<p><a href=“%5Burl=http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/1060899738-post356.html]#356[/url]”>quote</a> …The argument that only a handful of colleges in the country make it possible to become successful or very successful, is not supported by evidence. The US Supreme Court has not ruled that HYPSMC, etc. provide a markedly different educational product than all the other privates & publics in the country; thus there is no denial of equal opportunity to an ORM by the acceptance of a few URM’s with slightly lower or with much lower (a la Bowen & Bok) scores. A possible perception by employers that HYPSMC provide a ‘better education’ & thus tend to employ such graduates at higher rates in certain occupations will not fly as a legal argument…
[/quote]
</p>
<p>This is one of the strongest arguments for a ‘race-blind’ admission process…because, “The argument that only a handful of colleges in the country make it possible to become successful or very successful, is not supported by evidence.” </p>
<p>^^except that such is not the philosophy behind AA, & many more U’s than just Elites use AA in admissions. (The Elites do not believe that their institutions are singularly effective in providing for economic advancement, & clearly the non-elites also do not.)</p>
<p>And since clearly S.I.T. believes the highlighted point so strongly that he bolded it twice in one post, it makes me question why all the protest from him (& others) about such a small percentage of URM admits to U’s which he agrees are not unique in providing opportunities for advancement.</p>
<p>^Stitch, It’s not quite clear to me where your top point came from?</p>
<p>And to go with your legal syllogism, that was tried immediately after schools were ordered to desegregate. They were no longer de jure segregated but were de facto segregated. As a result, we have the racially discriminating K-12 education system we have today, where urms are stuck in the worst schools with the worst teachers, and a culture of educational attainment is lacking because previously educational attainment simply wasn’t a plausible goal.</p>
<p><a href=“%5Burl=http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/1060900704-post362.html]%20#362[/url]”>quote</a> …And since clearly S.I.T. believes the highlighted point so strongly that he bolded it twice in one post, it makes me question why all the protest from him (& others) about such a small percentage of URM admits to U’s which he agrees are not unique in providing opportunities for advancement.
<p>How exactly do they deal with it “head-on”? And even if there is a way, I’m sure it’s going to take time. So what are the universities supposed to do, just punish the URMs that apply now until it’s dealt with head-on. I’m sure most minorities agree, they’d rather have it dealt with in whole instead of policies, but since no one has found a way to fix the decades and centuries of discrimination on the drop of a dime, AA is used as a subsitute until that wonderful change actually arrives.</p>
<p>De facto segregation is an oxymoron. Segregation by definition is mandated by law (i.e. de jure). What you refer to as de facto segregation is actually racial imbalance, which is not synonymous with segregation.</p>
<p>In Swann, Chief Justice Burger wrote, “The constitutional command to desegregate schools does not mean that every school in every community must always reflect the racial composition of the school system as a whole.” Remember that Swann upheld the Constitutionality of busing.</p>
<p>Though the Burger Court later constrained Swann a few years later in Milliken, the Chief Justice retained the distinction between segregation and racial imbalance: “…desegregation, in the sense of dismantling a dual school system, does not require any particular racial balance in each 'school, grade or classroom.”</p>
<p>Finally, take a look at what the 1964 Civil Rights Act says.</p>
<p>What exactly are various participants here saying needs to be dealt with head-on? What means for dealing with that do they think work well? How do people who may possibly support other means check to see that your favorite means are working well?</p>
<p>^^I personally believe that the need to address institutional racism and racism instilled by the institution (when society “teaches” people to be racist by what they are or are not shown or told) needs to be addressed on. </p>
<p>I believe racial diversity in education is valuable in that it not only creates a better experience, but it helps to undo that racism (not necessarily to redress or make up for it). </p>
<p>AA for the poor does not address that problem head on, because all other groups at the poverty level still outperform urm students. Ultimately, that would be using poor as a “proxy” for black. Unless you believe that this racism is not something that needs to be address head on. </p>
<p>At which point our values, as well as your values compared to those of 24 of the 25 top schools in the nation, are simply different. This discussion will go nowhere because we are not working towards the same goal.</p>
<p>The fundamental difference between AA “proponents”/neutrals, and AA opponents is that the opponents believe that their views are better than everybody else’s, and thus they have the right to impose those beliefs on institutions of education. THAT I have a problem with.</p>
<p>Racism by individuals still exists. Institutional racism is dead. We don’t have dual school systems anymore or Jim Crow laws. They’re both history.</p>
<p>Regarding the supposed benefits of racial diversity, Drs. Rothman, Lipset, and Nevitte wrote,</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>This was published in the International Journal of Public Opinion Research, a well-known peer-reviewed journal.</p>
