SCOTUS Upholds UMs AA

[Ben Kenobi]

Thus even grades have an element of flexibility in how they were awarded.

I agree, but compared to the other methods of evaluation, standardised testing seems the most consistent over a broad range of applicants.

I'll even agree to extracurricular activities, though I don't see why diversity necessarily improves the university.

If you keep high entry requirements, and help people meet the standards, and offer bursaries to those in financial needs, I think many of the barriers between college education for minorities will disappear.

Also, many of the difference emerge quite early in the schools system, it's not a huge difference over one point, but just a little bit slowly pushing people further behind.

Curiously, how would you rate my argumentative style?
Would I do well in your class?

[Berzerker]

Templar -

Most people in America don't feel comfortable when they are vastly outnumbered by members of another race. Critical mass refers in part to having sufficient numbers of a group for the members of that group to feel confident in asserting themselves. If you are white and doubt this phenomena, ask yourself if you would be willing to go to the south Bronx (where the majority is black or latino or both) and assert quite boldly that there is no racism in NYC. That's how a black guy surrounded by crackers feels about asserting his or her identity.

Your analogy to the south Bronx implies violence...and we know why...blacks have more than reached critical mass there.

But you're right, familiarity is comforting.

[Dis]

I don't believe this

but shouldn't some sort of payback be given to black people?

affirmitive action is one way to do that.

[Sikander]

Originally posted by The Templar

Most people in America don't feel comfortable when they are vastly outnumbered by members of another race. Critical mass refers in part to having sufficient numbers of a group for the members of that group to feel confident in asserting themselves. If you are white and doubt this phenomena, ask yourself if you would be willing to go to the south Bronx (where the majority is black or latino or both) and assert quite boldly that there is no racism in NYC. That's how a black guy surrounded by crackers feels about asserting his or her identity.

Are you kidding? In the South Bronx? Those ruthless bastards would be salivating hearing me state a negative in absolute terms! I'd never be able to hold my head up again in that town.

Originally posted by The Templar

As for standardized tests ...
What exactly do they demonstrate? That someone could afford a Kaplan or Princeton Review course? That someone is good at process of elimination? Why should the entire future of someone come down to the score made on on test? That's dumb.

But not nearly as dumb as giving the tests, and then selecting people who aren't good at the process of elimination anyway.

Originally posted by The Templar

As for grades...
Better than standardized tests. But even ignoring grade inflation, grades remain fairly subjective. Different instructors emphasize different things. When I taught philosophy, I emphasized clearness of thought and expression - and was pleased with people who could narrow their inquiry as much as possible. Some of my collegues perfered big picture/broad stroke approaches. All of us were very clear about what we expected in student papers, but where a student might get an A in a broad strokes type class, they might get a B- or even a C in my class if I did not thing they did a good job in presenting a clear and narrow thesis. Some of my collegues and I were measuring very different skillsets. Even when I taught formal logic, giving partial credit on proofs introduces subjectivity. And while I applied the same standards across all papers, another instructor might have applied different standards. Two of my collegues thought I insisted on to narrow of a focus - too much tunnel vision. I thought they accepted papers that were far too fuzzy and mushy, even if often highly creative and thoughtful.

So let's say your looking at a student for admission into your grad school program and you see they have a B- in Intro to Philosophy. Does this mean the student has only a B- intellectual capacity, or that the student just did not do well under the instructor's standards? On the other hand, if Jonny got an A in my class that means he was a clear thinker and writer who could stay within a narrow problem area without straying. But what if that isn't what your looking for? Its not as though your transcript comes with the grading methodology of the instructor who awarded the grade.

Thus even grades have an element of flexibility in how they were awarded.

While grades are supposed to be a better indicator than test scores of future academic achievement, they suffer egregiously from the factors you mention above, in particular the lack of standardization and subjectivity. At least a test doesn't give a damn what color you are, or whether you wrote a darling little composition that made the teacher laugh earlier in the semester. It doesn't have to deal with whiny brown nosers trying to wheedle points out of it after the fact, nor does it have to deal with enraged parents when it tells the truth.

