Thursday, June 13, 2013
Political Mayhem Thursday: Fisher v. UT
Some pundits are predicting that today will see the announcement of an opinion in Fisher v. University of Texas, a case in which UT's affirmative action practices are being challenged.
Is affirmative action a good thing or now? Let's debate that today.
To my mind, there are mixed results.
First, I do think it is important that a college education include being exposed to a range of ideas and people from a diversity of backgrounds. It is also important that all parts of society have access to quality college education. Diversity programs serve these important goals. The success of these programs is reflected in the number of minority students at many elite schools, particularly private ones.
At the same thing, I see some projects that trouble me. At some of the most selective colleges, the admissions process has become almost completely segregated. If you look at a group of people touring such a college, you will see one of two things, probably: Either a group of Asian and white prospective students, or a group of Hispanic and African-American prospectives. Because schools recruit students of color (except Asians) through special programs, they are often segregated from the other groups not only for tours but for other aspects of the process. To my mind this establishes a troubling precedent before students even enter school-- one of segregation by race which defeats a core purpose of diversity itself.
What do you all think?
Is affirmative action a good thing or now? Let's debate that today.
To my mind, there are mixed results.
First, I do think it is important that a college education include being exposed to a range of ideas and people from a diversity of backgrounds. It is also important that all parts of society have access to quality college education. Diversity programs serve these important goals. The success of these programs is reflected in the number of minority students at many elite schools, particularly private ones.
At the same thing, I see some projects that trouble me. At some of the most selective colleges, the admissions process has become almost completely segregated. If you look at a group of people touring such a college, you will see one of two things, probably: Either a group of Asian and white prospective students, or a group of Hispanic and African-American prospectives. Because schools recruit students of color (except Asians) through special programs, they are often segregated from the other groups not only for tours but for other aspects of the process. To my mind this establishes a troubling precedent before students even enter school-- one of segregation by race which defeats a core purpose of diversity itself.
What do you all think?
Comments:
<< Home
So many things wrong with Affirmative Action as currently constructed. Like all great tragedies, it began with a noble idea. But, at this point, Affirmative Action accomplishes little more than creating a false impression of diversity within American universities, which, sadly, have degenerated into one of the least diverse (and increasingly corrosive) institutions on the planet.
Farmer-- I don't think by calling universities "one of the least diverse institutions" you are talking about minority enrollment, since that has been lifted by affirmative action programs. Are you talking about ideological diversity?
If you are, I agree. I am very fortunate to work at a remarkably diverse school, which has strong conservative voices alongside the more predictable progressive ones (like mine). Moreover, those voices reflect different parts of the conservative movement (as well as the progressive spectrum). I don't think this is the norm in many places, though.
If you are, I agree. I am very fortunate to work at a remarkably diverse school, which has strong conservative voices alongside the more predictable progressive ones (like mine). Moreover, those voices reflect different parts of the conservative movement (as well as the progressive spectrum). I don't think this is the norm in many places, though.
We still need more diversity at all level of government, academia, corporate world etc. Affirmative Action is a means to that end. Therefore Affirmative Action in colleges is still necessary.
I am not familiar with the segregated recruiting practices at some universities. Such practice only bothers me if it affects integration of the student body.
I am not familiar with the segregated recruiting practices at some universities. Such practice only bothers me if it affects integration of the student body.
# posted by 
: 8:10 AM
: 8:10 AM
HI Mark.
I am not really talking about ideological diversity because that is so awful it really goes without saying. I am speaking more about regional diversity and socio-economic diversity and diversity of experience and other similar categories.
Ron Brownstein wrote a very helpful column for National Journal a few weeks ago:
http://www.nationaljournal.com/columns/political-connections/why-this-affirmative-action-debate-is-different-20130530
I don't agree with his conclusion, which seems to be affirmative action has not worked over the last forty years, which leaves us in a very precarious position right now as we move forward; therefore, we cannot abandon affirmative action at this critical juncture.
NOTE: even though I framed it in an ironic way, his conclusion is not unreasonable. But it is a frustrating dilemma--no matter which side you come down on.
I recommend the article because Brownstein gets to many of the complicated problems in his brief piece and offers lots of provocative statistics. His paragraph here speaks to my earlier point:
"Inevitably, this demographic wave has crested into the academy. Federal figures show that nonwhites comprised 47 percent of the 2011 class entering higher education, up from one-third in 1996. The problem is that those overall numbers mask the emergence of...a "de facto dual system" of higher education in which minorities and low-income kids are funneling mostly into the least selective (and least rewarding) schools."
