Racist Whites

[If you are white and you go for a job interview where there is a black candidate who is much better qualified than you but you get the job would you turn it down?]

If you are white and you go for a job interview where there is a black candidate who is much better qualified than you but you get the job would you turn it down?

Yes

 15 (10.2%)

No

 132 (89.8%)

Total Members Voted: 114

[Donkey]

How about we make the admissions process race blind. If someone wants to claim that an economic disadvantage, let him and then allow the adcomm to decide if it is worthy. This way diversity, if this is the actual goal, can be accomplished through personal merit, not skin color.

[amelus]

How about we make the admissions process race blind. If someone wants to claim that an economic disadvantage, let him and then allow the adcomm to decide if it is worthy. This way diversity, if this is the actual goal, can be accomplished through personal merit, not skin color.

i'm sorry, this is an unacceptable suggestion.  it addresses all the significant issues that people disadvantaged by their socioeconomic backgrounds face in a more simple, more fair, and less politicized way than the current system.  no major organization or institution can take that seriously. 

[Stacey Koon]

How about we make the admissions process race blind. If someone wants to claim that an economic disadvantage, let him and then allow the adcomm to decide if it is worthy. This way diversity, if this is the actual goal, can be accomplished through personal merit, not skin color.

That is an excellent suggestion. Ufortunately, those who are unable to succeed on their own merits will condemn the idea.

[_BP_]

How about we make the admissions process race blind. If someone wants to claim that an economic disadvantage, let him and then allow the adcomm to decide if it is worthy. This way diversity, if this is the actual goal, can be accomplished through personal merit, not skin color.

That is an excellent suggestion. Ufortunately, those who are unable to succeed on their own merits will condemn the idea.

This would follow if we assumed that correcting economic disadvantage was the the only basis for A.A.

[amelus]

How about we make the admissions process race blind. If someone wants to claim that an economic disadvantage, let him and then allow the adcomm to decide if it is worthy. This way diversity, if this is the actual goal, can be accomplished through personal merit, not skin color.

That is an excellent suggestion. Ufortunately, those who are unable to succeed on their own merits will condemn the idea.

This would follow if we assumed that correcting economic disadvantage was the the only basis for A.A.

i hear that.  that's why i wrote socioeconomic disadvantage...that work for u?

[_BP_]

How about we make the admissions process race blind. If someone wants to claim that an economic disadvantage, let him and then allow the adcomm to decide if it is worthy. This way diversity, if this is the actual goal, can be accomplished through personal merit, not skin color.

That is an excellent suggestion. Ufortunately, those who are unable to succeed on their own merits will condemn the idea.

This would follow if we assumed that correcting economic disadvantage was the the only basis for A.A.

i hear that.  that's why i wrote socioeconomic disadvantage...that work for u?

I hear that, that's why I was not responding to you! I quoted the post that I was referring to...that work for u?

[amelus]

ha, yes, that works for me.  so that means you agree with what i wrote?

[_BP_]

ha, yes, that works for me.  so that means you agree with what i wrote?

How about we make the admissions process race blind. If someone wants to claim that an economic disadvantage, let him and then allow the adcomm to decide if it is worthy. This way diversity, if this is the actual goal, can be accomplished through personal merit, not skin color.

i'm sorry, this is an unacceptable suggestion. it addresses all the significant issues that people disadvantaged by their socioeconomic backgrounds face in a more simple, more fair, and less politicized way than the current system. no major organization or institution can take that seriously.

ha, yes, that works for me.  so that means you agree with what i wrote?

This would follow if we assumed that race was not a significant issue faced by people disadvantaged by their socioeconomic backgrounds i.e race plays absolutely no part in any disadvantage faced.

So the short answer to your question on if I agree, is "NO".

[The Dread Pirate Roberts]

How about we make the admissions process race blind. If someone wants to claim that an economic disadvantage, let him and then allow the adcomm to decide if it is worthy. This way diversity, if this is the actual goal, can be accomplished through personal merit, not skin color.

i'm sorry, this is an unacceptable suggestion.  it addresses all the significant issues that people disadvantaged by their socioeconomic backgrounds face in a more simple, more fair, and less politicized way than the current system.  no major organization or institution can take that seriously. 

Because the only way URM students are disadvantaged is economics?  Family income is a huge issue, but it's far from the whole of the disadvantage encountered by minorities.  Biases by teachers and classmates (both in terms of academic expectations and social acceptance) can make a huge difference in education and in the way that education shows up on a transcript or in a testing room.

Is it possible that being the only non white face in a room changes how relaxed you feel about taking a test?  Is it possible teachers will give a student a lower grade if they feel a little uncomfortable around them, or if the student's dialect is different from their own, or if they don't draw from the same kind of experiences the teacher has?  No, of course not, because obviously the US is a perfect, racially harmonious, and colorblind society.

[amelus]

ha, yes, that works for me.  so that means you agree with what i wrote?

This would follow if we assumed that race was not a significant issue faced by people disadvantaged by their socioeconomic backgrounds i.e race plays absolutely no part in any disadvantage faced.

So the short answer to your question on if I agree, is "NO".

i dont understand that at all.  if race played a factor in an individual's disadvantaged socioeconomic background then it would be included in the consideration of that candidate as a subcategory.  if it played no role, then it would be ignored.  in other words someone who currently gets a urm boost, but has grown up financially secure, in a solid family, and faced minimal difficulties, wouldnt get a huge boost, while someone who had severe financial and social difficulties, but currently doesnt count as a urm, would get a significant boost.  i'm sure you've heard this before, but i dont see what the problem is.  when race is a relevant and significant factor it is accounted for, when it is not, then it is discarded.  what's wrong with that?