# Racist Scholarships **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [May 17, 2000, 9:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/racist-scholarships/19805 "2000-05-17T21:59:30Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 13\ **Page:** 6
**Author:** ![mikan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/cc9497/32.png) [@mikan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mikan)\ **Post date:** [May 22, 2000, 8:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/racist-scholarships/19805/101 "2000-05-22T20:10:50Z")
> [@](#): > > \*\*… And anytime I’m asked, I will say it is unfair and unjust. If I was given the opportunity, I would change the policies. I know schools, jobs, and life are not meritocracies, but I think they _should be_. Do you really disagree with that? > \*\* So please allow me to ask: can I take it that you think there should _not_ be any need-based financial aid for higher education? As I have noted above, there is nothing inherently meritocratic about money for school being doled out on the basis of need. (Unless, of course, you consider the failure of my parents to inherit, earn and squirrel away enough money for my four years at university to be an “achievement” of mine.) Instead of having federally funded student grants (and loans) which are awarded on the basis of financial need, I suppose we could have that same money distributed to students on a much more “meritocratic” basis. Say, give students a $10,000 Pell grant for achieving a 4.0 GPA, $5000 for a 3.0, and $2500 for a 2.0, regardless of how rich or poor they may be. But since it’s a federal program, we could make it even more meritocratic by ranking all the universities in the country according to how difficult they are. After all, someone who earns a 4.0 at Southeastern Idaho Polytechnic hasn’t really achieved the same thing as someone who gets a 4.0 at MIT, right? The MIT student should get a bigger grant for his greater accomplishment. Why not give him, say, $20,000 and give the Idaho student $5000? Most of us, I think, hold a meritocratic ideal close to our hearts but at the same time are willing to allow exceptions, even when these exceptions are institutionalized in something like need-based financial aid. Would it be fairer and more just to eliminate need-based financial aid? Well, yes, in a way it would be much more meritocratic. But is it what we want? Is it a policy change that _you_ would vote for? Why or why not? If you’re willing to allow for an exception, on what basis would you do so? ---
**Author:** ![mikan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/cc9497/32.png) [@mikan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mikan)\ **Post date:** [May 22, 2000, 8:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/racist-scholarships/19805/102 "2000-05-22T20:23:10Z")
> [@](#): > > \*\*… And anytime I’m asked, I will say it is unfair and unjust. If I was given the opportunity, I would change the policies. I know schools, jobs, and life are not meritocracies, but I think they _should be_. Do you really disagree with that? > \*\* So please allow me to ask: can I take it that you think there should _not_ be any need-based financial aid for higher education? As I have noted above, there is nothing inherently meritocratic about money for school being doled out on the basis of need. (Unless, of course, you consider the failure of my parents to inherit, earn and squirrel away enough money for my four years at university to be an “achievement” of mine.) Instead of having federally funded student grants (and loans) which are awarded on the basis of financial need, I suppose we could have that same money distributed to students on a much more “meritocratic” basis. Say, give students a $10,000 Pell grant for achieving a 4.0 GPA, $5000 for a 3.0, and $2500 for a 2.0, regardless of how rich or poor they may be. But since it’s a federal program, we could make it even more meritocratic by ranking all the universities in the country according to how difficult they are. After all, someone who earns a 4.0 at Southeastern Idaho Polytechnic hasn’t really achieved the same thing as someone who gets a 4.0 at MIT, right? The MIT student should get a bigger grant for his greater accomplishment. Why not give him, say, $20,000 and give the Idaho student $5000? Most of us, I think, hold a meritocratic ideal close to our hearts but at the same time are willing to allow exceptions, even when these exceptions are institutionalized in something like need-based financial aid. Would it be fairer and more just to eliminate need-based financial aid? Well, yes, in a way it would be much more meritocratic. But is it what we want? Is it a policy change that _you_ would vote for? Why or why not? If you’re willing to allow for an exception, on what basis would you do so? ---
**Author:** ![Kimstu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ecd19e/32.png) [@Kimstu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimstu)\ **Post date:** [May 22, 2000, 9:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/racist-scholarships/19805/103 "2000-05-22T21:52:45Z")
**PeeQueue** said: > [@](#): > > I assume college is there to teach people. If you have standards to get into a college, I assume it is because you want your college to gain a reputation for producing excellent students. Then are you opposed to a college wanting to gain a reputation for an excellent football or track team or student drama society or orchestra or high levels of community service or close-knit collegial affinities on campus? What exactly makes a student “excellent,” and what should a college’s standards for “excellence” be? > [@](#): > > MIT, for example, has that reputation. It does not have a reputation for diversity. The folks at MIT would be very disappointed to hear that! Their [Open Letter to