Why is diversity good?

College Confidential Community
161

<p>Tyler09: Your are hopelessly wrong in saying that the natural selection fails at women upbringing to the top. </p>

<p>Men have not made any room for Women to come and join.
It was the need of 20th century, when increasing materialistic society needed both partners to chip in to make more money that women actually started venturing out and with that their skiil started to perfect in areas where men have been dominating.</p>

<p>No Affirmative action have been put in place to give women any advantage.
In contrast you will find that at Ivies probability to get in for women have been worse than that of men.</p>

<p>So please get your statistics right and also history of women into the work force. There are so much of discremination still but you don't need affirmative action to diverse the work place with women.</p>

<p>Then we should have tribunal to make the men and women pay same but there is no affirmative action to force cor-porations to pay same to men and women.</p>

162

<p>Tyler,</p>

<p>I wrote that Poor people would succeed best at schools where they were well matched at. If we must grant preference, then we should grant preference based on socioeconomics, not race. It's a more inclusive policy because it helps all Americans.</p>

<p>Students who are poorer are not necessarily weaker in terms of talent. They are by no means exempt from the principle that healthy competition makes students stronger. Healthy competition is most often found at schools where they are matched academically. If this school is UCSD, so be it. If this school is UCLA, so be it. It differs for every student, which shouldn't be surprising, as every student is unique. And because every student is unique, diversity will always happen.</p>

<p>Ideally, we should exclusively judge based on merit. If this is not possible and preference must be given for whatever reason, then the most inclusive policy would target students of lower socioeconomic standing. Poverty does not discriminate. There are poor Americans of every race, creed, religion, and national origin. Consequently, preference based on socioeconomics would help a truly diverse array of Americans.</p>

<p>There is no contradiction in my logic. My support for socioeconomic affirmative action comes from my verifiable belief that poverty does not discriminate. It can affect anyone. Therefore, a policy that seeks to help should help as many as possible. Race-based affirmative action ends up helping people who do not need help, namely, the wealthy who were born with a certain skin color that is now considered desirable for purposes of "diversity."</p>

<p>Socioeconomic affirmative action would result a more broad diversity. Granted, it wouldn't be the kind the socialists like, but diversity would happen.</p>

163

<p>""Affirmative Action is the product of Civil Rights for victims of "persistent discrimination", not the poor. However, due to the obvious background of slavery in the U.S, many African Americans in this day are worse off than they would be if it were not for slavery. Thus AA is meant as an EQUALIZER based on RACE, not INCOME. What you are referring to is financial aid.</p>

<p>I adamantly contend that if Affirmative Action was abolished, diversity levels would drop in top tier schools. Why? Consider:</p>

<p>According to data from the Census bureau
( <a href="http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0104552.html%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0104552.html&lt;/a> )</p>

<p>As of 2005, rough 2,114 thousand black households are within the 35K to 50K bracket as opposed to 13,944 thousand white households within that same bracket. That is roughly a 15:100 ratio. Assuming one child from each of these households, you have 15 blacks competing with 100 whites for x amount of spots. If we adjust for the “Achievement Gap” in terms of Academics, which places those 15 blacks academically lower than the 100 whites in terms of SATs, GPA, etc, the blacks have even less of a chance of competing with 100 whites. The immensity of such a problem is evident, the blacks would no longer have the advantage of being considered based on race;</p>

<p>IF considered based on INCOME, there is absolutely NO ADVANTAGE and with lower average academic scores, there is VERY LITTLE advantage.</p>

<p>Of course, there are blacks who are in the higher income brackets. But the median income for blacks is 17696 less than the median for whites. In addition, there are only 1092 thousand black households with an income over 100K, as opposed to 17,126 thousand white households within that same bracket, a ratio of roughly 54:856. Therefore, for every upper bracket black, there are FAR more upper income whites.</p>

<p>Thus it is clear that for every black of higher socioeconomic status, there are far more whites competing for the same spot of the same status. And for every black of low income there are many more whites competing for the same spot. Adjusted for the Achievement Gap, according to which on average blacks perform worse than whites, without AA and with a system based purely on socioeconomic status, blacks would be present in extremely small amounts."</p>

<p>This is what I posted in "The Affirmative Action thread", but since this topic is not veering dangerously in the direction of affirmative action (again) I will address it accordingly.</p>

164

<p>Derrick,</p>

<p>
[quote]

...diversity levels would drop in top tier schools.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Am I right to conclude that your definition of diversity levels is "number of Black students?"</p>

165

<p>Am I right to conclude that your definition of diversity levels is "number of Black students?"</p>

<p>While I definitely will not attempt to speak for Derrick, you definitely have to factor Black students in the equation. After Prop 209 numbers of AA have droped precipitously in the Cal school system. I read a study that there were only approximately less than 1000 AA students attending the schools in the whole Cal school system in a given year. In a state that has an approximate 7% population base of AA. It's not better in Michigan either. In a state that has approximately a 20% AA population, in 2005 only 6% of the enrollees at Michigan were AA, WITH the supposed preferences. African Americans, Latinos, and American Indians constitute a vastly underepresented number in college as a whole but especially at the more selective institutions, yet for many, thats still too much.</p>

