, OK…please explain why you referred to Mrs. Virginia Lamp Thomas as Justice Thomas’s “personal AA program” in this thread. To suggest that Justice Thomas married his wife for personal gain and not love is insulting, rude, race-baiting, and not at all representative of the spirit of diversity.</p>
<p>You don’t believe it is your place to decide for every school in America what is and is not a characteristic that brings diversity to an institution. Over half a century ago, people in the majority, whom you despise because of their tendency to oppress minorities, could have used this argument to justify the continuation of segregation. They could have said, “It’s not my place to decide for every school in America what is and is not a characteristic that brings [insert precursor synonym to diversity here] to an institution. Let the schools decide.” Thank God that future Justice Thurgood Marshall kept fighting.</p>
<p>By the way, I’m not anti-diversity. I’m against the ideologies of racial essentialism and “diversity is reduced when race-blind policies are instituted.” </p>
<p>Citizens can’t tell private colleges how and when to accept people, so your having a big problem is a moot point. Proposition 209 affected the public universities of California. Proposal 2 affected the public universities of Michigan. Stanford, for example, can still do whatever it wants, as can Caltech, Pomona, and so forth.</p>
<p>Here we are with the famous “sense of entitlement” again. Please give me examples of what does and what does not make a “sense of entitlement.” Based on my experience, guilty white liberals throw around this phrase on anyone who refuses to submit to the gospel of “diversity.”</p>
<p>“I wasn’t aware that discrimination was an academic freedom of universities.”</p>
<p>-The ability to pick their students in the manner they wish, without unnecessary government intrusion is indeed a freedom of universities, whether or not you believe it to be “discrimination”. </p>
<p>“I think that if a majority of voters of a state want their public universities to be under the restrictions of positive discrimination, then their wishes should be carried out.”</p>
<p>-That’s absurd. If you think it is unjust, then it should ALWAYS be unjust; not miraculously ok just because voters say so. </p>
<p>“No holes in your support for diversity, OK…please explain why you referred to Mrs. Virginia Lamp Thomas as Justice Thomas’s “personal AA program” in this thread. To suggest that Justice Thomas married his wife for personal gain and not love is insulting, rude, race-baiting, and not at all representative of the spirit of diversity.”</p>
<p>-Personal gain? I’ve suggested no such thing; I couldn't care less why he married that woman. What I AM saying, however, is that Justice Thomas grew up in a very small, very Black town in Georgia, and the fact that he not only married a White woman, but one who is seemly well outside the culture in which he was raised leads to an end that is often sought by Affirmative Action – greater cultural interaction. Now, while my comment may have been said in a tongue-in-cheek manner, I stand by it. </p>
<p>“You don’t believe it is your place to decide for every school in America what is and is not a characteristic that brings diversity to an institution. Over half a century ago, people in the majority, whom you despise because of their tendency to oppress minorities, could have used this argument to justify the continuation of segregation.”</p>
<p>-Frankly, I’m tired of you trying to paint all of your opponents as racist, segregation-supporting bigots. If you don’t know the difference between institutionally-forced segregation and allowing a school to diversify its student body, then I don’t know that I should be responding to what you’re saying. </p>
<p>“They could have said, “It’s not my place to decide for every school in America what is and is not a characteristic that brings [insert precursor synonym to diversity here] to an institution. Let the schools decide.” Thank God that future Justice Thurgood Marshall kept fighting.”</p>
<p>-You are clearly ignoring my saying: </p>
<p>“as long as said college doesn't say it WON'T admit any person of "X" classification without just cause”</p>
<ul>
<li>Thus, I in no way support locking out an entire group of people for no legitimate reason. There is, again, a HUGE difference between arbitrarily not allowing entire races of people access to equal education, and attempting to give ALL races a shot at said education – one hurts society and the other strengthens it.</li>