[David Floyd]

Templar,

[quote]What exactly do they demonstrate? That someone could afford a Kaplan or Princeton Review course? That someone is good at process of elimination?/quote]

I did not use study guides, nor did I guess at more than a couple of questions.

As for grades...

While it's true that grades are subjective, getting a good grade obviously shows that the student is good at something. Further, it's silly to assume that all teachers throughout high school graded exactly alike, so it would be fair to say that an overall A grade point average implies something positive about the student, while an overall D is negative.

However, what you seem to be implying is that minorities can't get good grades, and have to rely on something else to get them into college. Surely you aren't saying that, right? Race and grades should have nothing to do with each other, right?

But if the subjectivity of standardized tests and grades are your justification for AA, shouldn't white people benefit too?

[The Templar]

Originally posted by David Floyd
Templar,



While it's true that grades are subjective, getting a good grade obviously shows that the student is good at something. Further, it's silly to assume that all teachers throughout high school graded exactly alike, so it would be fair to say that an overall A grade point average implies something positive about the student, while an overall D is negative.

However, what you seem to be implying is that minorities can't get good grades, and have to rely on something else to get them into college. Surely you aren't saying that, right? Race and grades should have nothing to do with each other, right?

But if the subjectivity of standardized tests and grades are your justification for AA, shouldn't white people benefit too?

I'm not implying anything of the sort. I am stating as a matter of fact that so-called 'merit' is not as objective as the anti-AA crowd would have it. So its not as though the standards for measuring merit should be the be all end all of college admissions. Yes, if you have someone with a D average, they probably cannot hack college no matter what standard is being applied. But that's not who I'm talking about. Top undergrad, grad, and law schools are balancing test scores and grades on a very fine line. The difference in getting accepted or not is often between a 3.8 and 3.75 GPA. Given variation in grading styles, that is not significant. Academic merit is but one factor among several that should be looked at.

But moreover, the health of an institution is greater that the sum of its individual members. Diversity is as much about benefitting the institution with multiple perspectives and multiple viewpoints as it is about exposing individuals to these.

As for whites, I believe class diversity is an important compliment to racial diversity. So I find AA on both fronts acceptable.

[David Floyd]

But moreover, the health of an institution is greater that the sum of its individual members. Diversity is as much about benefitting the institution with multiple perspectives and multiple viewpoints as it is about exposing individuals to these.

As for whites, I believe class diversity is an important compliment to racial diversity. So I find AA on both fronts acceptable.

And I fail to see evidence for this. Sure, diversity means different viewpoints, but if you stick a poor person in a class, for example, often times his viewpoint is going to be skewed by the fact that he is poor, and not based on reason. The same is true for rich, blacks, etc.

Diverse viewpoints generally mean biased viewpoints, often times without logic and reason, in my opinion. Since college is about education, not about making people feel good about themselves (that's therapy, don't get the two confused), colleges should admit people on the basis of academics, not on the basis of past wrongs, or diverse viewpoints, or anything else.

[David Floyd]

Let me clarify my last post a bit. At Apolyton, there are tons of different viewpoints. This diversity is valuable because of the fact that most people here are intelligent, some extremely so.

So, I see the value of diversity IF the diversity is accompanied by intelligence. So, admit people to college based on academics and intelligence, and whatever diversity is created from this will be valuable.

[Imran Siddiqui]

if you stick a poor person in a class, for example, often times his viewpoint is going to be skewed by the fact that he is poor, and not based on reason. The same is true for rich, blacks, etc.

That's what you want! NO ONE'S viewpoint is based solely on reason. They are always skewed by the life that he's led. People of different backgrounds start from different places, so their 'reason' has different ends. Someone poor might wish the end goal to be total equality, so their reason leads them that way. Someone richer might want their end goal to be total liberty, and their reason leads them that way.

To say we should focus on 'reason' is ignoring the background behind reasoned arguments. Until we get thinking robots there is going to be no being on Earth that can make a truely 100% 'reason' argument.

