Trump DOJ to prosecute universities for anti-white affirmative action policies

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Another waste of taxpayer money and another "oh, poor me" whine from the dumb whites.

Like "oh poor me" programs for Blacks? "Oh poor me my great great grandfather was a slave!"

That was indeed racist.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can someone please post the data that show white students are not going to college because black students took all their spots?

Thanks.

Which poster said white kids aren't going to college because black kids took all their spots?

There was a poster several pages back who said young white males were "harmed" by AA. Maybe that PP can explain what he meant by harmed.

That was me.

By "harm," I mean pay a price for affirmative action policies. It's simple math. Let's say a med school, for example, has X number of slots and have determined that they want 15% of the entering class to be black (since 15% of the broader population is black.) In order to accomplish that, they need to drop their GPA cut-off to 3.3. No white male would get in with that stat and instead needs a 3.6.

Unfortunately (for the white guy), he earned a 3.5. He's rejected. If slots didn't need to open up for black kids with 3.3, in order to meet AA goals, the school could drop down to 3.5 for everyone, race not a factor, and the white kid would have passed the cut-off. This can play out at med schools throughout the country, and he has to give up his dream of being a doctor. I've seen this happen in two instances with bright, caring young white men.

Whether this sacrifice is worth it to have a diverse population among doctors is a separate area of discussion. But you can't deny that the white kid paid a price as a result of affirmative action policies.

That's an interesting hypothetical, but in fact last year only 7% of students starting med school were black. So even with affirmative action, we can't get even close to a representative number of black students in med school.

https://www.aamc.org/download/321498/data/factstablea18.pdf

The reason they couldn't get to the 15% is because there needs to be a hard cut-off at some point. You can't, for example, lower admissions standards to 2.8 (for blacks) in order to reach the goal. Otherwise, you are admitting students who are likely to fail the program. Still doesn't negate the point that when you have a finite number of slots with lower standards for Group A and higher standards for Group B, Group B pays a price.

I am also the PP who strongly supports AA policies, but based on income. This is more fair. And, as I've pointed out, if blacks are disproportionately poor compared to whites, they will still be benefiting from AA.

Your comment hits the ugly truth that nobody really wants to talk about. Colleges in general would love to boost their URM populations but once you get past the HPYs the applicant pool of URMs becomes far less qualified and then you face a tension between diversity and the school's willingness to reduce standards and jeopardize graduation rates, etc.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can someone please post the data that show white students are not going to college because black students took all their spots?

Thanks.

Which poster said white kids aren't going to college because black kids took all their spots?

There was a poster several pages back who said young white males were "harmed" by AA. Maybe that PP can explain what he meant by harmed.

That was me.

By "harm," I mean pay a price for affirmative action policies. It's simple math. Let's say a med school, for example, has X number of slots and have determined that they want 15% of the entering class to be black (since 15% of the broader population is black.) In order to accomplish that, they need to drop their GPA cut-off to 3.3. No white male would get in with that stat and instead needs a 3.6.

Unfortunately (for the white guy), he earned a 3.5. He's rejected. If slots didn't need to open up for black kids with 3.3, in order to meet AA goals, the school could drop down to 3.5 for everyone, race not a factor, and the white kid would have passed the cut-off. This can play out at med schools throughout the country, and he has to give up his dream of being a doctor. I've seen this happen in two instances with bright, caring young white men.

Whether this sacrifice is worth it to have a diverse population among doctors is a separate area of discussion. But you can't deny that the white kid paid a price as a result of affirmative action policies.

That's an interesting hypothetical, but in fact last year only 7% of students starting med school were black. So even with affirmative action, we can't get even close to a representative number of black students in med school.

https://www.aamc.org/download/321498/data/factstablea18.pdf

The reason they couldn't get to the 15% is because there needs to be a hard cut-off at some point. You can't, for example, lower admissions standards to 2.8 (for blacks) in order to reach the goal. Otherwise, you are admitting students who are likely to fail the program. Still doesn't negate the point that when you have a finite number of slots with lower standards for Group A and higher standards for Group B, Group B pays a price.

I am also the PP who strongly supports AA policies, but based on income. This is more fair. And, as I've pointed out, if blacks are disproportionately poor compared to whites, they will still be benefiting from AA.

Your comment hits the ugly truth that nobody really wants to talk about. Colleges in general would love to boost their URM populations but once you get past the HPYs the applicant pool of URMs becomes far less qualified and then you face a tension between diversity and the school's willingness to reduce standards and jeopardize graduation rates, etc.

