The Chronicle of Higher Education: Colloquy

This discussion is closed. This is a transcript.

The global quandary of admissions quotas

Author: Colloquy Moderator
Date: 02-05-04 14:35

A number of countries give special preference to students in the university-admissions process because of their race, ethnicity, gender, or religion. Do such policies, which often are enacted to right historical wrongs, make sense? Do they work? What can the experiences of countries such as Brazil, India, and Malaysia show about the value of using affirmative action in American higher education? Read more ...

Re: The global quandary of admissions quotas

Author: G. Mccolm, Assoc. Prof, USF
Date: 02-09-04 08:24

It may be significant that affirmative action is NOT new. In Jonathan Spence's "Treason by the Book," we are told that in the eighteenth century, few Manchurian students were passing the exams, much to the irritation of the new Manchu regime, which took various steps to get more Manchurian students. Of course, this is different from most modern examples: an example of a governing race trying to break into the establishment that it has captured. A coherent and intensive program seems to be necessary when trying to teach a whole population new tricks. In the middle of the Eighteenth century, Leonhard Euler was invited to Russia to help the development of mathematics there. Nevertheless, progress in Russia's mathematical program -- the appearance of major Russian mathematicians like Bolyai -- took half a century. These programs do not seem to show quick results.

I suspect that a lot depends on the time frame. If a government wants to do something, or appear to do something, right away, it can create a sequence of programs which make a lot of noise. If the government wants to be successful, it will have to be patient and maintain an extended commitment.

Re: The global quandary of admissions quotas

Author: Robert Jinkens, PhD, Hawaii
Date: 02-09-04 10:39

Discrimination is wrong whether is legal, such as affirmative action, or illeagal. It lowers the quality of education and will eventualy lead to the downfall of education in general. Although there has been and will continue to be discrimination against all kinds of people for different reasons, it is wrong. If people believe that they will not be given equal treatment regardeless how well they perform, then they have no motivation to perforem well. Likewise, people who believe that they will get special treatment will also not perform well, because they will believe they will not need to perform as well as people who are not getting special treatment.

Re: The global quandary of admissions quotas

Author: G. Saha, Ph. D., Asst Prof, LU
Date: 02-09-04 17:40

Is any body aware of an ever-classified and covert religiously discriminative admission policy in Pakistan and Bangladesh? If not please survey the victims and minority population.

Jinkens got it right

Author: Mary Mcgory, Univ. of W. VA
Date: 02-09-04 22:42

Robert Jinkens hit a home run with his comments.

From my experience affirmative action program have

1. rewards those who have done nothing to deserve it

2. discriminated against those who have done no wrong (especially nowadays white males)

3. perpetuates the notion that certain races are inherently inferior

Some day society will purge affirmative action programs because they will be deemed to be racist, sexist, and an unapologetic promotion of bigotry. Some day we will all see that these affirmative action programs are here only to line the pockets of those in the race industry---i.e., those who scream racism at every turn until they are bought off.

Everyone, worldwide, will be oh so much better off when we begin to appreciate individuals on the basis of what they are rather than what racial group they belong to.

Once Again...

Author: Plato
Date: 02-10-04 09:09

Once again, I think the question for this colloquy is not well worded:

"What can the experiences of countries such as Brazil, India, and Malaysia show about the value of using affirmative action in American higher education?"

What can these countries show the U.S. about the value of affirmative action? Not much.

First, the question is not objectively constructed, and it is leading. It assumes that affirmative action IS valuable. This is just another instance in this colloquy of the Chronicle showing a distinct lack of objectivity.

The question is also foolish. Brazil, India, and Malaysia have situations that are radically different in their histories and contexts than what we have in the U.S. The differences are far more numerous than the parallels. Of course, the fuzzy headed lovers of "diversity" in this country will find those useful parallels if it will help them keep their precious programs, but I think trying to compare America's situation to these countries is like trying to put a round peg in a square hole.

Re: Yes, Mary...

