Thank you for being a valued part of the CNET community. As of December 1, 2020, the forums are in read-only format. In early 2021, CNET Forums will no longer be available. We are grateful for the participation and advice you have provided to one another over the years.

Thanks,

CNET Support

General discussion

Affirmative Action Anyone?

Mar 17, 2004 7:48PM PST

Only months after a US Supreme Court decision upholding affirmative action in higher education stemming from cases at the University of Michigan, this state has again become an epicenter in the fight over racial preferences.

Opponents of affirmative action have launched a bid to amend Michigan's constitution to strip racial preferences from state university admissions, state hiring, and contracting.

More at http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2004/03/06/opponents_of_affirmative_action_seek_mich_referendum/

Discussion is locked

- Collapse -
Re:Affirmative Action Anyone?
Mar 17, 2004 9:15PM PST

Even 2 inocuous words like Affirmative and action(both positive) can turn into a negative, despite the rule.

- Collapse -
Re: Affirmative Action Anyone?
Mar 17, 2004 10:24PM PST
- Collapse -
In reference to your link and the first one
Mar 18, 2004 12:20AM PST

Ok, the 'white majority' is shrinking. Soon it may be less than 50% of the total of official population counts.

So, once there is no majority, how do you define affirmative action in terms of minorities? by pluralities?

Actually, I'm not sure I'm reading your response implications correctly. Majority is not entitle to 80% of the pie seems obvious. But the original link I thought was discussing reverse discrimination in terms of qualfication being trumpted by race status.

So should we have rigid quotas for every identified group? or do away with points for different groups and remove the information regarding race, religion and gender from the application completely?

Maybe the quotas should be by economics, assuring that as equal percentages from different income brackets get into any school. Of course that would necessiate public funding for college, which I believe you already support?

Using minority status to give a nod between roughly equal applicants may be necessary to help balence influences carrying over from the past and still present. But if you carry prefrential treatment too far, you're hurting someone else very unfairly too.

RogerNC

click here to email semods4@yahoo.com

- Collapse -
Re: In reference to your link and the first one
Mar 18, 2004 1:02PM PST

Hi, Roger.

Two caveats -- I don't believe in quotas, and I'm speaking about admissions to the limited number of slots in colleges, graduate and professional schools, not hiring. There are several related issues in choosing applicants for the limited number of slots in these schools. First, it goes without saying that all admitted applicants must be qualified. But is "best qualified" the only basis for admission? Well, there went the "alumni and donor preference," which most anti-AA types want to continue excepting (of course, the vast majority of donors and alumni are white, but I'm sure that's mere coincidence, right? Wink )

There are really three factors that lead me to give SOME preference to those who come from underprivileged/minority backgrounds (note the slash -- almost all academic AA programs now consider economic disadvantage, not merely "minority" status):

1) Diversity is of value in education -- society is diversified, so to prepare students for society it's better to have a student body that's a fair reflection of society, not one that's more uniform.

2) The "objective numbers" (typically GPA at the next lower academic level and preformance on the requisite standardized exam, be it SAT, GRE, MCAT, LSAT, or whatever) are much more likely to reflect a majority student's potential than those of a student from a poorer school who's had to struggle more for an education -- perhaps working a part-time job, has English as a second language, etc.

3) Admission to college/graduate/professional school is not just a benefit to the student, but also to society, which typically pays part of the student's way in the form of government aid to education, scholarships, etc. The return to society is that the successful student is equipped for important jobs that require more advanced education, and which serve society, be it as a teacher, scientist, doctor, lawyer, or whatever. It's important that ALL of society be served by the graduates (as a whole). Yet numerous studies show that after schooling is finished, there's a fairly good chance that students will return to (or at least serve) the environment in which they grew up. Thus the best way to ensure that minority/disadvantaged populations continue to be underserved would be to choose primarily students from a socially privileged/majority environment. But that's precisely what abolishing all preferences in school admission would do -- preserve the historical advantage of the shrinking majority, both in employment and service.

-- Dave K, Speakeasy Moderator
click here to email semods4@yahoo.com

The opinions expressed above are my own,
and do not necessarily reflect those of CNET!

