<p>
</p>
<p>So you officially work for the Office of Undergraduate Admissions now? You have not presented us any facts or data to support your argument. Instead, you use rumors, hearsay, and insinuations. U-M uses academic AND non-academic factors to achieve a well-represented, diverse and qualified student body. Before you walk around and say who is qualified and not qualified, I suggest you do your research on the topic.</p>
<p>does non-academic factors mean race, aka something you have no control with when you are born? I mean unless I am mistaken, you can’t work hard to become an African American. talk about inherent advantage and entitlement…</p>
<p>Say you pay taxes to have the snow removed from your street and then in your primarily African American neighborhood they don’t plow the streets. You have a right to gripe. Same principle applies to access to higher ed. Now the state doesn’t necessarily have to change their admission standards, but they could provide alternative means to get into the state college system, including U of M. Satelite campuses in low income or African American neighborhoods that feed the main campus for example. That is one way the legislature may choose to address the issue. But under the passed proposition, is that political solution illegal? That’s may be the direction the lawsuit is taking and they may well have a point and a case.</p>
<p>bearcats, non-academic factors can involve leadership potential, athletics, extracurricular activities, community service, work experience, extenuating circumstances, etc… Yes, U-M and other selective universities look for these things on students’ applications. Hence, the “qualified” vs “underqualified” argument is moot.</p>
<p>Would you be kind enough to answer the following questions with “Yes” or “No”? </p>
<ol>
<li><p>Before prop 2, does non-academic factors include race? Yes or no?</p></li>
<li><p>Is race something applicants have no control over? Yes or no?</p></li>
<li><p>If something you have no control over gives you an edge, do you consider that an inherent advantage by birth? Yes or no?</p></li>
</ol>
<p>It’s not moot, it’s valid. Notice how you’re tiptoeing around saying that race is used as a determining factor when it so obviously is? Now I’m not sure if you’re blind or just brainwashed, but to believe that Michigan doesn’t take race into heavy consideration for applicants is ridiculous. As for your legal arguments, Hopwood v. Texas would certainly disagree with you. </p>
<p>The fact that you even mention class at all completely destroys your argument. Class warfare arguments are about the most pitiful play in the book. You’re operating solely upon the assumption that those in lower socioeconomic rungs of society are inherently disadvantaged, and this simply isn’t the case. Class mobility is one of the most wonderful things about this country, and this kind of “educational welfare” engaged in by Universities like Michigan simply perpetuates the cycle of dependency for these types of people. As bearcats said, there’s no such thing as entitlement, and the belief that Michigan can force such standards upon its applicants because they like “diversity” is, yet again, nothing shy of racism. You can defend your opinion on the matter, just cut the euphemism and admit that’s exactly what it is. </p>
<p>Continuing on this belief of entitlement, you speak as if the economically disadvantaged and minority groups have no hope of attending college, when there’s a clear market for those types of students at fine academic establishments. Top-tier Universities, however, are not that place.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>This is the most elitest post I have ever read in this thread. The lawsuit at the federal courts is not about whether these URM students cannot attend college, but rather does the current legal statutes (Prop. 2) actually limit their political participation (in other words, does it place restrictions that causes undue hardship. There is a reason why we have civil rights legislation.) If they cannot have access to colleges and universities because of this factor, then the group definitely has a case. You can’t exclude a group simply because you think they are numbers-wise unworthy. Your “cycle of dependency” statement is another flawed argument because you assume racism and classism in America does not exist. The racial educational gap in America has been growing, not decreasing, since the 1980s.</p>
<p>mind answering my yes no questions while you are at it? It really takes 3 seconds</p>
<p>bearcats, I already answered your #22 question with my #24 response. I’m sorry if it’s not what you expected.</p>
<p>It’s elitist to say that if you don’t have the money to purchase an expensive college education you should probably go somewhere cheaper? Sounds like common sense to me. </p>