Yet they are fine admitting unqualified people with lots of money, like Jared Kushner and Donald Trump, but somehow that doesn't jeopardize standards or graduation rates? No the only ugly truth here is blatant racism.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I mentioned this before in this thread, but it bears repeating that there have been studies on what happens if you remove affirmative action from college admissions. The only race that benefits are Asians. For white people it's a wash.

You can adjust priorities/money to supplement your child's education to compete with other high achievers. You can't change your child's race.

Are you saying that white people will adjust their priorities/money to compete with Asians?

Yes, you can compete on GPA etc by throwing extra time and money at education regardless of race. Are you saying Asians are genetically more intelligent than everyone else?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I mentioned this before in this thread, but it bears repeating that there have been studies on what happens if you remove affirmative action from college admissions. The only race that benefits are Asians. For white people it's a wash.

You can adjust priorities/money to supplement your child's education to compete with other high achievers. You can't change your child's race.

Are you saying that white people will adjust their priorities/money to compete with Asians?

Yes, you can compete on GPA etc by throwing extra time and money at education regardless of race. Are you saying Asians are genetically more intelligent than everyone else?

Hey people, I thought the whole point is that minorities don't have the money to do this.

Aren't you proving the basis for affirmative action by your own words?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Affirmative action cannot continue indefinitely. Considering that blacks were getting preferential treatment in the 1970s, we are now on the third generation getting into college with standards lowered to allow it. Jews and Asians immigrated here, and even among the poor, uneducated ones, their kids went to college on their own merits. How many more generations is this supposed to last?

I support color-blind, income-based affirmative action. Let's give all bright poor kids a chance, regardless of race.

I wonder if you're aware of the way you've contradicted yourself. Affirmative Action has failed for black people, according to you, but you support it for all poor kids "regardless of race."

I'm black, living a nice life, and support the continuation of Affirmative Action. I also happen to think there's a very strong case to be made for opening it up on the basis of income and other hurdles, and believe pretty strongly that the race-based frame of AA impedes that objective.

It's circular arguments like the PP's above and about a hundred other posts here that rely on the idea that black students are inferior and don't deserve access to the higher echelons of higher education - that's what's kinda killing the idea of opening it up to "all bright poor kids, regardless of race."

People are going to believe what they want, and I could not care less about the opinions of people who believe such tripe. But in the interest of making the case for income-based affirmative action that opens the door for low-income whites, let's put stereotypes aside for a bit and start looking at facts.

The fact is, there are more poor whites than any other demographic in the U.S. Not only is there not a lot of actionable discussion about what can change that, we're pretty vehement these days about stigmatizing that group as hopeless victims of their own poor decision-making. Let's put that aside for moment, too.

The race-based argument for and against affirmative action makes the same two mistakes that many college-bound freshmen - regardless of race - tend to make: 1) believing that admission is the ultimate objective, which leads to 2) not considering all the other factors that are necessary for success.

I think that was the most important lesson in JD Vance's Hillbilly Elegy. Everyone needs a push from behind (he had his grandmother, sister and aunt), but they also need someone - more like several someones - pulling them forward and guiding them each step of the way. He always had someone giving him a chance (sometimes more than one), giving him advice, pointing out his options, showing him what to do. One of the biggest factors in what educators call "summer melt" - that is, the confounding problem of kids who get the grades and the test scores to get into college but then never show up - is filling out forms and turning them in on time.

If we're going to have more kids making it out of poverty, we need more formerly poor people in strong positions to do that pulling and guiding - because they're the only ones who fully understand the obstacles. That means poor people of all kinds of backgrounds, overcoming all kinds of obstacles, making it to higher ground.

Put your objective beyond admissions to HYP and think about better outcomes - a variety of outcomes because there's a wide variety of people. And if more of them don't have better outcomes, the rest of us are going to get dragged down.

I mean, it's already started. Take a closer look at who's doing the dragging. It doesn't matter how well my black kid succeeds at life. We don't have a future workforce that can sustain the country I'm raising him in.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can someone please post the data that show white students are not going to college because black students took all their spots?

Thanks.

Which poster said white kids aren't going to college because black kids took all their spots?

There was a poster several pages back who said young white males were "harmed" by AA. Maybe that PP can explain what he meant by harmed.

That was me.

