Skip to comments.To Enroll More Minority Students, Colleges Work Around the Courts
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 students 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 ...
Cut federal funding to "higher" education.
This is a classic example of the liberal motto: “With my guilt and your gelt, we can do anything!” Does anyone really think that these tax supported tenured left wing lunatics give a rats rear end about fairness, merit or even the law?
Translation: No matter how strongly racial discrimination is outlawed, left-wing racists in the admissions offices of many colleges will find a way to improperly and illegally use racial discrimination to bias their admissions decisions in favor of minority applicants who do not have the academic qualifications to be admitted without stacking the deck in their favor.
Dumping more taxpayer dollars in the “education” toilet.
Q: So where’s the ‘diversity’ in college and U. presidents and deans?
A: There isn’t any because these hypocrites will gore other oxen but not their own (or their “little darlin’s”)
My company (a multi-national) keeps sending out this crap about “diversity is good.” They never say WHY this is so, it is a stake in the ground.
In some specific markets, it is all about “diversity.” You have to understand the cultural norms. Don’t stare down Japanese. Emphasize family to Latinos. Don’t put Turkish and Armenians in the same room...
That all makes sense.
It isn’t the same as saying “Diversity Is Good.” It has no inherent benefits beyond perhaps interesting cultural anecdotes.
“Diversity” judges someone by what he/she is (color, ethnicity, nationality, etc.). It is the antithesis of the American standard of judging someone by what he/she DOES.
Diversity is good ONLY when liberal whites are in charge. Like what my Filipino bud tells me, that the most racist people he’s ever met were white liberal democraps.
They keep preaching multiculturalism is awesome yet they themselves have absolutely no non-white friends in their circle and live in white neighborhoods.
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.
>>They keep preaching multiculturalism is awesome yet they themselves have absolutely no non-white friends in their circle and live in white neighborhoods.<<
I spent nearly a year in Seattle. It is nice when you can pass legislation for people who will never get within miles of your lily-white gates. If it doesn’t apply to real people, then it has no cost but you can sleep like a baby thinking “I am good person... but Lord keep them picaninnies away from me.”
>>They graduate far too many minorities who cannot speak understandable English or function at the college level.<<
barry the zero and his wife, moochelle, both were the recipients of EEO. It doesn’t matter whether the thumb is on the scale for the dumb or smart, that thumb is always there.
I assure you, should I need heart surgery, I won’t hesitate to ask, out loud, “was the thumb on the scale when you went into, and then completed, Medical School?”
Same for a lawyer.
That massive thumb is always there. And the liberals put it there.
Whatever the average IQ of any group, folks who enter college and graduate have a higher IQ than the average member of their group.
Sponsoring FReepers are contributing
$10 Each time a New Monthly Donor signs up!
Get more bang for your FR buck!
Click Here To Sign Up Now!
Why is it so damn important to enroll MORE minorities in colleges? It means nothing if they are not equipped to succeed there without special treatment.
Why not have it reflect a genuine percentage of those who are qualified and able to be there?
We are not supposed to give a damn about skin color and race and the left thinks skin color and race is THE ONLY WAY to measure success. It’s time to end all this crap regarding skin color and race.
I have been “friends” with Jennifer Gratz on FB for at least six months. We had the pleasure of meeting with both Jennifer and Ward Connerly a few years ago when they passed through town, and wanted to show support as well as give our then young teenage daughter a chance to ask questions.
April 1st was the anniversary of the USSC case that should have banned colleges from using racial preferences in admissions. She related on FB how all the tickets were gone and her immediate family waited on the steps outside — through freezing rain and snow — for uncertain seats. When they finally opened the doors, Jesse Jackson and his entourage pushed by, jumped the line and took up the front row.
She graciously called it ironic. It was despicable.
LOL. Like Otis Mathis, the illiterate Detroit school board president.
The fact that standards must be lowered for minorities in law enforcement, amongst other things, might help answer that question.
This fact alone makes people more distrustful of law enforcement they have to deal with today.
1. racists have always worked around court decisions saying the constitution does not allow you to be a racist in government.
2. these racists are always Dims.
So it is not exactly news that racists at American colleges and universities are following the traditions of their predecessors in the Dims party and once again working around court decisions to remain racists.
I expect the Court will pare back race-based affirmative action quite a bit. It survived for a long time because Sandra Day O’Connor had a soft spot for it, but Anthony Kennedy doesn’t, and there are four justices more conservative than him. A 5-4 win is good enough for me!
Prop 209 was modeled on the Civil Rights Act of 1964, almost verbatim. I guess that’s why the left wants it thrown out.
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.
“Youre 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.
“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.”
Nice evasion on the acceptable racial makeup of those men being admitted.
“You ought to get out more before you go spouting off that which you know nothing about.”
I live within a few miles of MANY colleges; I know exactly what I’m talking about. I believe my own eyes before the “various professionals working in college admissions”.
Then you’re an idiot. There are lots and lots of stats that back up the reason why there are more women on those campuses—they are by far in the majority in applying.
“they are by far in the majority in applying.”
With lower grades and other people’s money; that is the only reason they are there.
You are a token, and apparently others treat you accordingly leading to this resentment. Blame the government that did it, with your collaboration.