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

[amelus]

so amelus.. how do we achieve a multicultural democracy?

is that your way of retracting your previous comment

[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.

i said socioeconomic background...learn how to read before you rant.

I can read, thanks.  You did use the word "socioeconomic," and it's a good word, and I'm glad you know it.  However, the argument you were describing as addessing "all the significant issues that people disadvantaged by their socioeconomic backgrounds face," refered to using race blind admissions and considering only economic disadvantage.  Race blind = not considering all the significant socioeconomic factors.

I agree with factoring in economic background for everyone.  Also, I'd suggest some consideration of parental education levels.  But you can't be race blind and then pretend to be considering everything that's important about someone's socioeconomic background, because racism is a factor that needs to be seriously looked at regardless of any economic advantages a student may have.

Regarding your suggestion that race be considered only if it is "a relevant and significant factor" is nice in theory, I guess, but I can't imagine how it could be put into practice; how would an ad com ever have any idea how race played a part in a student's life?

[hammer101]

I think it's not even so much AA anymore, but rather schools' conception of diversity that we're grappling with here. Because let's face it -- if legally-sanctioned AA disappeared tomorrow, it wouldn't change a thing in the realm of college/professional school admissions (or probably the workforce either).

Most schools use a simple formula: if you are of a certain race, you inherently contribute to diversity, therefore you deserve an edge in admissions. I have trouble believing a black/hispanic/native american kid growing up in a well-off suburb is really all that different from his/her white counterparts. Think about it: if you grow up in the same environment, worry about the same things and gemerally share the same perspective, how different are you from your white peers? Not very, really.

That's the wrong way to promote diversity. And if you want to look at it through the prism of promoting social justice (that is the ostensible aim here, right?), consider this: If you've made it to the middle or upper middle class, you've won your share of the American dream. While I have no doubt well-off URMs face discrimination from time to time, they are, by virtue of their position in society, in a place where they'll never have to worry about racist whites sabotaging their futures. Their parents, against incredible odds, overcame a level of hatred and bigotry we rarely see displayed today.

Therefore, schools need to broaden their definition of diversity. I'm not saying the system should be completely race blind (how would people heavily involved in cultural organizations discuss their accomplishments?), but socio-economic status is a more reliable way to measure disadvantage in today's society.

But it doesn't really lend itself to a formula that's easy to apply across the board. Many URMs on the lower end of the economic scale still suffer from bigotry. But some areas of predominantly-white Appalachia have poverty rates approaching 70%. There's no easy solution. But one thing is clear: The current system isn't the answer.

[amelus]

I can read, thanks.  You did use the word "socioeconomic," and it's a good word, and I'm glad you know it.  However, the argument you were describing as addessing "all the significant issues that people disadvantaged by their socioeconomic backgrounds face," refered to using race blind admissions and considering only economic disadvantage.  Race blind = not considering all the significant socioeconomic factors.

I agree with factoring in economic background for everyone.  Also, I'd suggest some consideration of parental education levels.  But you can't be race blind and then pretend to be considering everything that's important about someone's socioeconomic background, because racism is a factor that needs to be seriously looked at regardless of any economic advantages a student may have.

Regarding your suggestion that race be considered only if it is "a relevant and significant factor" is nice in theory, I guess, but I can't imagine how it could be put into practice; how would an ad com ever have any idea how race played a part in a student's life?

i cant tell if you read my follow up post to  BP or not.  in the first bit it looks like you didnt, in the second part it looks like perhaps you did.  when i read what you wrote it looks like two points contradicting each other.  the first part acts as though i said race could never ever be considered (which i did not say).  the second part seems to acknowledge that i said race could be used, only not in a "check box" fashion where you simply check the "correct" box.  it should be included within an evaluation of a person's SE background and evaluated as such.  so which is it?

either way, you say you cant imagine how an adcom could ever have any idea how race played a part in a student's life?  it's called a personal statement or a supplumental essay.

[The Dread Pirate Roberts]

i cant tell if you read my follow up post to  BP or not.  in the first bit it looks like you didnt, in the second part it looks like perhaps you did.  when i read what you wrote it looks like two points contradicting each other.  the first part acts as though i said race could never ever be considered (which i did not say).  the second part seems to acknowledge that i said race could be used, only not in a "check box" fashion where you simply check the "correct" box.  it should be included within an evaluation of a person's SE background and evaluated as such.  so which is it?

either way, you say you cant imagine how an adcom could ever have any idea how race played a part in a student's life?  it's called a personal statement or a supplumental essay.