I am not really talking about ideological diversity because that is so awful it really goes without saying. I am speaking more about regional diversity and socio-economic diversity and diversity of experience and other similar categories.
Ron Brownstein wrote a very helpful column for National Journal a few weeks ago:
http://www.nationaljournal.com/columns/political-connections/why-this-affirmative-action-debate-is-different-20130530
I don't agree with his conclusion, which seems to be affirmative action has not worked over the last forty years, which leaves us in a very precarious position right now as we move forward; therefore, we cannot abandon affirmative action at this critical juncture.
NOTE: even though I framed it in an ironic way, his conclusion is not unreasonable. But it is a frustrating dilemma--no matter which side you come down on.
I recommend the article because Brownstein gets to many of the complicated problems in his brief piece and offers lots of provocative statistics. His paragraph here speaks to my earlier point:
"Inevitably, this demographic wave has crested into the academy. Federal figures show that nonwhites comprised 47 percent of the 2011 class entering higher education, up from one-third in 1996. The problem is that those overall numbers mask the emergence of...a "de facto dual system" of higher education in which minorities and low-income kids are funneling mostly into the least selective (and least rewarding) schools."
Until we have equal preschool through college education available to all, we will need some affirmative action in colleges.
What we need is affirmative action for our 3-6 year old children.
We should be providing equal opportunities to disadvantaged and advantaged children so that they become productive citizens. It is in all our interests, and a cheap solution, to many of our social and economic problems to correct the inequities in our education systems as early as possible. We are, however, moving in the opposite direction. We are cutting early education funding and seeing wage and opportunity disparities rise.
Affirmative action at the college level will be necessary until the circumstances in the lives of many poor rural and urban children are improved.
The most vexing problem is the inability of the poorest population to fund this early education and pay for college. The greater community must get involved.
Preparing all our children to be ready for college should be our goal. We will then have diversity in our colleges and our college graduates. Without a sound education, it is hard to pull ones self up.
What we need is affirmative action for our 3-6 year old children.
We should be providing equal opportunities to disadvantaged and advantaged children so that they become productive citizens. It is in all our interests, and a cheap solution, to many of our social and economic problems to correct the inequities in our education systems as early as possible. We are, however, moving in the opposite direction. We are cutting early education funding and seeing wage and opportunity disparities rise.
Affirmative action at the college level will be necessary until the circumstances in the lives of many poor rural and urban children are improved.
The most vexing problem is the inability of the poorest population to fund this early education and pay for college. The greater community must get involved.
Preparing all our children to be ready for college should be our goal. We will then have diversity in our colleges and our college graduates. Without a sound education, it is hard to pull ones self up.
I totally agree with Mr. Osler that our education system, for the people who need it most as a vehicle for social mobility, is rotten from top to bottom, PK-thru-College.
Education is, in fact, one of the key crises that literally threatens the survival of our nation as we know it. Agreed.
I think I hear Mr. Osler falling in with Ron Brownstein: our system is such an awful mess that we need Affirmative Action to remedy our failed system.
But one of my objections to Affirmative Action is that it is a really thin remedy that fails to do much more than make us all feel just a bit better about our failed system. But the failure remains on a trajectory to get worse.
Education is, in fact, one of the key crises that literally threatens the survival of our nation as we know it. Agreed.
I think I hear Mr. Osler falling in with Ron Brownstein: our system is such an awful mess that we need Affirmative Action to remedy our failed system.
But one of my objections to Affirmative Action is that it is a really thin remedy that fails to do much more than make us all feel just a bit better about our failed system. But the failure remains on a trajectory to get worse.
Is not the greater question that we are beginning to be smothered by 'educational nepotism'?
When personal wealth and 'station' continue to play a larger and larger role in affording admission to the rewarding, as well as the least rewarding, schools where the 'degree' required to merely enter the 'race' of employment's most desired (and well compensated) positions is attained, should not the entire addmission practices of higher education be reevaluated?
Those who grew up as 'alley urchins' (living in converted rental units with no sidewalk at your front door) similar to myself, sought only a seat or desk in the classrooms of higher learning. 'Work-study', summer employment, scholarship or grant, including 'reasonable' debt was all we asked - once admitted, opportunity was the 'great equalizer' where knowledge acquired and achievement was up to the individual. . .
The burdens encountered for individual or family to attain higher education under today's evolving framework is often as destabilizing as the evolution of 'nuclear' family sanctity - Parental and student sacrifices when admission is now grades, athletic and / or activity prowess, community and / or religeous service and more. . . places immense pressures on the emotional and financial health of all.
