<p>What? Enderkin I think you blew a gasket. I think if I saw you right now each one of your eyes would read "TILT". :)</p>
<p>Fabrizio: "If you state that there is nothing wrong with giving preferential treatment to “URMs” since any ranking of desired traits (e.g. grades, involvement, etc.) is preferential treatment, is that not an absolution of segregation?"</p>
<p>How so? Explain, please.</p>
<p>
[quote]
What does his race have to do with anything?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Ask anyone who is into marketing, sales, HR, promotions, PR, etc. This is America, and race does matter. It doesn't always matter to everyone, and in every situation, but it matters to many many people. This thread is a shining example of this fact. We as a society have come a long way but we still have a long way to go. I applaud those whose idealism hopes for the day that race, gender, social status, and other personal traits are made less significant when it comes to issues like this. The fact remains that it does and it's one of the more complex challenges of humankind to strive for true equality.</p>
<p>
[quote]
The URM student probably isn't going to be compared to the world-class quarterback, either, because that guy is getting recruited.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>There is very little difference in admissions in the recruitment(yes, URM's are recruited not just on the field) between a blue chip athlete and a high performing URM. Both are rare (sadly for URM's) and both types are highly coveted by colleges. For example, in a recent article, African Americans who score a 28 or above on the ACT numbered around 1700 or so, while whites numbered about 103,000. If I'm an adcom at a selective university/college and I'm looking to bring a certain blend of demographics to my campus, who will be more coveted? Their rarity is what makes them more desirable. Until that changes, the demand will be there. The push or defense for AA becomes obsolete when there are significantly more people of color saturating the ranks of those being considered for various coveted positions.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Fabrizio: "If you state that there is nothing wrong with giving preferential treatment to “URMs” since any ranking of desired traits (e.g. grades, involvement, etc.) is preferential treatment, is that not an absolution of segregation?"</p>
<p>spideygirl: How so? Explain, please.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>In post 476, you wrote “…absolutely every factor in any hiring or admitting decision amounts to ‘preferential treatment’. Any time you rank what you are looking for, you are giving preference to one trait or situation over another. Therefore, giving someone more points based on race is no more ‘preferential’ than anything else.” </p>
<p>In other words, you stated that there isn't anything wrong with “giving someone more points based on race” since in your eyes, it operates on the same principle as giving someone more points for having good grades and high scores (i.e. a ranking). To you, if there’s nothing wrong with giving preference to model citizens, then there’s nothing wrong with giving preference based on race.</p>
<p>You’ve just pardoned segregation, which was “giving [whites] more points based on race” at the expense of non-whites.</p>
<p>
[quote]
</p>
<p>There is very little difference in admissions in the recruitment(yes, URM's are recruited not just on the field) between a blue chip athlete and a high performing URM. Both are rare (sadly for URM's) and both types are highly coveted by colleges. For example, in a recent article, African Americans who score a 28 or above on the ACT numbered around 1700 or so, while whites numbered about 103,000. If I'm an adcom at a selective university/college and I'm looking to bring a certain blend of demographics to my campus, who will be more coveted? Their rarity is what makes them more desirable. Until that changes, the demand will be there. The push or defense for AA becomes obsolete when there are significantly more people of color saturating the ranks of those being considered for various coveted positions.</p>
<p>
[/quote]
</p>
<p>So the ratio of whites scoring above 28 to blacks scoring above 28 is basically 60:1. Wow. That’s a huge problem.</p>
<p>Bringing a certain blend of demographics to a campus is nothing more than a predetermined quota. I don’t support quotas. They’re constraints on the free market, and they lead to inefficiency.</p>
<p>As I’ve written before, the supporters of positive discrimination will lose because they can only accept one outcome – “correct representation.” If certain groups are “under-represented,” they’ll be unhappy. If certain groups are “over-represented,” they’ll be unhappy, as well. They’re only happy when the numbers are “right.”</p>
<p>By comparison, supporters of race-neutral admissions are happy with all three outcomes. To use my group as an example, if race-neutral admissions resulted in fewer Asians being admitted, I’d be fine with that. If it resulted in the same amount, I’d be fine with that, too. And, if it resulted in more, I’d also be fine with that.</p>
<p>The Civil Rights Movement was built on a strong vision that had room for compromise. It seems that its “descendants” (in name only) are utterly unwilling to compromise.</p>
<p>Fabrizio:” In post 476, you wrote “…absolutely every factor in any hiring or admitting decision amounts to ‘preferential treatment’. Any time you rank what you are looking for, you are giving preference to one trait or situation over another. Therefore, giving someone more points based on race is no more ‘preferential’ than anything else.” …In other words, you stated that there isn't anything wrong with “giving someone more points based on race” since in your eyes, it operates on the same principle as giving someone more points for having good grades and high scores (i.e. a ranking). To you, if there’s nothing wrong with giving preference to model citizens, then there’s nothing wrong with giving preference based on race…You’ve just pardoned segregation, which was “giving [whites] more points based on race” at the expense of non-whites.”</p>
