New "Affirmative Action" nonsense

[RavenSky]

Derogatory "Punk" in my lexicon and circles refers to young adults/teens regardless of race. Especially ones that are up to no good on my lawn!

. Agree!

 

[Nice Squirrel]

What do you mean we should not? She's making a completely unsubstantiated claim that the university officials are racists and backing it up by nothing other than the fact that she didn't get in. Given that the vast majority of applicants with the same or better qualifications than her also didn't get in and that she's talking about a place which needed to be legally blocked from giving precedence to minority students, the onus is entirely on her to provide a basis for her accusations.

Why should we give any claim the benefit of the doubt if nothing is provided to support it?

Also, does the University of Michigan not currently have a diverse student population? -- I see an uphill battle. It probably be better for her to go to junior college and prove herself there. She's probably just a naive young kid who have been spurned into this action by the reactionary group.

Disclaimer: I am a college recruiter for a Big10 university (not the one in question).

 

[Tom Sawyer]

As to the issue itself, for her claim to be true, it would have to be shown that the university has any sort of pattern of admitting white students with GPA's and test score similar to her's while not admitting her and other minorities. I do not think it is possible for her or anyone else to make that sort of claim on the basis of only her being denied entrance.

Ya, and if she showed something like that then she'd have some kind of case. I have seen nothing from her, however, which suggests that she has any kind of rationale to back that sort of thing up.

Her entire case seems to be based on the fact that a second tier student didn't get accepted to a top tier school ... so racism.

 

[RavenSky]

Ya, and if she showed something like that then she'd have some kind of case. I have seen nothing from her, however, which suggests that she has any kind of rationale to back that sort of thing up.

Her entire case seems to be based on the fact that a second tier student didn't get accepted to a top tier school ... so racism.

Given his history, I am not willing to trust that any source Derec provides is providing the full story, and I haven't yet had the time to look into the situation further, so I have not yet formed an opinion on this specific situation. I will, however, agree that your conclusion is entirely possible and I have no problem with anything you've said.

Your comment, "she's talking about a place which needed to be legally blocked from giving precedence to minority students" struck my interest. I'd like to look further into that, but it makes me wonder if this young woman is being used as a pawn to fight that legal action.

 

[Toni]

- - - Updated - - -

Also, does the University of Michigan not currently have a diverse student population? -- I see an uphill battle. It probably be better for her to go to junior college and prove herself there. She's probably just a naive young kid who have been spurned into this action by the reactionary group.

Disclaimer: I am a college recruiter for a Big10 university (not the one in question).

Then you should be aware that Michigan offers many other universities which are not U of MI. U of M or junior college (I am unaware that there is still anything called 'junior college' anymore) are hardly the only options a Michigan student has.

 

[Toni]

What do you mean we should not? She's making a completely unsubstantiated claim that the university officials are racists and backing it up by nothing other than the fact that she didn't get in. Given that the vast majority of applicants with the same or better qualifications than her also didn't get in and that she's talking about a place which needed to be legally blocked from giving precedence to minority students, the onus is entirely on her to provide a basis for her accusations.

Why should we give any claim the benefit of the doubt if nothing is provided to support it?

Aside from the fact that we don't know her actual scores or the contents of her application nor do we know anything about the statistics and demographics of the incoming freshman class?

You are very quick to point out that U of Mi had an admissions policy which was ruled to be inappropriate. A policy which was in effect for a relatively short period of time, especially compared with the length of time that slavery, Jim Crow and other such policies were in effect.

 

[Metaphor]

Of course, Affirmative Action is racial discrimination. Opponents of Affirmative Action are stuck on stating the obvious.

Affirmative Action was designed to be discrimination. It is not a valid point to oppose Affirmative action because it is racial discrimination.

Of course it's valid to do that; the fact that it's wrong by design is one of the strongest arguments to be made against it.

The Supreme Court has ruled that racial discrimination in Affirmative Action is allowed for the purpose of redressing the past wrongs of the legal system, allowing people to own other people for example, or the crime of separate but equal. It is racial discrimination to redress the effects of 400 years of legally sanctioned racial discrimination.

