College Protest against Proposed Califorinia Bill to Allow Colleges to consider ethnicity/gender in Admissions

[TigerTank77]

Here's an article about the protest:
http://www.cnn.com/2011/09/25/us/cal...ale/index.html

And here's one about the bill "AB2047". I don't know if it's the same one, or if it's been renamed, but the proposal is exactly the same:
http://www.votesmart.org/issue_keyvo...hp?cs_id=30783

Thoughts on both fronts?

I personally think the bill shouldn't include race, gender, and national origin. Discrimination works both ways.

[Elizabeth]

I agree. It shouldn't matter. If I remember correctly, something like this was passed in California. Two students, one white, one mexican, were up for a single spot in a UC Davis program and basically had the exact same GPA and were both equally qualified. The mexican kid got it so they could be more diverse. Isn't fair either way. Doubt it will pass.

[Guile]

I think schools should be able to choose both ways, and allow schools to say "We want more diversity, allow more Hispanics/African Americans/Etc. in our school", but should also let them say "We don't want Hispanics/African Americans/Etc. in our school". Both ways or no way.

[NevermindMe]

Originally Posted by Guile

I think schools should be able to choose both ways, and allow schools to say "We want more diversity, allow more Hispanics/African Americans/Etc. in our school", but should also let them say "We don't want Hispanics/African Americans/Etc. in our school". Both ways or no way.

This.

Honestly, this is it. Everyone wants special treatment, but no one realizes it works both ways.

- Justin

[Xujhan]

I'd like to see a rule in this thread where anyone who disagrees with affirmative action first has to explain what it is and why it works. Call me cynical, but I'm pretty sure most people can't.

[forfrosne]

On Guile's point, I agree with him. I'd go one step further and say that there should be no consideration of ethnicity/gender etc. Grades and maturity are the only important things.

[Marguerite]

I just want to speak from an Australian perspective and a similar issue people seem to have here.

People seem to get very aggrivated about the so called 'special benefits' indigenous Australians get from the government. This is pretty ridiculous as there is no real 'special benefit' you get from the government for being Aboriginal, it is the same welfare payments you would get if you were white... the only real difference is education payments but I'll get to that in a minute.

People say things like 'If you're Aboriginal you get free healthcare!' or 'If you're Aboriginal they pay you to go to school'! This is beyond ridiculous as we have free healthcare anyway and all get paid for going to school, if we are eligable.

To explain that last point, I'm not sure how it works in other countries, but in Australia we have this thing called 'Youth Allowence'. If your parents earn under a certain amount (I think it's $50,000?) the government gives you welfare payments to continue studying. When I was under 18 it was $200 a fortnight but now I am 18 it is $250. If I moved away from home it would be $380 a fortnight. If you're over 25 and still studying you get a similar thing called Austudy, and if you're Aboriginal you get a different payment called Abstudy which is basically the same thing (I think the difference is that it doesn't depend on your families income, you get it no matter what your socio-economic situation is).

I've even heard that if you're Aboriginal the government gives you free cars.

But the one thing people seem to get really worked up about is University admission. As I've been applying this year, I have noticed that there are a hell of a lot of scholarships aimed at helping indigenous students get into school. There are special considerations (as an indigenous student it's likely that you'd probably get away with having a lower ATAR score than a non-indigenous student). People seem to think this is completely unfair. But nobody asks WHY these things are in place.

It's not because the government wants to screw over white people. The fact is that simply being born white means your much more likely to get into university than any indigenous person, so complaining that you are at a disadvantage because your not Aboriginal (or a Torres Straight Islander) is pretty ridiculous. The scholarship programme for indigenous students isn't there to give them an advantage over non-indigenous students, it's there to level the playing field.

Here's a few statistics for you:

The median weekly income for indigenous Australians is just over half that of non indigenous Australians.

The total indigenous population in the wider community is 2.3%, but make up 24% of the prison population.

Non-indigenous Australians live, on average, 17 years longer than indigenous Australians.

More importantly, when it comes to this issue, only 24% of indigenous Australian have completed year 12. This number goes down the further away from urban areas... only 14% of Aboriginals in remote communities had completed year 12 (these numbers exclude people currently at school).

(these are statistics from the 2006 census).


So saying that considering if someone is indigenous in university application is 'unfair' or 'discriminatory' is pretty ignorant of the reality of the situation. This may have absolutely nothing to do with what you're talking about because I have no idea of the circumstances of the policy the people are protesting in your article. However I do think there are probably similarities in some areas... I don't think it's wrong to offer these kinds of scholarships and consider ethnicity when accepting students to university if it means leveling the playing field and giving everyone an equal opportunity. I think that last thing is probably what people get angry about because they think it's doing the opposite- putting white middle class students at a disadvantage. I don't agree, I think it's just an attempt to make things a little fairer. People who complain that because they're white they at some sort of major disadvantage... it just makes me roll my eyes. And I say this as someone who is white.

