Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The recent University of Illinois admission scandal has brought to light what most people already know but few were willing to admit. Affirmative action for White people has existed for centuries and continues to occur in many universities across the country. What is happening at University of Illinois happens everyday, on college campuses across the country and in human resource offices everywhere.
People are getting preferential treatment based on who they know. Friends and family take care of friends and family and in many instances more deserving candidates are left out of the process.
The main argument against affirmative action is "HIRE THE BEST MAN OR WOMAN FOR THE JOB SHOULD PERIOD"
But the reality is that the best man or woman doesn't always get the job, or admission into a University, and the recent scandal at the University of Illinois proves that. George W getting into Yale proves that. The "Good ol Boy Network" lives on and because of this there will continue to be an argument for Affirmative Action.
A newly proposed law would fire the entire University of Illinois Board of Trustees following an admissions scandal at the state's most prestigious campus.
State Sen. Kirk Dillard (R-Hinsdale) proposed the legislation this week, saying the majority of U. of I. trustees failed to protect the university from the nepotism and patronage practices that plague Illinois politics. Eight of the nine current members were either appointed or reappointed by ousted Gov. Rod Blagojevich.
"It is unconscionable that the Blagojevich administration allowed its trustees to overreach their authority and meddle in the day-to-day activities at the university," Dillard said.
Dillard joins a growing chorus of public officials and educators calling for action against the eight trustees whose queries about applicants got them placed on clout lists. U.S. Rep. Aaron Schock (R-Ill.) and state Rep. Mike Boland (D-East Moline) have sought immediate resignations, while a group of former U. of I. presidents and chancellors has proposed changes to the way the board is appointed.
The bill faces an uphill battle in Springfield, where lawmakers from both parties are tied to more than half of the names that appear on clout lists maintained by the Urbana-Champaign campus.
An analysis of admissions records show that the U. of I. gave preferential treatment to more than 800 undergraduate applicants in the last five years because of their connection to influential people. Dozens of graduate school and law applicants also got undue consideration.
Gov. Pat Quinn created a blue-ribbon panel to investigate the abuses and present its recommendations by Aug. 8. During its first six hearings, the Illinois Admissions Review Commission grilled university leaders and trustees about a system in which trustees lobbied on behalf of friends, relatives and Blagojevich donors.
University logs obtained by the Tribune show that Dillard's name was tied to seven students on the clout list since 2005. Three were admitted, but the state senator said his involvement rarely went beyond a formal letter of recommendation and that he never pushed to overturn an admissions decision.
Dillard, who is running for governor, has called on his fellow lawmakers to suspend admissions inquiries until after the commission releases its recommendations.
Dillard said the board must be removed immediately in order to restore the public's trust in its flagship school. Those who were not involved in admissions abuses -- Quinn appointee Edward McMillan, for example -- could reapply for their positions under his proposal.
"More heads may need to roll," Dillard said. "The blame goes further than the board of trustees, but the buck stops with them."
The governor has said he will wait until the commission releases its recommendations.
Said U. of I. spokesman Tom Hardy: "We're working with the commission and look forward to seeing their final recommendations."
Last edited by dejuan2; 07-17-2009 at 09:28 PM..
Reason: adding text of article
And what exactly does this have to with race? The vast majority of applicants, white or black or whatever, did not benefit from this as only 800 applicants did. This doesn't mean that whites are getting preferential treatment, it means that the 800 or so individuals (whose race was never mentioned, you just made an assumption they were white) got preferential treatment. This has nothing to do with race.
And what exactly does this have to with race? The vast majority of applicants, white or black or whatever, did not benefit from this as only 800 applicants did. This doesn't mean that whites are getting preferential treatment, it means that the 800 or so individuals (whose race was never mentioned, you just made an assumption they were white) got preferential treatment. This has nothing to do with race.
Legacy admissions, like this scandal, tend to favor those who are already in the upper class. Hence, they disadvantage those in lower classes. That means that the existing power distribution is reinforced and extended.
If you think that has nothing to do with race, you're very confused.
