|
Grex > Diversity > #11: Whittier College Republicans to hold "Affirmative Action Bake Sale" |  |
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 217 responses total. |
other
|
|
response 14 of 217:
| 
Jan 21 02:23 UTC 2003 |
re #12: You just paraphrased exactly what Mary Sue Coleman said today.
(Or maybe it was at the Regents meeting Friday.)
|
klg
|
|
response 15 of 217:
|
Jan 21 02:31 UTC 2003 |
re: "#12 (gull): Re #4: No one on the right seems interested in the
actual facts of the case, just in opposing it. Otherwise Bush would
have known better than to call it a "quota system"."
Perhaps you could enlighten us, then, by explaining how a "critical
mass" system is distinguished from a "quota" system.
|
mdw
|
|
response 16 of 217:
|
Jan 21 02:39 UTC 2003 |
I'm not gull, but I'll cheerfully offer an explanation using the
familiar world of a police officer considering whether to go after
somebody who is speeding:
Quota system
My ass is grass if I don't make 30 arrests this month.
Critical Mass System
I haven't had my donut yet. I'm going to be lean
and mean until I make an arrest or get my donut.
|
jep
|
|
response 17 of 217:
|
Jan 21 03:12 UTC 2003 |
re resp:13: Sindi, if you're the fw, change to the conference you want
to link to, then type:
linkfrom agora 89
(that would link this item to that conference.)
|
gull
|
|
response 18 of 217:
|
Jan 21 14:22 UTC 2003 |
Re #15: In a quota system, you'd have a specific number of slots to fill
(a "quota") and you'd admit minorities until you filled them. You'd
then fill the rest of the slots from the general population. That's not
how the U of M system works. In fact, the percentage of minority
students admitted varies from year to year, which it wouldn't do under a
quota system.
The University of Michigan system is, as I understand it, actually
pretty carefully crafted to fall within boundaries set by previous
Supreme Court cases.
|
klg
|
|
response 19 of 217:
|
Jan 21 17:45 UTC 2003 |
That does not clarify it for me. How does "quota" mean a "specific #,"
while "critical mass" does not?
If Justice Powell wrote in Bakke that '(p)referring members of any one
group for no reason other than race or ethnic origin is discrimination
for its own sake," how does the UM system conform to that provision?
|
johnnie
|
|
response 20 of 217:
|
Jan 21 22:03 UTC 2003 |
Because it takes a lot more than just being black to get into UofM.
|
klg
|
|
response 21 of 217:
|
Jan 22 01:24 UTC 2003 |
That may be, johnnie. But now, try to answer the question.
|
johnnie
|
|
response 22 of 217:
|
Jan 22 01:49 UTC 2003 |
Q: If Justice Powell wrote in Bakke that '(p)referring members of any
one group for **no reason other than race or ethnic origin** is
discrimination for its own sake," how does the UM system conform to that
provision?
A: Because it takes a lot more than just being black to get into UofM.
|
klg
|
|
response 23 of 217:
|
Jan 22 01:51 UTC 2003 |
0 for 2.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 24 of 217:
|
Jan 22 07:50 UTC 2003 |
More particularly, using race in the way UM does is NOT "no reason
other than race". Many reasons other than race are used in the admission
procedure. What UM does adheres exactly to what Powell said is allowable.
|
gull
|
|
response 25 of 217:
|
Jan 22 14:21 UTC 2003 |
If it didn't, the case wouldn't have gotten all the way to the Supreme
Court again.
|
jp2
|
|
response 26 of 217:
|
Jan 22 16:18 UTC 2003 |
This response has been erased.
|
johnnie
|
|
response 27 of 217:
|
Jan 22 18:22 UTC 2003 |
(That'll be a good slogan when you run for Congress: "Vote JP--Because
taxes are for stupid people.")
|
jp2
|
|
response 28 of 217:
|
Jan 22 18:49 UTC 2003 |
This response has been erased.
|
mvpel
|
|
response 29 of 217:
|
Jan 23 00:08 UTC 2003 |
Re: 24 - you're missing some bits of the sentence. The key verb is
"preferring" - the U of M "prefers" minority applicants to the tune of nearly
twice as much as they prefer a perfect SAT score.
|
gull
|
|
response 30 of 217:
|
Jan 23 01:21 UTC 2003 |
Of course, they also prefer athletes nearly twice as much as a perfect
SAT score. But that seems to be pretty much ignored in this debate.
I predict the Whittier College Republicans will conveniently 'forget' to
provide lower prices for football players.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 31 of 217:
|
Jan 23 02:05 UTC 2003 |
The "perfect SAT score" qualification is also reflected in the some 120
points (if I recall correctly) related to academic achievement. You
wouldn't want to *double count* academic achievement, would you?
|
klg
|
|
response 32 of 217:
|
Jan 23 02:42 UTC 2003 |
Call me stupid (join the club), but if "academic achievement" is not the
most relevant factor in selecting college students, I really don't know
what else would be.
|
janc
|
|
response 33 of 217:
|
Jan 23 02:48 UTC 2003 |
Nothing, of course. We wouldn't want to waste our time educating anybody
except the people who are already the best educated.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 34 of 217:
|
Jan 23 02:59 UTC 2003 |
IN ADDITION....."academic achievement" is not the total measure of a person.
Higher education has much broader upjectives than stuffing stuff into
people's heads. It tries to create educated and liberal (as in "liberal
arts") citizens, who can contribute to society. That takes a lot more
than "academic achievement". Additional needed attributes are community
contributions, leadership qualities, extracurricular involvement, and
personal character attributes.
If you want just "academic achievement" go to a trade school.
|
klg
|
|
response 35 of 217:
|
Jan 23 03:10 UTC 2003 |
Put your shorts back on. I said "most relevant," not "the only," didn't
I? (Note: You left "race" off your listing. An oversight?)
|
rcurl
|
|
response 36 of 217:
|
Jan 23 05:41 UTC 2003 |
I left off race because I was addressing only measures of the person.
"Race" is a surrogate for many other factors concerning a person's
demographic environment that affects wealth, associations, opportunities,
disadvantages, etc. Other modes are used to address some of these, such as
minority scholarships, minority offices that provide counseling, etc, but
none of those address the inherent disadvantage minorities suffer because
of racism. Eliminate racism and affirmative action can be eliminated too.
Say it.
|
jp2
|
|
response 37 of 217:
|
Jan 23 15:02 UTC 2003 |
This response has been erased.
|
klg
|
|
response 38 of 217:
|
Jan 23 17:09 UTC 2003 |
re: "#36 (rcurl): "Race" is a surrogate for many other factors
concerning a person's demographic environment that affects wealth,
associations, opportunities, disadvantages, etc."
Yes. Next time I bump into Colin Powell or Jesse Jackson, I'll tell
him how much better off I am than he is.
|