The mainstream media is conducting a race to the bottom when it comes to defending the racial spoils system in college admissions and critiquing the Supreme Court decisions that might curtail that system.
Great post, not least because Paul doesn't use the term "affirmative action." I'm reminded of Lloyd Bentsen's claim he knew Jack Kennedy, and Dan Quayle was no Jack Kennedy. Well, I knew affirmative action, and what we have now is no affirmative action. Affirmative action is outreach, an attempt to find and recruit qualified candidates in a minority group. What we have now is naked preference for those objectively unqualified for a position. Call it a racial spoils system or race-based preferences, as Paul does, or racial preference, or reverse discrimination. Call it anything but affirmative action. "Affirmative action" is nice sounding, a term that evokes a time when civil rights activists strove for equality, not "equity." Many opponents of our racial spoils system persist in calling it affirmative action, a nice sounding term that cedes a big chunk of the battlefield before the bugle sounds.
I look forward to Paul's Part Two take. Jim Dueholm
What you fail to realize is that the goal in academia and in education in general is to do away with merit at all levels.
So when you argue that an African American student may do less well at a prestigious school and therefore not achieved their career goals competing against merit-based entrants, liberal education institutions have an answer to that. Stop grading based on merit. Use equitable grading practices. Or do not grade at all.
I'm a teacher in a public school. This is being pushed up through the university level. If we don't stop these changes from happening, we will have a highly uneducated, illiterate society in no time. We are almost there .
“The only thing that comes to my mind is the incentive to work hard in high school. Why is that weird?”
Because you see according to CRT and white fragility, working hard, pursuing excellence and studying hard is white supremacist. So in the commie universe it is weird.
Don’t you think that the support for this really comes down to the fact that people like the kids of two of the three women dissenters (I have no idea if they have any but it doesn’t matter as far as this point goes) will get preferences?
I think the dissenters are driven by modern leftist ideology, but much of the support for race-based preferences is based on the interest you describe.
It doesn't stop with getting in. A chemistry professor at Virginia Tech spent part of his summers advising new students what courses to take freshman year. STEM students had to take both chemistry & physics at some time. A student w/solid background could take both w/labs freshman year; but he'd advise students from 2 types of high schools to split them, taking one as freshmen and one as sophomore, which didn't affect their graduation. One type of HS was rural & largely white, the other inner city & largely black. He didn't care about race, just his experience of how prepared the students likely were.
A mother of a black student from an inner city school in FL took offence, accusing the prof & VT of racism. All the prof was doing was trying to make it more likely that the student would succeed in her STEM curriculum. VT had the student 'advised' by another prof, but didn't cause the 'offending' prof any trouble. This was years ago, and probably wouldn't hold today.
I've often wondered what the student did and how she fared.
Great post, not least because Paul doesn't use the term "affirmative action." I'm reminded of Lloyd Bentsen's claim he knew Jack Kennedy, and Dan Quayle was no Jack Kennedy. Well, I knew affirmative action, and what we have now is no affirmative action. Affirmative action is outreach, an attempt to find and recruit qualified candidates in a minority group. What we have now is naked preference for those objectively unqualified for a position. Call it a racial spoils system or race-based preferences, as Paul does, or racial preference, or reverse discrimination. Call it anything but affirmative action. "Affirmative action" is nice sounding, a term that evokes a time when civil rights activists strove for equality, not "equity." Many opponents of our racial spoils system persist in calling it affirmative action, a nice sounding term that cedes a big chunk of the battlefield before the bugle sounds.
I look forward to Paul's Part Two take. Jim Dueholm
What you fail to realize is that the goal in academia and in education in general is to do away with merit at all levels.
So when you argue that an African American student may do less well at a prestigious school and therefore not achieved their career goals competing against merit-based entrants, liberal education institutions have an answer to that. Stop grading based on merit. Use equitable grading practices. Or do not grade at all.
I'm a teacher in a public school. This is being pushed up through the university level. If we don't stop these changes from happening, we will have a highly uneducated, illiterate society in no time. We are almost there .
“The only thing that comes to my mind is the incentive to work hard in high school. Why is that weird?”
Because you see according to CRT and white fragility, working hard, pursuing excellence and studying hard is white supremacist. So in the commie universe it is weird.
Don’t you think that the support for this really comes down to the fact that people like the kids of two of the three women dissenters (I have no idea if they have any but it doesn’t matter as far as this point goes) will get preferences?
I think the dissenters are driven by modern leftist ideology, but much of the support for race-based preferences is based on the interest you describe.
I don’t think “The Wise Latina” has any children. In that regard, she was wise.
It doesn't stop with getting in. A chemistry professor at Virginia Tech spent part of his summers advising new students what courses to take freshman year. STEM students had to take both chemistry & physics at some time. A student w/solid background could take both w/labs freshman year; but he'd advise students from 2 types of high schools to split them, taking one as freshmen and one as sophomore, which didn't affect their graduation. One type of HS was rural & largely white, the other inner city & largely black. He didn't care about race, just his experience of how prepared the students likely were.
A mother of a black student from an inner city school in FL took offence, accusing the prof & VT of racism. All the prof was doing was trying to make it more likely that the student would succeed in her STEM curriculum. VT had the student 'advised' by another prof, but didn't cause the 'offending' prof any trouble. This was years ago, and probably wouldn't hold today.
I've often wondered what the student did and how she fared.