Author: Bloom
Date: 02-10-04 13:10

Some day society will purge affirmative action programs because they will be deemed to be racist, sexist, and an unapologetic promotion of bigotry. Some day we will all see that these affirmative action programs are here only to line the pockets of those in the race industry---i.e., those who scream racism at every turn until they are bought off.

Everyone, worldwide, will be oh so much better off when we begin to appreciate individuals on the basis of what they are rather than what racial group they belong to.

Yes, dear Mary, someday the world will again be white, pure, and majestic, and we'll never again be guilt-tripped into these horrifying social programs that dare to presume goals of "fairness" and "equality"--code words for those who just can't measure up. Let's just ignore the past. I don't have anything to do with it. Nor, clearly, do you, Mary. So let's just ignore it, but then, let's return to it, too. I mean, back to when the coloreds knew their place of invisibility, and knew the consequences of speaking out. The past is so long forgotten, after all. But let's return to it.

Re: Yes, Mary...

Author: Rose
Date: 02-11-04 08:52

Bloom,

To quote your sarcastic rewording of Mary:

"Everyone, worldwide, will be oh so much better off when we begin to appreciate individuals on the basis of what they are rather than what racial group they belong to."

Isn't this precisely what the civil rights movement was all about, initially? Isn't this what all those fondly remembered marches were meant to secure?

Thank you for making it painfully clear that respect for the individual has absolutely nothing to do with the present-day diversity movement. The moral high-ground has been lost to you, as despite ample warnings to the contrary, your ilk has transformed into exactly that which it once despised: the protector and defender of unearned advantage based on race and gender. Good work!

The right idea

Author: Cynthia Holmes-Norton
Date: 02-11-04 11:17

We keep hearing that the United States should set a positive example for the world. As the world's lone super-power we have an obligation to do so.

So, why don't we set the example by eliminating all of these sexist and racists affirmative action programs. They are unfair and, like Mary Mcgory stated, reward people who have done nothing to deserve preferential treatment.

We can then show the whole world that we in the United States truly do believe all men are created equal. We practice what we preach.

Re: The right-wing idea

Author: me
Date: 02-11-04 15:28

Cynthia Holmes-Norton wrote:

"So, why don't we set the example by eliminating all of these sexist and racists affirmative action programs. They are unfair and, like Mary Mcgory stated, reward people who have done nothing to deserve preferential treatment."

Why is affirmative action a "reward"? Why does it need to be "deserved"?

As a remedy for past racism, it's not a reward but a reparation. When my car was totalled by a trucker with faulty brakes, the check I received wasn't a "reward" as much as a legitimate repayment of the financial harm he had caused me. I accept I did nothing to "deserve" it, but he certainly did something to justify his payment.

As a method of improving schools via diversity, the "reward" is to all participants. To improve diversity, you need to bring in what is not yet there. If you need a new chair for your physics department, you will hire a physicist and not a flute player. Not because you are "rewarding" the physicist, and not because she "deserves" to be hired, but because the physicist can fill your need and the flute player can't.

Is this unfair to the flute player and to the trucker? Perhaps. But I would much rather live in a society where good can be done for its own sake, for the betterment of all, than only to "reward" the "deserving."

Re: Rose is rose...

