<p>Indeed there are academis that still avoid diversity of race, but there is only so much that government can do to further a greater good. private schools are not within their jurisdiction. However, in public schools, a new generation of more tolerant young people is being bred. Thank God for that.</p>
<p>Fabrizio,</p>
<p>Segregation in the North wasn't institutionalized, like in the South, but integration was not easy in the North. With respect to changing schools, the difference between the North and the South when it came to integration was that the North by and large already had their private academies and could choose to go to those schools instead of a public school. In the South some felt the need to create an alternative choice to the public schools. In some ways, integration was more difficult in the North than in the South. In the North it wasn't a case of getting on a different bus, but getting on a bus for the first time rather than walking to the neighborhood school a few blocks away.</p>
<p>When turning to colleges, choice rather than location determines where a students goes to school for the vast majority of applicants. Prospective students can choose to go to schools with wide diversity of students or they can go to fairly homogeneous institutions, including single-gender colleges. So too can institution choose their goals and the importance of diversity.</p>
<p>Fabrizio, all you do in your arguments is backtrack. You put up some lame idea and when somebody shoots that down, you backtrack to another lame idea thats already been shot down.</p>
<p>More racist statements are creeping into your posts</p>
<ol>
<li>"a professor can just take notes when these "certain races" give their "certain viewpoints." After a few semesters, he'll have all the "certain viewpoints" he needs to enhance his lectures."
-What was that? So you think that the insight that people of a certain race have is so insignificant that a professor can just take notes and suddenly be expert enough to speak for it? Theres a huge insight that comes from being a minority and you consistently attempt to deny that. </li>
</ol>
<p>Thats basically saying: "we don't need diversity in our schools, we'll just poll blacks, asians, and spics and record their opinions in our text books; It'll be just like having diversity w/o having to tolerate non-whites!" <em>the rest of your white supremacist meeting roars with applause</em></p>
<p>I'm pretty sure when DerrickA said "you racists" he meant "fabrizio"</p>
<ol>
<li>You say that because racism still exists, and some people still don't want to be around people who aren't the same race as them, the shouldn't have to deal with them at top universities. </li>
</ol>
<p>Obviously your failing to see the connection that YOU yourself are making. Obviously if race is such a big deal to people, then diversity of race is just as big a deal. I've never heard anybody say "uh oh, republicans are walking toward me in a dark alley, i better turn around!" or "oh no, it's that person whose opinion on the welfare system is different then mine, im not going to sit by him", or even "hey look! it's that kid whose optimistic about americas future, lets get im!"</p>
<p>Since race is a BIGGER deal in society, then racial diversity is also a BIGGER deal.</p>
<p>-Some of you state that if AA was abolished then race relations would be better because people wouldn't hold grudges against a race and dislike them.</p>
<p>Well, obviously the people who use AA as an excuse to hold a grudge against and dislike and entire race of people, while at the same time preach that they are all individuals, are not only hypocritical, but racist. Those racist ones are the people that need to be exposed to diversity the most.</p>
<p>Race relations in the South would be abysmal if they hadn't been forced to desegregate their schools. While race relations are still rocky there, partially because they aren't being pressed to integrate and promote diversity anymore, they have advanced simply from being around each other more.</p>
<ol>
<li>Somebody said something like: "having a black friends would give you as much insight as actually having black people in the class"
-Thats just more "fabrizio syndrome". Where you downplay the way that race shapes and affects the way you view the world. This is the reason why minorities tend to gravitate together and have naturally stronger bonds.</li>
</ol>
<p>50 bucks says fabrizio backtracks to something already shot down, or he'll go all the way back to: "AA is discrimination!!!!!"</p>
<p>I said I was done, but I was asked to return and answer some questions.</p>
<p>
If you think diversity is bad, then what is good that can take it's place?