[Serene]

So then a lower class white is at more of a ‘disadvantage’ than a low class minority because there are enough white people high in society? If the whole argument is to help out and even the playing field for the lower class (which minorities make up a large portion) shouldn't income and wealth be considered when applying to college, and not ethnicity?

And aren’t there more females than males in college now anyways? Why should gender be considered?

[Marguerite]

Originally Posted by Serene

So then a lower class white is at more of a ‘disadvantage’ than a low class minority because there are enough white people high in society? If the whole argument is to help out and even the playing field for the lower class (which minorities make up a large portion) shouldn't income and wealth be considered when applying to college, and not ethnicity?

I'm not sure what you're saying (your first sentence confused me) but if you are asking why income is not taken into consideration... it is. A lot. I don't know what it's like in America but as I said, I've been applying for so many scholarships lately... probably about 30% have been merit based, and the rest have been equity scholarships for students (no matter the race) who have faced finacial hardship. In fact that's probably the most common kind of scholarship I've come across.

I don't know why you think you can only consider SES or ethnicity and not both.

If someone belongs to a minority which less that 30% complete high school, you can't just ignore that and pin it to just one factor like income when obviously there is more at play.

Originally Posted by Serene

And aren’t there more females than males in college now anyways? Why should gender be considered?

I agree that gender shouldn't be considered.

[TigerTank77]

To everyone bringing up points about minorities in low income brackets.

Why would it make sense to consider both race and income, instead of just income?

If we want to actually be an egalitarian society, we can't be doing shit like this. Scholarships are one thing and there are already billions of dollars of those for minorities and women and... frankly, everyone. Most of it is unclaimed.

Bringing people up with the idea that their disadvantaged or advantaged because of their skin color is a load of horseshit. It's 2011.

[Marguerite]

Originally Posted by TigerTank77

Bringing people up with the idea that their disadvantaged or advantaged because of their skin color is a load of horseshit. It's 2011.

You can't just ignore the statistics and say 'oh, that's just about income'. If the statistics show one group is dies almost 20 years earlier, makes up almost a quarter of the prison population (despite making up 3% of the wider population) and less than 25% of people who share you ethnicity finish even high school... SOMETHING is going on.

You could say, oh, X group just happens to have more working class people than white people which is where the issue comes from. But that in itself is a huge problem. If one race is substantially lesser off than another, that IS disadvantage because of skin colour and you can't just pretend it doesn't exist.

To argue that because we're white we're at some sort of disadvantage when it comes to college application... well that's a load of horseshit. By virtue of being born white we already have a hell of an advantage over other races when it comes to getting into college.

Originally Posted by TigerTank77

If we want to actually be an egalitarian society, we can't be doing shit like this.

If we want to be an egalitarian society we

a) NEED scholarships like this to make it a fair game

b) NEED scholarships like this so the next generation doesn't face the same problems (then you can get rid of them).

[TigerTank77]

Originally Posted by Marguerite

You can't just ignore the statistics and say 'oh, that's just about income'. If the statistics show one group is dies almost 20 years earlier, makes up almost a quarter of the prison population (despite making up 3% of the wider population) and less than 25% of people who share you ethnicity finish even high school... SOMETHING is going on.

Except it is just about income. Unless you're trying to make the point that non-white and poverty have a genetic correlation.

Cultural maybe, but that last time I checked, poverty wasn't JUST a minority issue.

Originally Posted by Marguerite

You could say, oh, X group just happens to have more working class people than white people which is where the issue comes from. But that in itself is a huge problem. If one race is substantially lesser off than another, that IS disadvantage because of skin colour and you can't just pretend it doesn't exist.

How does that have anything to do with skin color? If I brought up statistics pointing out how a lot of violent crime is committed by blacks, does that mean that being black makes you more violent? Obviously not.

Originally Posted by Marguerite

To argue that because we're white we're at some sort of disadvantage when it comes to college application... well that's a load of horseshit. By virtue of being born white we already have a hell of an advantage over other races when it comes to getting into college.

I never said we were at a disadvantage. You're entirely missing my point.

Originally Posted by Marguerite

If we want to be an egalitarian society we

a) NEED scholarships like this to make it a fair game

b) NEED scholarships like this so the next generation doesn't face the same problems (then you can get rid of them).

Again, missing my point. I never said I had a problem with scholarships. I said I had a problem with racially charged admission practices.

Ethnicity is a red herring that we need to stop making a big god damned deal of. Also, how is one generation of scholarships supposed to magically fix anything?