</ul>
<p>“By the way, I’m not anti-diversity.”</p>
<p>Then what…. You’re only for diversity as YOU see it? Something can only bring diversity to a situation if YOU agree with it, right? Tell me, if race has nothing to do with diversity, then what does? </p>
<p>“I’m against the ideologies of racial essentialism and diversity is reduced when race-blind policies are instituted.” </p>
<p>-Racial essentialism? Give me a break. There is a difference between believing that people of different races and cultures can bring different viewpoints to a school, and believing that all people of a race share the same characteristics. </p>
<p>“Citizens can’t tell private colleges how and when to accept people, so your having a big problem is a moot point.”</p>
<p>Are you sure about this? Are you sure you don’t want to do a little legal research before you start claming points to be “moot”? Is not the eventual outcome you seek to have AA illegal in every state – and abolished at every school? Are you trying to say that if all states have outlawed AA that private schools would just be allowed to continue to conduct themselves as they see fit? I don’t think so. If my point is so “moot”, then you must be ok with allowing private school to have Affirmative Action programs, right? </p>
<p>“Here we are with the famous “sense of entitlement” again. Please give me examples of what does and what does not make a “sense of entitlement.” </p>
<p>-Well, if you allow those who disagree with having racial diversity to affect the system, then next will come those who disagree with having gender diversity, economic diversity, geographic diversity, and so on. It will get to a point wherein anybody who even remotely feels like she has high enough grades and test scores and “belongs” in a school will claim that the school is being “discriminatory” if she is not admitted. Schools very likely would be bullied into using a solely SAT-based admissions process, which I believe to be a HUGE step in the wrong direction.</p>
<p>kk19131,</p>
<p>“In the manner they wish.” OK. Are you suggesting that there was nothing wrong with Jim Crow, that schools could have just exclusively picked white students? I disagree. There was something wrong with Jim Crow – it inhibited freedom.</p>
<p>I think positive discrimination is unjust, that is not the point. We live in a democracy where the majority rule. If the majority deems that positive discrimination is just, then I will simply have to keep persuading them to adopt my viewpoint. I cannot force the majority to adopt my viewpoint; I can only persuade.</p>
<p>I was supposed to infer “…Justice Thomas grew up in a very small, very Black town in Georgia, and the fact that he not only married a White woman, but one who is seemly well outside the culture in which he was raised leads to an end that is often sought by Affirmative Action – greater cultural interaction…” from your “personal AA program” comment? OK, if that’s what you meant, so be it.</p>
<p>I don’t need to paint my opponents as racists. I’m simply pointing out that their arguments in favor of positive discrimination could easily have once been used to justify negative discrimination. Whether it’s “there’s nothing wrong with preferentially treating race,” “race can be a merit,” “each race has a niche,” or “it’s not my place to say what schools can and can not do,” all of them were once used to defend negative discrimination. Perhaps it should come as no surprise, since positive discrimination is still discrimination.</p>
<p>What does “allowing a school to diversify its student body” mean? What are we allowing them to do, exactly? It’s possible to diversify a student body without considering race since racial diversity is but one type of diversity. There is no difference between negative discrimination (e.g. institutionally-forced segregation) and positive discrimination (e.g. modern affirmative action).</p>
<p>I see that I overlooked your ““as long as said college doesn't say it WON'T admit any person of "X" classification without just cause” statement. Thank you.</p>
<p>Attempting to give all races a shot at education. Are you suggesting that the voters of California, Washington, and Michigan don’t want this to happen?</p>