</p>
<p>A point made earlier in the thread is that there is a difference between diversity and diversity. One is ethnic, religious, nationalistic, etc. The other type is more than just easily identifiable traits - we are all different, we all have our own quirks, and "we are all special" <--at least that's what they said in elementary school).</p>
<p>
[quote'"DerrickA"]
insert everything DerrickA has written here
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I admire idealists, I really do. But unfortunately, things do not always work in the way one wishes. To say that forcing different types of people (i.e. ethnic) together will magically cause everyone to sing kumbaya in perfect harmony is a lousy pipedream.</p>
<p>The UC example of kids clustering in ethnicities is just a reality. Making sure that a person from one ethnic group is capable of working together with a person from another group on a project or something I’d say is necessary, but to say that they are wrong to not be friends outside of class is ridiculous. And I think something to be pointed out is that social groups are not exclusively defined by ethnicity. From my own experience, more than just ethnicity defines our social cliques. Observing white guys at my school, I can label their cliques: a stoner group, a lacrosse group, a Greenwich Banker’s sons group, a Southern good ‘ol boy group, etc. I am casual aquaintances with people from them all, but I am not one of them.</p>
<p>Most of my friends at college are white kids with similar interests, but I am certainly not 100% exclusive to them. Last semester I was in the same 8AM class as a kid in my dorm. We ate breakfast together everyday the class met, but we never hung out aside from that. Breakfast with him was always interesting. He plays varsity basketball, is second-generation African-American, his political views are somewhere between liberal and libertarian, and not to sound elitist, but I’d describe his background as lower-middle class. Pretty much the complete opposite, I’m a Conservative WASP on the varsity Crew team. We get along fine, and I enjoyed talking to him every now and then, but we have never hung out at night or on the weekend. We just don’t have common interest and enjoy the same things. </p>
<p>
-What was that? So you think that the insight that people of a certain race have is so insignificant that a professor can just take notes and suddenly be expert enough to speak for it? Theres a huge insight that comes from being a minority and you consistently attempt to deny that. </p>
<p>Thats basically saying: "we don't need diversity in our schools, we'll just poll blacks, asians, and spics and record their opinions in our text books; It'll be just like having diversity w/o having to tolerate non-whites!"
[/quote]
</p>
<p>He was being sarcastic. If anything, putting a race’s opinion* in a textbook is no different than “diversity,” as defined by different races. Like stated earlier in the thread, if you quantify diversity as a myriad of races, then you are essentially appointing ambassadors of race.</p>
<p>*I don’t believe that every member of a race has a single opinion. Don’t attack that assertion</p>
<p>A much earlier thing I wanted to comment on:
i've learned more from the students at my diverse high school than from my classes, i think.
I hear this a lot. It's interesting, but so what? I can say at college I've learned more from being on the mock trial team and in the student investment club than in my classes. </p>
<p>But in all truthfulness, ask yourself why you go school. To learn academic facts and skills that will allow you to advance up the academic ladder, or to learn from other people?</p>
<p>Your entire life is an opportunity to learn from other people. At my HS, every cocky kid graduating in the top 10 always has his senior quote be something like Mark Twain's "I've never let my schooling interfere with my education." I do not see why it is pertinent or beneficial for universities to provide the "education" Mark Twain speaks of. Do you parents pay $200K for you to go to college and learn from people of different ethnic groups? </p>
<p>(This is not an AA debate. This is a debate concerning diversity itself.)</p>
<p>"I think what the OP is getting at is that out of all the characteristics that make us different, why is it that ethnic/racial characteristics are presumed to be the only ones that count?"</p>