Author: Bloom
Date: 02-11-04 15:50

Ah, Rose, I'm stung. Rather, I should say, hung by my own petard. Or rather, the petard of my ilk. But "ilk" is such a strong word, Rose. So...so dehumanizing, such a cancerous overtone. But then, you're right. Affirmative action is the most virulent form of racism, as Mary's disenfranchised white males will avow. So ilk it is. Or, how about...kl--I mean clan. No--klan it is! I am an Affirmative Action Klansman. I don my multi-colored pointy hood and Mary's white males fall before my blanket solutions. I burn pink wooden triangles on country club estate lawns and steal those little black (and adorable!) jockeys standing outside Wes' Virginny estates. I ride 'neath the veil of night! And I also coopt the rhetoric of my opposition by proclaiming that I am in no way against Mary's white-males-who-have-nothing-to-do-with-the-past. No. Rather, I'm just FOR unqualified coloreds and womyn. I don't want to keep Mary's always-over-qualified white males down. I just want to UPLIFT unqualified minorities (oops, didn't mean to be redundant there) and feminists. Ah, Rose, but who am I kidding? You've called me out: I am a virulent racist because I support affirmative action. There. I said it. I say it and golf courses turn to ghettoes; gated communities become dens of misceginist iniquity, universities are overrun by diversity for diversity's sake, while all the unqualifieds gather in rude and unsightly mirth in the corners of the college cafeteria, sticking out like they do in their classes because everyone knows, or can safely assume, that they don't "deserve" to be there, not even bothering to speak our beloved language (at least, not properly). You don't think King and the Civil Rights activists had the protracted vision to see virulent racists like me coming on the horizon? But wait, let's not get into that. After all, it's ancient history--the past. And what, as Mary proclaims, does that have to do with anything? Let the brainwashing continue!

Re: Rose is rose...

Author: Me too
Date: 02-12-04 06:47

The problem is not that someone is taking something from the overqualified and giving it to those who are held in America against their will rather than being reparated back to their ancestreal homelands where all is sweet light and blessed prosperity because the homelands remain in primal purity. (Doesn't everyone want to go back to Africa and eden?)

No, the problem is that in the name of diversity, lower class individuals are booted out of jobs, university admissions and other places so that more members of the privileged class who are either female or of other hues can displace them.

It is class warfare. No one cares that many whites are the descendents of bond servants. No one cares that in the 1900s, Greeks were still made into slaves by Turks and many escaped to the U.S., children and relatives of slaves.

All of those people are a part of the lower class. When you look at every affirmative action suit, the plaintiffs are invariably poor whites who have been excluded from the table not to make places for poor Blacks, but to make places for more of the rich and privileged.

If you really want honest affirmative action, it has to include elements of class -- people who are suffering from historic problems, not those who are not. A third generation college professor who is less than an eighth Black doesn't deserve affirmative action.

The guy who made his living doing lawn work, the blue collar essayest of a while back, he deserves an even shot against the rich and privileged.

Take your distractions somewhere else.

Re: Rose is rose...

Author: Bemused Reader
Date: 02-12-04 08:31

Bloom, your attitude is toxic. The reason so many of us are demanding reform of racist and sexist social policies is because of people like you, who are wholly dedicated to bitterness, division, and rank racist discrimination. Your bitter attacks on Mary are uncalled for, offensive, but useful in showing us all why we have to fight to reform the damage that types like you have done to our country.

Thanks for reminding us all what we are fighting and why you must be defeated if we are to save quality education and justice for all races in this country.

Re: Bloom's rantings

Author: G. Dasgupta, UVA
Date: 02-12-04 10:18

Bloom is cute. Bloom isn't funny. His comments were nothing more than purile rantings.

This is a serious topic folks. We have a situation in this country where a rich black female whos parents are both neurosurgeons can get into the University of Michigan, while a low-income white male living in a drug infested neighborhood in Benton Harbor, Michigan is denied admission. Why? Because one is a black female and the other is a white male. If affirmative action programs can lead to inequities like this in the United States, you just know they are going to happen in other countries as well.

And Bloom thinks this is funny...

Re: Rose is rose...