<p>While there is no excuse for the many self destructive behaviors and attitudes that marginalize, and keep many of the underepresented group members from having the "merit" to attend college or the more selective ones, a balanced view also takes into consideration albeit more subjectively, to look at the non controllable factors that have created much of the disparities of these groups.</p>

<p>One does not have to be a history majory to look at the foundation of many of the entitlements and opportunities that were put in place so that future generations of the majority would greatly benefit from them. Those same opportunities were and to a lesser degree now are still being perpetuated. It is up to the status quo to continue to strive towards creating a more perfect way to create and sustain opportunities for those most harmed from past discriminations, and it is up to those underepresented groups to make the most of those opportunities for themselves and their future generations. This in part, is why diversity, which, let's be honest, is a term more palatable to the masses a semantical term, is vitally important.</p>

166

<p>I'm not sure what you mean by the "Cal school system". If you mean University of California, UC Riverside has more than 1000 African American students on their campus alone, not taking into account the number of African American students on the other nine campuses. (At UCR the number is percentage is 6.7%) If you are talking about California State Universities, there are 23 campuses. I'd guess there are well over 1000 African American students at most of those campuses, I know there are around 1300 for instance at San Jose State. </p>

<p>You might want to check your numbers before basing an argument on them.</p>

167

<p>I'm sorry.</p>

<p>I'm referring to the total number of AA admitted in a given year, as opposed to the numbers that are already there. Those numbers are those combined admitted to UCSD, UCLA,Berkeley, Riverside, Irvine, etc. I'm not absolutely sure if it contains all 23 schools, but of the most selective and larger institutions, yes, the numbers are that low. Given that UCLA alone had over 50,000 total applicants, the most in the US for 2007, the numbers of URM's admitted are frightengly low.</p>

168

<p>madville,</p>

<p>My conception of diversity includes all students. Therefore, it includes Black students, a subset of all students.</p>

<p>My question is whether or not “diversity levels” is just the number of Black students. Derrick seems to felt that way since he described a race-blind admissions dystopia with fewer Black students and more White students.</p>

<p>After Proposition 209, the numbers of Black students have dropped precipitously at some of the campuses. For example, Black admissions at Riverside more than doubled. Students were not being denied entrance to the system as a whole. They redistributed themselves throughout the system. Reactionaries claimed that Proposition 209 would “close the door” for minorities, but that has since been revealed to be an utter falsehood.</p>

<p>The natural data suggests that if people truly want more Black graduates, then the solution is to abandon racial preferences and focus on creating educational opportunities earlier (i.e. before the fall semester of senior year.)</p>

<p>Diversity is more palatable to the masses, I agree with you fully. It sounds so much better than racial preference, preferential treatment, or entitlements.</p>

169

<p>wow, what a harsh group of people.....if race wasn't such a part of discrimination is so much of society, we wouldn't need AA, but it is, and that is really because of people like the ones posting here</p>

<p>Many businesses, if they had their own choice, wouldn't hire blacks, asians, women....so we had to make rules....and if a student gets in who is on the lower side of the average stats, get over it all ready, stats are AVERAGES</p>

<p>As for prop 209s aftermath, try reading some other sites </p>

<p><a href="http://drcenter.org/prop209.htm%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://drcenter.org/prop209.htm&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>imagine that, it doesn't agree with the sites selling ward connelly's book</p>

170

<p>For the 2007 Fall Freshman class, the admittance rate for the UC campuses (all 10, UCBerkeley, UCDavis, UCMerced, UCIrvine, UCSanta Barbara, UCSD, UCSF, UCLA, UCRiverside, and UCSanta Cruz), 23% of those admitted were URMs, including 2000 African Americans.</p>

<p>The California State University 23 campus system, which includes such universities as Cal Poly San Luis Obispo, San Diego State, Fresno State, and Cal State Long Beach, enrolls 41% URMs. Frightenly low? Really?</p>

<p>Madville, you realize you can look this up on the internet?</p>

<p>I personally like that centers of learning include diversity in their goals for building a student body. These are our research institutions, training the people that will continue to build our society in the future. I want them building a society knowing all the issues, not just the ones a subset of individuals grew up with.</p>

171

<p>citygirlsmom,</p>

<p>I agree with you that the people pushing for racial preferences are making race more politicized and visible than it should be.</p>

<p>
[quote]

Many businesses, if they had their own choice, wouldn't hire blacks, asians, women....so we had to make rules....and if a student gets in who is on the lower side of the average stats, get over it all ready, stats are AVERAGES

[/quote]
</p>

<p>That’s right. It’s quite possible that many businesses would not want to hire minorities and women solely on the basis of their not being white males. The Fourteenth Amendment has never been more applicable.</p>

<p>Stats are not averages. Perhaps you’re thinking about average stats, which is a different concept. For example, my stats are just that – they’re mine. When the sum of my SAT score and the SAT score of another student is divided by two, the result is an average score.</p>

<p>Everybody should play by the same rules. This type of thinking got you labeled a “radical” and a “liberal” in decades past, but now it gets you pegged as a “racist.” Why is that?</p>