By "harm," I mean pay a price for affirmative action policies. It's simple math. Let's say a med school, for example, has X number of slots and have determined that they want 15% of the entering class to be black (since 15% of the broader population is black.) In order to accomplish that, they need to drop their GPA cut-off to 3.3. No white male would get in with that stat and instead needs a 3.6.

Unfortunately (for the white guy), he earned a 3.5. He's rejected. If slots didn't need to open up for black kids with 3.3, in order to meet AA goals, the school could drop down to 3.5 for everyone, race not a factor, and the white kid would have passed the cut-off. This can play out at med schools throughout the country, and he has to give up his dream of being a doctor. I've seen this happen in two instances with bright, caring young white men.

Whether this sacrifice is worth it to have a diverse population among doctors is a separate area of discussion. But you can't deny that the white kid paid a price as a result of affirmative action policies.

That's an interesting hypothetical, but in fact last year only 7% of students starting med school were black. So even with affirmative action, we can't get even close to a representative number of black students in med school.

https://www.aamc.org/download/321498/data/factstablea18.pdf

The reason they couldn't get to the 15% is because there needs to be a hard cut-off at some point. You can't, for example, lower admissions standards to 2.8 (for blacks) in order to reach the goal. Otherwise, you are admitting students who are likely to fail the program. Still doesn't negate the point that when you have a finite number of slots with lower standards for Group A and higher standards for Group B, Group B pays a price.

I am also the PP who strongly supports AA policies, but based on income. This is more fair. And, as I've pointed out, if blacks are disproportionately poor compared to whites, they will still be benefiting from AA.

Your comment hits the ugly truth that nobody really wants to talk about. Colleges in general would love to boost their URM populations but once you get past the HPYs the applicant pool of URMs becomes far less qualified and then you face a tension between diversity and the school's willingness to reduce standards and jeopardize graduation rates, etc.

Yet they are fine admitting unqualified people with lots of money, like Jared Kushner and Donald Trump, but somehow that doesn't jeopardize standards or graduation rates? No the only ugly truth here is blatant racism.

You have to deal with the truth that those donations help lower SES students afford tuition. It is distasteful but that's life.

[Anonymous]

Are there any stats to support the idea that URMs who are disproportionately admitted to college through AA programs are truly unqualified? As in, that they can't handle the classes etc?

I've heard this (and I think Alito once mentioned it in a SCOTUS opinion), but I've never actually seen the data. From what I understand, some of this discrepancy can be attributed to lack of support to help these students come up to the levels of preparedness that people from stronger school districts have...but I'm curious about this. Personally, this seems like a secondary problem to me. Even if they will continue to face obstacles to success, people coming from underprivileged backgrounds should be given a shot...something they were blocked from having for centuries. But it would also be worth understanding what they need to take full advantage of the opportunity.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Are there any stats to support the idea that URMs who are disproportionately admitted to college through AA programs are truly unqualified? As in, that they can't handle the classes etc?

I've heard this (and I think Alito once mentioned it in a SCOTUS opinion), but I've never actually seen the data. From what I understand, some of this discrepancy can be attributed to lack of support to help these students come up to the levels of preparedness that people from stronger school districts have...but I'm curious about this. Personally, this seems like a secondary problem to me. Even if they will continue to face obstacles to success, people coming from underprivileged backgrounds should be given a shot...something they were blocked from having for centuries. But it would also be worth understanding what they need to take full advantage of the opportunity.

Justice Thomas cited the data in his dissent in the MI case, as I recall.

[Anonymous]

At bottom, Justice O'Connor's rationale for affirmative action was that leaders come from elite institutions and more minorities need to attend elite institutions. So a bump up for a kid qualified for Wayne State or Michigan State based on grades and scores but not Michigan will get him or her into Michigan. It's a very snobby, elitist perspective. If your nonURM kid's ox is being gored by that displacement, you won't like it. But if your nonURM kid stil gets in, you'll profess not to care and talk up the virtues of diversity. Taking a public position against affirmative action is socially very very risky.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I mentioned this before in this thread, but it bears repeating that there have been studies on what happens if you remove affirmative action from college admissions. The only race that benefits are Asians. For white people it's a wash.

You can adjust priorities/money to supplement your child's education to compete with other high achievers. You can't change your child's race.

Are you saying that white people will adjust their priorities/money to compete with Asians?

