https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/01/us/politics/trump-affirmative-action-universities.html
The Trump administration is preparing to redirect resources of the Justice Department’s civil rights division toward investigating and suing universities over affirmative action admissions policies deemed to discriminate against white applicants, according to a document obtained by The New York Times.
The document, an internal announcement to the civil rights division, seeks current lawyers interested in working for a new project on “investigations and possible litigation related to intentional race-based discrimination in college and university admissions.”
The announcement suggests that the project will be run out of the division’s front office, where the Trump administration’s political appointees work, rather than its Educational Opportunities Section, which is run by career civil servants and normally handles work involving schools and universities.
The document does not explicitly identify whom the Justice Department considers at risk of discrimination because of affirmative action admissions policies. But the phrasing it uses, “intentional race-based discrimination,” cuts to the heart of programs designed to bring more minorities to university campuses.
Supporters and critics of the project said it was clearly targeting admissions programs that can give members of generally disadvantaged groups, like black and Latino students, an edge over other applicants with comparable or higher test scores.
The project is another sign that the civil rights division is taking on a conservative tilt under President Trump and Attorney General Jeff Sessions. It follows other changes in Justice Department policy on voting rights, gay rights and police reforms.
Roger Clegg, a former top official in the civil rights division during the Reagan and George Bush administrations who is now the president of the conservative Center for Equal Opportunity, called the project a “welcome” and “long overdue” development as the United States becomes increasingly multiracial.
“The civil rights laws were deliberately written to protect everyone from discrimination, and it is frequently the case that not only are whites discriminated against now, but frequently Asian-Americans are as well,” he said.
But Kristen Clarke, the president of the liberal Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, criticized the affirmative action project as “misaligned with the division’s longstanding priorities.” She noted that the civil rights division was “created and launched to deal with the unique problem of discrimination faced by our nation’s most oppressed minority groups,” performing work that often no one else has the resources or expertise to do.
“This is deeply disturbing,” she said. “It would be a dog whistle that could invite a lot of chaos and unnecessarily create hysteria among colleges and universities who may fear that the government may come down on them for their efforts to maintain diversity on their campuses.”
The Justice Department declined to provide more details about its plans or to make the acting head of the civil rights division, John Gore, available for an interview.
“The Department of Justice does not discuss personnel matters, so we’ll decline comment,” said Devin O’Malley, a department spokesman.
The Supreme Court has ruled that the educational benefits that flow from having a diverse student body can justify using race as one factor among many in a “holistic” evaluation, while rejecting blunt racial quotas or race-based point systems. But what that permits in actual practice by universities — public ones as well as private ones that receive federal funding — is often murky.
|
|
|
(Topic Creator)3 hours ago#3
I say this topic gets...231 posts before tapping out. No minds will be changed.
|
hopefully they look at legacy admissions as well
|
Good, honestly. In 2017, you shouldn't be evaluated based on which box you checked under the race category. That shouldn't even be on the college application.
My main is currently warned for silly reasons.
|
(Topic Creator)3 hours ago#6
Butterfiles posted...
hopefully they look at legacy admissions as well
This will not happen
|
Butterfiles posted...
hopefully they look at legacy admissions as well
I agree that legacy admissions are bull, but that doesn't necessarily mean unconstitutional. Also whether or not the university is public or private may come into play, and I don't know if any public universities even look at legacy crap to begin with. Maybe they do, idk.
My main is currently warned for silly reasons.
|
This isn't an important issue for them to be focusing on when there are bigger problems out there.
|
And the alt-righters let out a cheer.
|
Sativa_Rerose posted...
Good, honestly. In 2017, you shouldn't be evaluated based on which box you checked under the race category. That shouldn't even be on the college application.
Why should a private institution be forced to cater to your sense of fairness and admit who you want instead of what they want? Maybe there's a case to be made for public schools but why for private?
Voted best user on CE 2012 - 2016
Current e-argument streak: 9005 wins. 0 losses.
|
Sativa_Rerose posted...
Good, honestly. In 2017, you shouldn't be evaluated based on which box you checked under the race category. That shouldn't even be on the college application.
Except racism still exists in this country. I would not be surprised to hear accounts of minorities being denied admission with the excuse of a white applicant being "more qualified" or some b.s. like that.
|
JustMyOpinion posted...
Sativa_Rerose posted...
Good, honestly. In 2017, you shouldn't be evaluated based on which box you checked under the race category. That shouldn't even be on the college application.