- Collapse -
So then, what you're really saying is that Amendment XIV should really say....
Mar 18, 2004 1:14PM PST

...nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws unless that person is part of the majority, then it shall be OK to discriminate against that person in favor of the minority.

Is that about it in a nutshell?

- Collapse -
Re: So then, what you're really saying is that Amendment XIV should really say....
Mar 18, 2004 10:30PM PST

Hi, Clay.

Getting overly dramatic, aren't we? How does affirmative action in admission to a school deprive someone of life, liberty, or property, or equal protection under the law? The SCOTUS decision delimits what's permissible under AA, and adequately protects the rights of the majority; abolishing AA tromples the rights of the minorities. And also works to the detriemnt of society in other ways -- if the majority of the citenzry is relegated to second-class status economically and educationally, won't the country as a whole continue to sink realtive to other countries where the majority have to opportunity to be truly productive members of society? Right now, Whites and Asian-Americans make up around 60% of the population, yet receive 95% of American PhD degrees. That's certainly not a healthy situation for the minority population or the country as a whole.

-- Dave K, Speakeasy Moderator
click here to email semods4@yahoo.com

The opinions expressed above are my own,
and do not necessarily reflect those of CNET!

- Collapse -
Question re grouping whites and Asian-Americans together.
Mar 19, 2004 12:01AM PST

Why? aren't Asian-Americans just as properly a minority as any other recognized minority is?

Right now, Whites and Asian-Americans make up around 60% of the population, yet receive 95% of American PhD degrees. That's certainly not a healthy situation for the minority population or the country as a whole.

Why separate them out from the rest of the minorities and include them with 'whites'?

And why is Asian Americans holding a large number of PhD degrees bad for minority popluation of the country as a whole?

Seems contradictory. While some groups are sometimes considered separately and sometimes considered as part of the majority, I don't think the Asian-Americans have been accepted particularly as part of the 'white' majority.

RogerNC

click here to email semods4@yahoo.com

- Collapse -
It makes it easier for him..
Mar 19, 2004 1:36AM PST

...to divide the achievers from the non-achievers, racially speaking that is. The fact that he feels a need to include Asians and Whites in the same grouping gives this away as less about race and more about the "disaffected" who are wanting to blame others for their own shortcomings.

- Collapse -
Re: Question re grouping whites and Asian-Americans together.
Mar 19, 2004 2:40AM PST

Hi, Roger.

The term used in most AA programs is "underrepresented minorities." In point of fact, for whatever reason Asian-Americans are over-represented relative to their proportion in the population when you look at representation among those with higher degrees, be they graduate or professional. I've heard that if only "numbers" were used, about half of the student population at U. Cal. Berekely (the strongest and most prestegious campus academically) would be Asian-American, though they comprise only 10% of the state's population.
-- Dave K.
Speakeasy Moderator
click here to email semods4@yahoo.com

The opinions expressed above are my own,
and do not necessarily reflect those of CNET!

- Collapse -
Second-class status, Dave...
Mar 19, 2004 1:58AM PST

Dave, if in your words, "the majority of the citenzry is relegated to second-class status economically and educationally", what does that make poor kids who live in a rented trailer or some such, be they in a mining town or elsewhere. "Third-class", and therefore inelligible for AA if their skin is of the wrong color?
What happened to "Diversity is of value in education", or don't you want "those" kind of kids and that "diversity" in "your" universities?

- Collapse -
Re:Second-class status, Dave...
Mar 19, 2004 2:45AM PST

Hi, J.

>>what does that make poor kids who live in a rented trailer or some such, be they in a mining town or elsewhere. "Third-class", and therefore inelligible for AA if their skin is of the wrong color?<<
I can't seem to disabuse you of this mistaken (though common) notion. Most (and perhaps all) modern AA pgrgrams are based not just on ethnicity, but also on socioeconomic status. So the "poor white trailer trash" would indeed benefit from AA; the Black son of two Black college professors might not.

-- Dave K.
Speakeasy Moderator
click here to email semods4@yahoo.com

The opinions expressed above are my own,
and do not necessarily reflect those of CNET!