Prospectives](http://web.mit.edu/admissions/www/whymit/index.html) claims explicitly that they have a “very diverse student body”, and their [FAQ](http://web.mit.edu/admissions/www/gen/faq/aa.html) includes the following statement: > [@](#): > > \*“Does MIT have an Affirmative Action policy?” > > Yes. In recruitment and selection, MIT takes into account the social, economic, and educational context of all students, particularly African-American, Chicano/Mexican American, Native American, and Puerto Rican students. \* ( **PeeQueue** again:) > [@](#): > > If you want to create a school that has a reputation for diversity, fine, but don’t expect people to think of it as highly as they would MIT, since the main function of college is to produce well taught students, not many different types of students. If you want to claim that diversity produces better students, fine, but I would think admitting better students in the first place would be, uh, better. Sounds as though trying to create a reputation for diversity—and even using affirmative action policies to attain it—isn’t hurting MIT’s prestige one bit as far as you’re concerned, since you consider them an example of highly selective meritocracy. > [@](#): > > “So, PeeQueue, if “schools, jobs, and life” all ought to be meritocracies, then what should the selection criteria for them be?” > > I obviously cannot give you a list of the criteria for every position possible. In a non-physical position, it should not include physical attributes. Exactly how “non-physical” would you consider the position of “college student” to be? They’re not just silent veiled wraiths sitting in lecture halls, you know. Not only are many of them spending a lot of time on physical activities such as football, track, and theater, which of course are highly dependent on physical attributes, but they are all constantly interacting with one another as physical representatives of different communities outside the college world. Moreover, race is hardly a “merely physical” attribute, as it is so closely tied to culture and history. Surely it’s not entirely irrelevant to want college students to be able to learn some new things about culture and history from one another’s lives as well as from their professors’ lectures? > [@](#): > > I would probably write more, but I’m a little worried about hijacking this thread with our discussion of meritocracies. Kimstu, do you want to start another thread? Well, I defer to the opinion of the moderators, of course, but it doesn’t seem to me that we’re really off-topic. The title of the thread is “Racist Scholarships,” and the OP’s implication is that race-based affirmative action in education is unfair. We’re approaching the question by first trying to identify whether race is really totally irrelevant to the educational mission. Sounds like a reasonable use of the thread to me. Kimstu ---
**Author:** ![PeeQueue](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/8797f3/32.png) [@PeeQueue](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/PeeQueue)\ **Post date:** [May 24, 2000, 2:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/racist-scholarships/19805/104 "2000-05-24T14:31:53Z")
mikan: I was really talking more about admissions policies than financial aid. Probably financial aid should be given out based on need and merit, although if the funds there I would be all for giving anyone who needs the funds to go to college. The OP has a problem with the fact that so many scholarships are based on need for a minority only, and not need in general. Kimstu: > [@](#): > > Then are you opposed to a college wanting to gain a reputation for an excellent football or track team or student drama society or orchestra or high levels of community service or close-knit collegial affinities on campus? What exactly makes a student “excellent,” and what should a college’s standards for “excellence” be? No, I’m not opposed to that. I do think that those things should be secondary to their main purpose, which is producing more educated people. I could go on about some of the ways I think our universities have lost some of their original purpose, and how I think they should be run, but I don’t think that’s relevant. What I am opposed to is the hypocrisy of the system. Either race should be allowed as a selection criteria, or it should not. > [@](#): > > ## quote: > > ## MIT, for example, has that reputation. It does not have a reputation for diversity. > > The folks at MIT would be very disappointed to hear that! I know MIT tries to be diverse just like almost every other college in the country, but that is not what sets them apart. If you ask Joe High School Student what they think of MIT, they will say it is a school with very high standards and an excellent curriculum, not that it is very diverse. That is what a reputation is. > [@](#): > > Sounds as though trying to create a reputation for diversity—and even using affirmative action policies to attain it—isn’t hurting MIT’s prestige one bit as far as you’re concerned, since you consider them an example of highly selective meritocracy. True, because for the most part they still try to choose the best students, except in certain cases (see my anecdote above). I think you are missing my main point - I think it is unjust for someone to be chosen above someone else because of race alone. I know you are giving me reasons _why_ that is done, but even if I agree with them all (which I don’t) it doesn’t change the fact that the outcome isn’t right. On the whole thing of non-physical: Our disagreement definitely has one of its roots here. That is, I believe we differ in what we think college should be. I think if you want to go to college in order to be a better football player, then there should be institutions for that. I have no problem with physical activity, but I feel it has become too