<p>
[quote]
The natural balance is where people are evaluated based on their merits regardless of their race.
[/Quote]
</p>
<p>The problem was and is, who and what defines what is meritorious? It certainly hasn't been the URM's to any large degree.</p>
<p>The equilibrium has been jacked up for a long long time.</p>
<p>As for justice Powell; it's easy to speak about equal protections when "affirmative action" has benefitted the status quo for so long.</p>
<p>"The problem was and is, who and what defines what is meritorious?"</p>
<p>-Ah, that old question of what defines "merit"... :rolleyes:</p>
<p>I'm trying to keep out of this argument.... </p>
<p>"It’s not just race. It’s also gender, religion, nationality, creed, and so forth. These factors are irrelevant to participation in university programs. Students should not be given preference based on these factors. It’s a violation of the Civil Rights Act of 1964."</p>
<p>-Case law.....?</p>
<p>
[quote]
And talent knows no color, chromosome, or faith.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>But to cultivate it, develop it, nurture it, market it, and have it reap the fruits of its attributes takes some good ol' american capital. Lots of it. Grossly lacking in some circles where the "equilibrium" has been disturbed. Those that have, have no greater abundance of talent than those that have not. What they do have in abundance is social, political, economic and other forms of capital that was gained from a legacy of preferences that has not offered all "equal protection" to gather that equity for themselves. Rhetorical some may argue, but definitely factual.</p>
<p>Fabrizio: "Please do not forget that fifty years ago, all-white schools were “simply what the university want[ed], what [was] in demand.” </p>
<p>That is why I qualified my opinion more than once with "in a functional society". Had our society been functional back in the 1950's, the markets would have naturally favored a more diverse group of people throughout the economy. Because of rampant racism and ignorance, what was good for society didn't happen. That is why we ended up with race riots. In extreme situations, I am all for government intervention.</p>
<p>While there was rampant racism and ignorance in the 1950s as you state, society was fully functional at that time. America had a booming economy in the wake of WWII and was rising with the USSR to claim the title of global superpower. Nobody had it better than the States during this time. Society was in a completely workable state, albeit a state that perpetuated a segregated, racially based class system. Basically, it wasn't the right kind of society by any means, but it was still a functioning model.</p>
<p>I guess "functional" means different thigns to different people, Enderkin. When I think about the spirit and intention that was behind the creation of this great country, I do not think (no - I KNOW that it wasn't) that our society was entirely functional until it REALLY became a place where all people have a seat at the table (or at least a fair shot at one). You know, a lot of countries throughout history have had booming economies or world class weaponry. What was supposed to make us special was something way more important than either of those things. Funny, though, that in the place where the most liberty exists we also have the greatest economy and military power of all time. It is no coincidence. We are way more powerful than we were in the 1950's. Allowing all of our citizens to participate in the bounty of liberty only made us stronger, and way more functional.</p>
<p>Fabrizio: “I oppose modern affirmative action on the principle that no one should be discriminated against or given preferential treatment based on his race, gender, nationality, religion, and so forth.”</p>
<p>I think we all know that the whole reason that discrimination laws came into existence was to protect underrepresented people from discrimination. The original purpose was to stop people from being shut out because of their race, gender, religion, etc. But then something else happened. People in the majority (I am Caucasian by the way) starting complaining that they were being discriminated AGAINST if an institution erred on the side of being pro-URM in decision-making. Yet I don’t get how this works when I really think about it. </p>
<p>If you are assembling a cast for a play, it is common and expected that you will list things like:
Male, 45, African American
Female, 16, slightly overweight, Native American or Pacific Islander
Male, Caucasian, 60-70, extremely thin with a haggard professorial look</p>
<p>When hiring in general, this type of recruiting is unacceptable, but to cast a play it is allowed as recruiting extremely specific types is considered integral to the production. It isn’t that people who are the opposite of these types are being discriminated AGAINST. It isn’t that the actors hired were given a true “preference” because of their race, age, or body type. It is that to put together what the audience will enjoy, the director aimed for certain combinations of actors. The focus is what will work to produce a desired and effective result, and inherent in the process was no malice toward anyone. </p>