[The Templar]

Originally posted by David Floyd


And I fail to see evidence for this. Sure, diversity means different viewpoints, but if you stick a poor person in a class, for example, often times his viewpoint is going to be skewed by the fact that he is poor, and not based on reason. The same is true for rich, blacks, etc.

Diverse viewpoints generally mean biased viewpoints, often times without logic and reason, in my opinion. Since college is about education, not about making people feel good about themselves (that's therapy, don't get the two confused), colleges should admit people on the basis of academics, not on the basis of past wrongs, or diverse viewpoints, or anything else.

This is exactly the point.

First, there is no "view from nowhere" so to speak. That is, we all drag our class, racial, regional, linguistic baggage with us. There is no human viewpoint or human understanding that escapes the need for that view to be embodied. Part of the point of diversity is exposure to other views.

Second, diversity is not about therapy - it IS about education. Education about how others see the world and the inadequate ability of any individual to comprehend the world in totality. Education is as much about challenging orthodoxy, one's own views, and other views, as it is about learning how to read and think systematically or solving math problems.

As for diversity and intelligence, I don't know anyone who is saying grades and even standardized test scores count for nothing. Certainly merit must be a factor and some measure (even if flawed) must be established. A minority kid with all D's won't hack it at the university - so don't wasted a spot on him or her. But don't get so hung up on grades and "merit" that you end up with a group of middle class kids from the same suburb, who went to the same prep school, and all took the same SAT/GRE/LSAT prep course.

[Main_Brain]

Oh I thought it would be US Marines AntiAircraft and Scotus being some bizarre Secret Gov Project.
Nevermind.

[Jac de Molay]

Second, diversity is not about therapy - it IS about education. Education about how others see the world and the inadequate ability of any individual to comprehend the world in totality. Education is as much about challenging orthodoxy, one's own views, and other views, as it is about learning how to read and think systematically or solving math problems.

So how does race play into this? Was Barbara Grutter's (plaintiff in UM law case) diversity less valuable than someone who was accepted for simply being an unrepresented minority? This was, after all, a middle aged woman who raised her own family, and started her own consulting business- someone who is not your run-of the mill, fresh-faced law student. Was she less able to challenge orthodoxy?

Diversity is a vague term that's been hijacked by pro-AA'ers to mitigate an essentially racist policy. And if a racially diverse student body is that important, then one should expect the more elite black colleges to accept white students under the same rationale.

[The Templar]

Originally posted by Jac de Molay


So how does race play into this? Was Barbara Grutter's (plaintiff in UM law case) diversity less valuable than someone who was accepted for simply being an unrepresented minority? This was, after all, a middle aged woman who raised her own family, and started her own consulting business- someone who is not your run-of the mill, fresh-faced law student. Was she less able to challenge orthodoxy?

Without seeing her admissions file I can't say. Personally, I would have counted single-mother, middle-aged, and entrepeneur in her favor. But this is just evidence that diversity consideration needs to be broader - not that AA does not properly promote diversity.

Diversity is a vague term that's been hijacked by pro-AA'ers to mitigate an essentially racist policy. And if a racially diverse student body is that important, then one should expect the more elite black colleges to accept white students under the same rationale.

Again, if anything, this just means diversity needs a broader base.

[Caligastia]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten
That's the standard line, Imran, but where's the evidence that diversity really improves education? I think that it probably has a small positive effect, but I fail to see how diversity provides enough of a benefit to the education of students that it justifies intentional discrimination.

Actually, a study done at the University of Michigan itself indicates that student's attitudes towards other races were generally worse after the 'diverse' college experience.

http://www.opinionjournal.com/taste/?id=110003502

[Drake Tungsten]

Actually, a study done at the University of Michigan itself indicates that student's attitudes towards other races were generally worse after the 'diverse' college experience.

I can believe it. The minorities at my university practiced a lot of self-segregation, which certainly doesn't foster constructive dialogue.