Author: Bloom
Date: 02-12-04 10:47

Ah, the sweet ring of consensus! We are all agreed, then, that Affirmative Action was, is, and shall be nothing more than virulent racism against the "poor white males," that it must stop immediately. For every colored who gets into an Ivy League, we all know that thousands upon thousands of over-qualified "poor white males" were flatly denied as a direct result of each and every coloreds' admission. Yes, the consensus is in: Affirmative Action is an insidious plot and only exacerbates--in fact was MEANT to exacerbate--the ill will between "poor white males"--who were turned back in EVERY case by rich, unqualified coloreds and whiny rich wives--well, at least it seems that way because, well, we see so many of them around now, don't we? I mean, they're freakin' everywhere!--and the coloreds. I know now why I got shut out of my first choice of graduate school; why I can make the interview list, but nary a short list for a job talk on campus. And my sons are doomed to suffer a similar fate--at the post office, the fire department, the police force, high school football coaching, private law and dinancial consultation firms, fraternities, the cheerleading squad. The abjectness is already upon them! Mary! Mary! Oh, it's all too true what you say about the past having absolutely nothing to do with white-males-today-so-why-should-they-pay-the-price, or the just-as-insidious-as-Affirmative-Action perpetuation of invisible white privilege when I compete against a colored to try to rent an apt. or purchase a home in a "nice" neighborhood or buy a baseball team. Why can't we all learn the lesson of our president, a self-made success. No one ever gave him anything. He worked his way into a top prep school, got top grades, then an Ivy League, top grades again, then an Ivy League MBA; then made himself into a savvy oilman, strategically positioned himself to launch a career in politics, and starting with nothing but the shirt on his back and some words of wisdom from his father, is now the leader of the free world. And all in the face of this insidious, virulently racist Affirmative Action. What are these other countries THINKING by attempting to promote diversity by modelling this insidious program?! No one gave our Prez anything. Why should we give anything to the coloreds anymore! The consensus is in. Poor white males have suffered enough in our history--oops, didn't mean to reference the irrelevant past again.

Has anyone noticed???

Author: Samantha Hatfield, UC Berkeley
Date: 02-13-04 10:28

I am somewhat surprized that no one has commented on the wording of the title of the article. It uses the words "admission quotas".

Finally some truth!!! Affirmative action programs in this country since their inception have not had anything to do with "equal opportunity" or "leveling the playing field". They are about racial and gender (read female) quotas. Apparently after all of these years even the staff writers at the left-wing Chronicle could no longer hide the sick lie.

So this now raises a new question. Why is it so many people in this country refuse to call them quota programs, but apparently outside of the United States they are called quota programs? (Answer: political correctness is rampant in the U.S.)

Re: Has anyone noticed???

Author: me
Date: 02-13-04 11:32

Samantha Hatfield, UC Berkeley wrote:

"So this now raises a new question. Why is it so many people in this country refuse to call them quota programs, but apparently outside of the United States they are called quota programs? (Answer: political correctness is rampant in the U.S.)"

Um, because they're not quotas in the United States. A quota program is where a specific number of slots are reserved for the protected group, and they are illegal under US law.

However, *preferences* are still legal.

And the procedural difference is fundamental. Another well-established use of preferences, for instance, is in giving preferences to veterans in civil service. In theory, all applicants for civil service jobs take a test and are ranked in score. If you need forty basketweavers, you offer the job to the forty top scorers.

A quota would demand that you offer the job to the (e.g.) 36 top scorers and the 4 minority top scorers, even if those minorities were ranked 100, 101, 103, and 105, respectively. As usuallly implemented, a preference would give each minority applicant a few bonus points, enough to move them up in the rankings. An applicant with a score of 60 (ranked #100) might get five bonus points, enough to move them up to rank #80 (with an effective score of 65). However, the job would still be offered to the first forty scorers, irrespective of race.

Until the recent Michigan decision, these hard-coded point-based preference systems were still legal. Under the new rules, formalizing these systems as arbitrary point cutoffs is no longer legal, but giving "preference" to protected groups as long as it doesn't arbitrarily remove non-protected groups from consideration is still legal.

So the CORRECT answer to your question is : they're not called quotas because they're not quotas. Quotas were tried and found wanting.

