Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: LindyBill who wrote (66785)	1/18/2003 4:26:58 PM
From: Nadine Carroll	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

That is what we want, John. The only caveat is, "You just can't discriminate." Kind of difficult when the whole function of an admissions committee is to be discriminating. Is being a legacy more important that good grades? Is being well-rounded more important than brilliance in math? Is it important to get students from all around the country, or from different economic backgrounds? Race shades into so many other things. It would be more constructive if admissions committees could be turned away from straight racial preferences, which are almost as harmful to those they admit as to those they deny, to a more proper kind of affirmative action -- finding very bright but under-prepared students and putting them through a very tough remedial course, so that those who passed were better prepared than most for their freshman year. Of course, this approach costs money.

To: LindyBill who wrote (66785)	1/18/2003 8:15:16 PM
From: JohnM	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

That is what we want, John. The only caveat is, "You just can't discriminate." Doesn't work that way, Bill. The whole selection process is based on "discrimination." I suppose you are objecting to race as a factor in the discrimination process. I gather you see that, in doing so, you disagree with Condelezza Rice. Interesting? No? No one takes your position. (1) Bush, in his public statement, which confuses the issues no end, but was an obvious political statement meant to appease his base, rather than a thoughtful statement as to what the country should do, said the issue was "quotas". Presumably, one could use race just not as quotas. It's been sometime since I checked the literature, but I recall that's a rough and ready version of the Bakke decision. That was so convoluted that it's hard to remember just what. Of course, Bush, as is usual, is wrong on this point because Michigan did not use a quota system. You have to do some intellectual gymnastics to get from its points system to the notion that it is a quota system. (2) Rice, in her statement, said race was an acceptable factor but Michigan had just given race too many points, 20. Now the interesting thing about that position is it's actually something one could argue about. The Michigan system gave 20 points for being a "scholarship athlete", 20 points for "socio-economic disadvantage," 20 points for "underrepresented racial-ethnic minority identification or education", 10 points for being a Michigan resident, 6 points for coming from an underrepresented Michigan county, 4 points for legacy. And so on. So you could argue with their scheme. Or (3) the Bush administration brief itself which, at least in the NYTimes quotes, takes a more sweeping position in opposing race as a criterion but did not ask for a reversal of Bakke, which they the position would seem to call for. Take your pick which you think is the Bush position. A little like North Korea right now. No?