Just a few quickies
Probably not the greatest example, but Bill Maher surprisingly trashed political correctness during one of the recent airings of his show.
I appreciate the effort, but Maher is not a leftie but another libertarian.
Yes, but the percentage of Asian minorities who do actually attend college, is significantly higher than that of other minority groups. Therefore, colleges turn away Asians because they believe they will "have too many" so to speak, throwing off the balance they are trying to create. This is is another example of colleges using a quota to try to prevent the student body from becoming overwhelmingly one race (in this case two), rather than looking at simply merit.
You were right in the first place, if pure merit were the issue, (as defined by test scores, HS GPA, ability to play a musical instrument at collegiate levels, and fluency in more than one language) elite colleges in the US would be overwhelmingly Asian. One race, not two. In California, where state law has removed any consideration of race for admissions the top university in the state, Berkeley, is already a majority Asian school. I regularly hear young white men complain that their places are being taken by less qualified blacks and hispanics, but I have yet to hear one acknowledge that they are holding a place that by their logic belongs to a more qualified student of Asian heritage.
LINittay said:
I am making a direct correlation between political correctness, and colleges attempting to "diversify" campus. On my libertaran grounds, I believe that there should be no race box checked when applying for acceptance. It should be merit based, not based on things you cannot control (family income, race, gender).
In the abstract I might agree, but as many others have already suggested, the problem with a libertarianism application process is that it wants to pretend that everyone had equal opportunities before they applied to college. Since that is blatantly not true, this oversimplified philosophical position in effect further advantages the already advantaged. Though you take full credit for everything you accomplished along the way, are you sure that if you had not been the child of two college graduates, both education professionals as I recall, and living in a wealthy community with good schools you would have been able to do nearly so much?
I'm pretty sure that all the students in my school received the same college counseling...there were 9 guidance councelors total.
Your school had 9 guidance counselors, and you don't think you came from an advantaged background? I think I pretty much came from one and you know how many my school had? Zero. Surely you can understand that the whole world is not like your school.
I wonder though, if you were to only look at the percentages of those students from each group who do attend college, would you see a higher percentage (not necessarily number of students) of minority groups at higher institutions when compared to the average white, christian.?
First,
no, you wouldn't. Even using that sadly reduced standard, African-Americans and Latinos are vastly underrepresented compared to non-Hispanic Caucasians.
Vastly. Second, that particular argument is circular and makes no mathematical sense.
There is a difference between the neglection of gay history, and teaching people how to speak to treat gays and lesbians, which if I read the OP's post correctly, is exactly what was being considered here. I have zero problem integrating sexual orientation.
The latter is what the British system is actually doing. The former is the misrepresentation of the letter writer the OP was quoting and vilifying. The letter writer is the one portraying it as classes in "how to treat" gay people, and that slight of hand is exactly what prompted my first post to you. In principle you agree with the OP, but in practice you keep falling for the cheap trick and supporting the right winger. I don't think that is what you intend, but it is the effect anyway.
I keep hearing that we should do away with AA and "level the playing field", but education is NOT level all the way through! With this kind of thinking, a poor kid from an inner-city school who received very little college counselling, perhaps spent more time worrying about not getting shot than getting tutored in classes he needed help with- is expected to compete toe-to-toe with more privileged kids who HAD more advantage.
The point I was trying to make to LINittany above, but did not do with your skill.
FortiesFun, thanks for your clarifications. And don't worry if we disagree on any particular subject. We have enough mutual respect that we can discuss it rather than argue about it.
I'm glad you feel this way. I respect you too much to invoke a breach.
DC said:
Wow, your school gives preferential admissions to musicians?
Yes, actually it does. As do most schools with accredited music programs. They just don't advertise it.
DC said:
I was not claiming "reverse discrimination," per se. I was just pointing out that most schools, whether they like to admit it or not, have some very lopsided and "flexible" admissions and retention policies, and sometimes those policies treat well-qualified applicants unfairly, in favor of less-qualified applicants.
And I was agreeing. I was just explaining why it is much more likely that was a matter of social class than of race. I can't speak to your specific case, but overwhelmingly young white guys like LINittany who realize they are more qualified than some portion of accepted students miss that it is other kids of their own racial profile, just wealthier, who got the nod.
I do agree, though, that diversity training is essential. Perhaps not necessarily as a couple of blow-off classes in high school, but as an integrated part of the curriculum starting in pre-school. It wouldn't hurt for "the powers that be" to reinstate some civics lessons, either.
This is an important point, since it is the actual topic of the OP, as opposed to our little detour into the politics of invoking "political correctness."
It bothers me that minorities have to be exceptional to be considered equal.
Fair is not treating everyone the same; fair is giving everyone what they need.
At least, giving everyone an equal chance to get what they need. The way in which I agree with DC is that wealth and privilege don't accrue only to whites kids, and by no means to all white kids lead privileged lives. This is as much an issue of social class as race.