<p>Race has nothing to do with diversity. Every individual is inherently unique. If we just “let the chips fall,” a phrase which I believe you used in this thread, then diversity will automatically occur. We did not let the chips fall during Jim Crow, hence diversity was artificially restricted. But, when we do let the chips fall, diversity blooms. See UC for many examples.</p>
<p>I like how you split up my elaboration, “I’m against the ideologies of racial essentialism and ‘diversity is reduced when race-blind policies are instituted’” from my first statement. Anyway…
If you don’t believe in racial essentialism, thank you. I bet it’s a minority viewpoint anyway (i.e. few Americans believe in it.) </p>
<p>Yes, the eventual outcome I desire is to have positive discrimination illegal in every state and abolished in every public school. A private school can do whatever it wants, but if its policies run afoul of the law, then it must forfeit federal funding. I am OK with allowing private schools to do whatever they want as long as they forfeit federal funding if what they do is not legal.</p>
<p>Is your last paragraph suggesting that we shouldn’t be allowed to affect the system? That’s rather un-democratic. It seems that to you, a “sense of entitlement” is “I belong here because of my grades and test scores.” I would like to inform you that I have no such sense of entitlement.</p>
<p>Fabrizio to kk: "No holes in your support for diversity, OK…please explain why you referred to Mrs. Virginia Lamp Thomas as Justice Thomas’s “personal AA program” in this thread. To suggest that Justice Thomas married his wife for personal gain and not love is insulting, rude, race-baiting, and not at all representative of the spirit of diversity."</p>
<p>Oh, please (sigh). Despite your affection (or lack thereof) for kk's word choice, he was clearly implying that this was a couple which demonstrated diversity. A simple, very small point. In choosing each other, the two of them made the planet move a bit more in that direction. KK did not say that is why they chose each other, but the fact that they did does show progress. You twisted what he tried to say, and created something entirely new (your creation, not kk's). You really went off on a ridiculous tangent with that attempt, as you did with the segregation conspiracy theory as well.</p>
<p>Can't you find enough material in what someone actually says?</p>
<p>Fabrizio: "I wasn’t aware that discrimination was an academic freedom of universities"</p>
<p>The only way universities could represent what you argue for is if in order to compose a class they just put names in a paper bag and pull them out with a blindfold. If that is what you want, then I could see some validity in your opinions on this topic (or at least in the consistency of those opinions).</p>
<p>spideygirl,</p>
<p>In post 20, kk19131 responded to madville's observation that Justice Thomas benefited from affirmative action with, "True, and he even has his own personal AA program - he married a White woman; I'm sure all in the name of diversity."</p>
<p>Thus, to kk19131, not only did Justice Thomas benefit from affirmative action (i.e. positive discrimination), but he also benefited from having a "personal" affirmative action program - a white wife.</p>
<p>Let's consider the context of this statement. madville stated that it is somewhat hypocritical of Justice Thomas to oppose affirmative action since he benefited from it. In this context, the benefits are improved access to education and career opportunities, not "diversity." (Before he brought up Justice Thomas, madville mentioned that Mr. Connerly benefited from affirmative action in his business, that is, improved career opportunities.) kk19131 added on to madville's observation by pointing out that having a white wife also helped Justice Thomas. With what? Well, assuming that she maintained context, "what" would have to be career opportunities.</p>
<p>But, according to kk19131, my interpretation is not correct. And, since she wrote the sentence, I'll defer to her interpretation even though I don't buy it.</p>
<p>There is no "conspiracy theory." When people talk about each race having a "niche," or "there's no problem with preferentially treating race," they're echoing segregationist defenses.</p>
<p>spideygirl,</p>
<p>
[quote]
The only way universities could represent what you argue for is if in order to compose a class they just put names in a paper bag and pull them out with a blindfold. If that is what you want, then I could see some validity in your opinions on this topic (or at least in the consistency of those opinions).