<p>Businesses and schools should be free to do what they feel they need to do to create the most effective staffs, classes, and products possible (as long as they are not acting negatively toward any race, gender, religion, etc.).</p>
<p>It is clear to me that the original anti-discrimination laws were to prevent something very harmful and wrong from occurring. If I felt that Harvard was going to choose a less qualified African American student over my Caucasian son, simply because they wanted one less “white” kid (I hate that antiquated term, BTW – never saw a “white” person in my life – that would surely be scary!) on campus, I would be protesting myself. That would mean that they were discriminating AGAINST him for being Caucasian, and giving preferential treatment for the guy who took his place because he is a URM. But that is not what is happening. </p>
<p>The difference is subtle but very real. If my son loses a spot to an African American, Hispanic, Native American, Pacific Islander, Bassoonist, World Champion Poker player, World Irish Dancing Champion, Fastest Runner in the Southeast, Child of Ralph Lauren, or any other person who for some reason fits the class composition that an admissions committee is creating or assembling, I wouldn’t think a thing of it. He has not been discriminated against if in the process of composing the best product possible (an art more than a science), his type didn’t get picked this time. It isn’t because of a negative slight against his race. </p>
<p>As a consumer, I do want to send my kids to a diverse college campus. I believe most parents feel the same way. Colleges need to give us what we want if they want us to buy their product, and also to meet the needs of employers who recruit on their campuses.</p>
<p>Fabrizio: Preferential treatment denotes that one thing is given advantage over another thing by the deciding party. </p>
<p>Enderkin: “So you are meeting market demand by recruiting a trait that is in short supply; that is, you are putting more attention on certain uncommon traits than on others. Preferential treatment.”</p>
<p>If you want to use this as a definition for “preferential treatment” then I think you have argued for my position instead of you own. Because it is true that every time someone makes a hire or admits a student to a college, they are ranking certain traits over others. If that is your definition, then it is ALL preferential treatment (and recruiting URM’s is no different than anything else).</p>
<p>Fabrizio: "I do not view an act of God (i.e. the “race” we are) as equal to countless hours spent in front of a textbook and a stack of paper, in the gym lifting weights, in the music room making sure the notes are played cleanly, or in the streets doing volunteer work. The first thing is randomly determined. The other cases require conscientious effort and drive."</p>
<p>Do you really believe that being born with super fast legs (and therefore getting a running scholarship or a hook to an Ivy) is completely based on hard work? What about looks and charm (as physical features and personality attributes are largely inherited)? Having a rich father? Being exposed to every known extracurricular? There are so many things which are NOT a result of hard work which can help someone get a great job or a spot on a top college campus. You say that race is an act of God, but nothing else is? If you believe in acts of God, then everything is an act of God. I think that your philosophy would call for an end to any type of preference for absolutely anything. Or is it just for race? What would decision making look like if all “preferential treatment” for all traits were eliminated? </p>
<p>I always wonder why there is so much heated discussion around this topic. I get why someone would be against discrimination based on race, gender, sexuality, etc. etc., but why would someone be against letting markets pick what works on the positive side? Do you really think that a Caucasian basketball player with Michael Jordan’s abilities (or even if he was at the 50th percentile on the court) would not get sucked into millions of dollars worth of contracts simply because his race is underrepresented in that field? From what you are saying, if you had a chance to sign him you wouldn’t, because that would be preferential treatment. But I don’t believe you wouldn’t sign him. You’d $ign him. </p>
<p>Fabrizio: “It’s true that “giving someone more points based on race is no more ‘preferential’ than anything else.” I don’t contest this point. I question, however, whether we should give preference for these types of factors. Anyone can be a strong applicant, but only a [insert race here] applicant can call himself [X race]. That’s the difference in my eyes.”</p>
<p>OK I’ll try out your model:</p>
<p>Anyone can be a strong applicant, but only an African American applicant can call himself an African American.</p>
<p>Anyone can be a strong applicant, but only a world class runner applicant can call himself a world class runner.</p>
<p>Sorry, but I am as slow as molasses. Seriously. I cannot call myself a world class runner.</p>
<p>The play analogy is not congruous to that of college applications. Plays are looking are specific people who look like the preset characters that have already been created. Colleges are looking for fresh people with the strongest potential to give to the world (and later back to them). Does a college look for a 6'6 18-year old with sandy brown hair and a relaxed default expression? A pretty girl who already knows the entire Rent soundtrack by heart? Of course not. </p>
