|
Grex > Diversity > #12: Bush to join fight against UM's affirmative action program |  |
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 232 responses total. |
rcurl
|
|
response 8 of 232:
| 
Jan 15 22:11 UTC 2003 |
Why should academic achievement be the only criterion for admission to a
public university? The nation needs a lot of educated and(or) trained
people to serve its needs, but academic achievement is not the only
measure of how and how well, or if, they can serve.
For example, minority communities need doctors and lawyers and other
professionals. Therefore educational institutions need to educate people
desiring to work in such communities. That is very likely to be minorities
themselves. How else do you help ensure that all communities can obtain
the professional services they need? This means that minorities should be
attracted into those professions, which implies in some sense encouraging
or supporting their enrollment. There are scholarships for minorities
(which no one seems to be objecting to), but first students need to be
admitted to use such scholarships.
Discrimination because of race has not yet disappeared from our society.
While it is still present, I believe there should be compensating efforts
made to assist those discriminated against.
|
klg
|
|
response 9 of 232:
|
Jan 16 00:24 UTC 2003 |
#6 of 8 by David Brodbeck (gull) on Wed Jan 15 16:51:25 2003: Re #4: But
the point is, he still benefited from a policy that discriminates based
on a factor that has nothing to do with academic achievement. That
makes it hypocritical of him to denounce affirmative action."
Actually, it isn't the point. The point is that there is a difference
between what a private person/organization can do and what a public
organization can do. If Yale wants to tarnish the value of it's degree
by admitting lesser qualified individuals, that is its prerogative
without question.
re: "#8 (rcurl): Discrimination because of race has not yet
disappeared from our society."
And as long a government continues to operate discriminatory programs,
it probably never will.
|
mcnally
|
|
response 10 of 232:
|
Jan 16 00:36 UTC 2003 |
re #7:
> I'd rather know that my doctor earned his way into med school because he got
> A's, not because of quotas. (regardless of what race he is)
Of course you would. And if affirmative action preferences were weighted so
heavily in admissions that a person with a B or C average could get admitted
at the expense of a candidate with solid As, you might have a point. As used
by most admissions programs, however, the usefulness of the affirmative-action
bonus is largely limited to discriminating between two students with "A"
averages, or at most between an "A-" student and an "A" student. Unfortunately
for your argument, medical school admissions are so competitive that a good
school can easily fill every available slot with an "A" student, affirmative
action or no, if that's what the school wants to look for in its candidates..
|
rcurl
|
|
response 11 of 232:
|
Jan 16 01:28 UTC 2003 |
It never occurred to me to ask the doctors that have treated me for their
undergraduate transcripts prior to permitting them to touch me. How are
doctors evaluated today? Not by their GPA, but by their performance. I
think too many people are making the GPA sacred *for their purposes*, when
in other circumstances they might argue that a GPA doesn't prove anything.
How about choosing presidents by the GPAs? Do you think that would be a
good idea?
|
johnnie
|
|
response 12 of 232:
|
Jan 16 01:47 UTC 2003 |
Someone up there asked how many "points" were required for admission.
There's a possible maximum of 150; 100 generally guarantees admission,
90-99 gets one on the waitlist, and a sub90 gets a rejection. The
points are outlined at
http://www.umich.edu/~mrev/archives/1999/summer/chart.htm
So, if I understand the system, the plaintiffs must have scored in the
sub-100 range, which would seem to mean that there's no guarantee that
they would have been admitted regardless of their race or that of
others.
|
gull
|
|
response 13 of 232:
|
Jan 16 01:51 UTC 2003 |
I don't really *like* affirmative action. But as a temporary measure I
think it's still necessary. The precipitous drop in minority admissions
to public universities in states that *have* outlawed it demonstrates that.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 14 of 232:
|
Jan 16 01:57 UTC 2003 |
I'm working on a substitute for affirmative action. This would involve
an evaluation of the damage done to individual's lives by discrimination
and then a committment to provide those classes of individuals with
benefits equivalent to the losses from discrimination. In this way,
those opposed to this kind of affirmative action could eliminate it
by eliminating discrimination.
