One-drop rule.
Again, it’s not anybody else’s problem that your rhetorical questions have boring and straightforward answers that don’t go where you want them to go. A school can do whatever it wants with mixed race candidates. That’s the answer. If there’s a reasoned objection to that, I’m sure it’ll arrive shortly, but I don’t need to defend affirmative action policies against your phantom army. I’m just here to help!
I’ve never seen someone work so hard to dodge questions.
No, it’s not the answer. It’s a circular argument.
If you’re here to debate, debate. Otherwise, don’t.
Oh, and can a school refuse to admit mixed-race candidates? Whatever it wants, like you said? (Not that I expect a straight answer from you any more).
What on earth is that about? If these answers got any straighter, they’d be fathering your questions’ mixed-ancestry babies.
No, they can’t do that. That’s against the law. Is the problem that I said they could do whatever they want? I meant they could assign or not assign preferences as part of their affirmative action program however they want.
You aren’t even answering.
Here is the question - what do YOU think a college should do to handle these people? How could they even handle them fairly?
See how that works? Just saying “they’ll do whatever they want” isn’t an answer to that. You’re not defending your belief in AA with that answer, just restating it.
So it’s not “whatever they want to do.” And presuming you agree with that law, that means some treatments of students that are based on race are unacceptable, right? So tell me which ones you think ARE acceptable.
Or just don’t bother.
Read it again. The problem here isn’t that I’m not answering, it’s that you aren’t listening to the repeated efforts of people to tell you that your questions don’t go anywhere. At this point, the length of riders and disclaimers every answer would need to correct the ongoing misapprehensions would be prohibitive. Affirmative action is not “we need six blacks, find six blacks and get rid of six whites.” If it were, perhaps biraciality would be an issue. But it isn’t.
The answer to your latest is: if I was in charge of a university’s admissions I would have diversity as a stated factor in admissions, yes. Mixed racial or ethnic or linguistic or cultural or hobbyist or parental-vocational or experiential backgrounds would all be plus factors to be taken into consideration. A candidate’s multi-raciality would thus be: not a problem.
No, you aren’t answering. The answer to the question “why should someone do this?” is not “because they can do whatever they want.”
But see, that’s another flaw in your thinking. If AA is meant to correct disadvantages, then biracialty SHOULD be an issue. Why isn’t it? Do people who only have half the disadvantage have none at all? Or do you just assume only those with all black blood have disadvantages? And how can you assume that anyway?
Well, this thread is not about diversity considerations, it’s about AA designed to correct disadvantage. But that’s okay, go with diversity. So how much black blood is diverse to you? 1/4th? 1/8th? Do you consider other factors in diversity that have nothing to do with race, such as ethnic, linguisitic, cultural or hobby? (Yes, you said you did, so there, you answered before I asked!)
If so, you’re on better footing. But you’re also not qualified to represents the views of most other people here who have been defending AA on “disadvantage” terms and not giving a damn about “diversity” or any other factor besides race. Just the opposite - they want to judge people only by race, and no other factors that make up a whole person.
Do you believe that a program that considered ONLY race, and none of those other factors you mention, would be fair?
You didn’t ask why should, you asked how does. Should has been addressed ad nauseam at any rate.
Thank you for the constructive criticism.
The policy I was discussing was an affirmative action policy, not a diversity initiative. I would, for the explicit purpose of overcoming the effects of past or present practices, policies, or other barriers, include race as one of the factors I considered in admissions. Your questions about “black blood” and those designed to get at a binary state of “diverse” vs. “non-diverse” is reductive to the point of being, themselves, racist, and are irrelevant to my proposed policy, as affirmative action is not about black and white. It wasn’t fun to be a Native American or a Cuban during Jim Crow, either. No admissions policy that I am aware of considers only race. The hypothetical policy which did so would be a disgrace and totally unfair. If you have an example of something in between, I’ll tell you if I think it’s fair or not when I see it.
No I didn’t.
Wait - you just said it was about diversity.
That’s an absurd statement though. Of course it is!
Nor did the policies of the whites-only schools. That doesn’t justify using race as a factor.
Well, that’s a start.
No thanks. I’m saying it’s not possible for a policy that considers race to ever be fair.
OK. I’m going to take you up on that offer of not bothering anymore. It’s been real. I sincerely hope you’ve enjoyed this exactly as much as I have.
[QUOTE=totally not you]
So I ask again - how does one handle biracial/multiracial people with AA?
[/QUOTE]
You held out longer than I expected before you bailed, realizing you can’t defend the indefensible.
I told everyone to stop this sort of taunting.
This is a Warning that you need to follow Moderator instructions.
