"Diversity" in schools =Racism?

white blamelessness wrote:

If admissions officers only chose students with 4.0s and 1600s, it would make for a very boring, lifeless community of students.

Are you kidding me? I went to an Ivy and I WISH more kids at my school had 4.0s and 1600s. The biggest complaint from the best government class I took (it was on the supreme court, and I was a physics major) was that it was too HARD. How can a government class be HARD?? Most sororities and fraternities had average GPA's in the 2's, and one sorority even had a 1.8 average. I couldn't relate to more than half the people at my school. Do you know how much it sucks walking home from a more or less empty library on a Thursday night and seeing people dancing on tables in restaurants near campus? What's so wrong with having a large number of academically-oriented students at an academic institution?

I would also like to point out that having straight A's and a 1600 SAT score IS enough to get into a top-notch school if you went to a well known high school (public or private) and did some sort of extracurricular activity. I went to a good public school and some people knew they'd get into basically any school they wanted, and I had many acquantainces who had gone to private schools (the $30k/yr type) who didn't realize how much it took for a public school student to get into a good university.

Rant over :)

i have nothing to learn from a culture where 2/3 of children are born to unwed mothers, but hey if that floats your boat, knock yourself out.

Go to sleep wrote:

i have nothing to learn from a culture where 2/3 of children are born to unwed mothers, but hey if that floats your boat, knock yourself out.

nevermind why, huh?

Small point, but I'm trying to get people to change that phrase. More accurately (and maybe helpfully), it should be "unwed parents."

The presence of a "race" checkbox on an application demonstrates the intent of racial discrimination (one definition racism) by virtue of taking race into consideration in the first place. If the application states "The University of XXX does not discriminate on the basis of race, ...," then why open the door for discrimination with the racial profiling?

Yes, the idea of equating "race" with "diversity" in order to serve some ultimate aim is racist - moreso if this aim is not specified in the "Statement of Purpose" of the school. Since people have different hobbies, tastes in music, athletic skills, scholastic interests/aptitudes, etc., any student body will be diverse even if comprised of only one race. Hence, requiring racial variance to achieve diversity represents an agenda. A racially-founded agenda is racism.

I feel like I am back in my undergrad days again, retaking Ethnic American Lit, listening to the same bunch of well-off,white suburbanites passionately fight to the death over minority representation.

I wonder if the actual minorities are as fired up over racial equity as white people are?

They probably don't give a crap.

Oh well, I'm an ignorant hick...just blame me for everything!

do non-whites care as much? wrote:

I feel like I am back in my undergrad days again, retaking Ethnic American Lit, listening to the same bunch of well-off,white suburbanites passionately fight to the death over minority representation.

I wonder if the actual minorities are as fired up over racial equity as white people are?

They probably don't give a crap.

Oh well, I'm an ignorant hick...just blame me for everything!

Blacks rose up against the system in the 60's when they were being discriminated against. Now they don't care because they have all the advantages. "Equity" does not exist any more today than it did 40 years ago ... except the races changed roles. Maybe we should have our own "I have a dream" rally at the Lincoln Memorial.

This always boils down to a simple question. If you are in an ER room waiting for a physician to work on you or a loved one; do you want the physician that "best added to the diversity of a university"; or would you want the physician, who by merit, hard work and intelligence, earned their undergraduate, graduate and medical degrees, working on either you or your loved one. I would take the 4.0 1600 SAT 10 out of 10 times.

Here is a link to the Kidder Article..although certain conclusions are contrary to each other; mainly who would benefit from the cessation of AA...both papers draw the conclusion that Asians are being discriminated against in the form of "negative action"

http://www.advancingequality.org/files/kidderarticle.pdf

I am not opposed to Affirmative action as AA involves more than just higher education (and a small precentage of higher education at that as the majority of higher education schools essentially are non-selective...ie..if yuo have a HS diploma or equivalent..you get in and you go..)AA also involves government contracts, private industry (and yes...government is allowed and should be allowed to legislate equal opportunity even in a privately held company..why the yshould be allowed would be a subject of a different thread.). Look at the managing directors and senior executives of nearly allmajor American corporations and the still remain mostly lily white. The group that has benefitted most from AA is infact women..not anethnic group at all.