<p>A quick review of my previous posts soundly refutes your point:</p>
<p>Spideygirl 504: 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>Spideygirl 506: 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)</p>
<p>Spideygirl 507 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….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….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.)…. 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>Spideygirl 466 You seem to think that institutions can level a playing field. They can't. Colleges can't. Government can't. Only markets can produce the fairest playing field possible. And this is the language you need to use to convince anti-AA people (if that is your goal).</p>
<p>Spideygirl 474 I still believe that government should stay out of businesses and universities, and let market forces create the fairest playing field possible. I would not have felt this way fifty years ago (when society's toxicity reaches an extreme, I'm all for government intervention). Today is a different story, however.</p>
<p>Spideygirl 476 Many are against AA because they fear that a lesser qualified minority will take the place of a better qualified non-minority. And that makes them really mad. But I wonder why they don't see that absolutely every factor in any hiring or admitting decision amounts to "preferential treatment". Any time you rank what you are looking for, you are giving preference to one trait or situation over another. Therefore, giving someone more points based on race is no more "preferential" than anything else.</p>
<p>Spideygirl 477 That is why a market focus is the most persuasive argument, as markets (in a reasonable society) are the great equalizer.</p>
<p>Spideygirl 479 My cliff notes version would be that once society is at least at a place where a reasonable amount of civility exists, economic markets will tend to naturally produce a fair representation of different racial groups among the various professions.</p>
<p>I think we can at least agree that a segregated society meets the criteria for “dysfunctional”, does NOT produce a “level playing field”, is not “reasonable”, always includes malice towards one group (otherwise, why the separation?), is extremely “toxic”, and could never be a place where a “reasonable amount of civility” exists. My argument couldn’t be farther from pardoning segregation.</p>
<p>Fabrizio: Bringing a certain blend of demographics to a campus is nothing more than a predetermined quota. I don’t support quotas. They’re constraints on the free market, and they lead to inefficiency.</p>
<p>I don’t support quotas either. And I don’t support inefficient constraints on the market. The market is requesting more diversity. In a reasonable society, we can step aside and let the markets do what they do best.</p>
<p>Fabrizio: As I’ve written before, the supporters of positive discrimination will lose because they can only accept one outcome – “correct representation.” If certain groups are “under-represented,” they’ll be unhappy. If certain groups are “over-represented,” they’ll be unhappy, as well. They’re only happy when the numbers are “right.”</p>
<p>I don’t support “positive discrimination” or “correct representation”. I just think that a guy who owns a hospital should be free in the United States of America to hire the way that he wants, with malice toward none, in order to produce a staff which will be most profitable for him. Universities should be free to create a campus environment which meets their educational and economic goals (again, with discrimination toward no one who might be from an overrepresented group).</p>
<p>Fabrizio: The Civil Rights Movement was built on a strong vision that had room for compromise. It seems that its “descendants” (in name only) are utterly unwilling to compromise.</p>
<p>I am willing to compromise. I don’t even like the term AA. But standing in the way of progress isn’t compromising. We finally have things moving NATURALLY in a fair direction, and some people want to call ”foul!”. Seriously, there just is no foul. Trying to stand in the way of supply and demand forces is doing the very thing you seem to be against (putting a constraint on the free market).</p>
<p>"I don’t support “positive discrimination” or “correct representation”. I just think that a guy who owns a hospital should be free in the United States of America to hire the way that he wants, with malice toward none, in order to produce a staff which will be most profitable for him. Universities should be free to create a campus environment which meets their educational and economic goals (again, with discrimination toward no one who might be from an overrepresented group)."</p>
<p>So you would have no problem with a university who chose to give whites a bump because it would suit their "educational and economic goals"? Or would that not be PC? Or maybe that would be discriminatory towards blacks, and yet giving blacks a boost would not be discriminatory towards whites?</p>
<p>"The Civil Rights Movement was built on a strong vision that had room for compromise. It seems that its “descendants” (in name only) are utterly unwilling to compromise."</p>
<p>The Civil rights movement was based on equality, based on treating everyone the same, not giving one race a boost.</p>
<p>"We finally have things moving NATURALLY in a fair direction, and some people want to call ”foul!”. Seriously, there just is no foul. Trying to stand in the way of supply and demand forces is doing the very thing you seem to be against (putting a constraint on the free market)."</p>
<p>It's not natural if one race gets a boost, natural would be everyone on a fair playing field. It's unnatural to skew things one way.</p>
<p>
But everyone is not on a fair playing field. Certain minority groups are significantly behind.</p>
<p>^ Can you explain specifically why every single person of that group is behind to the extent that they all be given a boost as a group?</p>
<p>
[quote]