[/quote]
</p>
<p>How about if they don't look at names, gender, or racial classification and instead just look at the following:</p>
<ol>
<li>GPA</li>
<li>Test Scores</li>
<li>Class rank</li>
<li>Essays</li>
<li>Letters of Recommendation</li>
<li>Extracurriculars</li>
</ol>
<p>(not an ordered list)</p>
<p>fabrizio: "There is no "conspiracy theory." When people talk about each race having a "niche," or "there's no problem with preferentially treating race," they're echoing segregationist defenses"</p>
<p>When you write these things, you are fabricating other people's opinions on this thread.</p>
<p>Fabrizio: "How about if they don't look at names, gender, or racial classification and instead just look at the following:</p>
<ol>
<li>GPA</li>
<li>Test Scores</li>
<li>Class rank</li>
<li>Essays</li>
<li>Letters of Recommendation</li>
<li>Extracurriculars"</li>
</ol>
<p>Because in doing what you suggest, you allow the very same thing that you keep arguing against: giving some traits more weight in the process that others (one activity over another, one type of courseload over another, one type of GPA calculation over another, one type of personality or perspective as shown in the essay over another, etc.). Your argument is inconsistent.</p>
<p>Colleges need the freedom to compose an incoming class which meets its educational objectives and also the demands of the marketplace in which it competes.</p>
<p>Be consistent - advocate the paper bag approach.</p>
<p>spideygirl: "When you write these things, you are fabricating other people's opinions on this thread"</p>
<p>Is that where the name "FABrizio" came from?</p>
<p>JK - couldn't resist.</p>
<p>Fabrizio on kk: "In post 20, kk19131 responded to madville's observation that Justice Thomas benefited from affirmative action with, "True, and he even has his own personal AA program - he married a White woman; I'm sure all in the name of diversity."</p>
<p>"I'm sure all in the name of diversity." Does that sentance really sound to you like something that was meant to be taken literally?</p>
<p>
[quote]
When you write these things, you are fabricating other people's opinions on this thread.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Post 61: "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."</p>
<p>Am I really fabricating the idea that certain races fill certain niches?</p>
<p>The other argument, from you, is from a different thread, and thus I won't quote it here.</p>
<p>As far as kk's sentence, I read it online. Detecting sarcasm is a lot harder when I can't listen for changes in tone.</p>
<p>"Post 61: "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."</p>
<p>Am I really fabricating the idea that certain races fill certain niches?"</p>
<p>-Yes, yes you are fabricating. Because she said that those urms THAT WERE TIPPED BY AA were filling a niche that other students could not. Your statement that all races have their own certain niche was a complete fabrication. </p>
<p>Looking at your factors for admission fabrizio it appears that you don't believe a school should have the right to any diversity initiatives at all. While ALL forms of considering diversity in admission IS "positive discrimination", as you call it (though deciding that any applicant is better then another is discrimination) I would hope that you wouldn't be for the end of diversity in admissions?</p>
<p>"It’s possible to diversify a student body without considering race since racial diversity is but one type of diversity..... Race has nothing to do with diversity."</p>
<p>-Wow so do you always contradict yourself in the same post as it suits your argument? And i would hope that even the most adamant opposition to AA believe that racial diversity, however important they think it is, is still ONE kind of diversity, that none would believe that racial diversity "has nothing to do with diversity"; that if all the african american people in America were to vanish, America would be just as diverse. </p>
<p>So which is it fabrizio? Seeing as you seem to have a hard time deciding....</p>
<p>"Attempting to give all races a shot at education. Are you suggesting that the voters of California, Washington, and Michigan don’t want this to happen?"</p>
<p>-Nobody is saying that they don't want it to happen, but the ballot they were given used skewed, biased language that made no mention of the banning of beneficial race and gender diversity programs. </p>
<p>For Example: </p>
<p>“I think that if a majority of voters of a state want their public universities to be under the restrictions of positive discrimination, then their wishes should be carried out.”</p>
<ul>
<li>There are no "restrictions" of AA, or "positive discrimination, seeing as no school is forced to have them. It is a RACE BLIND policy that is RESTRICTING what a university can do. If you are going to skew your language at least make it accurate.</li>
</ul>
<p>"Perhaps it should come as no surprise, since positive discrimination is still discrimination."</p>
<p>-So is deciding that anything is better than anything else, by the definition you're using</p>
<p>"There is no difference between negative discrimination (e.g. institutionally-forced segregation) and positive discrimination (e.g. modern affirmative action)."</p>
<p>-Really, NO DIFFERENCE. Are you willing to make such an absolute statement?</p>
<p>"If we just “let the chips fall,” a phrase which I believe you used in this thread, then diversity will automatically occur. We did not let the chips fall during Jim Crow, hence diversity was artificially restricted. But, when we do let the chips fall, diversity blooms. See UC for many examples."</p>
