<p>Out of curiosity is there anyone out there following this thread who believes that the URM preferences should be eliminated and who also believes that we should keep the preference for legacies?</p>
<p>Drosselmeier,</p>
<p>Given that Justice Anthony Kennedy offered strategic placement of schools<a href="c.f.%20tutoring%20centers">/u</a> as a legal and viable way of promoting desired racial goals, I doubt that “the white neighborhood across town…[could successfully] su[e] the state for centers in their neighborhoods and thereby destroy the help for blacks by taking already meager resources for themselves.”</p>
<p>Liberal or not, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals won’t accept illogical arguments. For example, District Judge Thelton Henderson argued that by not taking into account race, ethnicity, or sex, Proposition 209 actually discriminated on those bases. The Ninth Circuit soundly rebuked him.</p>
<p>I do not require that you “agree with [me] in order to prove [you] do not support preferring one race above another.” I only request that you proclaim your support for Mr. Ward Connerly’s civil rights initiatives, which seek to ban states from using any type of discrimination, be it positive (i.e. preferential treatment) or negative (e.g Jim Crow).</p>
<p>In the case of Berkeley and LA, we differ on a values judgment. You prefer “racially diverse” schools. I prefer schools where talented young Americans from poor backgrounds are having their chance at living our nation’s dream. Ideally, both would be nice. But if I had to choose one, I’d choose the latter any day of the week.</p>
<p>You comment that the “better schools…saw an overwhelming drop in black admissions.” And? So what? Are black students entitled to attend these “better schools”? Though earning a degree from an elite institution has substantial benefits, there is no doubt that in today’s world, having a bachelor’s degree period opens up many doors. Instead of focusing on increasing the number of black graduates from Harvard, we should focus on increasing the overall number of black graduates. As a values judgment, I find the prospect of 10,000 more young black Americans from various universities embarking on careers more attractive than 1,000 more young black Americans from the Ivy Leagues.</p>
<p>You say you want “to do the same thing for blacks as is done for anyone else, but being sure to consider race.” Yet, your “flagging an application” example belies that. Would you flag an application from an Asian student on the basis of his being Asian? I doubt you would, and I wouldn’t want you to anyway. You’d be giving him preferential treatment. </p>
<p>Preferential treatment based on race is not limited to “prefer[ing] one race above another.” It is simply giving any individual better treatment than another individual solely because of race. By supporting policies that give applicants a “substantial boost” based on their race, you are supporting preferential treatment. That you claim you would give this “boost” to any applicant does not negate its being preferential treatment.</p>
<p>Connerly does not seek to destroy affirmative action. Rather, he seeks to use affirmative action. Let us use your “better definition.” His active effort comes from state-level legislation “to improve the employment or educational opportunities of members of minority groups or women.” You think he’s “not seek[ing] to improve anything for anyone.” It’s your right to think that. The Americans who vote for his initiatives clearly feel otherwise.</p>
<p>While admitting that your “better definition” does the same, you say that the definition I gave from Executive Order 10925 “does not give any examples of what constitutes an ‘active effort’.” And, you’re right. The key phrase of Executive Order 10925 is “without regard.” Thus, “to improve the employment or educational opportunities of members of minority groups or women,” I propose outreach, tutoring, and aggressive nondiscrimination that treats all applicants without regard to race, ethnicity, or sex.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Out of curiosity is there anyone out there following this thread who believes that the URM preferences should be eliminated but also believes that we should keep the preference for legacies?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I believe that legacy preferences should be kept.</p>
<p>Not all legacies come from wealthy families, but the ones who are have parents who can significantly help their alma mater.</p>
<p>For example, wealthy alums can do the following:</p>
<ol>
<li>Fund construction for a new building.</li>
<li>Fund renovation for existing buildings.</li>
<li>Pay full freight, which could help a student from a disadvantaged background with his education</li>
<li>Fund an international airport (kidding)</li>
</ol>
<p>All of these tangibly help the university. The new buildings could house more students or open up new programs to attract more funding and students. Ditto for renovation. The full freight can really aid the students who are intelligent but need substantial non-loan based financial aid in order to attend.</p>
