Appeals court upholds Michigan law school's affirmative-action admissions policy

[speedracer]

http://www.detnews.com/2002/schools/...a01-490010.htm

[gvox]

Good for them.

[80sU2isBest]

I've never quite understood. I thought the idea of considering race when reviewing an application was exactly one of the things Dr. Martin Luther King stood against. I thought the civil rights movement was all about not looking at a person's skin color, but rather at who they are on the inside, in the case of employment and education issues, who is the best qualified for the job or most qualified for the school (grades).And now you've got the "reverend" Jessie Jackson al in favor of it.

[speedracer]

Originally posted by 80sU2isBest:
I've never quite understood. I thought the idea of considering race when reviewing an application was exactly one of the things Dr. Martin Luther King stood against. I thought the civil rights movement was all about not looking at a person's skin color, but rather at who they are on the inside, in the case of employment and education issues, who is the best qualified for the job or most qualified for the school (grades).And now you've got the "reverend" Jessie Jackson al in favor of it.

I would have thought so too, but if you read Chapter 8 of Dr. King's "Why We Can't Wait," you'll see that he was one of the first advocates of affirmative action.

Unfortunately, the whole concept of giving underprivileged minorities an advantage like this, at least in college, has been shown to be flawed. There's quite a bit of evidence to suggest that students who are given such advantages don't do as well in college and are less likely to graduate than others. I don't know if there are comparable statistics for professional schools though (i.e. law, medicine, etc.).

[gvox]

Originally posted by speedracer:
There's quite a bit of evidence to suggest that students who are given such advantages don't do as well in college and are less likely to graduate than others.

I'd like to see some links posted to some unbiased studies in this regard, if you don't mind. If there's quite a bit of evidence it shouldn't be hard to find.

The system is not perfect, of course it's flawed, it was designed by imperfect humans. In fact, in Canada for instance the whole admissions system is completely screwed next year because of a 'double-cohort' graduating this June. Thousands of students of any race can't get admitted regardless of their marks because there are simply no spots.

Most concepts or systems go through growing pains, and while affirmative action may not be the 'perfect solution' we were all hoping for, there is no denying that something had to be done to ensure equal opportunity and instead of discarding the system all together, the protesters would do better at channelling their energies towards devising one that better represents and champions the rights of all concerned.

Gabriel

[sulawesigirl4]

In a perfect world we would have a level playing field and quotas wouldn’t be a necessary evil. But the fact of the matter is, racism and discrimination are still rampant and we as a country are not at a place where all people are looked upon equally.

While I was in college, I worked for a committee that tried to recruit more minority students to our very small, VERY white little private college. And I must say that I saw students go both ways. Some were given lots of financial aid from the government and completely slacked off, others got the same and made good use of their education. I’d say that to suggest one can predict what any particular college student is going to do upon entering college simply based on how they got there is a pretty broad generalization. People are unique, with their own unique motivations, etc.

While affirmative action may not be the “best” way to bring about racial reconciliation, it is an unfortunate necessity, I believe. I hope that won’t always be the case.

[speedracer]

Originally posted by gabrielvox:
I'd like to see some links posted to some unbiased studies in this regard, if you don't mind. If there's quite a bit of evidence it shouldn't be hard to find.

Okay.

From left to right, the columns are:

A university.

Mean SAT scores of black freshmen attending that school in 1992.

Difference between SAT scores of incoming black freshmen and incoming white freshmen in 1992.

Percentage of blacks in some entering class who ended up dropping out. (It wasn't the class of 1992; data for this class weren't available at the time the source I am quoting was published, so this analysis isn't perfect.) ("Dropping out" means "not graduating within 6 years".)

Percentage of whites dropping out.

-----------------------------------------

Harvard 1305 -95 5 3
Princeton 1172 -150 9 5
Stanford 1164 -171 17 6
Brown 1160 -150 13 6
Penn 1135 -150 28 10
Columbia 1128 -182 25 12
Duke 1126 -184 16 5
Cornell 1118 -162 23 8
Dartmouth 1112 -218 16 4
Rice 1093 -271 26 11
Northwestern 1075 -180 21 10
Virginia 979 -241 16 7
UC-Berkeley 947 -288 42 16 (!)

From Theodore Cross, "What if There Was No Affirmative Action in College Admissions? A Further Refinement of Our Earlier Calculations," Journal of Blacks in Higher Education 5 (Autumn 1994), 55.

So I would say that the argument that low-scoring minority students deserve preferential treatment in admissions because of their "untapped potential" is tenuous at best. One might argue that these elite universities don't do enough to extract this "untapped potential" from such students--but if that's the case, why don't these students just attend less-prestigious universities where they wouldn't be behind the majority of the students and where they might be better able to develop themselves?

