|
Grex > Agora46 > #17: affirmative action - UM - supreme court (wha-hoppin?!) | |
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 113 responses total. |
gull
|
|
response 11 of 113:
| 
Jun 24 13:47 UTC 2003 |
I think the main effect will be more litigation. It's a victory in the
sense that the Supreme Court didn't outlaw affirmative action
altogether, but what exactly universities are allowed to do with it now
is pretty murkey and will probably have to be hashed out in court over time.
|
bhelliom
|
|
response 12 of 113:
|
Jun 24 14:11 UTC 2003 |
The plantiffs were absolutely hypocritical in pressing race as the main
thrust of their suit. Preferential treatment will still be given to
children of alumni and athletes, and applicants from certain
geographical areas. This suit wasn't really about equality of
education.
In order for there to be an equal playing field for admissions,
students should have equal opportunitirees to meet standards. They do
not.
|
bhelliom
|
|
response 13 of 113:
|
Jun 24 14:12 UTC 2003 |
I accidentally hid that response. Read at will, and my apologies!
|
jep
|
|
response 14 of 113:
|
Jun 24 15:14 UTC 2003 |
re resp:9: You see, there have been a couple of centuries of racial
discrimination in America, deciding privileges and rights for people
based on their skin color. These have greatly harmed those who aren't
descended from Europeans. No ethnic group has overcome this
discrimination, except all of them who aren't African-Americans, so the
obstacles are clearly proven to be insurmountable.
Obviously the only thing that can be done to combat the effects of two
centuries of racial discrimination is privileges and rights for people
based on their skin color. This is of course *not* racial
discrimination. We know that, because racial discrimination is bad,
and this isn't bad. It's affirmative action, you see. It's completely
different. Make no mistake about *that*.
Statistics have been warped and stretched (and even made up) to show it
works. In some cases, it hasn't worked at all, but the answer to that
is more rights and privileges based on skin color. Questioning that in
any way means you're a racist because affirmative action is good, so
opposing it is bad. In case you think you can oppose it without being
branded as a maniac, saying you're opposing it because it causes more
harm than good is "code words" for a desire to return to the days of
slavery. Anyone like that has to be shut up and ridiculed because we
believe in free speech. Free speech is good, of course. We have a
Constitutional right to free speech. Since being a racist anti-
affirmative action nut would be bad, it's hate speech, which is
something different.
|
oval
|
|
response 15 of 113:
|
Jun 24 15:19 UTC 2003 |
*blinks*
|
jep
|
|
response 16 of 113:
|
Jun 24 15:21 UTC 2003 |
re resp:13: resp:12 is not hidden.
re resp:12: I don't think any of the plaintiffs would have taken a case
to the Supreme Court by themselves. Someone (CIL, Center for
Individual Liberties I believe) dug them up, convinced them they'd been
wronged, and used them to bear their standard.
I don't think the case was about equality. I think it was about giving
special privileges based on race. I think there's plenty of room for
another ground-breaking suit which would be about preferences for
alumni, athletes, and geographical areas. I don't think there'd be as
much attention given to any of those suits as there was for this one;
it wouldn't be about race and therefore wouldn't be as hot a topic.
|
edina
|
|
response 17 of 113:
|
Jun 24 15:32 UTC 2003 |
I just found it amusing that one of the dissentors (Thomas) is a major product
of affirmative action.
I saw a sign in the paper today that basically said, "Affirmative action
exists because racism exists". White people rarely think of the color of
their skin as being beneficial or detrimental - it just is. Do you think
black/asian/hispanic people could answer that question the same way?
I think the law school's standards being upheld was a good thing - and I think
the undergrad's standards being stricken was also good. It's a lot easier
to funnel through law school apps than UG apps.
|
scott
|
|
response 18 of 113:
|
Jun 24 16:04 UTC 2003 |
("does not always work" != "does not work")
|
polygon
|
|
response 19 of 113:
|
Jun 24 17:17 UTC 2003 |
We pay physicians so extraordinarily well in this country that there is
intense competition for entrance into medical schools. Only a small
percentage of those who apply can be admitted and trained as doctors.
As a practical matter, however, most applicants to medical schools, were
they admitted, would do perfectly well as physicians. The fact that
tippity-top credentials are required to get in to med school is an
artifact of the competition for seats, not a requirement of the curriculum
or of medical practice.