<p>In addition, even though legacies are mostly white, the existence of minority legacies makes this preference system more “inclusive” than “URM preferences.”</p>
<p>Fabrizio,</p>
<p>That is not a very defenseable position to take. Legacy preferences bring the discrimination of the past tangibly into the present.</p>
<p>fabrizio...</p>
<p>is number 4 a reference to a particular simpsons episode? ;)</p>
<p>fab is right...legacies do provide institutions with a lot of support, financially and otherwise. and athletics are usually tied closely to the development office...most schools have "sports foundations" in their development offices. all of these categories - legacies, development cases, and athletics - do contribute significantly to the financial resources at many school (although at many schools, athletics actually lose money...). each school, though, has their own approach to each of these. my institution, for example, does not pay too much attention to "development cases" in the admissions process - i denied a big-time donor's kid this year, and while the development office expressed their disappointment, i was supported by my dean and vice president. my alma mater's admissions office, however, seems to have a much closer relationship to the development office...just depends on the needs of the school, really. remember - the sticker price of $45k is not the actual cost of attendance - it is usually much higher than that, and the school needs to subsidize the difference somehow. big donations can help. </p>
<p>however, i can't agree with fabrizio's statement that "...the existence of minority legacies makes this preference system more 'inclusive' than 'URM preferences'. there are so few under-represented minority development and legacy cases that this comment is just ridiculous to me, sorry. in fact, i've never actually encountered one during my time at the four schools i've worked at - all of which have had significant under-represented populations. and again, fab, this comment reflects your continued, misinformed insistence that it is only under-represented minorities that get "preferences" in admissions ("preferences" being your word, not mine).</p>
<p>curious14,</p>
<p>
[quote]
Legacy preferences bring the discrimination of the past tangibly into the present.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Its true that in the very recent past, many universities didnt allow everyone to attend. Thus, legacy preferences do bring the discrimination of the past into the present by favoring people who had opportunities that others were denied. I acknowledge this.</p>
<p>But if the money coming out of these alums pockets can go toward aiding a poor student or constructing a new building, Im for it.</p>
<p>AdOfficer,</p>
<p>Yes, Im glad to know that you got my reference!</p>
<p>When I watched that episode for the first time, I was still in elementary school, so I didnt really get the joke at the time. (My dad understood it, though.)</p>
<p>Im aware that athlete preferences are pretty strong. One of my friends is a top-tier state level runner. I dont like calling him qualified because Id be insulting him if I did. I know what qualified means to some persons, many of whom are supporters of racial preferences. Had he not been such a good athlete, his chances for admission at the elite schools he applied to would have only been as good as the thousands of strong applicants who were denied to those schools this spring. Since he was, in fact, state ranked, he was accepted to every university he applied to, including MIT and Princeton. His athletic prowess coupled with his academic record gave him the green light everywhere he went.</p>
<p>How do you know that alumni giving would be different if they discontinued legacy preference in admission?</p>
<p>"Since he was, in fact, state ranked, he was accepted to every university he applied to, including MIT and Princeton. His athletic prowess coupled with his academic record gave him the green light everywhere he went."</p>
<p>MIT claims they don't recruit athletes. Boosts for athletic ability are no more than another non-academic EC (e.g., student govt, community service, etc.)</p>
<p>^^^^^^
many alums stop giving when their kids get denied...happens every year. maintaining the relationship between school and family is very important for some schools - helps keep them out of the red.</p>
<p>^^I know that MIT doesn't have any legacy advantage and they have respectable alumni giving. Perhaps this doesn't hurt the school because the parents remember how brutal the schoolwork was so they're not mad if their kid doesn't get in...</p>
<p>^^^^
mit also has diversified revenue streams that most colleges could only dream of ;)</p>
<p>
[quote]
Given that Justice Anthony Kennedy offered strategic placement of schools (c.f. tutoring centers) as a legal and viable way of promoting desired racial goals, I doubt that “the white neighborhood across town…[could successfully] su[e] the state for centers in their neighborhoods and thereby destroy the help for blacks by taking already meager resources for themselves.”