<p>"Businesses and schools should be free to do what they feel they need to do
to create the most effective staffs, classes, and products possible (as long as they are not acting negatively toward any race, gender, religion, etc.)."</p>
<p>We're not arguing over the efficiency of the 'products'. When one thing is more efficient then the other, then there is no problem because there is no contention. The problem is when near-equal parties are made very unequal due to racial preferences. </p>
<p>"If I felt that Harvard was going to choose a less qualified African American student over my Caucasian son, simply because they wanted one less “white” kid (I hate that antiquated term, BTW – never saw a “white” person in my life – that would surely be scary!) on campus, I would be protesting myself. That would mean that they were discriminating AGAINST him for being Caucasian, and giving preferential treatment for the guy who took his place because he is a URM. But that is not what is happening."</p>
<p>But that is what is effectively happening. Promoting a URM at the expense of an ORM is the same as pushing an ORM down in favor of a URM. Subtracting a positive is the same as adding a negative. </p>
<p>"He has not been discriminated against if in the process of composing the best product possible (an art more than a science), his type didn’t get picked this time. It isn’t because of a negative slight against his race."</p>
<p>The point is not the intention of the action; the point is the effect that is generated as a result of the action. Even if the adcoms meant no slight against an ORM applicant by selecting a URM applicant, it means that the URM applicant is still receiving benefits from his/her racial status as an added bonus to his/her previous merits. That is the problem I have with affirmative action. It gives extra to URMs before regarding their own individual merits. You say it yourself: recruiting URMS is no different from any other sort of preferential treatment. </p>
<p>"Do you really believe that being born with super fast legs (and therefore getting a running scholarship or a hook to an Ivy) is completely based on hard work? What about looks and charm (as physical features and personality attributes are largely inherited)?"</p>
<p>You can't get blacker with practice. (plastic surgery = t3h hax0rz) Nobody is born a world-class runner. Some have the benefits of longer legs and the potential to become true runners, but that is only possible through the exploration and exploitation of such talents. You can't become more of a URM than you already are. The athletes/legacy issue is another contentious problem, but not the argument at hand. </p>
<p>"I always wonder why there is so much heated discussion around this topic. "</p>
<p>Some people think they're really right, and others think they're even righter. It's the way things go =)</p>
<p>"I get why someone would be against discrimination based on race, gender, sexuality, etc. etc., but why would someone be against letting markets pick what works on the positive side?"</p>
<p>When Group A is given preference over Group B, it's the same as just discriminating against Group B to begin with. Adding negative = Subtracting positive.</p>
<p>"From what you are saying, if you had a chance to sign him you wouldn’t, because that would be preferential treatment"</p>
<p>Because he's apparently godly at the sport, not because he's white. If he were a Smurf with superhuman dunking abilities I would extract the blood from my own arm for use as ink. It would be so badass (great TV ratings too).</p>
<p>"Anyone can be a strong applicant, but only an African American applicant can call himself an African American.</p>
<p>Anyone can be a strong applicant, but only a world class runner applicant can call himself a world class runner."</p>
<p>Anyone can be a strong applicant, but only a URM applicant has had a predisposed advantage in the college process since birth.</p>
<p>The play analogy was perfect actually, it really made me go "wow". </p>
<p>The analogy is that a play works to build the best cast based on its vision the same way that a college works to build its best class based on its vision. </p>
<p>This is perfectly fine as long as a college can justify that using a particular trait is positive. And i think it is undeniable that their are SOME positives to having a racially diverse campus. </p>
<p>And enderkin, nobody is ever pushed out of a spot for a urm. Each application is viewed individually as it relates to the strength of the entire class and the schools vision. Adcoms never take two applications side by side and go "ok, one of you is getting rejected". </p>
<p>To refute your "favoring one thing is the same as discriminating against the other" argument i'll use this analogy: Suppose you're going to Old Navy (or wherever you go) to by clothes. And you see all these shirts of all these different colors. And you look at this red shirt and think "hmm i dont have enough red shirts" So you pick the red shirt. Are you discriminating against all of the other shirts in the store??? Of course not. You had an idea of what your ideal wardrobe would look like, perhaps with a lot of different colors, you noticed that you didn't have enough red shirts so when you saw a red shirt that met your standards you grabbed it. </p>