<p>You know why racism and classism exists in this country? Because we have programs and initiatives like welfare, public schooling, socialized medicine, and minimum wage that keep people dependent upon government programs. Without this very “cycle of dependency,” there would be so little power behind the Democratic party and Liberalism it’d be hard for them to exist, which is why they need these programs. Politics of race have become so polarized it’s disgusting, with racial groups voting themselves off the ideological cliff like lemmings because it’s what they’re “supposed” to do as minorities. We have class mobility here. It’s brought to a screeching hault by government organizations who redistribute wealth to those who don’t work for it. You’re arguing for a system based on dogmatic altruism in which people receive positions they don’t deserve, and you continue to skirt around the main aspect of the discussion. I, nor anyone else here, are advocating that people should be admitted to Universities on numbers alone; other factors are a must if you want a well-rounded student body. Race, however, a strictly biological factor, is NOT one of these extraneous factors.</p>
<p>"Would you be kind enough to answer the following questions with “Yes” or “No”?</p>
<ol>
<li><p>Before prop 2, does non-academic factors include race? Yes or no?</p></li>
<li><p>Is race something applicants have no control over? Yes or no?</p></li>
<li><p>If something you have no control over gives you an edge, do you consider that an inherent advantage by birth? Yes or no? "</p></li>
</ol>
<p>These are the questions I am referring to in my post # 25. They are yes/no questions</p>
<p>Am I the only one who would love to see crono triggerfan’s diversity essay for michigan?</p>
<p>And btw: I love you political science majors.</p>
<p>It’s actually an interesting legal question, shame the thread has sunk into the usual racial nonsense.</p>
<p>you should read mine. I wrote about how prop 2 ended reverse racism and reinstalled meritocracy. I even gave the state of Michigan props for doing so.</p>
<p>Hahaha, nice! I didn’t even think about that. My diversity one was actually pretty PC (gotta play the game, now!) but I sorta screwed that up when I wrote about Atlas Shrugged for my stimulating novel.</p>
<p>I’m getting really tired of the argument that because minorities pay equal taxes (for conversation’s sake) that they deserve to be equally represented at the schools… NO! They deserve to be represented, as a state run program they must be offered a seat at the state school that best fits their merit, but they shouldn’t be given an advantage over plain, boring white males that are better students and would otherwise be considered more qualified if it weren’t on the school’s agenda to admit more minorities so that they can impress people with their diversity statistics. </p>
<p>The best, most absolute form of fairness is meritocratic - it sucks that minorities aren’t yet in the position to compete as well as the upper middle class white boys, but fairness is colorblind - a handout isn’t what struggling minorities need - they need to compete. It’s not easy, and it’s not politically correct - but that’s the way we need to approach equality… not with compensating for past mistakes.</p>
<p>The argument is whether or not the state should be able to block attempts to resolve minority underrepresentation at, say, the University of Michigan, even though minorities are forced to fund it. </p>
<p>The same argument could be made for low income families, another underrepresented group, but the state does not block Michigan from increasing low income enrollment. </p>
<p>It is a point worth intelligent debate, which is why the federal court has decided to hear it.</p>
<p>post 37, agreed</p>
<p>“The argument is whether or not the state should be able to block attempts to resolve minority underrepresentation at, say, the University of Michigan, even though minorities are forced to fund it.”</p>
<p>Forced to fund it through taxes, just like everyone else who doesn’t go to U of M?</p>
<p>Wanna know another underrepresented group at U of M? People who aren’t students at U of M. There are so few, and yet they still pay taxes to help the university. No one has said ban all Black people, people just say no race preference.</p>
<p>If those taxpayers wished to attend u of M and could not do so, they too would have a fair gripe, and they too, may wish their political reps to address the situation. I only read a little bit of the article but it appears the main drift is that Prop 2 prevents issues to be addressed through the political process. I suspect the court is going to say that the plaintiffs have not shown that the political process has failed and that other avenues for remedy still exist. The case may be premature, but the trend is certainly there, in Michigan and in other states.</p>