[/quote]
Nonsense. Kennedy is just one jurist, offering nothing more than mere speculation here. Your faith in the Bush court is unwarranted. There is absolutely nothing here on which anyone with a brain could depend.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I do not require that you “agree with [me] in order to prove [you] do not support preferring one race above another.” I only request that you proclaim your support for Mr. Ward Connerly’s civil rights initiatives…
[/quote]
You made the request claiming you would not believe me unless I agreed with initiatives you yourself accept. It is just pure Georgia nonsense.</p>
<p>
[quote]
In the case of Berkeley and LA, we differ on a values judgment. You prefer “racially diverse” schools. I prefer schools where talented young Americans from poor backgrounds are having their chance at living our nation’s dream. Ideally, both would be nice. But if I had to choose one, I’d choose the latter any day of the week.
[/quote]
I am sure many of the blacks formerly at Berkeley were “talented young Americans from poor backgrounds” who were having their chance at living our nation’s dream. This already existed at Berkeley, and there was diversity to boot--- before your ilk killed it.</p>
<p>Now, Berkeley is just this school for Asians… and whites. The black experience, what it means in this day to be a descendant of this history, is virtually non-existent at the school. If that is what Berkeley wants, well, it has it, and I think it is all quite fine. But I certainly would never consider Berkeley an example of a great American community of higher learning. Indeed, Berkeley would not even come to mind here. I am thankful there are still fine universities for whom American history and identity are important.</p>
<p>
[quote]
You comment that the “better schools…saw an overwhelming drop in black admissions.” And? So what? Are black students entitled to attend these “better schools”?
[/quote]
Why yes, many are as entitled as Bush and Kerry were, much more entitled even, when we judge by strictly quantitative concepts of merit. And I think when admissions systems take into account all of the variables that go into what makes a candidate worthy to attend a school, as opposed to ignoring the most important ones, then many more blacks are found merit-worthy and as entitled to enter the schools as anyone else. I prefer this sort of system to the numbers driven Chinese system that produces hordes of button pushers who live to take tests, but who cannot think creatively-- with fire, heart and soul -- even if their mothers’ lives depended upon it.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Though earning a degree from an elite institution has substantial benefits, there is no doubt that in today’s world, having a bachelor’s degree period opens up many doors. Instead of focusing on increasing the number of black graduates from Harvard, we should focus on increasing the overall number of black graduates.
[/quote]
This is just an either/or fallacy. There is not a single legitimate reason why we must kill off all the wonderful black Harvard graduates so that we can focus on black graduates from other schools. The black Harvard graduates exist, and they are doing great things right now, building their lives, their communities, and ultimately America. There is not even one good reason to kill this. We ought not follow your nonsense and destroy the good. We should simply add to it, focusing on increasing graduates at other schools.</p>
<p>
[quote]
As a values judgment, I find the prospect of 10,000 more young black Americans from various universities embarking on careers more attractive than 1,000 more young black Americans from the Ivy Leagues.
[/quote]
If you had black success really at heart, you would not be flashing so many bloody fangs toward those 1,000 blacks. You would push to add 10,000 blacks to those 1,000. That is a prospect that appeals to me much more than all of the false concern you are showing for blacks.</p>
<p>
[quote]
You say you want “to do the same thing for blacks as is done for anyone else, but being sure to consider race.” Yet, your “flagging an application” example belies that. Would you flag an application from an Asian student on the basis of his being Asian? I doubt you would…
[/quote]
Of course you doubt everything but your own emotionally held beliefs. In fact I would not flag an application from even a black guy who didn’t meet my basic qualifications. If he did, then I would flag him because people like him are so rare I would not want to overlook him. I would do likewise for American Indians, even at least as much as for blacks because they seem about as rare. I would do likewise for a white from Appalachia. I would do likewise for an Asian, say, a Hmong, I would certainly flag his application and there is just no doubt in my mind that I would because I know this people’s history, their trials, and can relate to just what a Hmong student is up against as they try to enter college. I’d need to know the race in order to make these judgments. And I absolutely should know the race because it affects everything.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I wouldn’t want you to anyway. You’d be giving him preferential treatment.
[/quote]
I am not giving him preferential treatment. I am evaluating his application having all of the information that makes him who and what he is. This is necessary in order to judge potential.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Preferential treatment based on race is not limited to “prefer[ing] one race above another.” It is simply giving any individual better treatment than another individual solely because of race.
