Skip to comments.Campus diversity suffers under race-blind policies (Liberal Berkeley suffers)
Posted on 04/21/2012 8:08:31 PM PDT by jazusamo
BERKELEY, California Fifteen years ago, California voters were asked: Should colleges consider a student's race when they decide who gets in and who doesn't?
With an emphatic "no," they made California the first state to ban the use of race and ethnicity in public university admissions, as well as hiring and contracting.
Since then, California's most selective public colleges and graduate schools have struggled to assemble student bodies that reflect the state's demographic mix.
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
By that (twisted) logic, the much-vaunted HBCUs (Historically Black Colleges and Universities) should kick out 87% of their student body, and replace the vast majority of them with white students.
How about the focus on developing student bodies that belong there.
Exactly, and not only CA but the whole country.
Who in God’s name would want to subject himself to a black doctor or surgeon, knowing that that doctor or surgeon may have been coddled through school thanks to “affirmative action”? Who could trust any black professional for that matter? But mostly, how can brilliant black professionals who worked their asses off and earned (and deserve) everything they attained just sit back and allow their own accomplishments and credibility to be tainted by “affirmative action” policies?
Man, if I was black I think I would scream to the heavens to dump “affirmative action” in the ocean somewhere.
What an insulting slap in the face “affirmative action” is to smart, hard-working blacks who deserve respect.
Not to mention, there should be quotas in the NBA, to ensure that all groups are represented properly.
Why is it that, if a minority group dominates certain areas, such as football or basketball, that simply reflects who the best players are, and is not discriminatory.
But, if we have minority groups under-represented, as we see in the case of these California colleges, liberals get their panties in a twist about that situation.
And, if we’re in a post-racial period of racial harmony and all that, why is anyone even checking to see what the racial composition of these colleges are in the first place?
People with the intelligence and work ethic don't need affirmative action to get an education and become successful in whatever field they choose, minorities or not.
Since the 70s, and the urgency for ‘diversity’ on campuses, the most negatively impacted colleges have been the formerly prestigious women’s and black colleges. The top women and black students now want to go to formerly all male and virtually all white Harvard, Princeton, Yale, not Smith, Vassar or Howard.
Maybe homey and Juan should pull up their pants and study more.
Who in his right mind would vote for an Affirmative Action President?
Fall of 1977 my freshman year at college.
"Oh, you only got into Harvard because you're black."
No knowledge of me
what I'd done in school
Not to mention it tends to illustrate the Peter Principle in practice. Imagine the pressure to succeed at the Ivy League when the competence and comfort level is a mainstream college or U. Or at a mainstream U. when a small college or juco is the best fit.
Or at the big law firm that accepts the 2.5 GPA student when everyone there knows the reason for the hire. It’s one thing to set goals high, it’s another thing to give oneself a reasonable chance to attain them.
>>>have struggled to assemble student bodies that reflect the state’s demographic mix<<<
I just had this thought that our descendents will see this kind of effort as a bizarre misapplication of knowledge, like trying to transmute other elements into gold or searching for the philosopher’s stone. Why would anyone want to go through the trouble and the stress of trying to create in a group of people the statistical likeness of the larger population around them? Even an effort as seemingly simple-minded as trying to mirror the statistical percentages of races and ethnicities runs into more variables than any human selection process can handle. I can see my great-great-grandson slapping his history book with a stupid grin and thinking, “They must have been just effing idiots.”
They are moving fast to re-establish their illegal system of race discrimination, aren’t they.
Affirmative action is a cancer. Not only is it a slap in the face to blacks - - especially bright, hard-working blacks - - but to add injury to insult, it causes a festering suspicion and resentment among many whites who have at the same time been subliminally, unconsciously, given an unsolicited reason to look down their noses with a feeling of superiority. Wow, what a great idea those pandering, white, plantation Democrats had when they came up with "affirmative action" for their slaves. Astonishingly, the slaves apparently love it enough to keep voting Democrat, en masse.
/disgusted head shake
Oh the horror, that liberals wallow in misery when everyone has an equal shot at success!
So now if you don’t consider race you’re a racist.
I don’t know about you but when I look for a doctor or an engineer or a lawyer or an architect I couldn’t care less about “diversity” - what I care about is competence.
We all know that the push for “diversity” is just another way for the left to implement “affirmative action”.
But are there circumstances when “diversity” is truly desirable? There are many attributes such as competence, honesty, skill, talent, reliability, etc. where the higher the value of the attribute the better. For example higher honesty is generally considered better than lower, higher reliability is better than lower. Diversity in those attributes is not a good thing. There aren’t too many people yearning for an incompetent doctor.
But there are also attributes whose quality cannot be ranked on a linear scale. Examples of such attributes are color of things, taste, smell, sizes, style, etc. These are subject to personal preferences. So generally speaking one car color is not better than another. It is for such attributes that DIVERSITY is relevant, and it is the amount of variety that determines the level of “quality”. , i.e. the more colors of cars available the better.
College for the most part is about cultivating attributes of the former type (those that can be ranked on a linear scale), though I could see someone making a case that artistic endeavors are more of the latter types (where variety constitutes “quality”). The quality of art and music is in the eyes and hears of the beholder.
Still, the left’s attempt to generalize that diversity is always good is nonsensical, malicious and self-serving - their sole purpose is to dishonestly advance their hidden agenda (which basically consists of relieving their irrational guilt at the expense of the very people they claim to be helping as well as society in general).
"Diversity" has become little more than a proxy for the old-fashioned (and now eye-rolling) "multi-culturalism". I believe it was George Will who long ago nailed "multi-culturalism" as nothing less than an attack on American culture. See, America has no genuine culture of its own - - meaning there's really no such thing as an "American". Rather, this land mass is comprised of numerous, equal cultures who came to America not to become "Americans", but to continue to live in their own culture. That is, to the lefties, America has never been a "melting pot" - - it's only a smorgasbord.
There is either an American culture OR there is a "multi-culture". There cannot be BOTH.
Wrong demographic parameter being emphasized. Rather than skin color, which is not relevant, it perfectly reflects those demographics that value intellectual achievement through personal effort.
John Edwards loved incompetent doctors, I understand. ;-')
Content of charactor not color of thier skin, who said this? MLK a republican!!!
The old route still works.
How do you get to Carnegie Hall?
Practice, practice, practice?