[Marguerite]

Originally Posted by TigerTank77

Except it is just about income. Unless you're trying to make the point that non-white and poverty have a genetic correlation.

Cultural maybe, but that last time I checked, poverty wasn't JUST a minority issue.

No, poverty is not just a minority issue. But since it's far more prevelent for those of non-white backgrounds, it is an issue. Even if you're saying that disadvantage among minorities can be traced back to only income (hint: it can't) then surely you can see that since one entire race is in such a worse socio-ecomonmic position than another, THAT in itself makes it a race issue since race is the common factor.

I'm not saying that because of someone's skin colour it means they will be poor, or that someone becomes poor because of their skin colour. The issue of correlation vs causation isn't really important here, the issue is that since one race is in such a better position than another it is important to recognize that and to take steps towards making sure things such as univeristy are availible to everyone.

And of course it's a cultural issue and not a genetic one. I think we're past that by a few decades.

Originally Posted by TigerTank77

How does that have anything to do with skin color? If I brought up statistics pointing out how a lot of violent crime is committed by blacks, does that mean that being black makes you more violent? Obviously not.

No, it just means that more violent crimes are commited by blacks. Call a spade a spade. It doesn't mean that being born black makes you more violent. It doesn't mean that if you're born black you're automatically disadvantaged and won't be able to get into university.

It just means that there is a cultural issue at play which means that it is more likely for someone who is black than someone who is white (and I've no idea of the statistics so I'm just going on your theory) to commit a violent crime, and that someone who is white has more chance of getting into university than someone who is white.

And if those things are true then that is obviously a cultural or ethnicity issue which puts 'blacks' (not sure what race you're even talking about here to be honest) at a huge disadvantage in life.

Originally Posted by TigerTank77

I never said we were at a disadvantage.

So it doesn't put you at a disadvantage, you just, what, have a problem with other people getting ahead in life? You're right. I must be missing your point because you're kind of not coming off in a very good light here.

Originally Posted by TigerTank77

Again, missing my point. I never said I had a problem with scholarships. I said I had a problem with racially charged admission practices.

Fine, swap what I've said about scholarships with admission practices.

Originally Posted by TigerTank77

Ethnicity is a red herring that we need to stop making a big god damned deal of. Also, how is one generation of scholarships supposed to magically fix anything?

Ethnicity isn't the problem, but it's the common factor that links a lot of disadvantage together. If someone is black and born into a nice middle class household, they're obviously going to have a leg up over someone who is white and born into poverty. Which is why finacial disadvantage is also considered in admission practices/scholarships.

The point is that being born (I'm going to say Aboriginal rather than black, because you're talking about this in an American context and I don't want to make stuff up) means that you're more likely to live in poverty, to not go to school, to have bad health, to be illiterate, to not have anyone in your close family who has attended university. You can't just ignore those things, I don't know why you keep trying too.

As for the whole scholarship thing, it's not just about scholarships, it's about an education. I'm not saying one generation of scholarships or university admission or education is going to stop disadvantage. I'm just saying that the children of those qualified, educated parents are not going to face the same problems that their parents probably did.

[TigerTank77]

Originally Posted by Marguerite

It doesn't mean that if you're born black you're automatically disadvantaged and won't be able to get into university.

...that's the point you've been making the entire time. That it disadvantages you because you're not white.

Originally Posted by Marguerite

Ethnicity isn't the problem, but it's the common factor that links a lot of disadvantage together. If someone is black and born into a nice middle class household, they're obviously going to have a leg up over someone who is white and born into poverty. Which is why finacial disadvantage is also considered in admission practices/scholarships.

Exactly, which is why race needs to be taken out of it, and financial situation needs to be stressed so much more.

Originally Posted by Marguerite

The point is that being born (I'm going to say Aboriginal rather than black, because you're talking about this in an American context and I don't want to make stuff up) means that you're more likely to live in poverty, to not go to school, to have bad health, to be illiterate, to not have anyone in your close family who has attended university. You can't just ignore those things, I don't know why you keep trying too.

My problem is that by using race, we are automatically assuming people are going to have an issue because of the color of their skin. If someone is born into the situation you described above, their race shouldn't have anything to do with it. They should get the same amount of help regardless. It should not matter if said person is black or white

Originally Posted by Marguerite

As for the whole scholarship thing, it's not just about scholarships, it's about an education. I'm not saying one generation of scholarships or university admission or education is going to stop disadvantage. I'm just saying that the children of those qualified, educated parents are not going to face the same problems that their parents probably did.

But by your definition, their parents wold have nothing to do with it, it would depend entirely upon their skin color.


Do you see the point I'm trying to make here? To each according to his individual need, not color.

