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: greenspirit who wrote (66857)	1/19/2003 12:22:24 PM
From: JohnM	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

Diversity means so much more than race. Socioeconomic background should be a consideration, with race a byproduct of that diversity model. Blindly assuming someone's race paints a clear black and white picture is PC foolishness. (no pun intended) Well, I wouldn't go along with the tag line of PC foolishness but your point is a good one. But no one, at least no one in the Bush administration, seems to be making a case for diversity based on socio-economic background. Just a negative case to stop affirmative action. And we all know the political role of that position. I would, frankly, prefer some mix of straight out affirmative action logic based on a mix of socio-economic standing and race/ethnicity, which the Michigan plan tries to do. The mix, not the affirmative action logic. Bill's argument about the lack of preparation of some students is right, however, as we know it's not isomorphic with black students. Some white students are and some black students are not. I would prefer an argument by universities in which they say here are the admissions criteria which we think are essential to be able to do the work at our school. Applicants must meet these criteria in some nuanced sense. The diversity is an issue within that pool--diversity now meaning race, socio-economic, geographic, legacy (need those dollars from alums), etc. I'm, of course, not happy about points for intercollegiate athletes. Then, each university spends money for remedial stuff for students who get in based on those criteria but who should not have. There is a separate argument for diversity of which race/ethnicity is a subset. But I don't get my way. Bakke pretty much did away with affirmative action arguments. Incidentally, I've been asking friends about the Texas model, admitting the top 10% of the graduating class of every Texas high school. They say there are the following problems with it but, given the climate, don't know what else could be done: (1) too many students at UT-Austin--I heard 50,000 on that campus alone yesterday in one phone call--don't know whether that's true or not--but the argument is that it overloads the facilities--buildings, faculty, etc.--too a very dangerous degree; (2) little if any remediation--if anyone knows anything about Texas high schools you should know that the variation of high school preparation is enormous with rural and small town high schools at the bottom end of the pole along with some inner city high schools; (3) an incentive structure to resegregate k-12--that is an incentive to go to weak high schools so a student will be in the top 10%.