[ /Moderating ]
The way I always interpreted the various Supreme court decisions on this subject is “You’re allowed to consider race in your admissions process, but only in the least transparent way possible”
Which always struck me as stupid. There’s nothing inherently worse with Michigan having an automatic system determining who gets admitted that takes into account race than having some schmuck sifting through applications and admitting based on a “holistic” basis or whatever that takes into account race.
On the same basis other forms of racial discrimination are illegal?
Assuming you mean affirmative action should be illegal on the same basis as other forms of racial discrimination, I’m not sure that works. The short version of why other forms of racial discrimination are usually illegal is the history behind them. The idea, originally, was that “discrete and insular minorities” needed special protection because they couldn’t rely on ordinary political processes to protect their rights.
So then in Korematsu v. US:
Someone like John Roberts (or O’Connor, or plenty of others) certainly can and has argued that a policy whose purpose is to ensure that racial minorities are not excluded is race discrimination and functionally indistinguishable from the kind of race discrimination that got us here in the first place, but to argue that it “curtails the civil rights of a single racial group” is pulling a fast one. Because, you know, it’s the opposite. It’s the operation of a political process intended to protect minorities, with the stated goal of fixing the curtailment of civil rights. To suggest that “not every single spot will be filled by a white person if we can help it” is morally equivalent to “every single spot will be filled with a white person” is ignoring the actual social dynamics at work to such an extent as to make a joke of the whole operation.
It’s gotten to the point where if one fewer white person than you think should get into a school gets into the school, now white people are being discriminated against as a class. Which is preposterous. Not everyone gets in. If it’s permissible to attempt to achieve diversity at an institution, diversity will necessarily mean that a class of the same size will have fewer of the majority group because that’s what fucking diversity is. You get to pick one or the other: the school is allowed to try to be more diverse than it used to be, or all the same white dudes must be allowed in. Those are the two options. That doesn’t mean there’s animus toward white people at work. White people haven’t lost any rights any more than a kid who plays the tuba and makes stop-motion movies loses his rights when MIT decides they already have enough kids who play the tuba and make stop-motion movies, and admit the kid who makes paintings with his dogs, instead. Not everyone gets in.
All of which is another way of saying that I don’t think affirmative action can be banned on the same basis that, for instance, separate but equal was banned, because I don’t agree that separate but equal was truly banned solely because it constituted “racial discrimination,” but because of the kind of racial discrimination it was.
Like adaher, I find this to be a poor and unconvincing analogy. A student who attends law school and then drops out typically loses quite a few things: time, money, self-respect, to name just a few. If that same student had attended a less prestigious law school, graduated, and passed the bar, he or she would be immensely better off. So increasing the dropout rate among blacks in law school seems like a really bad thing to me. Do you honestly believe that this analogy to the Nay Seals somehow proves that higher dropout rates for blacks in college and law school aren’t bad?
Uh, do you think it’s a good thing when students earn fewer credits? 'Cause most people would probably think it’s a bad thing?
There should be a
[/quote]
after the words “How is that a mixed bag?” in that last post.
History, like good intentions, is not enough to justify using race to judge people - especially when the purpose is to remedy past use of race to judge people.
No it’s not.
If a school told a black student that he was not being admitted because he is black, and told him this doesn’t amount to racial discrimination because he’s the only one they’re excluding by race, you think he’d accept that? Would you?
But diversity is the outcome, not the method.
You don’t necessarily have to use racial preferences to get to racial diversity. Just ending racial discrimination against the minority will do that, at least at first. Then you can, for instance, try harder to both find qualified blacks to apply and in the bigger picture make sure they get what they need to qualify (better primary school educations or remedial help afterward).
The end (diversity) does not justify the means, or even indicate which means was used.
But you have more than one pick of ways to try to be more diverse. They don’t have to involve racial preferences.
Of course they have - they lost the right to be judged by their merits rather than their race.
What a terribly cynical analogy, to compare race to talent.
And hey, what if you reach a point where a school thinks it has enough blacks, and to admit more would go too far the other way from it’s chosen racial makeup? Then it would be in the position of rejecting BLACK students, despite their superior qualifications, in favor of whites. Back to the drawing board.
At least you don’t run away from acknowledging that AA (or certain forms of it) constitute racial discrimination.
I agree, but I have to mention here that I’ve noticed an interesting difference in the way whites and blacks typically talk about college admissions that may shed some light on this issue.
I notice that whites tend to see admission as something they earned. It’s the end of the process. Many blacks tend to see a college as an opportunity to earn something (their degree) and thereby prove they deserve to be there. It’s an interesting dichotomy.