<p>
[quote]
I don’t argue in favor of a “tests only” or a “numbers only” system. I favor a “race-blind” system. That means “don’t consider race.” Simple as that.
[/quote]
If you favor a race-blind system that means that you do not support/value a racially diverse student body because you are against the means by which a racially diverse student body is achieved.</p>
<p>Newjack88,</p>
<p>I have to chuckle a bit. Before you go all PC thought police on me, note how I placed quotation marks around the word black. Why? Because I was giving an example of a hypothetical white student who chooses to identify as quote-quote un-quote black. Is that really what it means to be black? Of course not. That’s why I used quotation marks. Be more perceptive before you criticize, please.</p>
<p>I’ve been posting here a lot longer than you have. I appreciate the friendly reminder, but I’ve far more familiar with the TOS than you are.</p>
<p>You say “no correlation between test scores and college success have been found.” That’s a pretty bold claim. Did you read “Predicting Success in College: SAT Studies of Classes Graduating Since 1980” or Yale</a> Daily News - SAT II may predict success in college better than SAT prior to making that claim?</p>
<p>
[quote]
If you favor a race-blind system that means that you do not support/value a racially diverse student body because you are against the means by which a racially diverse student body is achieved.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>No, it means I am against the use of race as a factor in admissions.</p>
<p>I value a racially diverse student body. That does not mean I support the use of discrimination to achieve racial diversity. I believe that racial diversity is naturally obtained, so long as there is no legally imposed segregation. That is, if you have one system that is open to all, racial diversity will automatically occur. There’s no need for percentage “goals” or “targets.” What you see is what you get, and what you get is racial diversity.</p>
<p>By the way, THE means? I didn’t know that there was only one way to achieve racial diversity.</p>
<p>fabrizio i dont agree. if you believe that college admissions should be based solely on merit (your definition of merit being test scores and ec's/awards), then how do you expect low-income, black and hispanic students to ever really experience social mobility? Good test scores may not come from a lot of prep classes or a private tutor, but the high school a person goes to and the atmosphere/quality of the school definitely correlates with how well the student will do on placement exams. if you are an asian american or a member of another race that seems to feel discrimated against, i understand your opinion and feeling, but i dont agree that racial diversity can be achieved with sole focus on numbers and without holistic review.</p>
<p>I feel private colleges have the right to define their own criteria for admission. If Yale decides it wants to only admit left-handed one-eyed girls from Nebraska, then I say let it. </p>
<p>OTOH, public colleges need to base admissions on some form of "equal opportunity" criteria. IMO, affirmative action can and should be part of those criteria.</p>
<p>
[quote]
No, it means I am against the use of race as a factor in admissions.</p>
<p>I value a racially diverse student body. That does not mean I support the use of discrimination to achieve racial diversity. I believe that racial diversity is naturally obtained, so long as there is no legally imposed segregation. That is, if you have one system that is open to all, racial diversity will automatically occur. There’s no need for percentage “goals” or “targets.” What you see is what you get, and what you get is racial diversity.</p>
<p>By the way, THE means? I didn’t know that there was only one way to achieve racial diversity.
[/quote]
First of all AA is not reverse-discrimination since discrimination is racism and power. Second, no, racially diverse student bodies do not happen on their own if they did there would not be a disproportionate amount of Blacks and Latinos attending poor, typically urban schools while Whites and a disproportionate amount Asians attend good, typically suburban schools. If racial diversity naturally occurrs explain why 95% of coporate executives are white males?</p>
<p>
[quote]
You say “no correlation between test scores and college success have been found.” That’s a pretty bold claim. Did you read “Predicting Success in College: SAT Studies of Classes Graduating Since 1980” or Yale Daily News - SAT II may predict success in college better than SAT prior to making that claim?
[/quote]
My bad. I meant to say "almost no correlation." The article that you provided just says that SAT IIs are better able to predict college success than the SAT I is. However, that does not say much since the SAT I are very poor at predicting college success. The SAT I is designed to predict how well a student will perform during his or her freshmen year. So that's already a big flaw.</p>
<p>Read this:
[quote]
"Validity research at individual institutions illustrates the weak predictive ability of the SAT. One study (J. Baron & M. F. Norman in Educational and Psychology Measurement, Vol. 52, 1992) at the University of Pennsylvania looked at the power of high school class rank, SAT I, and SAT II in predicting cumulative college GPAs. Researchers found that the SAT I was by far the weakest predictor, explaining only 4% of the variation in college grades, while SAT II scores accounted for 6.8% of the differences in academic performance. By far the most useful tool proved to be class rank, which predicted 9.3% of the changes in cumulative GPAs. Combining SAT I scores and class rank inched this figure up to 11.3%, leaving almost 90% of the variation in grades unexplained."