important for some college students (i.e. it has become the sole reason for going to college for some). For those students, I think they would be better off in an institution that is geared solely to that aim. Again, sports is fine in college, as long as it doesn’t become big business like it has. But that doesn’t say anything about merit’s place in admissions: at least athletes have achieved something that others haven’t - being a different color than someone else isn’t a reason to rise above them. > [@](#): > > Surely it’s not entirely irrelevant to want college students to be able to learn some new things about culture and history from one another’s lives as well as from their professors’ lectures? This is a good point. However I believe that that benefit is outweighed by the injustice that is done on an individual level. Some closing points: It is wrong to choose between candidates based on race alone. The rules should be fair: in some cases you can choose based on race and in others you cannot. One way or the other would make more sense. Reasons for doing the above (choosing based on race alone) can be given, but it cannot be denied that the above practices will cause injustice on an individual basis. Private institutions should not be forced into any behavior, but it doesn’t hurt to try to persuade. Regards, PeeQueue ---
**Author:** ![Spoke](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a88e57/32.png) [@Spoke](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Spoke)\ **Post date:** [May 24, 2000, 3:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/racist-scholarships/19805/105 "2000-05-24T15:35:54Z")
**Kimstu** has raised some good points. I have no objections to seeking diversity on a college campus, even if that means that the better-qualified candidate doesn’t always get accepted. I do (still) have a problem in defining “diversity” in terms of race. That seems to me to be racial discrimination for the sake of racial discrimination alone. Either of my two friends (since they shared a similar rural background) would have provided diversity to the campus. Either could have shared some new perspectives with other students who might previously have been exposed only to a wealthy, private-school-educated, suburban environment. But the fact is, MIT gave scholarship money to one over the other _strictly on the basis of race_. I see the _rationalizations_ for that outcome. I have yet to hear a _justification_ for it. ---
**Author:** ![Kimstu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ecd19e/32.png) [@Kimstu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimstu)\ **Post date:** [May 24, 2000, 4:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/racist-scholarships/19805/106 "2000-05-24T16:58:42Z")
**PeeQueue** : > [@](#): > > What I am opposed to is the hypocrisy of the system. Either race should be allowed as a selection criteria, or it should not. It seems to me that the MIT policy I quoted is completely straighforward on that issue: yes, membership in an underrepresented racial minority is included in the criteria for recruitment and selection. You may think that’s not a good policy, but in what way is it “hypocritical”? > [@](#): > > I know MIT tries to be diverse just like almost every other college in the country, but that is not what sets them apart. Almost by definition. 🙂 > [@](#): > > If you ask Joe High School Student what they think of MIT, they will say it is a school with very high standards and an excellent curriculum, not that it is very diverse. That is what a reputation is. I don’t quite see how this bears on your earlier assertion that “if you want to create a school that has a reputation for diversity, fine, but don’t expect people to think of it as highly as they would MIT.” There, you seemed to be arguing that “trying to be diverse” could be injurious to a school’s academic prestige, and I was using MIT’s affirmative-action policies as a counterexample. If all you meant was that a good college shouldn’t be **only** or **mostly** about having a diverse student body, well, duh! I don’t think there’s a college in the country that considers diversity to be its **primary** goal. > [@](#): > > I think you are missing my main point - I think it is unjust for someone to be chosen above someone else because of race alone…It is wrong to choose between candidates based on race alone. > > [and **spoke** agreed:] > > I do (still) have a problem in defining “diversity” in terms of race…MIT gave scholarship money to one over the other _strictly on the basis of race._ Okay, if this is the “main point” then I will try hard to get it. Here are the points where your position doesn’t seem to make sense to me: **1.** “Choosing on the basis of race alone.” Just to clarify: I think we all agree that prospective students aren’t admitted on the basis of race **alone** —minority candidates get rejected all the time, so race does not provide an automatic passport independent of **all** academic qualifications. No problem here. **2.** “Choosing **between** candidates on the basis of race.” As I said, selection criteria for college admission are a huge melange of many different tangible and intangible qualities. It often happens that colleges must choose between applicants whose “overall packages” of background, achievement, personality, and everything else are remarkably similar. Often, what gives the advantage to one candidate over the other in such cases is a pretty small or tangential thing. Here’s my question: do you object to using **any** diversity issues in deciding such “toss-up” cases? E.g., is it justifiable for a college to pick the student from Montana over the student from New Jersey (even if the NJ applicant has somewhat better scores) to increase their geographical diversity? If you think that’s okay, then why is it not okay to pick so as to increase racial diversity? **3.