Court Rules on Affirmative Action: Mixed Ruling

[Silent_One]

Court rejects quotas, but says race may play a factor in admissions

http://www.cnn.com/2003/LAW/06/23/scotus.affirmative.action/index.html

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- In separate decisions the Supreme Court on Monday ruled that minority applicants may be given an edge when applying for admissions to universities, but limited how much a factor race can play in the selection of students.

The high court struck down a point system used by the University of Michigan's undergraduate programs. The court approved a separate program used at the University of Michigan law school that gives race less prominence in the admissions decision-making process.

The law school program was upheld by a vote of 5-4, with Justice Sandra Day O'Connor providing the swing vote by siding with more liberal jurists. The undergraduate program was overturned 6-3.

 

[Joe DeFuria]

Hurrah for common sense! (At least on the undergraduate ruling.)

I do not know the specifics of the law-school admissions program though. It's apparently not "points" based, but in what way is it tailored to minorities?

I have little objection to public universities doing things like making a heavier recruiting effort for minority candidates. (Which increase the chances of qualified minorities applying, and hence increases the chances of raisining minority enrollment). But in the end, the admissions panels themselves should not consider race a factor. Discrimination is discrimination.

 

[Clashman]

Which is why we should get rid of legacy admissions, which account for far more unqualified people entering college than could ever be attributed to affirmative action.

 

[Joe DeFuria]

Which is why we should get rid of legacy admissions,

In public institutions? I agree.

However, there is at least actually an argument to be made that if there is a history of a particular legacy to succeed in the institution, you could say that indicates a higher probability of success.

Still, I don't agree with that practice though.

 

[Natoma]

Try Wealth-Based Affirmative Action

http://www.businessweek.com/bwdaily/dnflash/jun2003/nf20030624_9143_db048.htm

Poverty, more than race itself, holds kids back. So schools should give more preference to students from impoverished backgrounds

To which I agree. At this time, race based affirmative action works because frankly, percentage wise, there are far more poverty stricken minorities in this country than whites. However, in the coming century, it will definitely be an economical divide rather than a race divide, as societal discriminations continue to fall away, that will be the pressing issue wrt education in this country.

Where the 20th century was defined by racial haves and have nots, the 21st will be defined by economic haves and have nots.

 

[Sabastian]

Where the 20th century was defined by racial haves and have nots, the 21st will be defined by economic haves and have nots.

Sounds like some sort of neo-Marxist battle-cry for the welfare state.

 

[Silent_One]

Try Wealth-Based Affirmative Action
http://www.businessweek.com/bwdaily/dnflash/jun2003/nf20030624_9143_db048.htm

The solution? Create a wealth-based affirmative-action program. Universities seeking to diversify their student bodies could screen candidates based on income and assets, showing preference to the poorest students.

While I don't disagree with the idea of a welth based AA I have certain criteria that I think would need to be implemented in order for it to work. The biggest is the need for eliminating grants - all students should have the responsibility to the college and themselves to pay back any financial aid they received. I don't mind anyone recieving aid to go to college just so long as they pay it back-say with a low intrest loan of 1-2%. My wife had to pay back her loans which took years, but pay them back she did. I think this would insures a sence of fairness to all.

 

[Sabastian]

Try Wealth-Based Affirmative Action
http://www.businessweek.com/bwdaily/dnflash/jun2003/nf20030624_9143_db048.htm

The solution? Create a wealth-based affirmative-action program. Universities seeking to diversify their student bodies could screen candidates based on income and assets, showing preference to the poorest students.

While I don't disagree with the idea of a welth based AA I have certain criteria that I think would need to be implemented in order for it to work. The biggest is the need for eliminating grants - all students should have the responsibility to the college and themselves to pay back any financial aid they received. I don't mind anyone recieving aid to go to college just so long as they pay it back-say with a low intrest loan of 1-2%. My wife had to pay back her loans which took years, but pay them back she did. I think this would insures a sence of fairness to all.

While I agree with what you have proposed in that the students ought to pay back what they have borrowed. I would add an even more restrictive element. That would be to disallow for loans to be made for studies that don't have good employment rates upon completion of the degree. Consider that you would be giving loans out to people whom won't be able to pay back the loan even if they finish their studies and hence ruin their credit and so on. Further you create a situation where public funds are thrown out the window on useless studies. It could easily be determined from year to year what line of study should to be focused on and students would flow into these lines of study. If a student wants to take something else then they ought to do so at their own risk.

