Specific Groups / Issues > Affirmative Action

Be honest URMs: why does race-blind admissions really bother you?

<< < (3/39) > >>

Kirk Lazarus:

--- Quote from: Pithypike on July 28, 2008, 10:41:05 AM ---
--- Quote from: Galt on July 28, 2008, 08:16:02 AM ---
--- Quote from: JeNeSaisLaw on July 27, 2008, 10:27:37 PM ---I think Galt's point is that the class will be all white.

To answer Galt's question, though, the chances are the same as any group of 3 from the pool. That would be the point of race-blindness. It's not a relevant factor in picking.

--- End quote ---

Correct. The chances, under my hypo, of a black person getting selected initially are 3/50; while the chances of a white person getting selected are 47/50. That's a 6 percent likelihood versus a 94 percent likelihood. Since each selection is independent of the next, at least with respect to race, the odds that the next person selected would be 3/49 black and 46/49 white - (6.1% and 93.8 percent, respectively)

Although race blind in policy, under my hypo it virtually ensures an all white class. Is that the purpose of race blind? Answer this question and I'll ask another.

Also, remember the question posed in the thread is not the benefits of a race-blind system, but rather why qualified minorities might not want it.

--- End quote ---

Like I posted above, why should one of the URMs be the one to luck out and be selected?  What is so inherently bad about an all white class, if all of them deserve to be there and were selected on the basis of their qualifications?

I understand that diversity improves the educational setting, but how much more diverse is a rich URM from the burbs versus a white guy that grew up in the inner city and had to scrap for everything they have?  I think there are better ways to take into account diversity of opinion and thought than race. 

But if a URM writes a really bitchin diversity statement or PS about how growing up as a minority has influenced them and made them more prepared to contribute in a classroom setting, then I see no reason why that shouldn't be taken into account.  I just don't think race should automatically qualify someone as having diverse life experiences.

--- End quote ---


Right. And that's all fine. The point, though, is that in my hypo...it has nothing to do with the qualifications of the applicants. Simply because there are vast more whites in the applicant pool than Blacks, it makes the chances than a Black applicant is selecteed for admission exceedingly small. Thus, in order for a qualified Black applicant to have a reasonable shot to get into a particular school under a race-blind system, the Black applicant would have to post scores that would far exceed the median - simply to stand out. So in fact, a race-blind admissions system pretty much consolidates power among the majority group at elite colleges and universities. I'll leave others to debate the desirability of such a regime on a micro and macro level. But that's what it does.

And the reason I posted my inquiry to Lindbergh, not that he would be able to pick up on this, is that in my hypo all you have to do is replace Black with Asian and that's exactly what's happening to many qualified Asians today. They are being pushed out of schools that they're reasonably qualified to be in and they have to be much better than the median applicant in order to be able to secure a spot in a particular school.

Of course, every individual has an equal chance to be admitted under a race-blind system. So, again, I'm not saying whether it is bad or good. What I'm saying is that its pretty clear and intuitive why a qualified minority might not like race blind admissions.

Elephant Lee:

--- Quote from: Lindbergh on July 25, 2008, 10:56:22 AM ---Actually, I'm urm, and it doesn't bother me at all.  I sincerely doubt it bothers any qualified urms.

Just had to mock the other ridiculous, self-justifying urm poster with the dumb thread title.

--- End quote ---
Polish?

Freak:

--- Quote from: 008 on July 25, 2008, 09:25:28 PM ---
--- Quote from: Freak on July 25, 2008, 05:21:13 PM ---
--- Quote from: 008 on July 25, 2008, 03:10:24 PM ---How about America gives back the land it took, pays for the labor it was unjustly enriched by, gets rid of legacy admits, criminalizes all intoxicants instead of just the ones minorities use, abolishes the distinction between white collar crime and other crime and then strictly prohibits racial profiling?  What is it about that that really bothers you?

--- End quote ---

1. Why don't you start with your first house?
2. Those labor thieves are dead. Last I checked I'm not liable for even a murder my father commits.
3. What? Crack vs. Alcohol? Unsure what you mean here.
4. White collar crime is distinguished because it generally doesn't deal with direct physical attacks on people. Sorry mate, there's a huge difference between sticking a gun in my face to take my money and stealing from my bank account. What you ask? The weapon.
5. As for racial profiling, yes I agree it should not happen. It does, if it happens to you and you suffered some tangible damage - lost wages, confinement, etc., then find a lawyer. Actually, I am a lawyer, send me a pm and we'll sue or I'll find you a lawyer who will.

--- End quote ---
1. First house?
2. Yeah, but you wouldnt be able to keep any of the proceeds of your father's theft or murder.
3. Crack, marijuana v. alcohol and cigarettes
4. Maybe there is a huge difference, but why should someone who embezzles vast amount of money go to a minimum security prison where someone who sells drugs gets mixed in with the rapists and murderers? 
5. It is a fact that african americans are more likely to get pulled over merely because they're black - it's called DWB

--- End quote ---

1. Yes, return it to Native Americans. It's on their land.
2. Depends - theft has a statute of limitations and 1/2 my ancestors immigrated well after 1870.
3. Last I checked both colors use all four. But frankly, I believe they all should be illegal.
4. Drug dealers often commit violent crime too...embezzlers don't
5. True enough, problem is that to be worth a civil lawsuit, there must be enough damages to pay an attorney fee...now a class action...hmmmm. Of course, there's that darn Tort Immunity the Gov. has for most actions.

Pattycake:
School admission MUST be based on academic excellence, not one's skin color. If we all have the same brain, why shouldn't all of us perform well in school? The implications of AA are much greater than some think. Minorities should be ashamed to expect to get by because they are under-represented, instead strive for excellence so you can COMPETE with your white counterparts. Why isn't there AA for white in NFL or NBA recruitment? By the way, I'm black. 

Kirk Lazarus:

--- Quote from: Pattycake on August 13, 2008, 01:18:30 AM ---School admission MUST be based on academic excellence, not one's skin color. If we all have the same brain, why shouldn't all of us perform well in school? The implications of AA are much greater than some think. Minorities should be ashamed to expect to get by because they are under-represented, instead strive for excellence so you can COMPETE with your white counterparts. Why isn't there AA for white in NFL or NBA recruitment? By the way, I'm black. 

--- End quote ---


LOL!

Yeah because nutrition, poverty, racism, sexism, crappy schools, lack of resources, violence all have nothing to do with performance.



Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page

Go to full version