It's more than racial discrimination: it's sex discrimination too. But 400 years of wrongs to people long since dead can't be redressed. People who were discriminated against and dead cannot be made whole. And ongoing wrongs to others cannot undo the past. When a criminal cannot be found, we do not jail the criminal's daughter, or the children of other people who look like the criminal.

Once again, I listed the valid arguments that opponents can make. They are very week ones.

Since you've dismissed out of the gate that racial discrimination isn't a reason to oppose it, it's no surprise you find other reasons less convincing.

If I was asked I would advise the supporters of Affirmative Action to give it up. It is not very effective. And it is used as a rallying point for the opposition. I would simply insist on reparations. They were used for the Japanese interred during World War II. They are used for people who are wrongly convicted of a crime. What is the present day value of 40 acres and a mule?

You mean, reparations for the people who actually suffered discrimination, like the individuals interred during WWII?

But it is not up to me to decide. If they want to continue Affirmative Action I can't disagree. It is not my place to take away the only compensation that has been offered for the terrible wrongs that were done, wrongs that still resonate in society today in the reduced wealth and opportunities of the decedents of the people who were wronged.

People who were wronged and are now dead cannot be compensated. People who were not wronged do not need to be compensated. Compensating the descendants of the wronged by inflicting the very same wrongness on others is the height of absurdity.

 

[laughing dog]

Of course, Affirmative Action is racial discrimination. Opponents of Affirmative Action are stuck on stating the obvious.

This is simply untrue. Affirmative action may result in racial discrimination when racial quotas are used to achieve a result. But AA need not mean racial discrimination. For example, AA can mean an extra effort to recruit qualified candidates. Where I worked (and have worked) AA meant we had to make sure we were actively advertising and looking candidates who were minorities, but we were not required to hire them if they were not qualified (or the best qualified).

 

[Metaphor]

Aside from the fact that we don't know her actual scores or the contents of her application nor do we know anything about the statistics and demographics of the incoming freshman class?

? The article reveals both her ACT score and her GPA, as well as the average ACT and GPA of admitted students.

 

[AthenaAwakened]

Ya know,

People who find the young woman reprehensible and her actions unwarranted could put this and all future claims like this to bed forever. Simply purge all the students at universities, including rich ones, white ones, and athletes, from the student population who did not meet the minimum criteria for entrance and never ever again allow any student in that doesn't meet those criteria to darken the ivy covered halls of higher learning. Then you won't have "equal right to be sub par but still get in" accusations because there will be nothing on which to base them. Otherwise, if even one student gets in without meeting every requirement, you'll have other students wanting to do the same. lets do that. Set standards and stick to them. No matter how arbitrary they may be.

 

[Nice Squirrel]

- - - Updated - - -



Then you should be aware that Michigan offers many other universities which are not U of MI. U of M or junior college (I am unaware that there is still anything called 'junior college' anymore) are hardly the only options a Michigan student has.

Junior college is a generic term that means a two-year college. We call them "community colleges" here. It is usually a cheaper alternative to higher-priced universities, and yes there are alternatives but for those students who did not make the cut because of grades, etc. it is a viable alternative. Other alternatives exist, but if she really wants to go to Michigan, then transferring in is an option.

 

[Metaphor]

Ya know,

People who find the young woman reprehensible and her actions unwarranted could put this and all future claims like this to bed forever. Simply purge all the students at universities, including rich ones, white ones, and athletes, from the student population who did not meet the minimum criteria for entrance and never ever again allow any student in that doesn't meet those criteria to darken the ivy covered halls of higher learning. Then you won't have "equal right to be sub par but still get in" accusations because there will be nothing on which to base them. Otherwise, if even one student gets in without meeting every requirement, you'll have other students wanting to do the same. lets do that. Set standards and stick to them. No matter how arbitrary they may be.

I have long opposed 'fees for degrees', legacy entries, and the patent lunacy of athletic entries. I have argued exactly what you've argued for, for years.

It is a good thing to have transparent criteria that does not allow for personal whims and prejudices to affect selection. But this only has value if the criteria are not arbitrary. In fact, arbitrary criteria are very bad. If you are going to use any criterion, it should have a proven relationship with academic success. Grades and measures of aptitude, of course, have proven their mettle as selection criteria, and so any University interested in their students being academically successful will continue to use these.