 

[Natoma]

Where the 20th century was defined by racial haves and have nots, the 21st will be defined by economic haves and have nots.

Sounds like some sort of neo-Marxist battle-cry for the welfare state.

:?

With regard to Education most certainly I believe that that everyone should have a chance to get the best education possible. Would you not agree? How you want to construe that to some "Neo-Marxist" battle cry or whatever is completely innaccurate and beyond me.

The levels of your absurdity never seem to reach a limit.

 

[Joe DeFuria]

Try Wealth-Based Affirmative Action

http://www.businessweek.com/bwdaily/dnflash/jun2003/nf20030624_9143_db048.htm

Try no discrimination at all.

Poverty, more than race itself, holds kids back. So schools should give more preference to students from impoverished backgrounds

To which I agree. At this time, race based affirmative action works because frankly, percentage wise, there are far more poverty stricken minorities in this country than whites.

Yes, you've argued this before....give a preference to blacks, because of some statistical correlation between blacks with poverty...

However, in the coming century, it will definitely be an economical divide rather than a race divide, as societal discriminations continue to fall away, that will be the pressing issue wrt education in this country.

There will also be a divide between those who earn a certain standard of living, and work to aspire to more, and those who believe they "deserve" a certain standard of living, despite thier (lack of) contribution to society.

(No, don't go on a rant about how I'm saying all disadvantage folks are lazy, because that's not what I'm saying...)

Where the 20th century was defined by racial haves and have nots, the 21st will be defined by economic haves and have nots.

Though the opportunity will be there for for the economic have nots to aspire to be economic haves. Unless, of course, there is no incentive to do so because the economic haves are already giving you enough to sustain yourself, with just enough time to demand they give you more...

I'm with the others on this. Financial assistance to those in need is one thing, and is reasonable to an extent. Preferential admission treatment is another thing all together.

 

[Sabastian]

Where the 20th century was defined by racial haves and have nots, the 21st will be defined by economic haves and have nots.

Sounds like some sort of neo-Marxist battle-cry for the welfare state.

Like it or not, your statement is an economic class based argument a la Marx and the struggle for the equalization of social status for the proletariat, not equal treatment but equal outcome.

On that note I am off now to my slightly better than min wage job, for which I don't have the funds to pay back my student loan from my stay in an Arts degree that I should have never taken and was a complete waste of my money and time.

 

[Joe DeFuria]

With regard to Education most certainly I believe that that everyone should have a chance to get the best education possible. Would you not agree?

No, I don't. There's many problems with a statement like that. Not the least of which is logistics.

First of all, how do you define "the best education?" Is there a particular school? Set of schools? Does that mean everyone has the right to get into those schoools? Should U Penn just admit everyone that applies, regardless of credentials or ability to pay for their education?

What everybody "deserves," is some level of education that will allow them a basic position in society. Beyond that, your pursuit of higher education is based on your drive, willingess to sacrifice, and ability. The opportunity to further your own education should be available to everyone.

 

[Clashman]

Sabastian, I think you could stand to learn the difference between Marxism and Keynesian economics, (which is what the principle of the welfare state is based upon).

 

[Sabastian]

Sabastian, I think you could stand to learn the difference between Marxism and Keynesian economics, (which is what the principle of the welfare state is based upon).

Hence my use of "Neo-Marxist" label. Argh, I am going to be late!!

 

[Slides]

Try no discrimination at all.

Utopia?

As it stands, people who are very rich have a much better chance of getting into prestigious universities.

 

[Silent_One]

Slides wrote:

As it stands, people who are very rich have a much better chance of getting into prestigious universities.

And what constitutes "very rich"?

 

[Ilfirin]

As it stands, people who are very rich have a much better chance of getting into prestigious universities.

Hmm? How sure are you about that? I know a lot of the people at the really expensive and prestigious universities (Harvard, MIT, and Princeton are the ones in my mind while writing this) are damned broke, and from families that are and have always been damned broke. Don't think that just because a university has a really high tuition that that means only rich people can go there. Those same universities usually pay almost all of that for the students they admit, and handle those admissions without knowledge of how much money you have/make.