<p>As an opponent, I don’t believe my views are just “better” than yours or those of any other defender of racial preferences. Do I think that some pro-status quo arguments are terrible? Yes. In this thread, I’ve criticized comments like “If they’re equally qualified, then they’re not being discriminated against” and “If students are present, then their group wasn’t discriminated against.” Simply because I think some arguments are atrocious doesn’t mean I think my views are flat-out better.</p>
<p>The Constitution definitely imposes some constraints on the actions of state universities. The leading Supreme Court cases on affirmative action have found that state universities have acted illegally. But there may be a number of things to do to “address institutional racism and racism instilled by the institution” that might be both legal and agreeable to some people who would like to emphasize common humanity over arbitrary “racial” classifications. Let’s discuss what some of those things could be.</p>
<p>To be fair, I don’t believe there was any case or statutory law that provided guidance to these state universities in admitting URMs, prior to the U.S.Sup Ct holdings. And in each of those cases, the Court confirmed that it was acceptable to use race as a “factor” in admissions; it was the manner (quotas) in which they were admitting them that was deemed violative.</p>
<p>I have trouble understanding how those of you who oppose AA can truly be in favor of equal opportunity for all races. Whether URMs make it to college by random chance or through special consideration, the outcome is still the same, and is still what we are striving for as a society.</p>
<p>Are you talking about the outcome for an admitted URM applicant or for the college or for society at large? I would respectfully suggest that the outcome for society in general is NOT the same if society in general becomes more rather than less “race” conscious.</p>
<p>By the way, has anyone at all in this thread defined “affirmative action” yet? I’ve used the term in a few of my posts, but I rather suspect that there may be the fallacy of equivocation going on here, because I think not all participants are using the term in the same way. For example, I can think of a lot of practices in college admission that I approve of and support that might be called “affirmative action,” while on the other hand some colleges used that label to describe practices that have been ruled illegal by the Supreme Court. How about let’s all be specific about what practices we like, and what practices we do not like? </p>
<p>I’ll begin by saying that I agree with Laura D’Andrea Tyson, a former economic advisor to President Clinton, that we ought to have affirmative action for the poor. </p>
<p>Some colleges appear to be making some belated moves in this direction, but despite what one participant in this thread has said, I think the weight of evidence </p>
<p>is that at most colleges until very recently being poor was a plain DISADVANTAGE in the college admission process. Note that poverty is not a “protected class” for purposes of federal constitutional law, especially not under the Constitution, so that a college could have an explicit quota for poor people (as was banned in the Bakke case for racial quotas) or give a uniform number of extra selection points for poor applicants (as the University of Michigan was NOT allowed to do for its undergraduate applicants on a racial basis) and there would be no legal problem with that.</p>
<p>But it’s worth remembering that economic status not being a protected class also has some benefits. For example, I believe that AA is illegal because ceteris paribus, it puts non-URMs at a disadvantage. But I believe that colleges are well within their rights to practice economic affirmative action because the group being discriminated against, the wealthy, is not a protected class. If economic status were made a protected class, then one could not make the argument that traditional AA is illegal while economic AA is not.</p>
<p>It’s undisputed that President Kennedy coined the term “affirmative action.” The full context of the term is as follows:</p>
<p>*The contractor will not discriminate against any employee or applicant for employment because of race, creed, color, or national origin. The contractor will take affirmative action to ensure that applicants are employed, and that employees are treated during employment, without regard to their race, creed, color, or national origin.<a href=“%5Burl=http://www.eeoc.gov/abouteeoc/35th/thelaw/eo-10925.html]Source[/url]”>/i</a></p>
<p>I absolutely agree with this. If this is affirmative action, then I’m all for it. A system that treats all “without regard” to race is truly nondiscriminatory.</p>
<p>Unfortunately, this is definitely NOT how affirmative action is currently defined. “Without regard” was considered radical in the 1960s, and sadly, it is still considered “too much” or “unrealistic” today. Few universities that practice affirmative action deny that race is one factor (of many). If race is considered, even as a factor, then the idea of “without regard to race” has been violated. Affirmative action today is completely different from the affirmative action President Kennedy defined. I do not support this modern affirmative action, which is better named racial preferences. I encourage people in Arizona, Nebraska, and Colorado to vote yes on the civil rights initiatives that will restore the meaning of affirmative action to what President Kennedy envisioned and that will help us get one step closer to a society where it really doesn’t matter what color your skin is.</p>
<p>I have never subscribed to Justice Blackmun’s statement “And in order to treat some persons equally, we must treat them differently.” I find that inherently contradictory and a necessary condition of supporting racial preferences.</p>