<p>-No we didn't let the chips fall during Jim Crow, we intervened and forced it to stop. Race Blind policies are "artifically restricting" diversity just as much as Jim Crow, even more so when they are forced on schools. By your definition, forcing schools to desegregate was interfering with "letting the chips fall". </p>
<p>And btw, the UCs are PANICKING right now because of their loss in diversity. They now have a huge problem in getting the competitive black and latino students to come to their university. </p>
<p>“I’m against the ideologies of racial essentialism and diversity is reduced when race-blind policies are instituted.” </p>
<p>-More word play? What does the theory of racial essentialism, that in order to be of a certain race you must have certain characteristics, have to do with AA. The whole point in admitting a racially diverse student body is so that members of all races will be exposed to a DIVERSE GROUP of members from each race. So in actuality, AA is based around members of each race being unique and wanting to expose that fact to those who have not encountered it; hoping that in the future, their perception of race is not based on media stereotype. </p>
<p>And in order to say that race-blind policies do not reduce diversity AT ALL, that means that you're saying that racial diversity, is not a type of diversity at all. A belief I pray, for your sake, you do not hold.</p>
<p>Tyler,</p>
<p>You realize that post 61 is your own post and not spideygirl’s, yes?</p>
<p>You said that “…the [‘URM’] students were filling a niche that other students could not fill.” What kind of “niche” are these students filling that others can’t fill, anyway? Please elaborate.</p>
<p>The third definition of discrimination in The American Heritage Dictionary is “Treatment or consideration based on class or category rather than individual merit; partiality or prejudice.” So, no, deciding that an applicant is better than other is not necessarily discrimination. It depends on whether he’s better because of what he’s done (i.e. merit) or because of how society classifies him.</p>
<p>Diversity will occur naturally in admissions if, to use kk19131’s phrase, we allow the chips to fall in place.</p>
<p>I wrote that “race has nothing to do with diversity” in response to kk’s question, “if race has nothing to do with diversity, then what does?” in her post 163. Race is a social construct. Whether it exists or not does not impact that we are all inherently unique. We can create distinctions, call them “races,” and then define a type of diversity to be based on this distinction. If we had not done so, however, diversity would still exist. So, thank you for pointing this out. I should have written, “race and diversity are not synonymous.” I ask only that you recognize that I did not write that “racial diversity” has nothing to do with diversity. America would not be just as diverse as it is if it lost all of its black citizens. It would lose millions of individual lives, dreams, and hopes, and that would be a terrible thing. But, if we were to rid ourselves of the race labels, we wouldn’t lose any lives, dreams, or hopes. We’d simply be one step closer to brotherhood.</p>
<p>I disagree that the language proposed by Mr. Connerly is “skewed” and “biased.” Also, what is a “beneficial” race and gender diversity program? Are you talking about outreach? If so, know that these programs were not banned as a result of Proposition 209. In fact, they were strengthened by it.</p>
<p>Positive discrimination restricts the natural equilibrium from occurring. If no student were discriminated for or against, the makeup of the class would be different than if certain students were given preferential treatment based on their group identification. Does race-blind policy restrict universities from doing certain things? Sure does. It restricts them from discriminating against certain applicants and for others. Just like how Brown was an extreme restriction of segregation; it forbade the practice.</p>
<p>Yes, there is no difference between positive and negative discrimination. Discrimination is discrimination. There’s no “good” discrimination.</p>
<p>No, we did not let the chips fall during Jim Crow. We snatched some out of the air and gave others extra acceleration. I do not support this practice. Yes, forcing schools to desegregate (i.e. forbidding them from using segregation) did interfere with letting the chips fall. It uninhibited and unrestricted the flow process.</p>
<p>What kind of diversity did the UCs lose? Please explain.</p>
<p>Perhaps we define racial essentialism differently. I define it as the belief that we are different because of our races. I don’t buy that. </p>
<p>Race-blind policies do not reduce diversity. At all. There’s no guarantee that race-blindness automatically reduces racial diversity. Can it happen? Sure. Has it happened? Yes. Has it happened everywhere? No.</p>
<p>Non race blind admission will yield unbalanced classes that lack diversity because of past discrimination. AA is a means of 1)redressing the disadvantages some face because of past discrimination thereby 2)building diverse student bodies. Eventually, a system of admissions based on factors that do not include race will yield fairly chosen diverse student bodies. </p>
<p>I defend the use of race as a factor in admissions as a temporary necessity, not as a permanent positive good. The potential pitfalls and abuses of a system that accepts race as a permanent factor are as obvious as they are nightmarish. MLK's dream of the utopic America was one in which all children would be judged "by the content of their character and not by the color of their skin". It doesn't get more race-blind than that.</p>
<p>
[QUOTE]
The voters in Michigan and California were poorly educated on the subject, not understanding that racial preferences were not "handouts" to people because of their race, but a means of increasing diversity in ALL races.
