Hypothetical: Additional Enrollemnt for Minorities in Schools

[Redress]

This is a hypothetical, though it may very well be something some schools do. Please read the situation and respond accordingly.

A college decides to increase it's overall enrollment by 100 students, but those 100 students would be selected only from minorities. All other enrollment would be decided based on the same process as in the past, with the 100 students being the best of the minority students who would not normally get accepted at the school due to grades or test scores or whatever.

Would white students and potential white students have a legitimate grievance that this is unfair to them?

 

[Black Dog]

I would think it would be, yes.

 

[Redress]

I would think it would be, yes.

Can you explain your reasoning? In the situation, white student enrollment would be unaffected. I am not saying ai disagree with you, just pointing out the argument.

 

[Ikari]

There could be an argument made. While it may not affect the overall enrollment of white people, they are still being forbidden for consideration in the additional students allowed. So you could make some discriminatory argument on that basis. In the end, I think everything should be decided along lines of ability, and that's it.

 

[HeresToThePoint]

By discriminating for one group of people, we inherently discriminate against the other. Legislatively, affirmative discrimination is no better than negative discrimination.
Respectfully, HTTP

 

[Black Dog]

Can you explain your reasoning? In the situation, white student enrollment would be unaffected. I am not saying ai disagree with you, just pointing out the argument.

Discrimination is discrimination as I see it.

They opened up 100 new positions and are only offering them to minority's? How about offering it to those who are most qualified no matter what race.

Affirmative action is wrong, and this scenario is no different as far as I can tell.

 

[Areopagitican]

Why can't minorities compete on an even playing field, again?

 

[Arch Enemy]

Can you explain your reasoning? In the situation, white student enrollment would be unaffected. I am not saying ai disagree with you, just pointing out the argument.

It's simple.
Those 100 student positions were given to minorities.

Would you be alright if the other positions were only allowed to be given to white students?

 

[Real Korimyr #9]

Can you explain your reasoning? In the situation, white student enrollment would be unaffected. I am not saying ai disagree with you, just pointing out the argument.

Either the students (as a whole) are getting less education because of the 100 students, or the class could have accommodated the 100 extra students without trouble-- in which case, another 100 should have been selected on merit alone.

 

[hazlnut]

By discriminating for one group of people, we inherently discriminate against the other. Legislatively, affirmative discrimination is no better than negative discrimination.
Respectfully, HTTP

Too bad the hypothetical has nothing to do with "discriminating for one group", as white students are being admitted--in fact more whites will be admitted overall.

Too bad the hypothetical has nothing to do with legislation, or affirmative discrimination (I guess you mean action)...

You want to address the hypothetical or just make up your own questions and then answer them?

 

[Caine]

The question, which essentially holds the answer for your question, is this.

What is the purpose of opening up additional enrollment specifically for minorities?

 

[Caine]

Too bad the hypothetical has nothing to do with "discriminating for one group", as white students are being admitted--in fact more whites will be admitted overall.

Too bad the hypothetical has nothing to do with legislation, or affirmative discrimination (I guess you mean action)...

You want to address the hypothetical or just make up your own questions and then answer them?

Since you didn't want to address the hypothetical, why don't you do that instead of making your first post an attack post?

 

[Black Dog]

The question, which essentially holds the answer for your question, is this.

What is the purpose of opening up additional enrollment specifically for minorities?

For the sake of diversity!

 

[Caine]

For the sake of diversity!

Is this worth discriminating against a group of students to obtain, while giving another group of students an advantage not based upon merit?

 

[hazlnut]

Bottom line folks: The philosophy of many Universities is that diversity benefits the entire student body as a mix of people from different cultural backgrounds and ethnicities enhances the learning environment.

Bigots and xenophobes will disagree.

Bottom line #2 folks: Upper white middle class kids have an advantage over urban kids when it come to gpa and SAT. Universities can certainly take into consideration that a certain student didn't have access to SAT prep classes or may have had to work a part-time job. GPA and Test scores set a baseline for acceptance. The University certainly has a right to decide what mix will lift the cultural/emotional intelligence of the entire class.

My theory on SAT Prep classes is that they are counter-productive. They teach people of average natural intelligence how to become better test takers. They teach kids test tricks and memorization -- not creative thinking or in-depth problem solving. The day will come when college admissions will be partially based on DNA -- your actual potential to learn and contribute -- not a subjective test score.

 

[Black_Zawisza]

For the sake of diversity!

What kind of diversity do you mean, my friend? Superficial diversity? Or the kind where not everyone in the room is a racial minority, votes Democrat, thinks Karl Marx was a genius, and writes editorials for the New York Times? :lol:

 

[Caine]

Bottom line folks: The philosophy of many Universities is that diversity benefits the entire student body as a mix of people from different cultural backgrounds and ethnicities enhances the learning environment.

I understand this. But I don't believe it is as important as providing education to those who have proven themselves to have a higher chance of sucess. That is, if you are a college that is selective based upon Merit.

Bigots and xenophobes will disagree.

Ahh the mantra of the race baiter.

Bottom line #2 folks: Upper white middle class kids have an advantage over urban kids when it come to gpa and SAT.

Upper black/hispanic middle class kids have an advantage over urban kids when it comes to gpa and SAT.

 

[Black Dog]

Is this worth discriminating against a group of students to obtain, while giving another group of students an advantage not based upon merit?