[This message has been edited by speedracer (edited 05-15-2002).]

[gvox]

Sorry, Im not going to pay much attention to data that is 10 years old.

Not only that, but you have to realize that these students are largely a product of a debatably discriminatory school system that has only recently gotten a little more even-handed in the way it 'helps' all its young students along to be ready for college.

I'll be more interested to see the results from the class of '02.

[U2Bama]

Affirmative action may be (or may have been) a necessity, but since most of us agree that it is NOT perfect (I think it is far from perfect), I think the pursuit for a fair alternative should be in earnest. This means that when someone offers an alternative, it should not be denounced as "racist" or ineffective by "Reverend" Jesse Jackson (whom I do not consider a great diplomat for race relations), and society should not instantly back down every time he criticizes something. If he refuses to consider other options, then perhaps his goal is to get "revenge" on whites.

Honestly, if plaintiff Barbara Grutter was well-qualified yet not admitted to law school, most people would not lose any sleep over her loss, but she is a disenfranchised statistic just like any minority applicants who are wrongfully overlooked.

~U2Alabama

[gvox]

Personally I find the way both you and 80s enclose his proper title of Rev. in quotation marks to be unwarrantedly sarcastic and plain disrespectful.

Just because you two perhaps don't view him as a valid person of the cloth is irrelevant. Last time I checked he was an ordained minister, so respect him as such.

And btw, so he's a little bit fiery in his views...at least he's not raping and molesting little boys.

Shame on the both of you.

[80sU2isBest]

Originally posted by gabrielvox:
Personally I find the way both you and 80s enclose his proper title of Rev. in quotation marks to be unwarrantedly sarcastic and plain disrespectful.
Just because you two perhaps don't view him as a valid person of the cloth is irrelevant. Last time I checked he was an ordained minister, so respect him as such.
And btw, so he's a little bit fiery in his views...at least he's not raping and molesting little boys.
Shame on the both of you.

I don't give a flying fig if he's ordained or not. I don't care if he becomes the Pope!Being ordained does not make him a holy man of God. The man cheated on his wife at least once, is suspected of having more than one illegitimate child with more than one mistress. Not only that, he speaks words of hate out the wazoo. The man speaks greatly about wanting the black man to succeed. But he's talking through his hat. He is actually one of the black man's worst enemies. He wants the black man to fail - because that's where his power is. That's why he's always telling his constituents that this is the white man's world; because he wants them to believe it and be dragged down by it. If he can fool people into thinking they need a leader, he's more than happy to step into those powerful shoes.

[U2Bama]

Originally posted by gabrielvox:
so he's a little bit fiery in his views

See, here is the problem for me: he is a bit TOO fiery, having used racist slang and stereotypes in public speech. I find that is irreverant as your statement in another thread that "peaceful Israeli" is the "oxymoron of the year."

I do not hold "men of the cloth" to any higher status than other Christians, that is not what it is about to me. But when I feel that they blatantly violate their creed, they are "IRreverant," much like "reverend" Jimmy Swaggart, "reverend" Jim Bakker or "reverend" Paul Shanley.

Good night.

~U2Alabama

[gvox]

(((EDIT)))

Remember judge not lest you be judged? He who has not sinned cast the first stone? I'll say it again, at least his infidelity was with a grown woman, not a little BOY!

Exactly just who are you to say what's in the black man's best interests, anyways? Try walking a mile in a black man's shoes and then come back with some perspective. Alot of anti-affirmative action ppls love to call someone standing up for themself hateful.

(((EDIT)))

Gabriel

(((EDIT)))



[This message has been edited by gabrielvox (edited 05-15-2002).]

[gvox]

Originally posted by U2Bama:
I find that is irreverant as your statement in another thread that "peaceful Israeli" is the "oxymoron of the year."

Good one Bama. Bring another argument on over here that not only can I not retract because the thread is closed, one that I tried in my own way to apologize for in ZC. Pretty pathetic.

But when I feel that they blatantly violate their creed, they are "IRreverant," much like "reverend" Jimmy Swaggart, "reverend" Jim Bakker or "reverend" Paul Shanley.

(((EDIT)))

*sigh*

*but the priviledge of self edit*


[This message has been edited by gabrielvox (edited 05-15-2002).]