The nation suffers when the 'nest' remains occupied due to under-employment - full integration into society languishes, household formations are delayed, demand for goods and services are limited and the economy stagnates further - increasing individual burden that not only delays economic expansion, it stangles it further pulling it towards a vortex of diminishing prosperity for more, and more and more. . .
Admission to the challenge of learning is the opportunity required to eventually return our nation to the 'exceptionalism' many still blindly profess . . .
When personal wealth and 'station' continue to play a larger and larger role in affording admission to the rewarding, as well as the least rewarding, schools where the 'degree' required to merely enter the 'race' of employment's most desired (and well compensated) positions is attained, should not the entire addmission practices of higher education be reevaluated?
Those who grew up as 'alley urchins' (living in converted rental units with no sidewalk at your front door) similar to myself, sought only a seat or desk in the classrooms of higher learning. 'Work-study', summer employment, scholarship or grant, including 'reasonable' debt was all we asked - once admitted, opportunity was the 'great equalizer' where knowledge acquired and achievement was up to the individual. . .
The burdens encountered for individual or family to attain higher education under today's evolving framework is often as destabilizing as the evolution of 'nuclear' family sanctity - Parental and student sacrifices when admission is now grades, athletic and / or activity prowess, community and / or religeous service and more. . . places immense pressures on the emotional and financial health of all.
The nation suffers when the 'nest' remains occupied due to under-employment - full integration into society languishes, household formations are delayed, demand for goods and services are limited and the economy stagnates further - increasing individual burden that not only delays economic expansion, it stangles it further pulling it towards a vortex of diminishing prosperity for more, and more and more. . .
Admission to the challenge of learning is the opportunity required to eventually return our nation to the 'exceptionalism' many still blindly profess . . .
You can have all the affirmative action in the world, but unless those it is geared toward can afford to attend college it will be an endless spiral. Until College is more affordable (including interest rates on student loans) obtaining diversity on campuses will continue to be an issue.
And yes the education of the youngest and disadvantaged in our society is a big part of improving their future ability to compete.
And yes the education of the youngest and disadvantaged in our society is a big part of improving their future ability to compete.
THE PROBLEM WITH THE EDUCATIONAL SYSTEM IS THAT WE'VE TOLD EVERYONE COLLEGE IS NECESSARY (IT ISN'T), AND CONTINUE TO VALUE CERTAIN TYPES OF HIGHLY-EDUCATED LABOR OVER OTHERS (WHAT MAKES AN ENGINEER OR A LAWYER MORE ESSENTIAL TO SOCIETY AND WORTHIER OF COMPENSATION THAN A PLUMBER OR ELECTRICIAN?). SO WE TELL KIDS THEY WILL NEVER BE SUCCESSFUL IF THEY DON'T GO TO COLLEGE, WHILE DOING EVERYTHING WE CAN TO ENCOURAGE CERTAIN TYPES OF PEOPLE NOT TO ATTEND (LIKE THOSE WHO MIGHT NOT BE WHITE AND UPPER MIDDLE-CLASS) SO THAT UNIVERSITIES CAN CONTINUE THEIR EXCLUSIVITY TO A CERTAIN CLASS.
UNIVERSAL AND SUBSIDIZED COMPULSORY PUBLIC EDUCATION WITH A STRONG FOCUS ON VOCATIONAL AND TECHNOLOGICAL EDUCATION FOR THOSE WHO NEITHER DESIRE NOR NEED A LIBERAL ARTS OR PROFESSIONAL EDUCATION SHOULD BE A THING, LIKE IN THE REST OF THE FIRST WORLD, ALONG WITH SUBSIDIZED EDUCATION FOR THOSE WHO HAVE THE INCLINATION OR SKILLS TO BE A HIGHLY-EDUCATED PROFESSIONAL. AND WE SHOULD NOT LOOK DOWN UPON OR DENIGRATE THOSE WHO CHOOSE NOT TO PURSUE SUCH A CAREER. A SOCIETY OF NOTHING BUT ENGINEERS AND ARCHITECTS WOULD COLLAPSE FOR WANT OF CONSTRUCTION WORKERS AND SCHOOL TEACHERS.
FROM EACH ACCORDING TO THEIR ABILITIES, AND TO EACH ACCORDING TO THEIR NEEDS.