I'm still working on the details, but that's the general idea.
|
klg
|
|
response 15 of 232:
|
Jan 16 02:54 UTC 2003 |
re: "#13 (gull): I don't really *like* affirmative action. But as a
temporary measure I think it's still necessary. The precipitous drop in
minority admissions to public universities in states that *have*
outlawed it demonstrates that."
Just how many years/decades is "temporary" and you'll have to provide
some figures to back up that "precipitous drop" you've identified. And
while you're getting those statistics, how about including data on the
"precipitous drop" in the # of minorities graduating (which is
probably a lot more relevant)??
|
bru
|
|
response 16 of 232:
|
Jan 16 03:02 UTC 2003 |
Flat rate for everyone. no legacy, no other options. You either pass the
requirements, or you go to another college.
|
jep
|
|
response 17 of 232:
|
Jan 16 05:07 UTC 2003 |
Doesn't Texas use a race-neutral formula for admissions, based on
geographic location? Something like guaranteeing everyone in the top
10% of their class admission to some state university. I don't
remember the details well, but that story came out right around the
time the lawsuits against Michigan came up. As I recall, the racial
composition for college admissions in Texas didn't change much at all
when this system was implemented, but they did get rid of the quota
system.
We've had almost 40 years of affirmative action in America. I think
it's done some good, for some people, and I think it's done some harm
to others. It hasn't solved the problems of racism in America. It
never will. It shifts the problems a little, but that's all it does.
Affirmative action is an accepted version of racism, no less odious
than what it replaces. If we'd spent 40 years becoming colorblind
instead of instituting special exceptions based on skin tone, it seems
to me we'd be better off now with regard to resolving the racial issues
in America.
I'd like very much to see an end to racial quotas at the University of
Michigan.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 18 of 232:
|
Jan 16 06:21 UTC 2003 |
I like the idea of the "top 10%" plan. It meets my criteriion of offering
college education to all demographics, equally. It is, of course a form of
"quota system" (10%) and like affirmative action also gives admission to
some students much less qualified than others. However this is all hidden
from view in a cloak of seeming fairness. It is the magic of what you can
do with numbers.
|
tsty
|
|
response 19 of 232:
|
Jan 16 09:31 UTC 2003 |
wzy back there... 150 points is the max for um admission.
thre is an inherent racism in um's 12 points for PERFECT sat/act scores
but 20 points for skin color. NO effort is involved in your receiving
a skin color different from white. LOTS of effort is inbolved in
quaify9ing for a sports/merit scholarship, worth many um points.
achievement is the key - individual effort toward a goal - affirmative
action depends on the affirmative qualitites of the applicant.
btw, if the university president decides to allow enrollment of 'special
cases' (whatEVER) they amy be - fine. be public about it.
the um's (and tons of other university presidents) ALLOW/PROMOTE enrollment
of tose BELOW the standards. fine. include minority students in that
'class'. at least some person would be responsible for the quantity
of non-conforming admissions.
|
jep
|
|
response 20 of 232:
|
Jan 16 13:34 UTC 2003 |
In one way, the top 10% plan is deceptive. In Texas (again, if I'm
recalling correctly) it didn't really change anything for anyone, at
least not demographically. It's a change in appearances with no
substantial change being made. What's the point?
The point is to get out of specifying racial quotas, codifying racism
right into the university's admission standards. It seems to me to be
a worthwhile distinction to make.
I don't think it's without problems. Not all high schools are equal.
Is it going to discourage parents of minority children from moving to
better neighborhoods with better, but more competitive, school
districts? Maybe some good white students will be going to inner city
schools to take advantage of lesser competition. It might accomplish
what bussing tried to do in the 70s, but in a voluntary way.
Are there going to be parent groups fighting against improving their
schools, because of the fear of the status quo shifting and dropping
their kid out of the top 10% in his class?
|
jep
|
|
response 21 of 232:
|
Jan 16 13:43 UTC 2003 |
re resp:19: I had to respond to that comment separately.