African-American graduates of US medical schools are, statistically, much
more likely to choose to practice in settings, such as urban hospitals and
clinics in the rural South, where the patient population is predominantly
African-American. Probably similar correlations apply to Hispanic
graduates and practice in Hispanic areas and so on.
The typical black medical school applicant grew up in a predominantly
black or all-black neighborhood, with parents who were not college
graduates (probably about a third in single parent families), and attended
schools where academics were not the first priority, and which never
attracted very many good teachers.
On the other hand, a disproportionate number of medical school applicants
who have absolutely stellar academic backgrounds come from privileged
white upper-middle-class backgrounds, with parents who were also highly
educated, and attended excellent schools with lots of highly motivated
(and motivating) teachers.
If the assignment of seats to medical schools is made strictly on the
basis of academic credentials, there will be very few African-American
medical graduates -- just given the historical realities recited above.
As a result, medical facilities in minority areas will have much more
trouble finding physicians.
We could solve this problem by increasing the number of medical school
slots (i.e., spending billions on a dramatic expansion of medical
schools). That would increase the supply and reduce the price of
physicians.
Or, at comparatively trivial cost, medical schools could simply admit
reasonable numbers of racial minority students.
Or, we could write off health care in predominantly minority areas. If
lower-income communities get outbid in the competition for trained
physicians, isn't that just the free market at work?
|
mary
|
|
response 20 of 113:
|
Jun 24 21:09 UTC 2003 |
Or you could lower the standards to what was considered necessary for
success in the medical field. Of those who meet the new standards you
select based race and gender to see a diverse and representative class.
If you still aren't attracting enough black applicants I'd suggest you do
two things - take a look at your institution and find out why blacks
aren't interested.
Two, recruit. Don't know how to recruit? As the football coach.
But the new rule, as I read it, is you can use race as a tie-breaker but
not as a means to qualification.
|
mdw
|
|
response 21 of 113:
|
Jun 24 21:21 UTC 2003 |
From what I've heard of the decision, I think the main implication is
that UM will have to hire a bunch more people to do admissions, and it
will have to be much more of a hands on "person by person" activity,
rather than a relatively objective system relying heavily on computers
to do relative ranking of persons. I doubt it will actualy change by
any great degree the sorts of people UM admits, it will just make the
process harder to understand.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 22 of 113:
|
Jun 24 23:49 UTC 2003 |
That's right - making it subjective will make it more legal than having
it objective. This seems to be a trend in New Law from the Supreme Court.
|
senna
|
|
response 23 of 113:
|
Jun 25 02:39 UTC 2003 |
Having done no research on this, I am curious to hear exactly how Clarence
Thomas is a major product of affirmative action. I would be very interested
to hear if there are grounds for that--it is certainly not a sure bet that
his success is affirmative-action driven if that conclusion is reached merely
because he is black.
The first I heard of the result, it was a pro-affirmative action individual
declaring victory. Then I heard the anti-affirmative action spin on it, and
they declared victory too. In this case, the rulings on affirmative action
have affirmed pretty much everybody. Perhaps it will turn the economy around.
Larry did a nice job of describing a potential scenario that defends
affirmative action in medical schools, a situation roughly analogous to the
law school problem that was actually tackled. However, it presumes the
persistence of much larger problems--society's natural self-segregation, which
causes people to settle amongst other people they feel they belong to (ie,
those of the same color, though it actually has as much to do with economic
status as anything else), and the lack of qualified applicants for medical
schools from minority persuasions. All this energy spent on affirmative
action is conveniently relieving people of the necessity to solve these larger
problems.
|
polygon
|
|
response 24 of 113:
|
Jun 25 04:31 UTC 2003 |
I didn't say there was a lack of qualified minority applicants for medical
schools. Indeed, there are plenty.
What I said was that, if you rank the applicants on academic
qualifications alone, only the utterly topmost would be admitted, and that
specific stratum tends to be drawn almost exclusively from the white
upper-middle-class. And they are far from the only applicants who are
"qualified" by any reasonable standard.
|
lk
|
|
response 25 of 113:
|
Jun 25 07:12 UTC 2003 |
I agree with senna. I think the embarrassing problem here is the lack of
educational schools in the inner cities / black sector. Until that is
fixed, and the problems that promote that, African-Americans will continue
to be under-represented in colleges and professional schools. As Larry
points out, I think society has a compelling interest in making sure there
are qualified doctors to work in all sectors of our society.