Bringing a certain blend of demographics to a campus is nothing more than a predetermined quota. I don’t support quotas. They’re constraints on the free market, and they lead to inefficiency.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Fab, the gatekeepers if you will, keep the terms of admission ambiguous, so that it's difficult to outright prove that there are quota's per se. If your statement is to have any real merit, are you saying that those urm's who have been the benefactors of AA in selective school admissions, have led to inefficiency? If so, in what capacity? Prestige? Alumni giving? Rankings? Producing future leaders and innovators? I fail to see the drop off.</p>
<p>When I compare the standard of living and quality of life in most every definitive category in this society, people of color are at the bottom and particularly african americans. I do not subscribe to a wholesale victimology thesis, nor do I absolve african americans of the choices that have been made that have us in the state of affairs that we are in. In many of these quality of life categories, blacks are pitifully low. There is nothing "natural" nor evolutionary about this current state of affairs. </p>
<p>As MLK stated:
"A society that has done something special against the Negro for hundreds of years must now do somethng special for him, to equip him to compete on a just and equal basis." </p>
<p>Those of us that subscribe to AA believe this in part. Maybe some of those that help create those "market forces" subscribe to this thought as well.</p>
<p>
[quote]
So you would have no problem with a university who chose to give whites a bump because it would suit their "educational and economic goals"?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>That trend is beginning to take place on HBCU's as we speak.</p>
<p>
[quote]
The URM student probably isn't going to be compared to the world-class quarterback, either, because that guy is getting recruited.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Actually, there are a no. of top law and med schools which fly in the top black applicants, wine and dine them, offer them scholarships, etc. - not that different from recruiting a blue-chip FB player.</p>
<p>
Well, I don't think every person of a certain minority or racial group deserves a boost, BUT most people of that minority group probably need a little help. I mean, let's consider African Americans. A quarter of us are living below the poverty line, more than half are growing up in single-parent households, less than 1/5 have a college education. The median income is ~$33,000 a year.</p>
<p>Now, let's compare that to white Americans. Less than 1/10 of white Americans live below the poverty line, around 14% live in single-parent homes. And more than 1/3 of all white Americans have a college education. Their median income is around ~$48,000 a year.</p>
<p>So, why don't we do some side-by-side numbers comparisons so that the difference is even clearer.
% of people living below the poverty line: 26% (AA) vs. 9% (W)
% of children growing up in single-parent households: 56% (AA) vs. 14% (W)
% of people with a college education (a Bachelors Degree): 17% (AA) vs. 36% (W)
median household income: $33, 255 (AA) vs. $48, 977 (W)</p>
<p>And these are just the disparities between African Americans and white Americans. I didn't research the disparities between whites and hispanics or whites and Native Americans. I'm sure the numbers would be comparable to what we see in the African American community.</p>
<p>Does that sound like a "fair playing field" to you, Charisma?</p>
<p>Well, I don't think every person of a certain minority or racial group deserves a boost, BUT most people of that minority group probably need a little help. I mean, let's consider African Americans. A quarter of us are living below the poverty line, more than half are growing up in single-parent households, less than 1/5 have a college education. The median income is ~$33,000 a year.</p>
<p>"Now, let's compare that to white Americans. Less than 1/10 of white Americans live below the poverty line, around 14% live in single-parent homes. And more than 1/3 of all white Americans have a college education. Their median income is around ~$48,000.</p>
<p>Does that sound like a "fair playing field" to you, Charisma?"</p>
<p>-Extremely true. I'm starting to get the feeling that affirmative action and the leeway URMs receive are necessary. I used to think it was unfair, but in reality, the african americans that grew up not having equal amount of resources as caucasians should at least get some sort of leeway. Thus, it won't be fair for admission commitees to scrutinize those who were unfortunate the same way they scrutinize those who were actually fortunate.</p>
<p>-Think thats what hotpiece was trying to explain</p>
<p>Regarding 547,</p>
<p>spideygirl, none of the quotations you provided refuted my point. Interestingly, one of the quotations you used to "refute" my point is the source of my point (post 476).</p>
<p>According to you, if there's nothing wrong with preferring students with high GPAs, then there's nothing wrong with preferring students of [insert race here]. My point is that your reasoning amounts to a forgiveness of segregation.</p>
<p>Socioeconomic arguments don't justify racial preferences. They justify socioeconomic preferences. If preference must be given, then in my opinion, it should be given based on socioeconomics.</p>
<p>How do you know they don't already do that, fabrizio? And I wasn't necessarily arguing for affirmative action, I was just addressing a inaccuracy I saw in Charisma's post. This country is in no way a level playing field, at least not yet.</p>
<p>"then there's nothing wrong with preferring students of [insert race here]. "</p>
<p>Huh what?!? I extremely hope you or spidey is not talking about college admissions because then that will be considered not only biased but somewhat racist. & yes, there something wrong with that.</p>
<p>Studys show that people are at least 98% the same so favoring and prefering one race over the other will be ridiculous!</p>
<p>EVERYBODY IS EQUAL!!!!!!!!!!!</p>