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.
"A narrowly divided federal appeals court on Thursday struck down a voter-passed ban on the use of race-conscious admissions by Michigan's public colleges, holding that the measure had unconstitutionally put racial-minority members at a distinct legal disadvantage in seeking from public colleges the same preferential treatment that other categories of students enjoy." Court Strikes Down Michigan's Ban on Race-Conscious Admissions - Government - The Chronicle of Higher Education
Looks like the Supreme Court is going to have to take up the issue as another federal court upheld such a ban in CA.
So, for decades, it is argued that skin color should not make anyone different. You cannot be denied a job simply because of your skin color, etc. Anyone who discriminates based on skin color is quickly and rightfully called a racist.
Affirmative action argues that skin color does matter and that those who have darker skin are at a disadvantage and thus, need an extra helping hand.
In reality, what this means in the context of higher education is that some white kid with great grades will lose a spot at a college/university to somebody with lesser qualifications simply because that other applicant is, say, black.
I used to be a member of an admissions committee for a doctoral program at an Ivy League university and have seen this over and over again: Perfectly qualified applicants were rejected simply because they were white. Instead, somebody else was admitted simply because they were black or hispanic, even if that person's grades were far inferior or his letter of intent has grammatical and/or spelling errors. This "helping hand" was applied even in cases where the non-white student came from a wealthy and privileged family while the white student came from a poor, working-class family.
Which is it America? Do we value merit? Or is skin color enough to put you ahead of somebody who worked hard?
We SAY we value merit. But we bury out heads in the sand when the reality of the outcome shows otherwise.
AA is producing the outcome of equality we want, not skill or merit.
LOL..Are you acting like racism no longer exists? It sure exists in the world of the last GOP Presidential nominee. Also, AA DOES NOT mean that unqualified people will be selected for any particular job. It simply assures that ALL people have the same opportunity not just those with silver spoons. It's why Romney's so bitter. He's accustomed to having a silver spoon advantage. It's not suprising why people are so afraid of an equal playing field. With an equal playing field fools and shapeshifters like Palin and Romney lose when they should.
So, if blacks are so disadvantaged, how come we have a black president?
And how does "leveling the playing field" equate discounting the accomplishments of one person simply because he or she happens to be white?
Don't get me wrong, I fully understand the sentiment of AA, but I also happen to believe that two wrongs don't make a right.
You cannot reasonably argue that skin color puts a person at a disadvantage, that this is clearly wrong, and then go ahead and officially institute racism.
I have seen this kind of thinking in action, and it was NOT pretty: We had one applicant whose father was born in Nigeria but who owns a multi-national corporation and who sent this applicant to private schools all her life where she did alright.
We also had an applicant from a poor Irish working-class family who clearly was not born with a silver spoon. Her grades were outstanding.
Guess who got the spot? How is that a right decision? You can NOT use skin color to override all other requirements. Purposely disadvantaging somebody simply because they are white is just as wrong as doing it to somebody who is black. And yet, AA wants us to believe that discrimination against whites is perfectly okay because, traditionally, they've suppressed non-whites and were the overwhelming majority. None of that is true any longer - why are courts putting forth policies that are clearly racist?
Does racism still exist? Of course - you can see it in action every day. However, AA simply confirms that sometimes, racism is perfectly alright and thereby accomplishes that race as a distinguishing factor is kept alive and well.
I take the position that education is unequal and that it is unequal education - not race - that should be addressed directly.
In my world, it is better to give admissions preference to applicants who outperform their same-school (or same-district) peers rather than those who fit some specific racial or ethnic classification.
It's ludicrous to maintain with a straight face that the child of a black millionaire neurosurgeon should have preference over the child of a white dirt-poor laborer, but it makes more sense to argue that someone from DC or Chicago public schools should have a preference over someone with similar grades and test scores from Hoity Toity 1% Prep.
Ultimately the Supreme Court will decide in order to resolve the conflicting rulings among the Circuits.
At least the blacks have some logical reason for wanting affirmative action to correct centuries of institutionalized racism -- but what's very absurd is all those breaking the immigration laws and sneaking into the USA in huge numbers for some reason can also demand affirmative action.
Start by eliminating color or race on applications! Block out thier names and address and where they went to high school. Go off grades, enterence exams, and thier college grades only for graduate school. If you think thier high school experence caused them a disadvantage it should be caught up by time grad school is considered. Plus work better on increasing public school levels... More specialized schools in the public system... Not just throwing money at it! Theres nothing wrong woth having an advanced high school for higher acheivers or having a high school geared toward trades for those who want to go that route and dont need the high end college prep classes as much as shop class.
If it were based on grades only then where is the discrimination ?
Just like civil service tests should be based on grades only.
Why is it that we strive for proportions of races to reflect the racial makeup of the US ?
Giving bonus points because of the color of your skin is NOT going to help America in the long run.
Since education is unequal, going on grades only favors those who got better educations, which kinda mocks our notions of equal protection. By your standard, someone with a 3.1 GPA and 1800 SAT from a great UMC school (median 3.4 GPA and 1900 SAT) is more qualified than someone else with a 3.0 GPA and 1780 SAT from a pathetic inner city or rural school (median 2.5 GPA and 1200 SAT)...and I'm skeptical of that, because in this case the UMC kid underperformed his peers and the other kid outperformed his peers.
And yes, I support school choice to level that playing field.
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.
We're all the same, except in Michigan