Re:

Author: dragon
Date: 02-13-04 11:45

how cliched to only talk about affirmative action. quotas are also set aside for alumni, donors, 'right contacts,' for those who benefit for a moneyed class which allows for access to resources... so, shall we say, fair play means: reveal how much you earn, what school you went to, the resources available to you, no specials for alums, donors; no networking or making fone calls????

incidentally, affirmative action quotas is about representation of groups not reservation for groups. while the divisive nature of quotas is problematic, it cannot be denied that affirmative action has allowed for representation of groups long denied access to all jobs and education. it is certainly not a perfect method to deal with sexist and racial prejudice which is still inherent in our society, but it has been an effective method.

the underlying assumption that quotas deny 'qualified' candidates is in itself a sexist/racist comment.

while a time frame should be established on policies, there should be a simultaneous reworking of the system to ensure equal access and opportunity to all.

Re: Rose is rose...

Author: Anonagain
Date: 02-13-04 16:26

I read the posts on the variosu discussion topics as a good excuse not to do something like research. One thing that always strikes me is how some individuals eschew (sp?) fact-based arguments for sarcasm and ad-hominem attacks. I mean, really. we're supposed to be extremely intelligent individuals with a passion for the truth. Lets keep the discussion on that level, and attack the substance of each others' arguments.

Re: The global quandary of admissions quotas

Author: John Garner
Date: 02-13-04 16:44

The only problem here is that there is no such thing as a "level field" It does not exist. It never has existed and it never will exist.

Being a poor white kid from the mid to lower middle class, I came up in an era when social change was the rule of the day. It was way overdue even then.

While it is true that disadvantaged groups needed programs like affirmative action, the need is not as great today as it was back then.

We even see minority members with substantial conservative backgrounds and outlooks such as Justice Clarence Thomas. His philosophies would have been improbable if not, impossible, in minorities in the 1960's. The fact is that many members of minority groups most probably are where they are today because of programs like affirmative action.

So what is the answer? I am not sure. Will the abolition of social programs such as affirmative action spin us back into a pattern of discrimination?

Or, have we always had discrimination and always will have discrimination and affirmative action is but another facet of the stone.

Using Dr. King's words in any disrespectful manner, sarcastic or as a tool to dismantle a program of the type for which he gave his life, is worse than an injustice. It is disgraceful.

On the other hand, at times in our world today, making the playing field "level" seems not so much removing mountains in the way of of the advancement of minorities as digging pits for the rest of us fall into.

From a legal standpoint the lazy way out for administrators is to look to the body of case law and base our decisions on past decisions. However, case law is a dynamic thing and it is constantly changing. Therefore, the prudent thing in my estimation is to do the dictates of our consience as long as it is not patently illegal and then take our legal lumps and hope for the best.

We should, however, realize that whatever decision that is made on any issue regarding choosing or selection is going to end up having a negative effect on somebody.

So many times, admissions issues are arbitrary and fluid such that maintaining consistancy becomes a problem. It is best to establish a protocol, get a legal opinion, modify it if need be and then follow the agreed upon protocol to the letter every time.

Fair is a term that may be used to describe the weather. Seldom does it apply descriptively to anyone's life. However, that does not excuse any of us from being subject to the laws of our land, regardless of how we feel about them.

If one rises to Kohlbergs 6th level then one should be prepared to take the consequences.

Silliness

Author: Anon, Univ. of Wisconsin
Date: 02-14-04 14:45

My college roommate is from the Louisiana wealthy class. Almost everyone considers him a white male. His roots go back in Louisiana almost 300 years. In fact, his family owned slaves for many generations and fought for the South. But because his last name is a Spanish one, he benefits from all sorts of government and university affirmative action programs and fellowships. Lots of laughter erupts when he relates this to friends.

My roots in America go back 150 years. Several members of the first generation of my family died in the Civil War while fighting for the North.

Is it fair for my roommate to benefit from government programs while I cannot? What happened to equality before the law in America. Disgusting...

Re: The global quandary of admissions quotas

Author: Invisible Libertarian
Date: 02-16-04 10:52

the underlying assumption that quotas deny 'qualified' candidates is in itself a sexist/racist comment.

But it is a true one as well.

Which is the problem.