- Collapse -
Regarding other countries and their citizens opportunities
Mar 19, 2004 2:19AM PST
And also works to the detriemnt of society in other ways -- if the majority of the citenzry is relegated to second-class status economically and educationally, won't the country as a whole continue to sink realtive to other countries where the majority have to opportunity to be truly productive members of society?

How many countries other than the US have the diversity we do? very few communities in the US don't contain more than 3 recognized ethical and/or racial groups. That's not a bad thing, it's helped us inspite with our problems of learning to live together and respect each other.

But your other countries where the majority have to opportunity to be truly productive overlooks the fact than in many of them that majority with opportunity is much more homogeneous in nature. And they don't all have as much protection for minority rights as we do, no matter how much some feel we failed.

Many older nations have almost purged in historically times any diverse populations they contained. Some of the ones that still have large widely different social groups aren't particularly doing that well. Bosnia, Serbia? others?

The point is, how far do you go to correct problems before you hurt the majority? I'll not dispute some encouragement is necessary.


RogerNC

click here to email semods4@yahoo.com
- Collapse -
Quotas
Mar 19, 2004 2:21AM PST
There are really three factors that lead me to give SOME preference to those who come from underprivileged/minority backgrounds (note the slash -- almost all academic AA programs now consider economic disadvantage, not merely "minority" status)

Hopefully things have improved more than I'm aware, but in the past and still to the best of my knowledge, the only thing government regulators really look at and accept as far as AA compliance by education AND hiring is the numbers you can present representing the percentages in hiring and present population. So although everyone says there are no quota's there has to be defacto minimim numbers, or more likely defacto minimum percentages.

The old slightly inappropriate jokes about the best candidate is a minority woman because she counts twice for AA do have some basis in fact.

RogerNC

click here to email semods4@yahoo.com

/sesig
- Collapse -
Re:Re: So then, what you're really saying is that Amendment XIV should really say....
Mar 19, 2004 12:00PM PST

So what part of "equal" in "equal protection under the law" do you not understand? USC 42 Chapter 21 makes discrimination against the law. You cannot give preference to any group of people without discriminating against those that are not in that group. The very act of giving preference is discrimination.

In Grutter v. Bollinger, petitioner Grutter, a white Michigan resident with a 3.8 GPA and 161 LSAT score, filed suit alleging that the respondents had discriminated against her on the basis of race in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment, Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and 42">http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/42/1981.html]42 U.S.C.

- Collapse -
Bump
Mar 20, 2004 12:58AM PST

So, did Barbara Grutter receive equal protection under the law?

- Collapse -
Re: So then, what you're really saying is that Amendment XIV should really say....
Mar 20, 2004 2:16AM PST

Hi, Clay.

The SCOTUS has already ruled against your argument. The key goal in admissions is predicting future potential, an inexact process at best. But experience has shown that those from an undeprivileged background are much more likely to have "numbers" that don't reflect their true potential than are those who have already had every advantage in life.

BTW, how do you feel about giving admissions preference to the children of alumni and donors? Isn't that an even greater and more arbitray violation of the rights of those who don't have those credentials, necause there's no societal benefit involved? If so, why doesn't the Michigan Amendment also attack that sort of discrimination? Could it be precisely because the majority of alumni and donors and donors are not minority members?

-- Dave K, Speakeasy Moderator
click here to email semods4@yahoo.com

The opinions expressed above are my own,
and do not necessarily reflect those of CNET!

- Collapse -
You dodged the question
Mar 20, 2004 2:35AM PST

Did Barabara Grutter receive equal protection or not? Even the court admitted that she had not when it stated, "The Court expects that 25 years from now, the use of racial preferences will no longer be necessary to further the interest approved today." Why can't you admit that she was discriminated against?

- Collapse -
Re: You dodged the question -- no I didn't, but let's try again...
Mar 21, 2004 12:59PM PST

Hi, Clay.