Ironically..the two groups of people who are the only groups who really ahve the right to criticize AA..mainly Jews and Asians...tend to solidly support the policy as a whole.

I raise these questions only to point out the contraindications and hypocrisy whites often have in criticizing AA......(ie jennifer Graatz (sp) who sued the University of Michigan in Gratz versus Bollinger 2003)

white blamelessness wrote:

If admissions officers only chose students with 4.0s and 1600s, it would make for a very boring, lifeless community of students. Take it further, if they only chose students that are white...

By exposing students to people of different races, geographic backgrounds, talents, religions, etc. etc., students have the opportunity to experience people with different ideas to grow and learn from them. Learning occurs both inside and outside the classroom. There is a benefit in diversity you all seem to overlook. Yes, there is that deadweight loss from potentially under-qualified minority students, but the diversity they bring outweighs this loss.

Good satire!

But seriously -- first point, class would be more Asian & Jewish than "white."

Second point was a belly-buster:

There is a benefit in diversity you all seem to overlook.

Care to enlighten us to EXACTLY what that benefit is? As mentioned previously, Billy Shakes did just fine w/o "diversity," Nobel Prize winners ('ceptin' the oh-so-political PEACE prize) sure isn't too "diverse."

What exactly ARE the benefits of diversity; further, if there is a benefit to a SPECIFIC kind of diversity, then why aren't colleges demanding representation from all cultures? How many Hutus has Yale accepted? Was that percentage world proportional? How about offspring of gay married couples from East Boston? And don't forget Australian aboriginals, mate!

I understand you entirely since this culture is a direct continuation of the way of thinking which led to all of the World Wars, the invention of the atomic bomb, slavery, the holocaust, the colonization of far away countries around the globe, splitting up of a continent for self-serving purposes, legalized racism, etc. Oh wait, wrong group of people...

Sadly, we measure many of the wrong things in our quest for "diversity." There is intense competition among elite institutions for the upper-middle to upper class, well-prepared children of favored minority groups. That way you can punch your ticket for "diversity" sithout sacrifice--some black or hispanic kid whose dad is a doc and has the high SATs will be snatched up and offered all sorts of incentives. He or she would have gotten in anyway. What about the lower-middle to lower class kid whose work truly does represent overcoming obstacles, regardless of race. I don't mind giving a poor black kid a leg up, but it steams me to see that "leg up" offered to someone who doesn't need it just because they happen to be of a certain hue.

On another note, when they start applying diversity criteria to the money sports, I'll take it more seriously. ("We're sorry, Mr. Abdul-Jabbar, but we already have too many 7-foot, coordinated students on our team. We have a quota for 5'8" Eskimos. I'm sure you understand.") Fat chance.

I agree with you on your first point, but I hope you are kidding on the second...

Money sports need to remain they way they are...

I have never understood why it isn't decided on class, rather than race.

What about the White, Irish kids from Southy? What advantages have they had over blacks or hispanics?

Why not base Affirmative Action on class?

Serious question, I have not studied this to the extent of most of you.

gymjim wrote:

This always boils down to a simple question. If you are in an ER room waiting for a physician to work on you or a loved one; do you want the physician that "best added to the diversity of a university"; or would you want the physician, who by merit, hard work and intelligence, earned their undergraduate, graduate and medical degrees, working on either you or your loved one. I would take the 4.0 1600 SAT 10 out of 10 times.

No, you probably wouldn't. You'll take what doctor shows up at your door. And ER docs don't get 4.0/1600. Hate to break it to you, but they're at the low end of the totem pole in medical school. (The 4.0/1600 smart people have the pick of residencies and go into dermatology or radiology where you make a lot of money and have a good lifestyle.)

Medicine isn't simply about memorizing facts. If that was the case, there would be a computer doing the job. Medicine involves a set of skills, some of which are knowing the facts (and no one knows ALL of them - that's why we have books), but another set involves dealing with the patient.

This isn't some "touchy-feely" part, like most people assume ("oh, he's got a good bedside manner") but rather a way of getting people to talk to you about what they feel.

The dirty secret of medicine is that most diagnoses can be made simply from the history (and physical.) But you've got to be able to get a good history - and that means talking to a patient, getting them to tell you an accurate story of what happened and when, in what order, and how it happened.