[/quote]
</p>
<p>P.S.
[quote]
I have to chuckle a bit. Before you go all PC thought police on me, note how I placed quotation marks around the word black. Why? Because I was giving an example of a hypothetical white student who chooses to identify as quote-quote un-quote black. Is that really what it means to be black? Of course not. That’s why I used quotation marks. Be more perceptive before you criticize, please.
[/quote]
Whether or not you put it quotes, what you said is offensive and promotes degrading stereotypes about African-Americans.</p>
<p>beefs,</p>
<p>I’m for “race-blind” admissions. Removing race does not lead to the automatic removal of the essay, the recommendation, the interview, and so forth. I’m for the consideration of these.</p>
<p>How do I expect low-income, black and Hispanic students to ever really experience social mobility? Most universities in our country accept more students than they reject. Many don’t require a long list of extracurriculars, don’t ask probing essay questions, and don’t “recommend” interviews. Yet, a poor black or Hispanic with a four-year degree from one of these institutions will find that many doors that were once closed are now open. That’s the road to social mobility.</p>
<p>I also don’t think that racial diversity can be achieved with a sole focus on numbers. That’s why I’m against “numbers only” admissions. But, I do believe that an explicit consideration of race is not necessary to produce racial diversity.</p>
<p>Affirmative action is not reverse discrimination, I agree. There’s no such thing as reverse discrimination, anyway, there is only discrimination. It doesn’t matter if it is from A to B or from B to A. Discrimination is discrimination. There is no ‘reverse.’</p>
<p>By your definition of racism, a poor black who smiles at blacks and curses at non-blacks is not discriminatory. I would have to disagree. If an individual selectively treats other individuals based on their race, then said individual discriminates on the basis of race.</p>
<p>Why does everything have to be proportional? I thought you were against quotas? You may think otherwise, but trying to get everything to be “in proportion” is itself a type of quota. It just has a different name.</p>
<p>Why are 95% of corporate executives white males? I don’t know. But I do know that this is not an appropriate example because you took my statements out of context. We were talking about “student bodies,” not CEOs. Even so, is there a rule somewhere that says “If 95% of all corporate executives are white males, then something is wrong”? I’m not aware of such a rule.</p>
<p>firstly fabrizio, what ethnicity/race/origin are you?</p>
<p>secondly, i do believe in quotas, not to the extent that a school should have a number that they need to fill, but rather that a certain level of diversity is required. you seem to think that hispanic/black students are taking the places of asian and white students, but in reality what percentage of applicants to the top 20 schools are urm's?</p>
<p>i believe that asians in particular create this ultra-competitive atmosphere that they later resent and refuse to acknowledge. if everyones son and daughter wants to be the best and go to harvard, then essentially only a small percentage gets in and the rest of everyone else is left biting the dust.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Affirmative action is not reverse discrimination, I agree. Theres no such thing as reverse discrimination, anyway, there is only discrimination. It doesnt matter if it is from A to B or from B to A. Discrimination is discrimination. There is no reverse.
[/quote]
You need to look up the definition of discrimination. If group A has power while group B has no power, then group A can discriminate against group B while group B cannot discriminate against group A.</p>
<p>
[quote]
By your definition of racism, a poor black who smiles at blacks and curses at non-blacks is not discriminatory. I would have to disagree. If an individual selectively treats other individuals based on their race, then said individual discriminates on the basis of race.
[/quote]
What are you talking about? Racism is not about smiling at some groups and not smiling at others. Racism is about believing that one race is better or more deserving than another race. Discrimination is using one's power to act on one's racist views.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Why does everything have to be proportional? I thought you were against quotas? You may think otherwise, but trying to get everything to be in proportion is itself a type of quota. It just has a different name.
[/quote]
I never said that things were supposed to be proportional.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Why are 95% of corporate executives white males? I dont know. But I do know that this is not an appropriate example because you took my statements out of context. We were talking about student bodies, not CEOs. Even so, is there a rule somewhere that says If 95% of all corporate executives are white males, then something is wrong? Im not aware of such a rule.