<p>I won't presume to entirely know WHAT the OP was trying to say, as he's fumigated the room with so much mental flatulence that it's hard to distill what otherwise might be fresh air. I can only respond to the assertion that admissions committees view racial/ethnic diversity as "the only thing that counts", a statement that's a flat out lie on its face. Ask most elite (even non-elite) admissions committees what they aim to do in building a class, and they will say something to the effect that they endeavor to bring together an interesting and dynamic group of scholars who will enrich the learning and social environment of their institution. To that end, this collection of individuals will typically include students from different parts of the country, different parts of the world, the rich (most definitely, the rich---development concerns, being no small thing), the poor, the middle class, persons of different races/ethnicities/religions, the athletic, the artistic, the musically gifted, the quirky individualist, the mathmatically and scientifically passionate, the poet, the politically minded, the sexually otherwise oriented, and just about everything in between, and with persons who hopefully overlap any number of these categories. I believe they would also tell you that ALL of these people must first show a capability of handling the coursework/load typical of their institution, and that, having met this requirement, are valued for what else they might bring to the table. Those of you who posit that adcoms think that racial diversity is the only diversity that matters, are ignoring the obvious in order to advance your own disingenuous argument. And to argue that race/ethnicity bears no particular intrinsic value in the achievement of diversity, shows just how woefully little you understand. Yes, like fingerprints, everyone is individually "different" (that should go without saying), but these differences are also a product of one's upbringing, and the myriad particulars of one's life circumstances. Adcoms attempt to parse out the ways in which a person has been shaped by his/her life experiences, and determine how that person might fit in the class they are attempting to create for that particular admission cycle. What? Do you think that ECs and essays were suddenly valued only in the wake of Affirmative Action? Social Engineering? You bet!</p>
<p>I've read arguments in which some have said that "rich black kids" are "just like" their rich white peers. I can tell you emphatically that this is NOT TRUE. They are NOT white kids dipped in chocolate. First off, I can assure you that they are an incredibly small demographic (still). They don't overrun college campuses across the country. And though they are, by virtue of their social and economic circumstances, likely to be MORE LIKE their rich white peers than poor blacks dodging gang violence in the ghetto, their experiences are not identical to those of their white peers. Even black kids from "privileged backgrounds" can point out to you instances in which they have been made to feel acutely (and to their disadvantage) aware of their race. They've at least on occasion had experiences in which they have been judged lacking, or undesirable (especially when it comes to dating) simply because of their race. They've had the experience of feeling alienated from others of their racial heritage, as well as from their white peers, of feeling that they inhabit a sort of no-man's land. This, along with the fact that they are academically strong/politically passionate/artistically gifted/quirky individualists (or any number of other overlapping categories), makes them apt ingredients for the diversity soup being cooked up by any particular adcom, during any particular admission cycle. They will arrive on campus and room with some kid from Hastings On Hudson, or Madison, Wisconsin, or Bangladesh, and give that person a different perspective on "what an African American is like" and learn from this roommate, any number of things they might not have known otherwise. That's what adcoms hope will happen. That's what often does happen. These types of interactions represent valuable life lessons for all concerned, and they help to cement the ideals of E Pluribus Unum that America has long claimed it values. If this ideal cannot/should not be upheld, cultivated within the highest intellectual institutions in our land, where can they be?</p>
<p>that guy on the video needs to kill himself.
racist prick</p>
<p>
[quote]
Do you parents pay $200K for you to go to college and learn from people of different ethnic groups?
[/quote]
this parent certainly hopes my kids pick a school with a diverse (in many dimensions) student body ... and yes, that is A LOT of what I am paying for</p>
<p>DerrickA : I'm a bit slow so will take you point by point.</p>
<p>"In my personal experience diversity if forced never works. Also diversity is a gimmick that politician uses. "</p>
<p>The example you gave was wrong. In America the segregation was forced and so the desegregation had to be forceful. We were trying to remove the slavery by force because it was done with force. Have we not had slavery there would have been no need of forced integration?</p>
<p>So if there have no bars/rules for segregation in US to begin with the whole idea of integration wouldn't have come.</p>
<p>Now in this age you don't have rules that create segregation so the integration also should be decided by law of natural selection and not by force. So please come out of the 19th century or early 20th century.</p>
<p>This is 21st century if we folks have forgotten.</p>
<p>"Just remember, if we hadn't had forced integration, it would be likely that the integration would not have happened on its own. Time does not mend all wounds. If we hadn't taken sure, effectual steps, then the statements of people like Don Imus would be the norm, as opposed to taboo.