UNIVERSAL AND SUBSIDIZED COMPULSORY PUBLIC EDUCATION WITH A STRONG FOCUS ON VOCATIONAL AND TECHNOLOGICAL EDUCATION FOR THOSE WHO NEITHER DESIRE NOR NEED A LIBERAL ARTS OR PROFESSIONAL EDUCATION SHOULD BE A THING, LIKE IN THE REST OF THE FIRST WORLD, ALONG WITH SUBSIDIZED EDUCATION FOR THOSE WHO HAVE THE INCLINATION OR SKILLS TO BE A HIGHLY-EDUCATED PROFESSIONAL. AND WE SHOULD NOT LOOK DOWN UPON OR DENIGRATE THOSE WHO CHOOSE NOT TO PURSUE SUCH A CAREER. A SOCIETY OF NOTHING BUT ENGINEERS AND ARCHITECTS WOULD COLLAPSE FOR WANT OF CONSTRUCTION WORKERS AND SCHOOL TEACHERS.
FROM EACH ACCORDING TO THEIR ABILITIES, AND TO EACH ACCORDING TO THEIR NEEDS.
# posted by : 11:21 PM
: 11:21 PM
AllCapsGuy you make very good points. The HS I attended (along with the Prof) had courses geared toward vocations and also accommodated students in their junior and senior years that needed to work in the afternoons. The school had a very big auto - shop, a dental hygienist program and commercial food program (geared toward catering and large scale food service). They offered typing and accounting so teens would have office and bookkeeping skills.
This was not a track I followed but it was a way to address the needs of many students who didn't think they would be college bound right our of high school. There was still a basic core curriculum for students following this path so they were not isolated and I don't remember anyone looking at them differently.
I think it assisted in keeping teens in school and keeping the drop out rate very low and prepared them to have a foot up when they went to work out of high school.
This was not a track I followed but it was a way to address the needs of many students who didn't think they would be college bound right our of high school. There was still a basic core curriculum for students following this path so they were not isolated and I don't remember anyone looking at them differently.
I think it assisted in keeping teens in school and keeping the drop out rate very low and prepared them to have a foot up when they went to work out of high school.
ALLCAPSOBAMAGUY you typed pretty much all I would have liked to type in lower case. You know, there's nothing wrong with lower case... still, thanks.
P.S. to ALLCAPSOBAMAGUY…one good construction worker is worth ten mediocre architects.
marta
marta
# posted by : 2:57 PM
: 2:57 PM
Slightly Different Thought:
The Affirmative Action Dilemma: Proving Clarence Thomas Right
I just watched a small snippet of Touré on MSNBC this afternoon. Shame on me. #WatchMoreCSPAN!
In a throwaway smear on Clarence Thomas, Touré observed how ironic and hypocritical and immoral it is that Clarence Thomas, who is "successful in America because of Affirmative Action," habitually votes against Affirmative Action. Of course, ironically, Touré (perhaps ignorantly--perhaps knowingly) reinforces Clarence Thomas's long-held assertion that Affirmative Action perniciously reduces anything he might accomplish in life because his enemies forever hold over him the notion that his accomplishments are only possible through Affirmative Action.
The Affirmative Action Dilemma: Proving Clarence Thomas Right
I just watched a small snippet of Touré on MSNBC this afternoon. Shame on me. #WatchMoreCSPAN!
In a throwaway smear on Clarence Thomas, Touré observed how ironic and hypocritical and immoral it is that Clarence Thomas, who is "successful in America because of Affirmative Action," habitually votes against Affirmative Action. Of course, ironically, Touré (perhaps ignorantly--perhaps knowingly) reinforces Clarence Thomas's long-held assertion that Affirmative Action perniciously reduces anything he might accomplish in life because his enemies forever hold over him the notion that his accomplishments are only possible through Affirmative Action.
Marta - some 'architectural' love please. . .
Is it the 'Action' in 'Affirmative' we struggle with or our reluctance to Affirm Action?
'Goods and Services' created, produced and desired are alluring and often defining - defining more often through a display of opulence and / or a celebration of the 'deal (bargain) received,' seldom honoring the 'invisible' individual whose toil created that which we prize. . .
Why has it become so easy to celebrate the 'gift' (prize) attained while reflecting not on the 'hands' creating? Should not both be valued?
Post a Comment
Is it the 'Action' in 'Affirmative' we struggle with or our reluctance to Affirm Action?
'Goods and Services' created, produced and desired are alluring and often defining - defining more often through a display of opulence and / or a celebration of the 'deal (bargain) received,' seldom honoring the 'invisible' individual whose toil created that which we prize. . .
Why has it become so easy to celebrate the 'gift' (prize) attained while reflecting not on the 'hands' creating? Should not both be valued?
<< Home