[/quote]
Well I would not be giving anyone better treatment just because of race. I would be taking care to employ race, class, culture, etc. as part of my judgment of anyone of ANY race. If it bothers you that I would flag an application, well then fine. Don’t flag it. I flag things that I want not to subject to error. If you wish to subject all applications equally to the possibility of error, then it is fine by me as long as I have freedom to know the important items, including race, that make a person who he is.</p>
<p>
[quote]
By supporting policies that give applicants a “substantial boost” based on their race, you are supporting preferential treatment. That you claim you would give this “boost” to any applicant does not negate its being preferential treatment.
[/quote]
Well shoot, by this ridiculous standard just selecting a student for admission is preferential treatment. I am not giving preferential treatment based on race. I am looking at the accomplishments – that is the important thing – and then judging them against all sorts of issues, including race, so that I might make a judgment on potential. I am doing this for members of all races and equally. There is no preference here for any one race.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Connerly does not seek to destroy affirmative action. Rather, he seeks to use affirmative action.
[/quote]
LOL.</p>
<p>Drosselmeier: Since URM's are disproportionately represented in low income brackets, wouldn't giving preference to applicants from households in the low income brackets (which they do somewhat now) help URMs disproportionately?</p>
<p>Just curious...how old are you Drosselmeier? The reason why I ask is that people of different generations have different experiences and points-of-view in general.</p>
<p>Fabrizio,</p>
<p>What difference does it make if a few universities with multibillion-dollar endowments take in a bit less from their alumni (it may not even be much less noting the MIT example)? Isn't it worth while for the moral high ground of dispensing with a source of privilege that has its roots in an era when many of these universities openly discriminated against Blacks, Jews and others.</p>
<p>
[quote]
the numbers driven Chinese system that produces hordes of button pushers who live to take tests, but who cannot think creatively-- with fire, heart and soul -- even if their mothers’ lives depended upon it.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>In fairness, the Chinese have no choice but to pretend they have no creativity. That's the reality of a brutal totalitarian government. The people do what they have to do just to survive.</p>
<p>They kill themselves studying to get to univeristy, but the government decides what they will study once they get there. They might list three creative majors on their entrance request--and be assigned to accounting.</p>
<p>End of story.</p>
<p>I would much rather see us adopt policies to make sure low income students can afford any college they can get into ( without taking on debt) than burden them with preferenced admissions. The stigma undermines the quality of their credential and thier own self confidence.</p>
<p>How can you make such a universalistic statement as in post 376? Plenty of young and old judges, doctors, professors, and broadcast and print journalists got an AA boost of some sort (sometimes more than one sort) along the way. Do you actually think that all or even most of them doubt their own "credential" and self-consciously worry about a "stigma"? If they feel they have to prove themselves continually, it would be because of societal (white male) biases, just as white females have often had to work twice as hard to be viewed as positively as their white male counterparts, even when neither the black males in question nor the white females were admitted or hired under <em>any</em> AA program. Any female or black who worked in a corporation in the '80's knows whereof I speak.</p>
<p>"I prefer this sort of system to the numbers driven Chinese system that produces hordes of button pushers who live to take tests, but who cannot think creatively-- with fire, heart and soul"</p>
<p>Boy what a racist generalization from a man who claims to be victim of racism.</p>
<p>Epiphany,</p>
<p>It's hard for me (and you) to know what goes on in the heads of others, so perhaps folks do forget that they got in through prefernces. But it is extremely difficult for me to imagine that a Harvard, Princeton, Yale etc. degree carries the same weight once others know the candidate got in as a preferenced candidtate. I think this explains why wo many Harvard grads drop that fact into the conversation in the first 30 min you know them and the fact that I have never run into one who owned up to being a legacy. In additon preferences for low income groups is a relatively new practice and not that widely practiced.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Boy what a racist generalization from a man who claims to be victim of racism.
[/quote]
How on earth can that even be half misconstrued as racist???? It is nothing against the Chinese race, many members of which are Americans born and bred and who are remarkably creative. It’s the system employed by China that I am against.</p>