"
Time does mend wounds and enough time have passed to say that children being brought up today in 21st century have more equallity in sharing resources than in any century before.</p>
<p>If you look at inner city child in US, it still have much more resources that a child living in lower middle class of the developing countries. </p>
<p>So I don't think children in this era are being deprived of chances.</p>
<p>Derick A:
"
"The human instinct is always to group with similar kind, whether it is racial, mental or cultural. It is also true for animals." </p>
<p>It is human instinct to indulge in a hedonistic lifestyle. It is human instinct to fight, kill, and hurt for food. It is human instinct to indulge in impulsive sexual desires. But do we not work to help others through charity and organizations like the World Health organization, do we kill others for a piece of bread where there is much bread to be had? Do the majority of us rape and abuse others to satisfy our desires?
"</p>
<p>You contradict yourself. Indeed all the above you mentioned are instincts but do you force people to do otherwise or you educate them to do otherwise.</p>
<p>What you need is to spend time with people to educate them that it is fine to be different whether culturaly, racially, economically or any other way.
But you don't force people to integrate. If you leave things as it is and provide resources for all the people to grown in the future you will get the best society.</p>
<p>Law of natural selection is very simple but the most robust. It is a slow process and will bear fruit over a long run.</p>
<p>Politician for their individual benefits play the racial, cultural issues to gain immidiate gains but are actually causing a lasting damage on the society.</p>
<p>Op, Dumbest Question In The World!!!</p>
<p>"I do not know when you last went to school, but natural selection does not work like that. Natural selection ELIMINATES the disadvantaged (poor minorities) and PROPOGATES the advantaged. The process of natural selection is slow, and it is against ideals of equality. </p>
<p>"</p>
<p>The law does work and is slow. If it has not worked in the history evolution of human wouldn't have been possible.</p>
<p>Politician work is to poison society by creating rifts.
Divide and Rule is the biggest straitegy a politician can use to win elections. Whether it is white groups or black groups or gay right groups or abortion (both for and against) all thrive on Divide and Rule policies to get immidiate gains.</p>
<p>No one wait for things to turn around as they think they will be gone much before that but a world can only be a nice place if some one from present generation give up something for future generations.</p>
<p>And the law in no way eliminates poor or disadvantage students but yes it will make the ascent slower into the top elites. But is that the goal is.</p>
<p>Is your goal is to just see handful of black at the ivies? Who are sons/daughter of handful of black elite in this country.
Or your goal is to raise the level of all the blacks.</p>
<p>It seem you belong to that small group of black elites that want to now keep the advantage for their children and want to stab in the back of the other blacks.</p>
<p>Law of natural selection will be disadvantageous to such children as they may endup mixing with other black children which they don't want as they have graduated to mixing with white elite and consider and teat other black children the same as their white friends.</p>
<p>But the law will provide a gradual rise of all the blacks to be able to come at par with others it might be slower but will come.