The U-M is pretty proactive about bringing in non-traditional students,
students from troubled backgrounds, and those with unusual
circumstances. I guess that's the purpose of the provost's 20
discretionary points.
|
mvpel
|
|
response 22 of 232:
|
Jan 16 19:07 UTC 2003 |
Re: 8 "For example, minority communities need doctors and lawyers and other
professionals. Therefore educational institutions need to educate people
desiring to work in such communities. That is very likely to be minorities
themselves. How else do you help ensure that all communities can obtain
the professional services they need?"
"If there were no affirmative action, there would be no minority doctors
and lawyers!" Much like the tired old saw, "If there were no public schools,
all our children would be illiterate!"
You seem to be claiming that just because someone isn't qualified to
get into an first-tier college -- one that they would otherwise be admitted
to on the basis of their skin color -- won't be able to get into any other
college either.
What has been happening in an environment of affirmative action is that the
elite colleges pirate the middle-of-the-road minority students who would
otherwise have a far more successful educational experience at second-tier
colleges, creating a cascade effect of unqualified students at overdemanding
colleges at all levels.
I would have to agree with Shelby Steele, who wrote in a Wall Street Journal
article last year, "America not only made racial disparities profitable but
also generated a vast civil-rights grievance industry that has been far more
obsessed with finding disparities than with helping people overcome
deprivation".
Consider the experience of California, as related in this Dartmouth Review
article: http://www.dartreview.com/archives/000404.php
Contrary to dire predictions about blacks and Hispanics being denied a
college education and locked out of opportunity -- Jesse Jackson even
referred to "ethnic cleansing" -- the end of racial preferences has not
appreciably affected the enrollment of such minorities. What it has done
is effect a redistribution of black and Hispanic applicants among the
universities of the California system. The effect is to place students
at the university for which their record qualifies them academically.
Right on point to #8. Further,
In the days before the end of racial preferences the drop-out rate of
black students in the California system was 42 percent, twice the rate
of whites.
What good is it to get into an elite college if you aren't prepared to
succeed there?
|
rcurl
|
|
response 23 of 232:
|
Jan 16 20:24 UTC 2003 |
So that the elite college has a fair representation of all communities
for the purpose of diversity in backgrounds, attitudes, and perspectives,
which are essential for a well-rounded education.
In addition, there is NO measure that a-prior ensures success or failure
in higher education. There are statistical relations between groups from
different backgrounds, but one cannot say with assurance what will happen
with particular individuals. A rigid admissiion based just on prior
academic achievement is ensured to omit some students that will actually
succeed better than some of those admitted on such a narrow basis.
|
aruba
|
|
response 24 of 232:
|
Jan 16 20:59 UTC 2003 |
jep & michaela - The U of M does not have quotas, as you must understand
if you've looked at the point chart. It gives an advantage in the
admissions process to minorities, but it does not specify a certain number
of spots to be filled by them. (That's what a quota is.)
BTW, for those who don't know, this has been a huge issue on campus, since
before I started back to school 4 years ago. The topic has dominated the
student goverment election debates (I know, who cares), and there have been
uncounted marches and demonstrations on the Diag.
I think you can argue that the University has an obligation to address the
needs of our society as a whole, as well as the needs and desires of each
individual student or prospective student. (It is, after all, a part of
the government, part of whose job is to "promote the general welfare".)
In that case, Rane's argument about helping to train doctors who will be
likely to work where they are needed is a very good one.
klg shows his lack of understanding of mathematics and statistics when
he/she tries to make that statement into "there will be no qualified
minority doctors and lawyers if we don't have affirmative action" (not an
exact quote). klg points out that that's stupid - well duh. But that's
not the point. The question is, should the government, through the U of
M, be trying to increase the number of college-educated minorities (from
some non-zero starting point), and in the process sacrifice absolute
fairness to individuals?