It's really not that complicated.  In the first part, I was discussing the post in which you refered to a suggestion that admissions be race blind and consider only economics as considering all important socioeconomic factors.  I disagreed with that post, you took issue with my disagreement, and I responded to that issue.

In the later part, I was discussing your argument as a whole, which is better than the argument you made in that specific post.

[amelus]

It's really not that complicated. In the first part, I was discussing the post in which you refered to a suggestion that admissions be race blind and consider only economics as considering all important socioeconomic factors. I disagreed with that post, you took issue with my disagreement, and I responded to that issue.

In the later part, I was discussing your argument as a whole, which is better than the argument you made in that specific post.

no, that's kind of complicated actually. since you had the whole discussion in front of you that means anything that originally may have seen too crypctic or misleading to you was fully explained later.  the whole first part therefore is a strawman argument, why make it at all?

as to your response to my overall issue, well you didnt respond other than say "how would an ad com ever have any idea how race played a part in a student's life?"

which i answered with...personal statement or supplumental essay.

basically you have yet to articulate any clear issue with MY stance.  only strong disagrements with stances you yourself know i didnt hold.

[95828]

Looks like white people are going crazy as it gets down to the wire. I reckon more and more of these boards will pop up this year. Hey, what are you guys doing to remember my Morehouse brother, Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.?

He said: "I have a dream....that one day, white folk will shut the #@!* up about getting into law school, and realize that they have all the advantages that anyone could possibly have in a white man's world. I have a dream.....that one day, black people will stop giving a #@!* about what white people think, and continue to move forward with our goals of going to law school. One day, we can all sing that old negro spiritual....I'm in law school B*tch! Admitted at last! Admitted at last! Thank God Almighty, I'm admitted at last!"     

LMAO!!!

[PSUDSL08]

If the goal of AA is to promote diversity, then should a white kid applying to Howard/Morehouse be given a helping hand?

[blk_reign]

if your #s and GPA are good you'll get in.. and...  in all probability as a white person applying to a HBCU.. u'll get a minority scholarship

If the goal of AA is to promote diversity, then should a white kid applying to Howard/Morehouse be given a helping hand?

[sweatsandtees]

Grr every time I see another AA post where people start talking about how unfair AA is I get so annoyed because the application process, whether for school work, etc, is a discriminating process by nature. If a law school received 7000 applications for 260 spots and all of the applicants had the EXACT same stats, what basis would they use to say whether applicant 155 is in and applicant 1789 is not? They use the factors that the school feels will make the entering class diverse in extracurricular activities, culture, race, background, academic major, region, etc. Do I feel that I got into a certain school solely because of AA?? Hell no!! I am a Black female who graduated magna cum laude with a BS in electrical engineering, a field where there are barely even women, let alone black women. I had numerous and extensive extracurricular activities. I had great a personal statement, and great reccommendations. I was very well rounded on my own and I think that if I had left the race box blank, they would have accepted me either way.

Many people naively assume that if they have a certain LSAT score and GPA that they are automatically entitled to admission to the school of thier choice. Sorry but that just is NOT the case. There are, have been, and always will be people with damn near perfect numbers who still get rejected. Is it because some URM took their spot? Hell NO!! They just didn't have what the law school was looking for in terms of the kinds of personalities they want at their school.

AA does not take away from qualified individuals, and no, qualified does not just include your GPA and LSAT score. It is responsibility of ALL applicants to sell themselves on their application and personal statement, and back it up with great reccommendations. If you do that well, regardless of your stats a school of your choice will want you.

One earlier poster said that if a rich black kid and a poor white kid were applying for law school or a job the black kid would get the advantage. Not true. In the case of law school admissions, that white kid needs to sell himself better than the black kid regardless of his race. If he feels that he was at an economic disadvantage then it is up to him to present that to the ad comms. It is up to the individual to let the adcomms know who you are. I feel that most of the people who were "scorned" by AA are really just experienciong the result of not having sold themselves well enough. I beleive that regardless of what AA practice you think are being used, a damn goods applicant is a damn good applicant. You can't expect an adcomm to see a white male with a 2.9 in Poli Sci and 165 after he or she has already seen other white male applicants with a 165 LSAT and much higher GPAs in Poli Sci and them want to pick you with out there being something that makes you stand out. And I don't see that as discrimination based on being white. I see it as the ad comms trying to have more diversity.