172

<p>I have mistakenly misrepresented my stats. I'm trying to find the article that I was making a reference to. Rather than making the point of the lack of minority representation in the Cal school system as a whole, it may have referred to the lack of AA in the more selective or flagship schools in California. I'm still searching to find the article so that I may reference it in its proper context. </p>

<p>That not withstanding, the numbers of AA admissions (2006 numbers) at some of the most prestigious California schools are:</p>

<p>Cal Tech 3
Berkeley 140
UCLA 99
Stanford 167</p>

<p>This is from more than 103,000 total applicants. Only Stanford had an admission percentage of more than 10%.
When you look at the raw numbers, it sometimes amazes me the uproar that URM's generate in the discussions on diversity and affirmative action. In the larger scheme of things, the numbers are low and that's with concerted efforts to increase the numbers of URM's.</p>

173

<p>"As usual, you constructed another straw man by misrepresenting how I define "integration...
...Oh well, that's what you get when you discuss affirmative action with people who don't know the difference between "there" and "their" and who refuse to teach themselves what a straw man is." -- fabrizio</p>

<p>hey fabrizio, you know that last line right there? Since we're talking logical fallacies, your comment is what we debaters like to call an "ad hominem" argument. Look it up, avoid it. No, it's not fair for others to be attacking you instead of your arguments. Just don't do the same thing!! This was getting to be a good debate, too.</p>

174

<p>mochamaven,</p>

<p>Thank you. I accept the rebuke.</p>

<p>I won't deny that I was purposefully insulting him. I should not have.</p>

<p>Nevertheless, there is one key thing that deviates from the basic ad hominem argument.</p>

<ol>
<li><p>Tyler makes a bunch of misrepresentations of my points and refuses to mention the original post numbers.</p></li>
<li><p>Tyler doesn't know the difference between "there" and "their" and is unwilling to stop creating straw men.</p></li>
<li><p>His misrepresentations are false regardless of his critical reading skills. Mentioning them does not advance my argument and is immature. I agree and apologize. However, his claims are not wrong due to his critical reading ability. They're wrong because he mixes and matches words from my post to argue against something that I have never said or even remotely suggested.</p></li>
</ol>

<p>In my post 154, I do not claim that his comments are wrong because of his English proficiency. Had I done so, I would have grossly abused the ad hominem fallacy.</p>

175

<p>Madville, where are you getting your numbers? And what do you mean by AA admissions? Affirmative Actions? or African American? Either way I'm not finding your figures. Looking at the University of California Admit Offers for Fall 2006 I see:</p>

<p>African American Berkeley 288 UCLA 210
Under Represented Minorities Berkeley 1503 UCLA 1590</p>

<p>This is on the University of California website</p>

<p><a href="http://www.ucop.edu/news/factsheets/fall2006adm.html%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.ucop.edu/news/factsheets/fall2006adm.html&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>URM admission rate at Berkeley was 18.7%, at UCLA over 16.3%. Low, but not the numbers you are coming up with.</p>

176

<p>Fabrizio wrote: "So far, I haven't found a single person honest enough to admit that his conception of "diversity" is nothing more than wanting more Blacks in postsecondary education."</p>

<p>Why don't you just ask "When did you stop beating your wife?"</p>

177

<p>diversity is good because it opens you up to new cultures, experiences, and most important of all, that there are people different from you. To not be able to cope with diversity would be tantamount to ignorance would it not?</p>

178

<p>Momwaitingfornew,</p>

<p>Because I'm not interested in your personal life, which is none of my business.</p>

<p>I am interested, however, in knowing whether you believe that diversity decreases without affirmative action. The answer to this question will confirm what I suspect is your definition of "diversity."</p>

179

<p>Fabrizio:</p>

<p>If you do not get my reference, then I'll explain it to you: it's a line from an old comedy schtick, an example of a question that will always yield a lose-lose answer. (Sometimes written as "Did you stop beating your wife?) </p>

<p>The way you phrased your sentence, you imply that anyone who wants diversity in all areas of life must not be honest. I'm being honest, and I'm saying YES, I WANT DIVERSITY IN ALL AREAS. I don't care whether you italicize the word or put it in quotation marks or just leave it be; my answer remains the same. </p>

<p>Your insistence on deriving a different meaning for the word is as artificial as you think AA is. Diversity has many facets, and it includes ethnic, cultural, geographic, and personal differences. For whatever reason, you have honed in on only one part of diversity--the personal--to make your case. </p>

<p>You know my opinion of affirmative action, and since I've answered your question many times on other threads, I will not answer it here, especially since it has been repeatedly stated on this thread that the question is not of AA, but of diversity in general. Diversity in postsecondary education is only one piece of the societal puzzle that will eventually lead (I hope!) to a more equitable future. That doesn't mean that AA is the only tool, or the only way, to address our country's racial and cultural divides.</p>

180

<p>The original topic was as follows:</p>

<p>** Why is diversity good? **</p>

<p>I'd like to get off AA and get into WHY the diversity intended by such programs is necessary. Fabrizio, I understand you're trying to make points about a controversial issue, but please, confine your AA arguments to the readily available AA THREAD.</p>