I honestly don't know whether she was discriminated against. I just got done serving on an admissions committee for Graduate School at UTMB, so excuse me if I consider myself more of an expert than you. There are a lot of factors that go into trying to decide who's the best candidate for a career in science (which is what graduate school admissions are all about). Yes, GPA and GRE scores are important. But so are previous research experience; we also rely heavily on letters of recommendation from current faculty members (which are not available to the candidates, btw -- some people make horrible choices in whom to ask for a letter!) Let me give you a real-world situation, where race played no role. On the one hand you have someone with fair research experience, good letters of recommendation, good GRE scores, and a 3.7 from a good but not great school (from which the candidate will graduate in June).
Candidate 2 graduated from a better school four years ago, but with only a 2.7 GPA, normally below our 3.0 minimum. She's been working on the human genome project as a research tech, and has been promoted three times in her four years. Her GRE scores are slightly higher than the first applicant's, and her letters of reference are outstanding. She got the nod, but it wasn't unanimous.

Point is, there are LOTS of "subjective" factors in deciding who's more likely to be a good scientist in the future. And that's what grad school admission is all about (and also law school). You don't do anyone any favor by letting them into school to get a degree that would then make them overqualified vis-a-vis their true abilities. And that's why socio-economic status is important -- the "numbers" of an applicant who was born with a silver spoon in his/her mouth and has had every advantage are EXPECTED to be higher than those of a Hispanic student who only learned English in sixth grade, comes from a family that doesn't much value education, and has had to work 20 hours a week all through college in order to help pay for his/her education. A (majority) student near the top of the waiting list is simply not as good a prospect as a disadvantaged student whose "numbers" were only slightly
lower.

Meanwhile, you ducked MY question about alumni/donor preferences.

-- Dave K, Speakeasy Moderator
click here to email semods4@yahoo.com

The opinions expressed above are my own,
and do not necessarily reflect those of CNET!

- Collapse -
Re:Re: You dodged the question -- no I didn't, but let's try again...
Mar 22, 2004 6:26AM PST
I honestly don't know whether she was discriminated against.

Try reading the case. Although she had a higher GPA and a higher LSAT than other students she did not get in. The school claimed their admissions program admitted the less accomplished students for the sake of diversity. The court even stated in it's opinion, "The Court expects that 25 years from now, the use of racial preferences will no longer be necessary to further the interest approved today." She is clearly the victim of racial preference. Is that equal treatment under the law?
- Collapse -
PS
Mar 20, 2004 2:41AM PST
BTW, how do you feel about giving admissions preference to the children of alumni and donors?

I've never claimed to support such a practice. I believe the seats should go to those that have earned them, there should be NO preferences that deny them that which they have earned. The definition of "equal" should not be different for different people.

- Collapse -
Re: PS -- sorry, missed this at first... (NT) Ignore last question in my reply...
Mar 21, 2004 1:01PM PST

.

- Collapse -
Re:Re: So then, what you're really saying is that Amendment XIV should really say....
Mar 20, 2004 3:01AM PST
BTW, how do you feel about giving admissions preference to the children of alumni and donors? Isn't that an even greater and more arbitray violation of the rights of those who don't have those credentials, necause there's no societal benefit involved? If so, why doesn't the Michigan Amendment also attack that sort of discrimination? Could it be precisely because the majority of alumni and donors and donors are not minority members?


Your words make me believe that you as an alumni provide NO financial support to your Alma Mater.

Why? Because IF you did you would be well aware that the donations of alumni and other donors have a tremendous "societal benefit" as they reduce out of pocket expenses for ALL students as well as reducing the amount of tax monies that must be spent.

Preferencial treatment for the children of those donors is most certainly not discriminatory as it is something that has been paid for--similar to your medical treatment or assigned parking over those who have less adequate coverage because they haven't paid for it or who can't have preferential and close in parking because they are either not on staff or have insufficient seniority.
- Collapse -
Re:Re: So then, what you're really saying is that Amendment XIV should really say....
Mar 20, 2004 3:49AM PST
But experience has shown that those from an undeprivileged background are much more likely to have "numbers" that don't reflect their true potential than are those who have already had every advantage in life.

Well instead of being so unpredictable about it, why don't we do a more honest and fixed approach of assigning so many points on the test like the SAT etc for those that are 'underprivileged'.

Wouldn't that at least be more honest? and not as capricious, varying depending on who is reviewing the applications at various times and places.