<p>Thats exactly what a school that practices AA is doing, it has an ideal vision, their is a positive benefit to having a racially diverse class so thats what a college might pursue. As the adcoms are perusing through the pool of applicants and a strong applicant of a group that is underrepresented comes up, they're going to be more prone to admit them because that quality is what is needed. </p>
<p>I think the big hurtle that AA-opposers need to get over is that black applicants aren't preffered simply because they're black. Do you think that if african americans made up 20% of Harvard that Harvard would still "prefer" african americans?? No, because they wouldn't be lacking them to build their ideal class. Racial diversity is just a goal, and if a college perceives that it is lacking enough black students to be racially diverse, it's going to look for more.</p>
<p>Good debating, Enderkin. I’ll continue…</p>
<p>Enderkin: “The play analogy is not congruous to that of college applications. Plays are looking are specific people who look like the preset characters that have already been created. Colleges are looking for fresh people with the strongest potential to give to the world (and later back to them). Does a college look for a 6'6 18-year old with sandy brown hair and a relaxed default expression? A pretty girl who already knows the entire Rent soundtrack by heart? Of course not. “</p>
<p>The analogy can work even if the situations are not identical. ONE of the things that colleges do is to look for look “for fresh people with the strongest potential to give to the world (and later back to them)”. But that is not the ONLY thing that colleges do. Colleges try to create a superb learning environment in order to be competitive for applicants, grad schools, and companies. Diversity may not be important to you, but for the vast majority of “consumers” of a colleges “product” it certainly is. One could easily make a sound argument for a diverse college campus providing the best preparation for a diverse country and a global economy. These are other things that colleges do.</p>
<p>Enderkin: “We're not arguing over the efficiency of the 'products'. When one thing is more efficient then the other, then there is no problem because there is no contention. The problem is when near-equal parties are made very unequal due to racial preferences.”</p>
<p>You are looking at a situation and seeing “racial preferences”, and I am looking at the same situation and seeing “meeting demand”. I also see “meeting demand” when giving more weight to other underrepresented traits. </p>
<p>Enderkin: “Promoting a URM at the expense of an ORM is the same as pushing an ORM down in favor of a URM. Subtracting a positive is the same as adding a negative.”</p>
<p>I don’t agree. Creating a campus which meets diversity goals is neither promoting a URM, nor is it pushing down an ORM. It is promoting the goal of diversity in the interests of being more competitive in the marketplace. That is the economic explanation for it, anyway (I am sure that some people out there have more altruistic goals). The math analogy doesn’t fit as the situation is way more complicated that adding and subtracting positives and negatives. You could spend a lifetime dissecting this topic and applying the terms “positive” and “negative” to different aspects of it.</p>
<p>Enderkin: “The point is not the intention of the action; the point is the effect that is generated as a result of the action. Even if the adcoms meant no slight against an ORM applicant by selecting a URM applicant, it means that the URM applicant is still receiving benefits from his/her racial status as an added bonus to his/her previous merits. That is the problem I have with affirmative action. It gives extra to URMs before regarding their own individual merits. You say it yourself: recruiting URMS is no different from any other sort of preferential treatment.”</p>
<p>This is an interesting point. Yet since you used the effect of an action as the focus, preferences for any other trait also come into question. What about the student with mild CP who lost a spot in the class to the world class runner? The adcoms meant no slight against him, yet as an accident of birth he had no contribution to offer to the Harvard track team. And he certainly could have lost his spot to the runner with lower SAT’s. If your argument is sound it has to work in other places than race. The student with mild CP was not discriminated against because of his disability. The track team needed a fast runner because it is fun to have a track team that wins. My son would not be discriminated against if a URM was given more points against him because the campus needed more diversity.</p>
<p>Enderkin: “You can't get blacker with practice. (plastic surgery = t3h hax0rz) Nobody is born a world-class runner. Some have the benefits of longer legs and the potential to become true runners, but that is only possible through the exploration and exploitation of such talents. You can't become more of a URM than you already are. The athletes/legacy issue is another contentious problem, but not the argument at hand.”</p>