** “Defining diversity in terms of race.” Okay, if goals for campus diversity should not include racial diversity, then what **should** they include? Gender diversity? Geographical diversity? Socioeconomic diversity? Cultural-heritage or linguistic diversity? Sexual-orientation diversity? What exactly do you think are the non-academic criteria that **are** okay for a college to use in helping to decide which applicants it should pick, and why does race not belong among them? Kimstu ---
**Author:** ![Lamia](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/8e7dd6/32.png) [@Lamia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lamia)\ **Post date:** [May 24, 2000, 5:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/racist-scholarships/19805/107 "2000-05-24T17:00:11Z")
This is perhaps a bit of a hijack, but whenever I hear stories of non-white students getting accepted to colleges over supposedly more qualified white appliants, I have to wonder how people know that the white applicants were really more qualified. It’s easy to compare GPAs and SAT scores and say that one student was better than another, but there’s more to being a good student than that. I don’t think any colleges base their decisions on GPA and SAT scores alone. They also look at essays, recommendation letters, and extracurricular activities. So why are so many people so keen to say “So-and-so got accepted just because he’s black” when the truth might well be “So-and-so got accepted just because he wrote a great essay”? ---
**Author:** ![PeeQueue](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/8797f3/32.png) [@PeeQueue](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/PeeQueue)\ **Post date:** [May 24, 2000, 7:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/racist-scholarships/19805/108 "2000-05-24T19:03:15Z")
> [@](#): > > …yes, membership in an underrepresented racial minority is included in the criteria for recruitment and selection. You may think that’s not a good policy, but in what way is it “hypocritical”? This is the crux of the issue. It is hypocritical in that a college would not be able to accept a white over a black if all else was equal. But they can do it the other way around. Let me clarify that: I’m sure that does happen from time to time, but they certainly would not be allowed to make it _policy_. > [@](#): > > Here’s my question: do you object to using any diversity issues in deciding such “toss-up” cases? E.g., is it justifiable for a college to pick the student from Montana over the student from New Jersey (even if the NJ applicant has somewhat better scores) to increase their geographical diversity? If you think that’s okay, then why is it not okay to pick so as to increase racial diversity? I thought about this one for a while. My answer is that I don’t think it is right to pick the Montana student over the NJ student. You are right in that there is no difference, except the race question is more glaring because of the hypocrisy I mentioned above. > [@](#): > > What exactly do you think are the non-academic criteria that are okay for a college to use in helping to decide which applicants it should pick, and why does race not belong among them? Well, I think it is becoming clear that I don’t think there should be non-academic criteria used for college selection. Do people assume that if we use merit only to decide who gets into a college, that it will automatically not be diverse? Is the drive for diversity itself nothing more than an attempt by the college to be PC, and thus draw more idealistic students to it? Lamia: It is clear that this goes on. I believe the colleges admit it themselves, but I don’t have a cite. In my case, I think it is very rare for colleges of MIT’s class to accept students that are not in the top quarter of their graduating class. He must have had some serious kick-ass essay. PeeQueue ---
**Author:** ![PeeQueue](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/8797f3/32.png) [@PeeQueue](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/PeeQueue)\ **Post date:** [May 24, 2000, 7:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/racist-scholarships/19805/109 "2000-05-24T19:08:20Z")
> [@](#): > > …yes, membership in an underrepresented racial minority is included in the criteria for recruitment and selection. You may think that’s not a good policy, but in what way is it “hypocritical”? This is the crux of the issue. It is hypocritical in that a college would not be able to accept a white over a black if all else was equal. But they can do it the other way around. Let me clarify that: I’m sure that does happen from time to time, but they certainly would not be allowed to make it _policy_. > [@](#): > > Here’s my question: do you object to using any diversity issues in deciding such “toss-up” cases? E.g., is it justifiable for a college to pick the student from Montana over the student from New Jersey (even if the NJ applicant has somewhat better scores) to increase their geographical diversity? If you think that’s okay, then why is it not okay to pick so as to increase racial diversity? I thought about this one for a while. My answer is that I don’t think it is right to pick the Montana student over the NJ student. You are right in that there is no difference, except the race question is more glaring because of the hypocrisy I mentioned above. > [@](#): > > What exactly do you think are the non-academic criteria that are okay for a college to use in helping to decide which applicants it should pick, and why does race not belong among them? Well, I think it is becoming clear that I don’t think there should be non-academic criteria used for college selection. Do people assume that if we use merit only to decide who gets into a college, that it will automatically not be diverse? Is the drive for diversity itself nothing more than an attempt by the college to be PC, and thus draw more idealistic students to it? Lamia: It is clear that this goes on. I believe the colleges admit it themselves, but I don’t have a cite. In my case, I think it is very rare for colleges of MIT’s class to accept students that are not in the top quarter of their graduating class. He must have had some serious kick-ass essay. PeeQueue ---