Veterns are credited (not given because they've earned it, IMO) with points on civil service exams for qualifying for government jobs. (At least this use to be, I'm not certain of it's application now.)

So perhaps something as honest and fixed should be instituted with standard guidelines to how many points each 'disadvantage' gets a student.

RogerNC

click here to email semods4@yahoo.com
- Collapse -
Cleverly done, Roger...
Mar 20, 2004 4:10AM PST

Cleverly done, Roger, slowly painting him into a corner.
O.K. Dave K., let's "what if". If we had such a "disadvantage point" system as Roger described, would a poverty level "white" child living in a rented trailer in a West Virginia mining town get the same number of "points" as would a poverty level minority child living in a rented apartment in a Carolina mill town? If not, why not?

- Collapse -
Actually I was thinking more in terms of the ratings of their school
Mar 20, 2004 6:32AM PST

Since the feds have already mandated testing to rank the schools.

Which of course means only what is tested is taught. But that's the government's ranking system of how good a school is.

So an inverse to school rating point system, and maybe an inverse to household income too, add the 'compensary points' together.

RogerNC

click here to email semods4@yahoo.com

- Collapse -
Re: So then, what you're really saying is that Amendment XIV should really say....
Mar 21, 2004 1:03PM PST

Hi, Roger.

Check out my latest response to clay, Here.
It makes my point more clearly by example. Point is, it's NOT an exact science...

-- Dave K, Speakeasy Moderator
click here to email semods4@yahoo.com

The opinions expressed above are my own,
and do not necessarily reflect those of CNET!

- Collapse -
Re:Re: So then, what you're really saying is that Amendment XIV should really say....
Mar 22, 2004 5:34AM PST

It's not an exact science I'll accept.

But come on, minority numbers are going to have range they are manipulated to hit. I wonder if sometimes it even works the other way, they've got enough minoirty members in a certain class, so subconsciously quit looking closely at any more.

I may be out of touch, but since numbers and percentages are what will support a lawsuit for minority discrimination with the feds, I suspect I'm not. I suspect while completely unofficial and denied, almost every large university undergraduate admission program has a minimum percentage that must be a legally recognized minority.

Not necessarily totally bad, but no need to try to call it anything else. But if admit, then can't deny that someone else was discriminated against can we? impossible to balence. But quotas are real Dave, even while everyone denies it.

RogerNC

click here to email semods4@yahoo.com

- Collapse -
The legacy thing ...
Mar 20, 2004 11:30PM PST

... you argue about is another anti-white herring. There actually IS a small correlation between a student's chances of success at a college and their legacy status. OTOH, there is a substantial and proveable negative correlation between racial preferences and success -- IOW, those that are unable to qualify for a more competitive school unless race is taken into account are set up for failure as they are not academically prepared for the college environment, and generally do not have the socio-economic underpinnings to make up for that defecit.

When the recent hub bub about the TX school was posted, A&M?, I went through the numbers and the legacy factor for whites vs. blacks or hispanics were similar. Remember? Why do you continue to hype racial discord?

Evie Happy

- Collapse -
Re: The legacy thing ...
Mar 21, 2004 1:10PM PST

Hi, Evie.

First of all, A&M has now abolished legacy points in their admission. But secondly, Texas still had de facto segregation in its colleges in the 1970's -- that was established in Federal Court (no, I don't have a citation, but it's true). When you have a system that rewards you for the NUMBER of alumni in your family, and it's impossible for you to have had an alumnus ancestor before the 70's, how can you say there's no racial bias? One of the factors used in the latest test of being disadvantaged at our school is in fact race neutral, but the exact opposite -- (slight) preference is given to applicants whose parents never completed college. And yes, that would disavantage me -- my father was the first in his family to attend college, and it caused a bitter split with his father, who want Dad to "stay and help save the family farm" during the Depression (the farm was doomed either way...) And my mother and her sister both graduated from Duluth State Teacher's College, now "The State University of Minnesota at Duluth."

-- Dave K, Speakeasy Moderator
click here to email semods4@yahoo.com

The opinions expressed above are my own,
and do not necessarily reflect those of CNET!