But if a University decided it would only admit students 165cm and taller, that would be a very bad criterion.

 

[Nice Squirrel]

Ya know,

People who find the young woman reprehensible and her actions unwarranted could put this and all future claims like this to bed forever. Simply purge all the students at universities, including rich ones, white ones, and athletes, from the student population who did not meet the minimum criteria for entrance and never ever again allow any student in that doesn't meet those criteria to darken the ivy covered halls of higher learning. Then you won't have "equal right to be sub par but still get in" accusations because there will be nothing on which to base them. Otherwise, if even one student gets in without meeting every requirement, you'll have other students wanting to do the same. lets do that. Set standards and stick to them. No matter how arbitrary they may be.

Pffft, Our halls are covered in kudzu.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Ya know,

People who find the young woman reprehensible and her actions unwarranted could put this and all future claims like this to bed forever. Simply purge all the students at universities, including rich ones, white ones, and athletes, from the student population who did not meet the minimum criteria for entrance and never ever again allow any student in that doesn't meet those criteria to darken the ivy covered halls of higher learning. Then you won't have "equal right to be sub par but still get in" accusations because there will be nothing on which to base them. Otherwise, if even one student gets in without meeting every requirement, you'll have other students wanting to do the same. lets do that. Set standards and stick to them. No matter how arbitrary they may be.

Holy Strawman, Batman.

Nobody is claiming that there aren't those who meet every requirement getting in. However, those who do not meet these requirements have a more difficult time getting in than those who do not and when you have someone who does not meet the requirements, you don't need to go around looking for nefarious hidden reasons as to why they didn't get accepted. When one of that group of people claims these nefarious reasons and asserts that the university is racist by not accepting her that claim can be easily dismissed if she fails to provide any rationale at all beyond the fact that she, like the vast majority of her fellow second tier candidates, did not get into this top tier school.

As a side note, in what way does using academic achievement as a requirement to get into one of the top universities in the country qualify as "arbitrary"? I don't get how that fits the definition.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Aside from the fact that we don't know her actual scores or the contents of her application nor do we know anything about the statistics and demographics of the incoming freshman class?

You are very quick to point out that U of Mi had an admissions policy which was ruled to be inappropriate. A policy which was in effect for a relatively short period of time, especially compared with the length of time that slavery, Jim Crow and other such policies were in effect.

Who cares how long it was in effect? The point of mentioning it was that the university was trying to take steps to increase minority enrollment. This woman is asserting that the same group of people who did that are now actively working to do the exact opposite just a few years later. This claim of hers strains credulity and requires strong evidence to back it up as opposed to absolutely no evidence whatsoever.

 

[Underseer]

University admissions are an inherently different beast. There are a lot of factors that go into figuring out who to accept. Each factor adds a certain number of points and the applicants with enough points get in.

So students with good grades and good test scores automatically get a lot of points because they're always looking for that.

If the orchestra happens to be low on oboe players, applicants who can play oboe get extra points that year.

If the university makes a lot of money off of its football team, good football players get a very large number of points.

If the applicant is from a family that donates a lot of money to the university, that applicant gets a very large number of points.

The university also wants diversity in its student body because that creates part of the environment that makes the university experience what it is. This is not just racial diversity; if the university has fewer students from rural areas, then that year applicants from rural areas get more points.

If you're worried about less qualified students getting in, the situation is much more pronounced when we're talking about students from rich families, but strangely, we never see a right winger complaining about underqualified rich kids getting into a university at the expense of another candidate, and only rarely complain when the same thing happens with an unusually talented football player. These circumstances are much more common and involve far less qualified students than you will get with a minority student or a rural student, but for some reason we only ever hear complaints when this happens with students of certain racial backgrounds.

Ever wonder why that is?

 

[AthenaAwakened]

Holy Strawman, Batman.

Nobody is claiming that there aren't those who meet every requirement getting in. However, those who do not meet these requirements have a more difficult time getting in than those who do not and when you have someone who does not meet the requirements, you don't need to go around looking for nefarious hidden reasons as to why they didn't get accepted. When one of that group of people claims these nefarious reasons and asserts that the university is racist by not accepting her that claim can be easily dismissed if she fails to provide any rationale at all beyond the fact that she, like the vast majority of her fellow second tier candidates, did not get into this top tier school.