You take a score card, then you admit four groups, three of which are below the first on the score card. (Note that of the four groups admited, the quota students appear to be better qualified than the legacy admissions, but underperform them).

What you do is exclude, based on class, more poor whites.

If quotas benefitted poor blacks and others (and how is it a "sexist" comment -- most of the plaintiffs have been white females?) they would be much more strongly supportable.

Instead, quotas are aimed at increasing the scope of the legacy, aimed at upper class minorities at the expense of lower class individuals.

Which makes sense from an institution's viewpoint as economic success is tied most closely to social class, not race or intelligence or education.

So the institutions are acting as they would in a free market.

Conservatives should rejoice. What looks like some sort of government driven social engineering is actually intelligent free market action that should be lauded.

Everyone just needs to get over it and realize that the institutions are trying to expand the reach of their legacy and that it is a legitimate market goal. If it hampers the poor, well, that is the way of the world.

Nothing sexist or racist about what is going on, just a way to expand outreach without having to explain it in terms that liberals wouldn't like.

Re: Rose is rose...

Author: I dunno
Date: 02-17-04 10:57

Would that there were "substance" to any of the "arguments" posted here. Posters are jumping on "Bloom" as if he were the ranter, as if he were the first to resort to ad hominem attacks. Not that there's any more substance in his sarcasm, but I could download his responses and use them in a course on argumentation as classic examples of how to bait your opponents, who are already steamed by the baiting questions of the colloquy. My god, just check out the responses of "Mary Maglory" and "Rose" and "Jenkins," "Cynthia Holmes" and "Me too." What are the "facts", what is the "substance" of those "arguments"? Alll Bloom did was agree with them in the extreme, ala Eminem: "I am whatever they say I am. If I wasn't, then why would they say I am?" There can be no "serious," "intelligent" discussion here when the questions are already loaded and meant to elicit less level-headedness than emotional baggage: how many unqualified daughters of Black neurosurgeons (previous poster's example) do YOU know, and did she get into college because the poor white guy from the drug-infested neighborhood who also applied was white? Did he not get into college solely because of "all" the rich and unqualified people of color who also applied? When does he begin to look, perhaps, at his own shortcomings? When does he begin to contemplate his unwanted complicity in centuries of institutionalized discrimination, regardless of his own factual innocence? And then what? Do we throw Aff. Action programs out because some guy w/ a latino-sounding last name is taking advantage? Do we throw them out because we can never be sure why the rich daughter of Black neurosurgeons got in, which would then create feelings of inferiority in her and of guilt among her White classmates as Shleby Steele argues?

Is Dinesh D'Souza right? Have we seen the end of racism? Are we in the midst or well on our way to a condition of complete REVERSE racism? Can we really even imagine such conditions? Sure, we've all got anecdotal evidence: unqualified Blacks getting into a prestigious college when a perfectly qualified White male was denied. What are the numbers, I wonder, and do the White males end up flipping burgers or getting into another college? What's the comparison of drop out rates? Ought colleges to do anything (or should they stop doing what they ARE doing) to retain students of color at predominantly White campuses? What does "qualified" mean across the spectrum of admissions committees? Ought the definition to be uniform to the letter throughout? What would happen if it were? And who should get to make that definition?

I have as little substance and fact here as anyone else. Just a lot of questions that I don't think are the fault of Affirmative Action programs.

Re: Rose is rose...

Author: John Garner
Date: 02-18-04 10:46

Anyone who thinks that there are not problems in our society with minority issues should consider the proportional disparity in Correctional Institutions.

Is it better to build a guard rail to keep cars from careening off a mountainside road or is it better to invest in more ambulances and EMT's to pick up what is left after they fall to the bottom.

Those in education should consider what role education is playing in this scenerio.

Re: Rose is rose...

Author: John...
Date: 02-18-04 13:34

Maybe there ought not to be so many wreckless drivers who think they're entitled to drive any way they want to under any circumstances.

What?

what?