This force integration has not resulted in actual rise of black poverty levels or education levels in the last 50 years.</p>
<p>When you get out in the work world, you will have to work with many different kinds of people. If you are in business, you may have to learn how to market your product in many different sorts of communities and in different countries. A common argument is that you will be more prepared to do so -- thus more job-ready -- if you experience with different kinds of people in your classes, clubs, and housing settings.</p>
<p>I came to this dicussion late--I hope someone has brought up the studies done that show that people learn differently (and in some ways better) when they are around people who are different from them. </p>
<p>Now why is it that different race seems to be so salient, as opposed to different gender, religion, family, political party, etc? (this was asked above). I don't know. Just guessing, here, but I presume because despite our efforts, despite heralding ourselves as an increasingly (or ideally) "color blind" society, skin color still is a very salient difference to some people in the U.S. Many people aren't color-blind. That doesn't mean they are necessarily prejudiced or bigoted, it just means they are aware of it. And somehow that awareness triggers different thinking, different considerations, different emotions, some of which seem to have positive effects on one's learning. </p>
<p>On a more personal level, I know I have seen the world much differently and better when I had someone who was a different religion, gender, sexual orientation, background, race, nationality, etc there to say "that's how you perceive it, but that is not how it is for me." Give me a classroom where that can happen, and yeah, I'd pay extra for it. It has influenced my decisions about where to buy a house and where to send my son to school.</p>
<p>Shouldn’t the aspiration of American society be a color-blind society? That would be true equality.</p>
<p>All this celebration of different ethnic groups and stuff divides rather than unites.</p>
<p>Tyler,</p>
<p>Again, you demonstrate the hollowness of the gospel of "diversity." Its preachers love to extol the benefits of "diversity" but won't tolerate one speck of dissent. I think you should go back to the seminary and brush up on your evangelical skills; they seem to be under-developed.</p>
<p>You have once more resorted to the straw man fallacy. You have misrepresented my view entirely. My belief is that each individual is unique, therefore there is no "Black perspective" or "Asian viewpoint" or "Hispanic opinion." You are the one who claims that these things exist. Kindly refrain from projecting your belief onto me.</p>
<p>By the way, it's difficult for an Asian to fit in at a White supremacist meeting, particularly if the Asian does not support White supremacist thinking.</p>
<p>
[quote]
You say that because racism still exists, and some people still don't want to be around people who aren't the same race as them, the shouldn't have to deal with them at top universities.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Where have I said this? I'm not sure if they've taught you this yet, but making stuff up does not help your argument. I have stated that racism still exists, yes. I don't recall ever stating "some people still don't want to be around people who aren't the same race as them," but it is a true statement. I have never made a remark remotely similar to your last incoherent sentence fragment.</p>
<p>Race is, unfortunately, still a big factor. I believe that it should not be. The content of our character is more important than the color of our skin. Therefore, I do not support a policy that seeks to make race more visible (viz. "diversity.")</p>
<p>Judging by your posts, you do not live anywhere close to the South. Perhaps you should come down some time and see for yourself how diverse it is. You may be enlightened.</p>
<p>Affirmative action first started as a way to get minorities into schools. Now that that view has become threadbare and tired, its proponents have decided that AA is important because the diversity it pushes helps white people learn things...the variety of opinions voiced in classes and dorms because of differing ethnic/racial backgrounds supposedly makes white people see things they wouldn't otherwise see. </p>
<p>Even if this is so, their twisted logic and ulterior motives are exposed by the fact that they don't care a bit about ensuring a variety of political views are heard. Or views from people of different ages or backgrounds. Where are the diversity proponents who are demanding that students should be in classes with a significant number of conservative students and professors, or that at least 5% of students or faculty should be military veterans, or that there should be a person over 40 years of age in each class to relay real-world experience or call B.S. when the prof tries to brainwash gullible students?</p>
<p>I am reminded of that great scene in "Back to School" in which the ivory tower professor is teaching a business class to young students...not one person in the class (including the prof) is aware of the realities of business except Rodney Dangerfield...and he knows these realities not because he's black but because he's older and has real experience. My father (World War II infantry officer) went back to college at age 70. He was in history classes in which 35-year-old professors were teaching 20-year-old students about WWII. Professors said things that were completely wrong, and my father corrected them not because he was black or white, but because he had been with the 103rd Infantry Division as they made their way across France and Germany to Austria in 1945.</p>
<p>Regardless of WHY politicans adopt policies of diversity, it's something that needs to be accomplished. Quite frankly, I don't care why a politican does something as much as I care what the politician is doing. </p>
<p>I'm honestly a little tired, because it seems like people here read what I post, but do not digest it. I'm tired of responding to foolish arguments that try to assert that natural selection will breed diversity. I'm done with fighting a lost cause, because it seems that although reasoned arguments can heal the sick, they cannot raise the dead.</p>
<p>Amen, Derrick, Amen!</p>