It is amazing the things people tell and don't tell their doctors - and for good reason. And it's also amazing that people do or do not listen to medical advice based on how much they trust their doctor.

Here's an example for you: A runner shows up to the doctor complaining of leg pain when he runs. They get a bone scan, and it's a stress fracture, the third one the runner has had. The doctor, being a non-runner, tells the runner to stop running forever, maybe find another sport like biking or swimming. The runner doesn't want to hear any of it, and comes on letsrun.com and complains how their doctor is an idiot, and doesn't know what he's doing.

Suppose the doctor had been a runner, and recommended a different course - making the runner happy and able to continue running.

In this case it was the diversity, of experience, that made the difference. It wasn't knowing the facts - any idiot can make the diagnosis of a stress fracture (heck, the runner probably knew it already). But the management was different because of different experiences. The book answer for stress fracture is remove the stress - and hence the first doctor was completely right in recommending that the runner never run again. And yet that's not really an acceptable outcome for the patient, is it?

Now see if you can think of other situations where race might be an advantage, or lead to a different outcome in terms of the patient. Maybe there is something about growing up black, or asian, or native american, that can help a patient. Possibly? Sure.

gymjim wrote:

This always boils down to a simple question. If you are in an ER room waiting for a physician to work on you or a loved one; do you want the physician that "best added to the diversity of a university"; or would you want the physician, who by merit, hard work and intelligence, earned their undergraduate, graduate and medical degrees, working on either you or your loved one. I would take the 4.0 1600 SAT 10 out of 10 times.

Bingo. And people wonder why the U.S. is falling behind in the sciences.

College Perspective wrote:

And as for Affirmative Action, let's say that Affirmative Action works against a white person in the admissions process of college. Instead of complaining, maybe that white person should try and think about everything advantage that they've had along the way. That they've grown up in a culture where success and college are the standards that they've been told to strive for every year of their life. THIS IS NOT THE CASE FOR EVERY PERSON IN AMERICA.

You do realize that there are whites who were also raised in poor households?

The statement that all whites are somehow advantaged is just as racist as stating that all blacks are poor, ghetto, drugdealers whos parents are in jail.

Being born a certain race in this country is not nearly as important to success as the amount of effort one puts into succeeding.

SC Slim wrote:

You do realize that there are whites who were also raised in poor households?

The statement that all whites are somehow advantaged is just as racist as stating that all blacks are poor, ghetto, drugdealers whos parents are in jail.

Being born a certain race in this country is not nearly as important to success as the amount of effort one puts into succeeding.

I'll ask again...

I have never understood why it isn't decided on class, rather than race.

What about the White, Irish kids from Southy? What advantages have they had over blacks or hispanics?

Why not base Affirmative Action on class?

The question is always posed "Why not base affirmative action on class?" It might be a good idea depending on your intentiosn and what you hope to accomplish. However, basing AA on socioeconomic class will only exacerbate the racial disparities at elite universities...

see article below and note teh citiation from Laurence Steinberg from "Beyond the classroom"

www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A26499-2004Oct12.html

if you do not wish to read the articel..here is the quotation..

"...."Beyond the Classroom," by Laurence Steinberg, B. Bradford Brown and Sanford M. Dornbusch, which says "of all the demographic factors we studied in relation to school performance, ethnicity was the most important. . . . In terms of school achievement, it is more advantageous to be Asian than to be wealthy, to have non-divorced parents, or to have a mother who is able to stay at home full time."

Of course correlation and relation do not imply causation but you should get the point..

It is already documented that on average Asians score higher and get better grades than Whites, Blacks and Hispanics. People seem to believe that if the scores and grades were adjusted for parental education level and household income..the scores would be more equivalent across all ethnic groups..The contrary is actually true...the test score and grade gap (not absolute test score) actually widen when scores and grades are adjusted for socioeconomic levels of the ethnic groups. This at least partially debunks the myth that Asians are academically successful in America because they 1. have a higher household average income and 2. come from educated families from their country of orgin. As a result, AA based on socioecomic class will only result in even a greater proportion os Asians at elite univerities..whether this is desirable is the subject of another thread.

Why not base it on class?

Why not edumacate the parents re: what needs to be done to get junior into the college of his/her choice?

Well, cuz THAT would be indignificating and, you know, oppressionating. Who are YOU to tell ME what is best?