<p>But it certainly IS true that many traits which give someone a leg up in admissions are acts of God or accidents of birth. Being a world class runner is still to a large extent an accident of birth, and his speed may help him to be just the person that Harvard is looking for after he works like crazy to perfect his technique. Being an African American student is also an act of God or accident of birth, and his race may make him just the person that Harvard is looking for after he works like crazy to perfect his grades.</p>
<p>Enderkin: "I always wonder why there is so much heated discussion around this topic. "
Some people think they're really right, and others think they're even righter. It's the way things go =)</p>
<p>That is true, Enderkin. But only one of us can be right. And that would be me. </p>
<p>Enderkin: "From what you are saying, if you had a chance to sign him you wouldn’t, because that would be preferential treatment"…Because he's apparently godly at the sport, not because he's white. If he were a Smurf with superhuman dunking abilities I would extract the blood from my own arm for use as ink. It would be so badass (great TV ratings too).”</p>
<p>My point was that even if he was in the 50th percentile you would. The issue was all about him being Caucasian. A Caucasian with stunning ability in basketball would command way more contracts (compared to an African American with the same or even more ability) simply because his race is underrepresented in that area right now. This is the truth. And my position is that knowing all of this, if you were an agent, you’d $ign him. And I would bet the farm on it.</p>
<p>Enderkin: “Anyone can be a strong applicant, but only a URM applicant has had a predisposed advantage in the college process since birth.”</p>
<p>My point is all about markets. If there is a demand for African American, Hispanic, Native American, or Pacific Islander students right now, then I guess with hindsight you could argue that since birth they were destined to have an advantage in the college process because of supply and demand. But that energetic little toddler who walked at 8 months and ran at nine, setting records before he hit 6th grade? With hindsight you could also argue that since birth he was also destined to have an advantage in the college process.</p>
<p>Tyler09 gets an "A".</p>
<p>Highlight: "I think the big hurtle that AA-opposers need to get over is that black applicants aren't preffered simply because they're black. Do you think that if african americans made up 20% of Harvard that Harvard would still "prefer" african americans?? No, because they wouldn't be lacking them to build their ideal class. Racial diversity is just a goal, and if a college perceives that it is lacking enough black students to be racially diverse, it's going to look for more."</p>
<p>I don't see why race has to be any part of the admissions process. If an applicant is strong enough to be considered, then why does the applicant need help? If the applicant isn't strong enough to be considered, then why, again, would the applicant need help? </p>
<p>I think I understand the play analogy now. In auditions, if you resemble an old grizzly man, then you already have a headsup over the other applicants because of your physical appearance. In college admissions, if you happen to be a URM, you have a headsup over the other applicants because of your physical appearance!</p>
<p>"Adcoms never take two applications side by side and go "ok, one of you is getting rejected". </p>
<p>Actually, they do something very similar. I believe A for Admissions states that after they've gone through the entire batch of college applications, they usually have an overflow of accepted students. They then go through the entire batch again to weed out accepted students until they reach their target class size. It often comes down to nitpicking between two equally qualified candidates. In this instance, the difference could very well be racial.</p>
<p>Let me contrast two of your statements.</p>
<p>"Suppose you're going to Old Navy (or wherever you go) to by clothes. And you see all these shirts of all these different colors. And you look at this red shirt and think "hmm i dont have enough red shirts" So you pick the red shirt. Are you discriminating against all of the other shirts in the store??? Of course not."</p>
<p>The argument here is that because your wardrobe needed a new shirt, you bought one. The analogy is that colleges need URMs so they become "more prone to admit them because that quality is what is needed."</p>
<p>But then you say that "I think the big hurtle that AA-opposers need to get over is that black applicants aren't preffered simply because they're black."</p>
<p>Which one is it? Are some of these applicants being chosen because the college is looking to fill a diverse class that includes URMs, or are they not being given preference?</p>
<p>And you guys are being mean =(</p>
<p>Going two vs. one! Bah!</p>
<p>And the fight continues...jeez =P</p>
<p>The red shirt wasn't preferred simply because it was red. It was preferred because the wardrobe needed more red shirts. If there were enough red shirts in the wardrobe, then red shirts wouldn't be preffered. </p>
