Don't you hate it when...

Discussion in 'Politics & Religion' started by bungrider, Apr 1, 2003.

  1. ...people can't get into college and blame it on minorities??

    (Just lighting the next firey debate here on ET). :D

    Have fun, guys...

    http://www.cnn.com/2003/LAW/04/01/scotus.affirmative.action.ap/index.html


    Let me make one thing clear, that I think many anti-affirmative action people forget -- the point of affirmative action is not to say "ok, you're not smart enough to get in here, but since your race has put up with so much crap from white people over the years, we'll let you in," but rather "we have 20,000 white kids from the suburbs. we don't want any more, since our country is not composed completely of suburban white kids. you will bring something to this school that all the suburban white kids obviously cannot, and that is why we want you, instead of more suburban white kids."





    "You know, I just think that if it weren't for all the minorities applying, then
    morons like me from well-to-do families might have a better shot."

    [​IMG]
     
  2. University applications should not have a race question period. Should be based 100% on merit, without regard to what the campus "looks like".
     

  3. Which may or may not be a good idea, but as I understand it, doesn't your consitution prevent discrimination on the basis of race?
     
  4. Only if it can be proved.(Life is one big smoke and mirror, alfonso).
     
  5. Yes, discrimination, but not affirmation.

    The argument is that it is more difficult to attract minorities, thus they are more in demand than some other groups. Let's not forget that affirmative action may also include women and people with disabilities, simply because it is more difficult to attract them to a university setting. It also includes athletes and musicians who are in relatively short supply.

    Admissions are the purest form of capitalism. Supply and demand.

    If you remove affirmative action for minorities, then you are also saying that someone who is good at a sport or is good at playing an instrument cannot receive special consideration for that ability. The whole point is that someone who grew up in harlem is just as valuable (if not more so, since fewer people apply who are from harlem tend to apply to college) as someone who grew up in Manhattan. Thus when fewer people apply from harlem, supply and demand natrually dictates that you are going to try to get the people from harlem to come to your school.

    Let's also not forget that people from the midwest -- regardless of their ethnicity -- have a statistically easier time with college admissions when applying to east or west coast schools, simply because it is harder to get people from farther away to apply.

    The whole point is that you want interesting people who bring special talents. That is why you don't apply to college with only your SAT score (although most people, myself included, woulda loved that). :D
     

  6. Bungrider, the selection process you advocate above is pure racial discrimination.

    If the selection criteria to academic institutions are based on academic potential -- as you'd imagine they should and would be -- then giving a more qualified candidates place to a less qualified based on their race is .... ?
     
  7. if 'interesting' and 'special' are defined based upon race, then the policy is racist and discriminatory, no getting around that.

    the question then maybe should be whether this particular racism is 'justified racism' -- however, that seems to be contrary to the Equal Protection principle.
     
  8. What was your excuse?
     
  9. I don't have one. I'm just a big, dumb guy. No excuses here.


    The interesting thing about the supreme courst case (to me, anyway :D ) is who these people are mad at; instead of blaming athletes who are otherwise unqualified for admission, they instantly blame minorities.

    That is what I find so interesting.
     
  10. You don't get it. If they admit athletes due to a particular race, then it is discrimination. If a school does not consider race when choosing athletes, then it is not discrimination. Who says that universities should only have academics? They should also admit the most qualified individuals in other areas, just as long as its not based on race. Musicians? Sure. If the university considers a skill important, it doesn't really matter what that skill is. Being born a specific color or sex is not a skill.
     
    #10     Apr 1, 2003