Yes, you can compete on GPA etc by throwing extra time and money at education regardless of race. Are you saying Asians are genetically more intelligent than everyone else?

Hey people, I thought the whole point is that minorities don't have the money to do this.

Aren't you proving the basis for affirmative action by your own words?

Neither do poor white people

[Anonymous]

What DOJ does is irrelevant. Absent state ballot initiatives, affirmative action is and forever will be the law of the land.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:At bottom, Justice O'Connor's rationale for affirmative action was that leaders come from elite institutions and more minorities need to attend elite institutions. So a bump up for a kid qualified for Wayne State or Michigan State based on grades and scores but not Michigan will get him or her into Michigan. It's a very snobby, elitist perspective. If your nonURM kid's ox is being gored by that displacement, you won't like it. But if your nonURM kid stil gets in, you'll profess not to care and talk up the virtues of diversity. Taking a public position against affirmative action is socially very very risky.

As long as people continue to believe that more minorities at an elite school make it less elite, you're safe.

Just keep your talk to the undesirable minorities. Not a whole lot of guesswork needed there.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:At bottom, Justice O'Connor's rationale for affirmative action was that leaders come from elite institutions and more minorities need to attend elite institutions. So a bump up for a kid qualified for Wayne State or Michigan State based on grades and scores but not Michigan will get him or her into Michigan. It's a very snobby, elitist perspective. If your nonURM kid's ox is being gored by that displacement, you won't like it. But if your nonURM kid stil gets in, you'll profess not to care and talk up the virtues of diversity. Taking a public position against affirmative action is socially very very risky.

URMs are still pretty under-represented at Michigan. https://admissions.umich.edu/apply/freshmen-applicants/student-profile

The real bottom line is that Trump's DOJ is trying to pick a fight that more higher income whites will join.

If he really wanted to do something about access to education for his base, he'd look at public education funding at state and local levels. Someone posted a map of Republican-led states the other day. I think if you overlaid it with a map of academic achievement, it would be easy to conclude Republicans prefer to keep their constituents dumb and poor. I wonder why. I think in Kansas they've even decided that four days/week is enough. http://www.ruraledu.org/articles.php?id=3297

You can't get into college if your education has been subpar since kindergarten.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can someone please post the data that show white students are not going to college because black students took all their spots?

Thanks.

Which poster said white kids aren't going to college because black kids took all their spots?

There was a poster several pages back who said young white males were "harmed" by AA. Maybe that PP can explain what he meant by harmed.

That was me.

By "harm," I mean pay a price for affirmative action policies. It's simple math. Let's say a med school, for example, has X number of slots and have determined that they want 15% of the entering class to be black (since 15% of the broader population is black.) In order to accomplish that, they need to drop their GPA cut-off to 3.3. No white male would get in with that stat and instead needs a 3.6.

Unfortunately (for the white guy), he earned a 3.5. He's rejected. If slots didn't need to open up for black kids with 3.3, in order to meet AA goals, the school could drop down to 3.5 for everyone, race not a factor, and the white kid would have passed the cut-off. This can play out at med schools throughout the country, and he has to give up his dream of being a doctor. I've seen this happen in two instances with bright, caring young white men.

Whether this sacrifice is worth it to have a diverse population among doctors is a separate area of discussion. But you can't deny that the white kid paid a price as a result of affirmative action policies.

That's an interesting hypothetical, but in fact last year only 7% of students starting med school were black. So even with affirmative action, we can't get even close to a representative number of black students in med school.

https://www.aamc.org/download/321498/data/factstablea18.pdf

The reason they couldn't get to the 15% is because there needs to be a hard cut-off at some point. You can't, for example, lower admissions standards to 2.8 (for blacks) in order to reach the goal. Otherwise, you are admitting students who are likely to fail the program. Still doesn't negate the point that when you have a finite number of slots with lower standards for Group A and higher standards for Group B, Group B pays a price.

I am also the PP who strongly supports AA policies, but based on income. This is more fair. And, as I've pointed out, if blacks are disproportionately poor compared to whites, they will still be benefiting from AA.

Except the physician workforce is the perfect example of where race matters. Studies have shown clear racial bias in the practice of medicine. Minorities are treated differently by white doctors, and the care they receive is worse. And studies have also shown that, on average, black patients have more trust in black doctors. (Can't blame them, given the racial bias in practice.)

We need a racially and ethnically diverse pool of physicians. That means we need to have a racially and ethnically diverse class of med students.