[Marguerite]

Originally Posted by TigerTank77

...that's the point you've been making the entire time. That it disadvantages you because you're not white.

Originally Posted by TigerTank77

My problem is that by using race, we are automatically assuming people are going to have an issue because of the color of their skin. If someone is born into the situation you described above, their race shouldn't have anything to do with it. They should get the same amount of help regardless. It should not matter if said person is black or white

No, my point has been that statistically, if you're not white you're at more of a disadvantage than a white person, however, obviously it will change on a case to case basis.

Say 8% of people from X race end up going to college, while 48% of Y race do. Obviously that is a dramatic difference which needs to be adressed, but to be adressed it doesn't mean that everyone from X race has to be disadvantaged.

I come from a very disadvantaged area, single mother, very low income household, poorly achieving public school etc etc and yet, applying to university has been very easy for me. In fact I think it's probably a lot harder sometimes for people from middle class homes because they won't get 80% (or so) of the benefits I'm entitled too. That doesn't mean that finacial considerations for admission or scholarships should be scrapped and everything should be judged on a case by case basis. These things kind of need to be blanket rules because colleges who get, say, 50,000 applicants a year can't go through every single person and assess them on their disadvantage (which, yes, would be ideal and a lot fairer). You just need to pin point areas which would often mean that it was harder for that individual than the average joe to get into college.

Some of those things include remoteness, disabilities, and yes, race (occasionally, not every single non-white person. obviously you need to examine the statistics to see which).

These things may not actually hinder your attendance to university. Maybe you live in a remote area where the closest university is 4 hours away... but you come from an extremely rich home and travelling, accomodation etc is no issue. The point is that on average being from a remote area WILL hinder your ability to attend university, so those considerations have to be applied across the board.

Originally Posted by TigerTank77

Exactly, which is why race needs to be taken out of it, and financial situation needs to be stressed so much more.

You can stress finacial background more without taking race out of the game.

Originally Posted by TigerTank77

But by your definition, their parents wold have nothing to do with it, it would depend entirely upon their skin color.

No. That's not at all what I think. Skin colour doesn't determine if you will be disadvantaged. But unfortunately the statistics demonstrate that if you are not white you are more likely to be poor and less likely to attend university. Those statistics don't mean that because you're X race you will be disadvantaged or that the disadvantaged stems from being X race. It just means that overall, statistically, X race is disadvantaged for a variety of reasons including lack of education, income, bad health/health care etc. THOSE are the problems, but if they all happen to be affecting one race dramatically worse than another, well obviously it becomes a race/cultural issue.

If we were to improve those factors, such as by encouraging kids to stay in school, providing better government housing, helping people get into the workforce etc etc these problems would go away. Race is not the root of the problem, it is just the common factor. Why that is, is a totally different issue which I am not qualified to answer.

Originally Posted by TigerTank77

Do you see the point I'm trying to make here? To each according to his individual need, not color.

Yes I see what you're saying. I've argued about this a lot with people who are just racist idiots. I obviously don't think that of you, or that you're ignorant. But I don't agree with you because I don't think that adressing the issue of disadvantage in the area of race and then applying policies which help better them are discriminatory or damages the idea of an egalitarian society.

[Magic.]

I don't think anything should be taken into account ... as you rightly said discrimination works both ways.
I remember when I applied for uni in the UK (came to Aus instead) and did the student loans stuff I got a higher grant level than some girls I knew because I lived in a poorer area = must be poor. It's a nice idea I guess but they did the same for race and gender, I got offered more than a white boy I know in the area, and an indian friend of mine got more still.
You can't judge someone by their sex/colour/neighbourhood when it comes to intelligence or wealth!! I'm smart and my parents aren't super rich but they aren't super poor either, someone else easily deserved the money more ...
Meh rant over ... all in all I think it's stupid.

[MegaMadness]

I don't think ethnicity and gender should have anything to do with it. Those alone are no reason to give people a place in uni or money. I'm all for helping people who honestly can't afford university, but not just one or two etc certain race/s, I mean everyone. Everyone deserves a chance, no matter who they or more importantly what they are. No certain group of people deserve special treatment. We should all be equal.

[Guile]

By adding race in as a factor, we are insinuating that because you are of "X" race, you are not as good/talented/skilled as person of "Y" race, thereby propagating a "victimized mentalaty". If we continue to insinuate that "Oh, because you are X we need to help you because you aren't able to do it on your own", then maybe we'll eventually make that idea a reality. If the people of X race need our help because they are less able, then we shouldn't give it to them (as it would be better used on someone who was naturally good). Everyone is equally able, and therefore race shouldn't be a factor, or, we should have the right to discriminate based on race (both ways).

How about we stop asking about race, as Morgan Freeman said, "I am not a white man, or a black man, I am a human".