Simply put, no.

 

[Black Dog]

What kind of diversity do you mean, my friend? Superficial diversity? Or the kind where not everyone in the room is a racial minority, votes Democrat, thinks Karl Marx was a genius, and writes editorials for the New York Times? :lol:

Feel good liberal waist of time diversity. Is their any other kind? :mrgreen:

 

[HeresToThePoint]

Too bad the hypothetical has nothing to do with "discriminating for one group", as white students are being admitted--in fact more whites will be admitted overall.

Too bad the hypothetical has nothing to do with legislation, or affirmative discrimination (I guess you mean action)...

You want to address the hypothetical or just make up your own questions and then answer them?

I do not exclusively mean affirmative action, although that is one form of affirmative discrimination (reverse discrimination). When debating a hypothetical situation, it can often be addressed by referring to a generalized proposition, in this case affirmative racial discrimination.

Admitting 100 minority students while ignoring white students is not legitimate discrimination. In this case, whites are being negatively discriminated against and minorities receive favorable discrimination. Those 100 students should be admitted on legitimate merit; if they are all white kids (or vice versa) so be it.

I did not make my own question up. The question was: "Would white students and potential white students have a legitimate grievance that this is unfair to them?" The answer is (as stated previously): "By discriminating for one group of people, we inherently discriminate against the other." I thought that by pointing out the hypocrisy of affirmative discrimination in this situation its obvious that I think the white students have a legitimate grievance.

I said "Legislatively, affirmative discrimination is no better than negative discrimination," as a general statement that no rule can create equality. Primarily due to the fact, that in order to select a group and outline how to protect them we segregate them, for better or worse. That isn't to say that legitimate discrimination isn't useful, such as the disabled or children, but that is beyond the scope of this thread.

Positive racial discrimination perpetuates racial discrimination.
Respectfully, HTTP

 

[jamesrage]

This is a hypothetical, though it may very well be something some schools do. Please read the situation and respond accordingly.

A college decides to increase it's overall enrollment by 100 students, but those 100 students would be selected only from minorities. All other enrollment would be decided based on the same process as in the past, with the 100 students being the best of the minority students who would not normally get accepted at the school due to grades or test scores or whatever.

Would white students and potential white students have a legitimate grievance that this is unfair to them?

Racial discrimination is still racial discrimination, so it should be illegal.

 

[Zyphlin]

Its unquestionably discrimination. As has been said, if you raise the enrollement by 100 you're either:

1) saying you had capacity for another 100 kids

or

2) saying you don't have capacity but are doing it anyways, thus over extending the schools resources which is a detriment to all the other students

You are choosing those 100 based not on merit, not on race, but on the LACK of merit and race. I say this because you're stating that you're 100 are required to have lower GPA's and SAT scores than would normally be allowed at the school.

There is absolutely zero question that this is racial discrimination. You're enhancing enrollment by 100 and slotting it only for minorities. The very nature of disallowing certain people because of their race is the very nature of discrimination.

What it comes down to is that some people like discrimination, and think there's a place for it as long as its "good" discrimination and "helps" people while the ones that are being harmed can be ignored because while the individual may not be any better off in their own life as a minority that gets in instead, that individual is from a race that is better off so he just needs to suck it up.

There can be no question this is discrimination based on race, as the very criteria is requiring it to be so. It just depends if you're like Hazlnut or not, if you think discrimination is okay as long as its hurting groups you think can stand to be hurt and helping those you think need help.

 

[Caine]

Its unquestionably discrimination. As has been said, if you raise the enrollement by 100 you're either:

1) saying you had capacity for another 100 kids

or

2) saying you don't have capacity but are doing it anyways, thus over extending the schools resources which is a detriment to all the other students

You are choosing those 100 based not on merit, not on race, but on the LACK of merit and race. I say this because you're stating that you're 100 are required to have lower GPA's and SAT scores than would normally be allowed at the school.

There is absolutely zero question that this is racial discrimination. You're enhancing enrollment by 100 and slotting it only for minorities. The very nature of disallowing certain people because of their race is the very nature of discrimination.

What it comes down to is that some people like discrimination, and think there's a place for it as long as its "good" discrimination and "helps" people while the ones that are being harmed can be ignored because while the individual may not be any better off in their own life as a minority that gets in instead, that individual is from a race that is better off so he just needs to suck it up.

There can be no question this is discrimination based on race, as the very criteria is requiring it to be so. It just depends if you're like Hazlnut or not, if you think discrimination is okay as long as its hurting groups you think can stand to be hurt and helping those you think need help.

Good points.

I would also like to point out that situations like this make a very unfair and biased assumption that all whites are better off than minorities just due to them being white.

As if inner city poor whites do not exist.

 

[Redress]

A kind of follow up question: If we changed it from minority students to low income students, would it be unfair to middle class/upper class students?

 

[Caine]

A kind of follow up question: If we changed it from minority students to low income students, would it be unfair to middle class/upper class students?

That would depend on the situation.

If they were going to be accepted under some sort of school supported scholarship program because they were a high ranked applicant yet lacked the ability to secure the type of funding needed to attend the school, then I would have no problem.

If they were going to be accepted because they are poor and they also had poor educational (and/or other) merits then it falls back in line with being discriminatory against those who were better qualified candidates in exchange for some "feel good" acceptance of an individual who has a high probability of NOT suceeding within your institution.