[/quote]
You said that "I believe that racial diversity is naturally obtained, so long as there is no legally imposed segregation." I believe that the CEO example disproves your assertion. Also, I provided you with a argument that specifically dealt with education that proved that racial diversity does not happen naturally under the status quo.</p>
<p>I think the real problem is believing that your fellow human beings belong to one "race" or another rather than having a lot in common with you and with all of your neighbors.</p>
<p>Discriminate can be defined as “to make a distinction in favor of or against a person or thing on the basis of the group, class, or category to which the person or thing belongs rather than according to actual merit.” Are you saying that if group B has no power, then an individual from group B will not be able to make a distinction against a person from group A on the basis of that person’s being a member of group A? I don’t know about you, but I’m pretty sure that he’ll still be able to make a distinction against a person from group A, power or no power.</p>
<p>Discrimination is two-way, not one-way. Anybody is capable of discrimination. Let us not be so na</p>
<p>fabrizio of what ethnicity are you? please answer the question. it is obviously relevant to the argument and your stance.</p>
<p>beefs,</p>
<p>I don’t believe it’s relevant to the discussion. How would knowing my ethnicity, my race, or my origin change your perception of my views?</p>
<p>I do not believe that Hispanic or black students are “taking the places” of Asian and white students.</p>
<p>To me, “a number that they need to fill” and “a certain level of diversity” are the same thing, just expressed differently.</p>
<p>So, everyone’s son and daughter wants to be the best and attend Harvard, but it’s the fault of Asians for creating an ultra-competitive atmosphere? OK…</p>
<p>I do not agree with race-based AA. Legacies and recruited athletes are also contentious (to me), but that's not the issue at hand here.</p>
<p>I would agree with socioeconomic AA. I do not see how class-based AA would result in any more disenfranchisement of minority or low-income applicants than race-based AA would.</p>
<p>And to contribute to the original intent of the question--it is his burden. No one was rejected as a result of his actions, but his actions were nonetheless dishonest.</p>
<p>It's not appropriate to dismiss people's points of view on social policy issues just because of what ethnic group you guess those people might belong to--in either direction.</p>
<p>definitely not, but it would clear a few things up about the obvious sense of resentment that fabrizio seems to feel about aa.</p>
<p>@beefs
Part of the resentment of AA is warranted, part of it isn't. Like any issue, it's not black and white. I agree with the statement that socioeconomic criteria might be better, but everyday you see kids posting on this forum about how they're considered richer than they are because their parents are farmers with a lot of assets, or their parents own a few homes, and the reality is that the parents with a few homes are upside down on mortgages and drowning in debt and the farming assets are poorly calculated by schools because this year has been good for farming.</p>
<p>Obviously, the statement that racial diversity can be naturally obtained borders on insanity, and what fabrizio is ignoring is that there are remnants of segregation that still exist (especially in institutions that are predominately influenced by old, white men. forced segregation happened primarily in high schools, then in state colleges. the privates have only gotten rid of vestiges of bias in the last 20 years, and if fabrizio thinks otherwise he's misguided). A quota is bad, but the reaction to that kid in the Stanford forum getting in with a 1700 shows why affirmative action, at least in some form, still needs to exist.</p>
<p>Borders on insanity...interesting. Then, why is it that UC and CSU are racially diverse even though public universities in California are forbidden from using racial preferences? </p>
<p>Simply because not every school in those systems has "proportional" representation does not negate that they all have racially *varied<a href="i.e.%20DIVERSE">/i</a> student bodies. Diversity should not be a euphemism for "proportional" representation.</p>
<p>You say that there are remnants of segregation that still exist. Examples, please? Evil, old white men don't count. De jure segregation is illegal and has been so for decades. De facto segregation is a made up problem by people who think that making everything "proportional" is different from setting quotas. In the context of public education, racial imbalance does not indicate segregation, please see the opinions of Justice Clarence Thomas for further clarification as well as the original text of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.</p>
<p>I support affirmative action in its original intent. As specified by Presidents Kennedy and Johnson, it was an idea that people should be treated WITHOUT REGARD to their race, gender, nationality, ethnicity, religion, and so forth. That made perfect sense, given our nation's history of treating people differently based on said factors.</p>
<p>Did affirmative action "hurt" me? No. I was accepted to all the schools on my list. Do I need to be "hurt" by affirmative action in order to oppose it? No, I oppose it because I believe that the way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race.</p>
<p>tetrishead: Your points are good, especially that the issue is not "black and white", so to speak. But those kids whose parents own a few homes or are farmers with lots of assets- very few of them are URMs, so the current system of AA does not really help them either. </p>
<p>A well-drawn up system of socio-economic affirmative action would IMO be fairer and would acheive true racial and ethnic diversity much faster than the current AA system.</p>
<p>Finally people keep bringing up the point that "blacks cannot discriminate or be racist because they don't have power". That is BS. Blacks do have considerable power and influence in today's world. So do Hispanics. As they should. This is not the 1950's. Lets not pretend that it is, because that belittles all the acheivements of the last 50 years. Heck, we even have an African American presidential candidate whose qualification for the job is only being questioned on the basis of youth and inexperience. Nobody questions his abilities based on his race. Nobody.</p>