<p>Its not the color of the shirt, it was that it was needed.</p>
<p>enderkin: No way - Spideygirl is never mean! And if you are impressed with two against one, you should have seen me up against a bunch of people debating recently on another thread. And I did give you a compliment a few posts back. And here is a smile for you: :) See? I am smiling at you while I out debate you. :)</p>
<p>enderkin: "If an applicant is strong enough to be considered, then why does the applicant need help?"</p>
<p>The applicant doesn't need help. The incoming class of students needs, in the mind of the adcoms, more diversity.</p>
<p>enderkin: "I think I understand the play analogy now. In auditions, if you resemble an old grizzly man, then you already have a headsup over the other applicants because of your physical appearance. In college admissions, if you happen to be a URM, you have a headsup over the other applicants because of your physical appearance"</p>
<p>No - you don't get it. It isn't about your physical appearance when it comes to college admissions. It is about the experiences which you bring to the group.</p>
<p>enderkin: "It often comes down to nitpicking between two equally qualified candidates. In this instance, the difference could very well be racial."</p>
<p>No - it would be based on what was in demand.</p>
<p>I stay away from this site for five days and this thread is still open? LET THIS THREAD DIE ALREADY!!!!!!!</p>
<p>who is this kid? leave the thread if you don't have anything worth anything to say.....</p>
<p>spideygirl,</p>
<p>The original purpose was indeed to ensure that people would not be shut out because of their race, gender, religion, and so forth. I am for this original purpose because I believe that all should be treated without regard to these factors. I am not for “err[ing] on the side of being pro-‘URM’”. If two candidates are truly equally qualified but of different races, flip a coin. They’re equal in terms of qualifications, why single out race as the deciding factor? The company would obviously be happy with either one.</p>
<p>If you’re assembling a cast for a play, then only certain people will be able to play certain roles unless the director has in mind a radical redefinition. To use one of your examples, it’s hard for an Asian female to play the role of a middle-aged black male. By contrast, if you’re hiring, then many people of all races can fit the bill, ceteris paribus. There’s no rule anywhere that says auditing must be done by a Hispanic female between the ages of 21 and 30. Nor is there a rule that says bouncers must be tall, strong, Asian males under the age of 25. Auditing can be done by anyone proficient in the field. Bouncing can be done by anyone with the right build and mindset.</p>
<p>I also enjoy diversity. I just don’t define it in terms of race. Everybody is unique regardless of race.</p>
<p>As I wrote to you before in post 482, It’s true that “giving someone more points based on race is no more ‘preferential’ than anything else.” Yet, traits like high GPAs, involvement, and potential can be found in all candidates of all races. Only [insert race here] students can label themselves [insert race here]. If you’re saying that there’s no problem with giving preferential treatment based on race since “ranking certain traits over others [is preferential treatment],” then you are condoning segregation. It was “just giving preferential treatment based on race.”</p>
<p>
[quote]
Do you really believe that being born with super fast legs (and therefore getting a running scholarship or a hook to an Ivy) is completely based on hard work?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>You have confused potential with hard work. It’s true that some people are born with the potential for great athletic ability. If they don’t eat right and train hard, though, their talent will not be enough for them to beat a person with lesser genetics but stronger work ethic.</p>
<p>If you don’t put in the hours to improve, you won’t reach your dreams no matter how gifted you are.
I think that your philosophy would call for an end to any type of preference for absolutely anything. Or is it just for race? What would decision making look like if all “preferential treatment” for all traits were eliminated?</p>
<p>You’ve misunderstood my philosophy. I’ll repeat my earlier example. Anyone can have a high GPA. No racial group holds a monopoly on high GPAs. Only [insert race here] people can call themselves [insert race here]. To give preference to the first is not the same as giving preference to the second.</p>
<p>Your basketball example confuses me somewhat. I wouldn’t sign him because of his race. I would sign him because of his ability. What does his race have to do with anything? Does it make it harder for him to dribble? To shoot? To dunk? I don’t think so.</p>
<p>spideygirl,</p>
<p>To bring up a point I mentioned earlier, under free markets, theres no such thing as under-representation. If the market is able to move freely, then an equilibrium will be found that clears the market. Market clearing = no under-representation.</p>
<p>You can use markets to defend positive discrimination. But, you cant say a market that uses positive discrimination is a free market. Its not.</p>