This is why conservatives want everyone to be "color-blind" to race. Because it's easy to stay in power once you're there, and whites will benefit from that.
Affirmative Action is meant to counteract that existing institutional bias.
Legacy admissions, like this scandal, tend to favor those who are already in the upper class. Hence, they disadvantage those in lower classes. That means that the existing power distribution is reinforced and extended.
If you think that has nothing to do with race, you're very confused.
This is why conservatives want everyone to be "color-blind" to race. Because it's easy to stay in power once you're there, and whites will benefit from that.
Affirmative Action is meant to counteract that existing institutional bias.
Even if every one of those 800 applicants was white (which I doubt, becuase Illinois has many influential people from all races)... there were only 800 applicants total over a period of 5 years.
800 is a tiny percentage of all admitted students, which means that the vast majority of whites would not benefit from "legacy" admissions.
I agree with you that legacy admissions benefit the upper class at the expense of the lower and middle classes. But whites without connections (the vast majority of whites) are just as harmed by this as minorities are.
Even if every one of those 800 applicants was white (which I doubt, becuase Illinois has many influential people from all races)... there were only 800 applicants total over a period of 5 years.
800 is a tiny percentage of all admitted students, which means that the vast majority of whites would not benefit from "legacy" admissions.
I agree with you that legacy admissions benefit the upper class at the expense of the lower and middle classes. But whites without connections (the vast majority of whites) are just as harmed by this as minorities are.
By my reading this program was in addition to legacy admissions. So the actual number is much higher than 800.
And there aren't all that many people in this country that you can consider to be in the "ruling class" in terms of having money and power. If every university has a legacy admissions program, then every child of power has a huge automatic advantage - beyond already being at the top of the "who you know" competition.
That's how dynasties work. That's what minorities have to compete against.
By my reading this program was in addition to legacy admissions. So the actual number is much higher than 800.
And there aren't all that many people in this country that you can consider to be in the "ruling class" in terms of having money and power. If every university has a legacy admissions program, then every child of power has a huge automatic advantage - beyond already being at the top of the "who you know" competition.
That's how dynasties work. That's what minorities have to compete against.
I agree with everything you said except the last sentence. It's not jsut minorities that have to compete against this. There are many whites that come from the lower and middle classes with no connections and no legacy. They constitute the majority of the white population.
I agree with everything you said except the last sentence. It's not jsut minorities that have to compete against this. There are many whites that come from the lower and middle classes with no connections and no legacy. They constitute the majority of the white population.
And I'll agree with you on this. I spoke too quickly and inaccurately on my last sentence above.
What I should have said is that every white person in America, poor or not, has a built-in advantage over every minority in this country because of those institutional biases that exist everywhere - not just in university admissions. It's in our hiring (minority names have their resumes trashed), in our housing (numerous studies about black couples being turned down for loans), in our shopping (worse terms offered to minorities for cars, etc.)
There are many ways in which white people benefit. University admissions - as shown this example - may not be directly based on race, but they have the effect of supporting the existing wealth and power base - which is an advantage to whites.
So, taking all of that into account, that's what minorities have to compete against.
Location: The Chatterdome in La La Land, CaliFUNia
39,031 posts, read 23,012,380 times
Reputation: 36027
Quote:
Originally Posted by idahogie
And I'll agree with you on this. I spoke too quickly and inaccurately on my last sentence above.
What I should have said is that every white person in America, poor or not, has a built-in advantage over every minority in this country because of those institutional biases that exist everywhere - not just in university admissions. It's in our hiring (minority names have their resumes trashed), in our housing (numerous studies about black couples being turned down for loans), in our shopping (worse terms offered to minorities for cars, etc.)
There are many ways in which white people benefit. University admissions - as shown this example - may not be directly based on race, but they have the effect of supporting the existing wealth and power base - which is an advantage to whites.
So, taking all of that into account, that's what minorities have to compete against.
As a caucasian, I have failed to see how this so-called "institutional racism" has benefitted me personally. I have faced tons of discrimination and racism in my life so this so-called concept of institutional racism is just a bunch of malarky.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
