Ya you’re racist, darts is racist, lots of blatant racism and anti semitism on this board. It’s even gotten to the point that users are being driven away from posting
Affirmative Action
- Thread starter Darts
- Start date
There are a few members who always cry racism when they can't debate/argue/defend/discuss the facts. Oh, and criticizing Obama is racist.
Even criticizing Elizabeth Warren is racist because Harvard thought (incorrectly) that she is Native American (she is not).
"Asked whether Elizabeth Warren used her status as a minority (Native American) when applying her the role at Harvard in 1993, David Wilkins, one of the only black law professors on Harvard’s staff who voted for hiring Warren, said, “Let’s be blunt. Elizabeth Warren is a white woman.”"
Harvard Professor Who Hired Elizabeth Warren Admits 'She's A White Woman' (newspunch.com)
She didn't gain admission.
She was hired as a professor.
The debate over affirmative action in college admissions has dick all to do with Harvard hiring someone in a professional capacity.
You are advocating people to be rejected based on race or religion regardless of other qualifications as a sort of "make up" for those years. I don't view that as a good idea.
Also, I'm not suggesting solely hiring based on marks, although that should be one of the leading factors. I'm suggesting not using race, religion, gender, etc., as factors at all.
You are misreading my posts or perhaps I am writing unartfully. I have simply said that it is a fiction to say that race was not a consideration before AA. AA simply codifies it in a way which is intended to redress the historical inequities. Is someone seriously suggesting that before AA it was just coincidental that most universities were overwhelmingly white? Lets get real.
Ok, two questions.
1) Do you think systematic racism is a problem?
2) If not AA, what can you do about it?
You don't redress historical inequities by employing the same strategy that induced them.
That sounds good in theory and in theory I agree but the reality is very different. The idea that there is some objective criteria for admission simply ignores reality. A successful student or professional is more than just the person who had the best marks. That simply ignores reality. Schools want students with a a variety of characteristics including life experiences which automatically brings race, gender, religion etc. into the equation but instead of using those criteria as a means of excluding applicants it is used to include them. Minority kids do not aspire to professions and university etc. if there is no one in their community to try to emulate. The historical inequities are embedded in the system.
Depends how you define systemic racism. (I believe that's what you meant to write, as I've never actually heard of systematic racism). The proper definition of systemic racism is discrimination embedded in the laws or regulations of our society and organizations. Unless someone can point out otherwise, the only such laws I can think of that are relevant today and fit that definition are the affirmative action ones. Everything else is rightfully called out.
If, on the other hand, your definition of systemic racism is some nebulous assertion that racism underlies the bedrock of our laws even if not through the stated word...no, I don't think that's a thing.
A third consideration is "intergenerational racism" where historical inequities have trickled down through numerous generations, and while I believe that is a thing, the greatest remedy to it are modern laws that treat everyone as an individual, not as a class based on skin color, and time.
In the most exhaustive review undertaken of Elizabeth Warren’s professional history, the Globe found clear evidence, in documents and interviews, that her claim to Native American ethnicity was never considered by the Harvard Law faculty, which voted resoundingly to hire her, or by those who hired her to four prior positions at other law schools. At every step of her remarkable rise in the legal profession, the people responsible for hiring her saw her as a white woman.
The Globe examined hundreds of documents, many of them never before available, and reached out to all 52 of the law professors who are still living and were eligible to be in [on the decision]. Some are Warren’s allies. Others are not. Thirty-one agreed to talk to the Globe — including the law professor who was, at the time, in charge of recruiting minority faculty. Most said they were unaware of her claims to Native American heritage and all but one of the 31 said those claims were not discussed as part of her hire. One professor told the Globe he is unsure whether her heritage came up, but is certain that, if it did, it had no bearing on his vote on Warren’s appointment.
More reason to expand the SC or do something drastic to fix it.
Good news for Asian students who have faced decades of unfair discrimination in college admissions.
State affirmative action bans helped White, Asian students, hurt others (msn.com)
State affirmative action bans helped White, Asian students, hurt others (msn.com)
Great result. This is already how it works in California. Merit is the best system to aim for. It's problems have largely been a failure to live by it (ie not hiring blacks who were actually as qualified) not from actually doing it. Whereas the problems with affirmative action quotas are from actually doing them.
I think any system that has a mandated quota is bad. I entered McGill shortly after they lifted the quota on Jews. So I had to compete with Jews (we all know how smart they are) for admission to McGill.
The wokies believe that the student body should reflect the broader society regardless of academic merit.
The wokies believe that the student body should reflect the broader society regardless of academic merit.
Admissions to universities SHOULD be based on merit. This was not always the case in the past when visible minorities, in particular people of African descent who were qualified to go to university, were barred from many institutions.
The past 40 years of affirmative action has done much to even the playing field. However, perhaps it’s time for everyone to have an equal chance.
I do agree with this decision in principle, but I would go even further and ban legacy admissions.
For those of you, not familiar with these, if your parents went to the University, that you were applying, for you would be given preferential treatment, and other students who may have higher marks, would not be admitted.
It should be noted that the vast majority of these students are White. so let’s make it fair for everybody, everything based on merit, nothing else.
The past 40 years of affirmative action has done much to even the playing field. However, perhaps it’s time for everyone to have an equal chance.
I do agree with this decision in principle, but I would go even further and ban legacy admissions.
For those of you, not familiar with these, if your parents went to the University, that you were applying, for you would be given preferential treatment, and other students who may have higher marks, would not be admitted.
It should be noted that the vast majority of these students are White. so let’s make it fair for everybody, everything based on merit, nothing else.
This idea that admissions should be based solely upon merit is a meaningless goal. Is anyone suggesting that the only metric for merit is marks. That is an abusrd suggestion usually made by people (and usually white males)who have never been responsible for hiring anyone. There are many factors which go into determining the best candidate for admission to a university or a job etc.