Author: Dr. L.
Date: 02-19-04 13:05

to John... so, the analogy is that there shouldn't be so many minorities born minorities? or so many expecting to get into college? I don't understand. I think that John Garner's point is that there's a cost either way, and not only to the person driving off the cliff.

Correctional Institutions?

Author: Anon/ Univ. Wisconsin
Date: 02-22-04 15:19

To John Garner and Dr. L:

I don't understand the connection you're suggesting between affirmative action in college and the proportion of minorities in Correctional Institutions. You can't be claiming that the large proportion of minorities in prison is the result of overall difficulties in gaining acceptance to college, are you? I went through the college acceptance process myself. First, there are community colleges and even 4-year colleges that will give a chance to anyone--and even on a relatively low tuition basis. Second, I don't understand why anyone would commit a crime serious enough to get into prison just because of a college rejection letter. I received several rejection letters, and I never thought of committing a crime.

If you are concerned about prison issue for minorities, I think you need to look at the issue much deeper than college acceptance rates. Look at the breakdown of family values within inner cities. Look at the preponderance of crime and drug traffic in inner cities. Maybe even look at the availability of guns in the inner city. I don't think difficulty in getting into colleges is the reason for a large number of minorities in prisons.

My nephew was born in 1992. He will attend college in a few years. He is white and he hasn't done anything to hurt anyone. I don't think it is just to place barriers in his path simply because some believe there is a connection between prison population and college acceptance.

Re: Rose is rose...

Author: Confused, obviously
Date: 02-23-04 15:45

I Dunno writes: "When does he begin to contemplate his unwanted complicity in centuries of institutionalized discrimination, regardless of his own factual innocence?"

If anyone can make the least bit of sense out of this remark, please let me know. Okay, that was my token ad hominem vis-a-vis the person who (admittedly) attacked non-arguments with more of the same, and, oh yes, Eminem quotes. The crux of the argument, IMHO, seems to be between those who believe that preferences should be given based on race, and those who believe preferences should be given based on objective criterion - i.e. household income. If minority applicants disproportionately come from economically disadvantaged households, and thus would benefit disproportionately (albeit not exclusively) from preferences based on economic standards, why do they object to them?

Re: Rose is rose...

Author: John Garner
Date: 02-25-04 09:53

I am sorry.

The analogy is intended to demonstrate that it is simpler, easier and more benefical to society to spend money on education and to educate rather than to spend money on prisons that result from crime and all of the negative effects and hidden costs to society when someone is sent to prison. It costs approxiamtely $18k to feed and house one inmate in a prison for a year.

The assumption is that education reduces crime and that it is more cost effective than crime and punishment.

Maybe too many jumps and assumptions at once?

Re: The global quandary of admissions quotas

Author: Rose is rose...
Date: 02-25-04 16:55

AMERICA

Although she feeds me bread of bitterness,
And sinks into my throat her tiger's tooth,
Stealing my breath of life, I will confess
I love this cultured hell that tests my youth!
Her vigor flows like tides into my blood,
Giving me strength erect against her hate.
Her bigness sweeps my being like a flood,
Yet as a rebel fronts a king in state,
I stand within her walls with not a shred
Of terror, malice, not a word of jeer.
Darkly I gaze into the days ahead,
And see her might and granite wonders there,
Beneath the touch of Time's unerring hand,
Like priceless treasures sinking in the sand.

Claude McKay

poetry

Author: Sick
Date: 02-26-04 10:01

Yeah, I remember having this garbage forced down my throat by teachers who couldn't teach anything else when they were supposed to be teaching me how to write. "No, instead we're going to make you feel responsible for all the problems of the past." Get this, you liberal, politically correct, bleeding hearts: I AM NOT GUILTY! I AM WHITE AND UNASHAMED! THE PAST IS PAST! GET OVER IT!

Re: poetry

Author: Shrug
Date: 02-26-04 20:54

Did you study fallacies?

Re: Has anyone noticed???