As a side note, in what way does using academic achievement as a requirement to get into one of the top universities in the country qualify as "arbitrary"? I don't get how that fits the definition.

the argument available to her is "yes, I didn't make the grades/scores required but that shouldn't keep me out." Correct? That mean could stem from a myriad of reasons, among them (1) grades/score are arbitrary and/or unfair and/or not valid measures to use in admissions, OR other students with deficiencies have been admitted, making the use of standards with regard to some students and not with others a discriminatory practice.

Now the school will say they use grades/scores because they are predictive of academic success. But here's the thing. There are many other things that are much better predictors of success. Parental college experience, socio-economic level of family, family address, for instance, all are far better predictors, so why not use them? If the young woman falls below the average gpa/test scores of the entering freshman class, she's not alone. Half the group will fall below the average and yet they are getting in. Why?

So, among a host of other criticisms, you wind up with an argument for a certain degree arbitrariness of chosen standard and a practice of applying those standards to some students while granting a suspension of the standards for others.

You get rid of the second argument by never granting suspension of standards to anyone ever.

 

[laughing dog]

Holy Strawman, Batman.

Nobody is claiming that there aren't those who meet every requirement getting in. However, those who do not meet these requirements have a more difficult time getting in than those who do not and when you have someone who does not meet the requirements, you don't need to go around looking for nefarious hidden reasons as to why they didn't get accepted. When one of that group of people claims these nefarious reasons and asserts that the university is racist by not accepting her that claim can be easily dismissed if she fails to provide any rationale at all beyond the fact that she, like the vast majority of her fellow second tier candidates, did not get into this top tier school.

While one does not have to look for nefarious reasons, that does not preclude that there are not nefarious reasons.

As a side note, in what way does using academic achievement as a requirement to get into one of the top universities in the country qualify as "arbitrary"? I don't get how that fits the definition.

Holy strawman Batman. The argument is to strictly adhere to the standards so that no one whoever does not strictly meet them is admitted, regardless of the content of the standards.

Really, this isn't hard to parse. Calling this student a "punk" is disrespectful on its face. The term has a pejorative rhetorical value independent of the specifics of the situation. The fact she is not a "tier one" applicant is irrelevant.

That a HS teenager engaged in the same rhetorical excess and sloppy reasoning as the OP and some of its defenders may not do her much credit. On the otherhand, at least she has the excuse of over-reacting to a direct personal disappointment - something neither the OP poster nor his defenders can appear to claim.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Of course, Affirmative Action is racial discrimination. Opponents of Affirmative Action are stuck on stating the obvious.

Affirmative Action was designed to be discrimination. It is not a valid point to oppose Affirmative action because it is racial discrimination. The Supreme Court has ruled that racial discrimination in Affirmative Action is allowed for the purpose of redressing the past wrongs of the legal system, allowing people to own other people for example, or the crime of separate but equal. It is racial discrimination to redress the effects of 400 years of legally sanctioned racial discrimination.

So evil is acceptable if that's it's purpose.

The purpose of the Holocaust was killing Jews. By your reasoning it's acceptable that it kills Jews.

If I was asked I would advise the supporters of Affirmative Action to give it up. It is not very effective. And it is used as a rallying point for the opposition. I would simply insist on reparations. They were used for the Japanese interred during World War II. They are used for people who are wrongly convicted of a crime. What is the present day value of 40 acres and a mule?

Sure, give any former slave 40 acres and a mule. This is to be paid for by former slaveowners. Realistically, though, this will apply only to sex slaves, there aren't any others around.

Furthermore, most of us got *NO* benefit from the slave era. Neither of my parents got anything from their parents once they reached adulthood--and that's how most people are.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Derogatory "Punk" in my lexicon and circles refers to young adults/teens regardless of race. Especially ones that are up to no good on my lawn!

Agreed. If anything I would think "punk" would favor whites--the image that comes to my mind is the rebellious teenager, crazy hair, piercings etc.