I have always been on the fence about this issue, myself. Because while I
do believe that the State has an obligation and an interest in promoting
the general welfare, and that absolute fairness is not the only measure of
how well it's doing its job, the next question is, "does affirmative
really accomplish that?" Because its sideaffect is to promote a sense of
entitlement, which may *not* be in the public welfare.
|
tod
|
|
response 25 of 232:
|
Jan 16 21:02 UTC 2003 |
This response has been erased.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 26 of 232:
|
Jan 16 21:07 UTC 2003 |
Sure - when society is too.
|
scg
|
|
response 27 of 232:
|
Jan 17 00:03 UTC 2003 |
An easy way to pick apart claims of unfairness is to ask those who claim their
group isn't being treated fairly to consider whether they'd want to switch
sides with the person they think is getting better treatment. So, would those
of you white people who think your race has kept you from getting into the
Unviersity of Michigan, would you prefer to have grown up as a black person
in Michigan? Would those of you who've attended the 16% black Ann Arbor
schools prefer to have attended school in Detroit, where I don't have figures
for the school system, but the city is 82% black? What about those who are
presumably this case's primary constituency, the "Reagan Democrats" of 2.7%
black Macomb County (right across 8 Mile Road from 82% black Detroit)? Are
they clamoring to switch places black Detroiters? Probably not, because
Michigan is still a very segregated state, and it's very clear that conditions
are nowhere near equal between the state's two main races.
I fully agree, the current ways of dealing with race in the US are lousy, and
everybody should be treated differently. Unfortunately, that isn't happening,
and Affirmative Action is an attempt to compensate, not the cause itself.
What we have now is equivalent to a race (in the other meaning of the word)
where one group of people starts behind the main pack, get tripped up
frequently along the way, and then gets given some extra points at the finish
line to make up for some of the time they lost. A few people in that group
may be such good runners that they manage to catch up to and pass the main
pack, and don't need the bonus points. Some people in the main pack may be
sufficiently bad runners that they end up behind those who started behind
them. Still, nobody's being helped so much by the bonus points that they're
better off than if they'd started in the main pack.
I hope we can all agree that a race run like that would be a farce. However,
what would even things would would be to eliminate the different treatments
of the groups at the beginning. Eliminating the bonus points at the end
without changing the discrimination at the beginning would do nothing useful.
The same goes for racial discrimination. It should be gotten rid of, from
the start, and everybody should be treated equally. But leaving things as
they are, with all the rampant discrimination that goes on, while getting rid
of the Affirmative Action that attempts to compensate for it, isn't going to
help anything.
|
tod
|
|
response 28 of 232:
|
Jan 17 00:10 UTC 2003 |
This response has been erased.
|
klg
|
|
response 29 of 232:
|
Jan 17 00:17 UTC 2003 |
re: "#24 (aruba): klg shows his lack of understanding of mathematics
and statistics when he/she tries to make that statement into "there will
be no qualified minority doctors and lawyers if we don't have
affirmative action" (not an exact quote). "
I don't know if it's an exact quote or not, since I didn't say it.
But thanks for the kind words, anyway.
|
gull
|
|
response 30 of 232:
|
Jan 17 02:25 UTC 2003 |
Re #15: FWIW, even with the current program the student body at UofM
hovers around 8% black. 13% of the population is black. Doesn't sound
like it's causing a disproportionate number of minorities to be admitted.
I kind of like the perspective this article puts on the problem:
http://www.salon.com/opinion/conason/2003/01/16/bush/index.html
"Now there is no movement among conservatives to require that legacy
applicants (or athletes) display the same level of merit as anyone else
admitted to an elite school. To the right diversity isn't an important
value -- but traditions of family privilege must be preserved."
|
klg
|
|
response 31 of 232:
|
Jan 17 03:01 UTC 2003 |
Does that % apply to the total student body - or just undergrad? If it
is the total student body, then you need to consider the pool from which
grad students can be drawn, which is probably < 13% "black."
Also, considering the high dropout rate among affirmative action
admittants, it might be interesting to know the makeup of the freshman
class before the attrition began.
|
aruba
|
|
response 32 of 232:
|
Jan 17 04:12 UTC 2003 |
This article: http://www.umich.edu/~urecord/0001/Dec04_00/2.htm contains
statistics from the class which entered in fall 2000 - 8.7 percent (472 out
of 5418) were African American.
|