 

[epicstruggle]

2 things:
-AA is only used for 2 maybe 3 races, blacks, native americans, latinos. Ever hear of a asian(either indian or chinese) getting a break, reason why is that they dont need it. (they have a better work ethic, and their parents tend to stress education more at home.)
-The reason why colleges give children of alumni a better chance of getting is, is purely money driven. If you feel closer to your university your more likely to donate money to it. Its about money more than anything else, they need as much as possible.

later,

 

[Natoma]

Try Wealth-Based Affirmative Action
http://www.businessweek.com/bwdaily/dnflash/jun2003/nf20030624_9143_db048.htm

The solution? Create a wealth-based affirmative-action program. Universities seeking to diversify their student bodies could screen candidates based on income and assets, showing preference to the poorest students.

While I don't disagree with the idea of a welth based AA I have certain criteria that I think would need to be implemented in order for it to work. The biggest is the need for eliminating grants - all students should have the responsibility to the college and themselves to pay back any financial aid they received. I don't mind anyone recieving aid to go to college just so long as they pay it back-say with a low intrest loan of 1-2%. My wife had to pay back her loans which took years, but pay them back she did. I think this would insures a sence of fairness to all.

I agree. My partner and I paid off his loans to columbia a couple of years ago, and we're one year away from paying off my remaining loans to yale. It makes the sense of education more personalized when you know you're paying for it, eventually.

1-2%? I wish. I was overjoyed when I was able to get my loans down to 4%.

 

[Natoma]

Try Wealth-Based Affirmative Action

http://www.businessweek.com/bwdaily/dnflash/jun2003/nf20030624_9143_db048.htm

Try no discrimination at all.

In a perfect world I would agree with this. But using that statement, no discrimination at all, we need to remove the following:

Preference for Legacy Students
Preference for Rural Students
Preference for Athletes (If you want to be completely draconian, you're in college to be educated, not play sports)
Preference for someone able to pay more than someone else

Etc etc etc. But considering you seem to want to hold onto "Legacy" as an acceptable admissions policy due to the "community" it creates, I guess this isn't happening anytime soon.

Poverty, more than race itself, holds kids back. So schools should give more preference to students from impoverished backgrounds

To which I agree. At this time, race based affirmative action works because frankly, percentage wise, there are far more poverty stricken minorities in this country than whites.

Yes, you've argued this before....give a preference to blacks, because of some statistical correlation between blacks with poverty...

I never argued that statistically blacks are more poverty stricken than any other group. The complete point I was making is that while race based affirmative action worked in the past because of past injustices against minorities, now that our society is moving away from societal discriminations based on race, it would be more prudent to focus on economics.

That's why I wrote the next sentence, that you quoted by itself, to qualify that statement.

However, in the coming century, it will definitely be an economical divide rather than a race divide, as societal discriminations continue to fall away, that will be the pressing issue wrt education in this country.

There will also be a divide between those who earn a certain standard of living, and work to aspire to more, and those who believe they "deserve" a certain standard of living, despite thier (lack of) contribution to society.

Uhm, I'm just saying people should get a chance to have as good an education as anyone else. Education is the primary mover when it comes to social mobility in our society. To give someone an education is to give them the opportunity to move up the financial ladder of life.

Where the 20th century was defined by racial haves and have nots, the 21st will be defined by economic haves and have nots.

Though the opportunity will be there for for the economic have nots to aspire to be economic haves. Unless, of course, there is no incentive to do so because the economic haves are already giving you enough to sustain yourself, with just enough time to demand they give you more...

The opportunity exists, but what good is the opportunity if one school can only afford 20 year old books while another school can afford the completely updated editions, as well as the person who wrote those books?

No one is talking about a welfare state. The article is talking about giving those who want an education the best possible tools available so that despite your lack of funds, you can still do everything possible to get further in life. If you don't take advantage of that, the onus is on you, and no one else. But at least you would have been given the best possible tools to educate yourself with.

I'm with the others on this. Financial assistance to those in need is one thing, and is reasonable to an extent. Preferential admission treatment is another thing all together.

So we need to get rid of Legacy. However, as you've stated earlier in this thread, you're opposed to that in certain circumstances. Do I detect a certain hypocrisy here?