Posted on 04/01/2012 7:29:06 PM PDT by reaganaut1
With its decision to take up racial preferences in admissions at public colleges, the Supreme Court has touched off a national guessing game about how far it might move against affirmative action and how profoundly colleges might change as a result.
But no matter how the court acts, recent history shows that when courts or new laws restrict affirmative action, colleges try to find other ways to increase minority admissions.
The aggressiveness of those efforts, and the results, vary widely by state, but generally they increase minority enrollment — though not as much as overt affirmative action once did. And they have tended to help Hispanic applicants far more than blacks, at least partly because of the demographics of the states where they have been tried.
Texas and a few others, for instance, compare students with their high school classmates, rather than with all applicants, resulting in more enrollment from poor communities. Washington is among the states that give added credit in the admissions process to students who come from poor families or excel at troubled schools.
Other colleges have spent more time recruiting in underrepresented communities. And the University of California system tries to weigh a student’s life beyond grades and test scores — which, critics say, sometimes amounts to giving racial preferences without acknowledging them.
Even if the Supreme Court limits the options, college and universities will “be seeking diversity by any legal means possible,” said Ada Meloy, general counsel of the American Council on Education.
But a decision overturning affirmative action could produce a national pattern of more liberal states going further to mimic the current system than more conservative states.
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
Will this communist skin-based recruitment structure be able to keep up or even maintain America’s current technology. No! That is the point.
There are two ways to motivate individual self-restraint: by consent or by force. Under consent, freedom of action is maximized under conditions of mutually agreeable values. It is when there is disagreement that the need for force arises (literally, “di-versity” means having oppositely directed interests). No matter how constiuted to limited powers a government is, it has been universal that authorities gain power via enforcing settlments. The more conflict there is, effectively the more power there is to be had. Hence, the only alternative to police powers (and conversely, the only way to preserve liberty) is voluntary self-restraint. Yet today, every institution of public education (including mass media) teaches the lack of self-restraint as “freedom” and with particular regard to the most powerful drive in human experience: sexuality. Why? The more passionate the differences, then the more authorities we need to settle those conflicts by force, and the more power acquired by said would-be enforcers.
Good grief! Spread the word. I don’t want my retirement money invested in an idiot socialist corporation.
I thought that was “With my guilt and Other Peoples’ Money, we can do anything!”
This is a myth that asians are happy for you to believe. If they were so smart, schools in asia would be great places, but they are crap, and asians are climbing the walls to get into out schools and our countries... schools and nations built by supposedly dumber white people.
“They would be better off graduating fewer minorities with better skills than the present policy of running them through to boost the numbers. They graduate far too many minorities who cannot speak understandable English or function at the college level.”
You’re right; I personally give a lot more weight to a white or Asian guy’s degree than to any that may have been for gender or racial preferences (the unspoken policy meaning that not only are the preferred races/gender admitted, but they are graduated regardless of qualifications). I’ve come to realize that the best way to screen candidates is simple essays in the application process; it clarifies the command of English while simultaneously giving some idea as to other qualifications.
Many people point to the GI Bill after WWII as the cause for the growth of colleges; I believe here in NJ Vietnam contributed a lot to it (not after the war, but during it). Many private colleges would admit anyone who could pay (and therefore get a deferment), and that policy seems to still be in place; friends I graduated high school with who were initially rejected by state schools put in a year or two at private schools before transferring over to the state schools (which cost a lot less, though they were more selective - at least for white males).
Cut federal funding to “higher” education.
**************
Affirmative Action is the “racial profiling” that the liberals are always ranting about, but the love it when it fits their socialist agenda!
Why not have it reflect a genuine percentage of those who are qualified and able to be there?
*******************
AFAIK, here in Texas the top 8-10% of HS graduates are given preference to State colleges and universities. Ethnicity or race has no bearing.
My point is that what we really need to do is to fix the problems with fractured families and a lack of educational nurturing that are hurting too many children. Do this and I think the whole issue of affirmative action largely becomes moot.
And the fire depts, certain medical personnel, and most obviously the teaching profession. Even when they do acquire degrees-how many are from such things as revisionist black studies, etc. And I’m keeping an eye on this new “recruitment push” for more minorities in the SEALS. The line is that standards won’t be lowered, just recruitment targeted-but where have we heard this before? How could anyone not believe, if enough minorities for the purposes of the race industry either don’t apply or don’t make it through, that standards will not be lowered?
Time to adjust to the new reality: colleges are taking affirmative action to admit men now, not women. The exception may be some women in the hard sciences.
They have always been using it to admit men of certain ethnic backgrounds, as well as women of any (despite complaints from people “of color” that many “white” women suffer no disadvantages at all). They just had a close call where they almost passed 60% enrollment of women in colleges, because for some reason having classes that are 59% female is acceptable but they viewed 60% as the point at which people would realize that women should be treated as legal equals to men.
In the end we have women with degrees (some earned, some not) whining because they can’t find a mate, because the prospective mates are often stuck in low-paying jobs who would prefer to be the breadwinner. Even when they do find someone, they then whine that they can’t afford children because of the career, so they put that off until 45 and are upset when they can’t conceive.
Yes, our women have come a long way; they are watching the “replacement Americans” breed the next generation.
You’re both acknowledging and talking around my point: it is women, not men, who are more likely to be discriminated against these days for college admissions.
“You’re both acknowledging and talking around my point: it is women, not men, who are more likely to be discriminated against these days for college admissions.”
How is a 59% enrollment rate (versus 41% for men) discrimination? Do you mean the fact that they’re being held to a much lower standard? The law of the land indicates they are not as intelligent as white or Asian men; I agree that it is wrong, but the women don’t seem to mind - they’re laughing all the way to the bank.
Depends on how you are measuring intelligence for what portion of the population before you go off calling white women dumber than white men, and the numbers are still changing enough to make it difficult to tease out the difference between the innate and the enculturated.
But with equivalent records, colleges are now more likely to favor a male candidate to a female one. That is the affirmative action I’m pointing out—and you are avoiding.
What other winning economic powers do this? Any?
Does this mean they will start excluding Ashkenazi (European) Jews, who have the highest average IQs? I mean, where does the madness end in the quest to handicap the talented and gifted?
“before you go off calling white women dumber than white men”
I didn’t say that; it is officially government policy.
“But with equivalent records, colleges are now more likely to favor a male candidate to a female one.”
That is blatantly false and would be shot down in court in milliseconds; it would be ILLEGAL (unless you are skirting the issue and actually mean black/Hispanic men versus white women).
No, that is clearly the case and has been reported by various professionals working in college admissions.
The big fear is colleges getting their ratio skewed with too many women over men—at a tipping point of which they are viewed as less attractive to applicants. It is because so many more women than men are going to college that colleges are now tripping over each other to get enough men to have a reasonably close to balanced ratio.
You ought to get out more before you go spouting off that which you know nothing about.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.