[80sU2isBest]

gabriel, what is wrong with you?
You come after me, and all because I said that to be a Christian you must believe that Christ is God. That is the whole source of your hatred toward me; that I diagreed with you on something. Since that time, you have called me names, refuised to forgive me when I apologized for my role in carrying on the argument with you, have told me to go to hell, have accused me of sending you an email virus, and even threatened me over it.
Then you come on here and tell me to kiss your "God-fearing" lilly white ass. And why? Once again, because i disagree with you. I call Jackson a charlaton and you don't. Fine. But why do you feel the need to be so hateful over a disagreement with someone you don't even know?
I had been doing a real good job ignoring your posts, even when I found things that I disagree with, in an effort to keep the peace. But you wouldn't have it, would you? You just had to target me again.
Gabe, from now on....from this very moment...I will ignore anything and everything you ever say to me. It is obvious that you take disagreements far too personally.

[This message has been edited by 80sU2isBest (edited 05-15-2002).]

[Sicy]

Gee what a surprise.. gabriel causin a stir again.

Blah blah blah...80s kiss my god-fearin lily white ass

When are you going to learn that you cant talk to people that way around here? This kind of talk is unacceptable. I already told you to chill out once before. No one here is calling you names or being disrespectful in my opinon, yet your replies are always so harsh.

I thought you were going outside today?
I suggest you do.

------------------
Sexy poshin' sugar snarlin' rock and roll ...
sicy@interference.com
My Lair

[gvox]

Alright 80s, lets break it down to its lowest form. I am hurt. I am deeply hurt and I ask you to answer this question then:

Can you or can you not accept me as your brother in Christ because I don't believe that my Lord, my Shepherd, my Savior, the one who gave Himself to me so that I may approach His Father, and the one to whom I bow as humble servant as He takes his place as my King at the right hand of His Father, Jah, Jehovah, Yahweh, et al, that He is not Himself God?

Because in those other heated battles you refer to, your answer to that question was hurtful.

I felt like my faith was under attack, and its a vital part of my existence, so I fought back wrongly and hurtfully.

I humbly retract those things as I realize I was lashing out hurtingly. I'm sorry.


[This message has been edited by gabrielvox (edited 05-15-2002).]

[speedracer]

Originally posted by gabrielvox:
Sorry, Im not going to pay much attention to data that is 10 years old.

Not only that, but you have to realize that these students are largely a product of a debatably discriminatory school system that has only recently gotten a little more even-handed in the way it 'helps' all its young students along to be ready for college.

I'm not an educational researcher; I got those stats from a book I read ("America In Black and White" by Stephan and Abigail Thernstrom). If you can dig up more recent statistics, go for it.

I hadn't mentioned it yet, but what you said in that second paragraph leads me to a salient point: The far better way to ensure that minority students succeed in higher education is to make sure that they're better prepared when they go through middle and high school, *not* to give them an artificial head start.

Let me also say this: I could have quoted statistics demonstrating a pretty clear correlation between SAT scores (or high school grades) and success in college, and few would argue with them. I could *then* demonstrate that minority students at certain schools come in with lower SAT scores and marks than the other students. Then how would you argue against the logical conclusion that minority students in these schools are less likely to succeed?

[This message has been edited by speedracer (edited 05-16-2002).]

[gvox]

I wouldn't argue with it at all speedracer, I would agree that it is all the more evidence that the system is not serving minorities well and that it needs major overhaul from Kindergarten on up. Unfortunately, all things are not currently equal and so those who are a product of this flawed system need to be given a proper chance.

Im not just talking out of my hat here either, Ive experienced first hand what devastating effect a teacher's discrimination can do to a young students marks and psyche.

I'm just not sure what point exactly you are trying to make, or might it be along the same lines as the "professor" who concluded that minorities are more genetically predisposed to a lower iq than whites and thus are less deserving of the opportunity? I hope not.

[speedracer]

Originally posted by gabrielvox:
I wouldn't argue with it at all speedracer, I would agree that it is all the more evidence that the system is not serving minorities well and that it needs major overhaul from Kindergarten on up. Unfortunately, all things are not currently equal and so those who are a product of this flawed system need to be given a proper chance.

Im not just talking out of my hat here either, Ive experienced first hand what devastating effect a teacher's discrimination can do to a young students marks and psyche.

I'm just not sure what point exactly you are trying to make, or might it be along the same lines as the "professor" who concluded that minorities are more genetically predisposed to a lower iq than whites and thus are less deserving of the opportunity? I hope not.

I didn't say anything about genetics or innate ability.

Regarding the first paragraph, I agree with the first sentence. I wholly disagree with the second sentence (at least when it's taken to mean that preferential admissions are necessary), because I think that preferential admissions do not help the minority students they are intended to help and I think that they hurt the students who are turned away in favor of these minority students.

[This message has been edited by speedracer (edited 05-16-2002).]