[/QUOTE]
</p>
<p>I'm absolutely certain that Michigan voters are as educated about Affirmative Action as they are about any other issue; I've talked to various voters from here as to why they support/disagree with it, and they all have a mostly correct perception about what it is.</p>
<p>
[QUOTE]
Every single time a decision is made on an applicant (any applicant), some factors trump others.
[/QUOTE]
</p>
<p>But race isn't a measure ofthe quality of a student. One might say the SAT isn't either, but it's a much better measure.</p>
<p>
[QUOTE]
The center used Freedom of Information Act requests to find that the SAT median for black students admitted to Michigans main undergraduate college was 1160 in 2005, compared to 1260 for Hispanics, 1350 for whites and 1400 for Asians. High school grade point averages were 3.4 for black applicants, 3.6 for Hispanics, 3.8 for Asians, and 3.9 for whites.
[/QUOTE]
</p>
<p>That's why we got rid of it. I believe the University of Michigan, though, will now be honest enough to stick to what the voters want, despite the rumors that they would find some way out.</p>
<p>
[QUOTE]
Looking at your factors for admission fabrizio it appears that you don't believe a school should have the right to any diversity initiatives at all. While ALL forms of considering diversity in admission IS "positive discrimination", as you call it (though deciding that any applicant is better then another is discrimination) I would hope that you wouldn't be for the end of diversity in admissions?
[/QUOTE]
</p>
<p>Who says diversity initiatives are supposed to be preference in admissions? How about helping low-income kids in the area, or tuition waivers? Or support for pre-college programs designed for low-income kids? Are those excluded from your narrow definition? Nobody is against diversity in American colleges, but it's just that unfair means shouldn't be used to achieve it.</p>
<p>Deciding between applicants is discrimination is that you must discriminate based on merit. To say this is discrimination in the modern sense would be playing more of your word games.</p>
<p>^I don't play word games, And you obviously don't seem to know what a word game is. Simply using the definition of a word is not playing word games....</p>
<p>And that was my question, do you think that colleges should be able to use factors that increase diversity in admission, even though doing so would be "positive discrimination", because it is based on something other than merit?</p>
<p>Proletariat you have effectively added nothing to the conversation. skim the thread next time k?</p>
<p>Fabrizio, It appears that you are contradicting in your definition of "natural equilibrium".</p>
<p>Segregation and oppression is part of the "natural equilibrium", that's why it's up to the government to protect the minority from the majority. After segregation was ended, it was the "natural equilibrium" that african americans would fall farther behind. Universities are operating in their "natural equilibrium" when they consider diversity in admissions. Yet race-blind policies are not interfering with the natural equilibrium by imposing restrictions on a schools ability to build a class?</p>
<p>Fabrizio, i agree that natural equilibrium WOULD result in diversity, race blind policies WOULD result in an equal amount in diversity, and we WOULD be able to become a color blind society, BUT we are far from that ability. We cannot turn a blind eye to race when such a strong correlation exists between race and socioeconomic status & education. When we could no longer take a random sample of 10 white people and 10 black people and assume that their will be more poor blacks then poor whites, When we can go to a school thats >70% latino and safely assume that it is just as adequate as a school >70% white, THEN we can use race-blind policies, THEN we can be a race-blind society.</p>
<p>In order to expect that natural equilibrium will have the best results, we have to right the artificially destroyed natural equilibrium we have now.</p>