Author: Anon U of Mich Staffer
Date: 02-27-04 09:20

me wrote:

"Um, because they're not quotas in the United States. A quota program is where a specific number of slots are reserved for the protected group, and they are illegal under US law."

Um, "me," I don't know about where you are in the US, but here at the University of Michigan they most certainly are quotas. The way our career racists and sexists in the admissions departments get around the law is by changing the exact number of the quotas each year, and by giving them cute, fuzzy PC labels like "goals" and "critical mass." But rest assured, at least here at the U of M, they most certainly are quotas.

Re: Once Again...

Author: every which way
Date: 03-02-04 11:33

Back to the original topic .... I don't think that US academics are in a position to be commenting on, or judging, the merits of admissions systems and racial/ethnic policies in other countries when (a) we are so financially privileged as a nation, in comparison to the rest of the world, and (b) we seem to be so incapable of coming up with rational and fair policies ourselves. We can't even begin to understand the economic imbalance, cultural deprivation, and abject poverty among some groups of people in other countries. Who are we to judge? We who have three bathrooms and a Winnebago? Our poor people may be disadvantaged educationally and culturally, but they have food stamps, subsidized housing, and color television. We don't understand poverty in Brazil or Colombia or India. We don't understand millions of people living in boxes and lean-tos. We don't understand people who have no access to any education at all. I like the way the question was worded--what can WE LEARN from others--but that is not how the US behaves abroad. If the other countries have come up with a system that works for them, they are probably hoping and praying that we will ignore them, and not arrive with our know-it-all help. Especially from this administration. When we get it right here at home, with all of our resources, when we even begin to figure out what "fairness" is, we might be able to evaluate others.

Re: The global quandary of admissions quotas

Author: Thomas Sellke
Date: 03-06-04 02:24

Thomas Sowell has wrtitten a book on precisely this topic.The title is PREFERENTIAL POLICIES: AN INTERNATIONAL PERSPECTIVE.

I'm amazed that this book (along with lots of related writing by Sowell) is not mentioned in the CHE article being discussed here.

Re: The global quandary of admissions quotas

Author: Thomas Sellke,Professor,Purdue
Date: 03-10-04 12:24

The great Thomas Sowell has yet another book out on precisely this topic. See his op/ed at

http://www.jewishworldreview.com/cols/sowell.archives.asp

and click on

03/10/04: The globalization of quotas

Anyway,the title of the book is

"Affirmative Action Around the World"

Re: The global quandary of admissions quotas

Author: Petra Gelbart
Date: 03-22-04 00:51

I respect various points made by both sides of the affirmative action debate. The two points I would like to make here are 1) Central/East Europe is a screaming example of the need for addressing inequalities before students reach college, and 2) if affirmative action programs are to be effective, some of the inflexible categories used could be reconsidered and made more inclusive. To illustrate, I'm pasting in my letter to the editor, which I don't think will be published...

To the Editor:

Many thanks to Colin Woodard for his urgently-needed article on the educational discrimination faced by the Roma of Central and East Europe ("An Uphill Battle for Europe's Gypsies," The Chronicle, March 19). I would like to clear up one point and add another. As the author states, the segregation of Romani students into schools for the mentally retarded is often justified by referring to the children's poor skills in the language of instruction. Not only is this an obviously unacceptable reason for the permanent denial of equal opportunity, it is also often not based on facts. In the Czech Republic, for example, most Romani children have a command of Czech that is as good or better than their knowledge of Romani. The real reason for placing Roma into "special schools" is all too often the deeply entrenched belief on the part of educators and social scientists that Romani children are mentally inferior and do not belong in normal schools. This has been documented in various studies, interviews, and in my own experience; the racist convictions of the responsible authors and decision-makers must not be underestimated. A final thought: some of the Roma who do manage to receive a satisfactory education end up (or are born) in America, where they are the most underrepresented group in higher education, and yet affirmative action policies do not apply to Roma. Given the need for a Romani intelligentsia, Romani students should be at least as well-supported as are members of other minorities.