**Author:** ![Kimstu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ecd19e/32.png) [@Kimstu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimstu)\ **Post date:** [May 24, 2000, 8:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/racist-scholarships/19805/110 "2000-05-24T20:17:02Z")
**PeeQueue** replied to me: > [@](#): > > \*yes, membership in an underrepresented racial minority is included in the criteria for recruitment and selection. You may think that’s not a good policy, but in what way is it “hypocritical”? \* > > This is the crux of the issue. It is hypocritical in that a college would not be able to accept a white over a black if all else was equal. But they can do it the other way around. Er, I think you missed the point about “underrepresented.” Diversity preferences are based on trying to increase the population of **disproportionately scarce** groups on a particular campus. At most colleges, blacks, Hispanics, and Native Americans are underrepresented, so diversity preferences go to them. Diversity preferences can work in favor of whites on campuses where whites are underrepresented, as in the example of the two Alabama universities mentioned above. (Naturally, in our society there are comparatively few examples of whites being underrepresented in situations like desirable housing and jobs and higher education, because until fairly recently whites had almost exclusive control of those desirable things.) Sounds to me like the principle does work both ways, so I still don’t see how it’s “hypocritical.” > [@](#): > > Well, I think it is becoming clear that I don’t think there should be non-academic criteria used for college selection. Fine by me. That is, I may not agree with you, but there’s nothing _a priori_ illogical or inconsistent in that belief that I can see. Now let’s see if you’ve really thought it through. 🙂 Here are a few questions: 1. What qualifies as an “academic criterion”? Just SAT scores and grades? How about athletic or musical talent? Artistic creativity? Community service? Successful job experience? 2. How will you standardize your assessment of academic criteria? SAT scores have a universal format, but the same grades at different high schools can mean very different things. And of course, things like talent in the arts are simply hell to quantify… And finally (deep breath): 1. Given that a) academic achievement correlates very strongly with socioeconomic status, that b) a significantly higher proportion of females than males apply to and attend college, that c) certain minority groups like East/Southeast Asians, South Asians and Jews are disproportionately high achievers in academics, and that d) that academic achievement also correlates strongly with heavy intellectual/cultural activity in parents’ occupations,… …do you believe that replacing the current multifaceted package of admissions criteria with one that focused strictly on scholastic achievement irrespective of race, sex, wealth, or background… …would result in **more** “ordinary-Joe” middle-class white males with good grades at decent high schools getting into colleges like MIT, or **fewer**? I wonder if, once the general population started seeing the top colleges heavily dominated by Asians, Jews, girls, and rich people, they wouldn’t start yelling for “diversity consideration” again. Kimstu ---
**Author:** ![PeeQueue](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/8797f3/32.png) [@PeeQueue](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/PeeQueue)\ **Post date:** [May 25, 2000, 2:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/racist-scholarships/19805/111 "2000-05-25T14:17:08Z")
OK, if it(admissions policies) is run that way (by determining who is underrepresented) than I concede that the practice is not hypocritical. 1. All of the above except community service and work experience. 2. I would prefer to see standardized tests with a more essay like configuration. Maybe some multiple choice, but more questions where you are required to explain your answer. I also like the concept of achievement exams (I think I remember they were called that) where they have more specialized tests for individual subjects. Grades should also be included in the mix of course, along with portfolios, essays, etc. Every school doesn’t have to use all these things, depending on what their focus is. 3. I don’t care if it results in more or less white guys in school, as long as everyone gets judged on the same basis. If schools become dominated by rich asian girls, that’s great for them, what’s the big deal? PeeQueue ---
**Author:** ![Kimstu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ecd19e/32.png) [@Kimstu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimstu)\ **Post date:** [May 25, 2000, 4:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/racist-scholarships/19805/112 "2000-05-25T16:26:26Z")
Then you’re an honest man, and you’re free to go. 🙂 Kimstu ---
**Author:** ![PeeQueue](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/8797f3/32.png) [@PeeQueue](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/PeeQueue)\ **Post date:** [May 25, 2000, 5:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/racist-scholarships/19805/113 "2000-05-25T17:53:20Z")
LOL! It’s rare one of these debates ends in a friendly conclusion. I had to think a bit, and had fun. Thanks, PeeQueue [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/racist-scholarships/19805.md?page=5)