What never ceases to amaze me is how quickly some people complain when,
for the first time, their skin color (or the skin color of someone else)
has an impact in their lives. Suddenly they scream for a color-blind
society. One can only wonder what they would think or say if they had to
face such challenges on a regular basis.
|
bru
|
|
response 26 of 113:
|
Jun 25 08:31 UTC 2003 |
when you suggest that you need to have black targetted schools to educate
people in the inner city to support pople in the inner city, is that not a
racist statement?
|
sj2
|
|
response 27 of 113:
|
Jun 25 09:14 UTC 2003 |
Ok. So this means that if there is a tie between a white applicant and
a coloured applicant at a medical school then the white one's told
that black one gets the seat coz he's black? And that is bcoz the
black neighbourhoods need more doctors. So far good.
But the assumption that a black graduate will serve in a black
neighbourhood is a supported by facts or is it just an assumption? Why
wouldn't he work at a place where he can make maximum money? Does the
school also stipulate that since he was given this seat over an
equally deserving white candidate so he must spend X number of years
serving a particular area?
The statement that "if you rank the applicants on academic
qualifications alone, only the utterly topmost would be admitted, and
that specific stratum tends to be drawn almost exclusively from the
white upper-middle-class." Facts? Is there a survey done on this?
|
sj2
|
|
response 28 of 113:
|
Jun 25 09:23 UTC 2003 |
In India we've had affirmative action for almost five decades now. In
Government education institutions and jobs, a certain percentage is
reserved for the Scheduled castes/Scheduled Tribes and Oppressed
backward classes (SC/ST/OBC). In our case, the entry levels for these
candidates are far lower than those for general candidates. Big flaw.
Anyways, so what happens to these candidates to whom the state does a
favour. Do they end up in rural areas and communities of SC/ST/OBC?
No, the ones who end up in rural areas are people who are not so smart
irrespective of their caste. The smarter ones get into private
practise and make lots of money.
And the smart ones serving in rural areas and SC/ST/OBC communities
are people who are attached to some kind of social service
organisation or NGO. But not necessarily of any particular caste.
|
gull
|
|
response 29 of 113:
|
Jun 25 13:30 UTC 2003 |
Re #16: I think it's extremely unlikely we'll see anything done about
alumni preferences. A majority of people in power in this country have
probably benefited from legacy status in one way or another. It
wouldn't be in their interest to end it.
Re #23: I'm not sure self-segregation is a solvable problem.
Re #26: They don't have to be black-targeted. Inner city white
residents (both of them) would benefit too.
|
keesan
|
|
response 30 of 113:
|
Jun 25 14:28 UTC 2003 |
My black next door neighbor is now a pediatrician (who volunteers in a a
Hispanic clinic). While in medical school, she said everyone assumed she had
been admitted only because of her skin color and that she was not really
capable of doing the work. She graduated near the top of her class.
I think she would have preferred it if there were no affirmative action while
she was in school.
|
lk
|
|
response 31 of 113:
|
Jun 25 15:28 UTC 2003 |
I can understand the frustration in that, but it's a small price to pay.
Larry mentioned statistics to support that minority doctors are more likely
to serve needier communities. What may also be true, but is sheer speculation
on my part, is that some of these minority doctors are more likely to require
and receive financial aid which may stipulate that they must spend some years
in such communities.
|
mdw
|
|
response 32 of 113:
|
Jun 25 18:05 UTC 2003 |
It's apparently both possible and quite popular to skip out on those
"requirements". Or so I've heard.
|
polygon
|
|
response 33 of 113:
|
Jun 25 18:06 UTC 2003 |
Re 27. Yes, there are reams of studies and statistics supporting all of
those conclusions. This debate has been going on for many years, and
there's a ton of data.
|
flem
|
|
response 34 of 113:
|
Jun 25 21:13 UTC 2003 |
It occurs to me to wonder, if UM's admissions process is so automated and
impersonal, why I had to write that obnoxious application essay. I'll be
pissed of nobody read that.
|
jep
|
|
response 35 of 113:
|
Jun 25 21:41 UTC 2003 |
re resp:31: Leeron, how would you know if it's a small price to pay?
Maybe it isn't.
re resp:29: I doubt if they'll terminate any legacy preferences
retroactively. Though it'd be amusing to consider how they'd go about
doing so.
I don't imagine they'll end legacy admissions preferences as long as
they're of benefit to the school.
I'm not sure self-segregation is a *problem*.
|