Why should a private institution be forced to cater to your sense of fairness and admit who you want instead of what they want? Maybe there's a case to be made for public schools but why for private?
Are private organizations allowed to discriminate on the basis of race? Can you have a whites only country club or something? If so, then that should go for colleges too. There just needs to be consistency across the board when it comes to the private institutions. As for the public institutions, that is very different as they have to abide by the law kind of as if they are a state agency I think.
My main is currently warned for silly reasons.
|
Sativa_Rerose posted...
JustMyOpinion posted...
Sativa_Rerose posted...
Good, honestly. In 2017, you shouldn't be evaluated based on which box you checked under the race category. That shouldn't even be on the college application.
Why should a private institution be forced to cater to your sense of fairness and admit who you want instead of what they want? Maybe there's a case to be made for public schools but why for private?
Are private organizations allowed to discriminate on the basis of race? Can you have a whites only country club or something? If so, then that should go for colleges too. There just needs to be consistency across the board when it comes to the private institutions.
As for the public institutions, that is very different as they have to abide by the law kind of as if they are a state agency I think.
There are no black only or minority only colleges in the US as far as I know. There are historically black colleges where a very large majority of blacks, but whites are still allowed.
Voted best user on CE 2012 - 2016
Current e-argument streak: 9005 wins. 0 losses.
|
dragnmaninferno posted...
Sativa_Rerose posted...
Good, honestly. In 2017, you shouldn't be evaluated based on which box you checked under the race category. That shouldn't even be on the college application.
Except racism still exists in this country. I would not be surprised to hear accounts of minorities being denied admission with the excuse of a white applicant being "more qualified" or some b.s. like that.
If race is not on the application at all, then the admissions people won't even necessarily know the race of the applicant. The applicant's name could be hidden. Actual interviews for college applications are pretty rare these days. I'd say the best way to deal with that is by ensuring the people making the decisions do not have access to that information.
My main is currently warned for silly reasons.
|
Antifar posted...
The Justice Department declined to provide more details about its plans or to make the acting head of the civil rights division, John Gore, available for an interview.
this vague inflammatory policy will surely be the one to make everyone forget about the Russia investigation
|
Thank goodness someone is looking out for the poor beleaguered white man
|
So far as I understand it, all research shows that diversity is a good thing for people to experience. If a university wishes to have a diverse student body because of this, I don't really have a problem with them using some kind of point system where racial identity is included
|
I'd be fine if they took name, sex, birth, and race off applications and just let in the most qualified candidates.
{}\\{}(o){}\\//{}//=\\{})){}(< \\//{}{{-{}//\\{}
{}xxxxxxxx{};;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;>
|
Nomadic View posted...
I'd be fine if they took name, sex, birth, and race off applications and just let in the most qualified candidates.
This. Who could argue against this? Wouldn't this make it so you can only get admitted on merit?
The person who writes for fools is always sure of a large audience.
Friend Code: 2723-9696-7248
|
I hope this doesn't escalate to the point where school have to take the first X amount of students that meet the on paper criteria and popular engineering schools end up with matriculating classes with 90% male populations, mostly composed of White and Asian ethnicity.
imgtc.com/i/4HgTl0ebzq.jpg imgtc.com/i/60CWP2Gtlg.gif
|
f*** yeah it's about damn time!
|
|
|
ZCheveyo posted...
Sephiroth1288 posted...
This. Who could argue against this? Wouldn't this make it so you can only get admitted on merit?
Wasn't there something on CE a few weeks ago about a company doing this and then being told to stop because men were being hired (or maybe it was men were being promoted) at a higher rate and women were complaining?
I remember reading something like that, but the details are fuzzy.
Yes It was my topic http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-06-30/bilnd-recruitment-trial-to-improve-gender-equality-failing-study/8664888
The person who writes for fools is always sure of a large audience.
Friend Code: 2723-9696-7248
|
ZCheveyo posted...
Sephiroth1288 posted...
This. Who could argue against this? Wouldn't this make it so you can only get admitted on merit?
Wasn't there something on CE a few weeks ago about a company doing this and then being told to stop because men were being hired (or maybe it was men were being promoted) at a higher rate and women were complaining?
I remember reading something like that, but the details are fuzzy.
I didn't see the CE topic, but I remember Sargon of Akkad talking about that story.
{}\\{}(o){}\\//{}//=\\{})){}(< \\//{}{{-{}//\\{}
{}xxxxxxxx{};;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;>
|
Sephiroth1288 posted...
Nomadic View posted...
I'd be fine if they took name, sex, birth, and race off applications and just let in the most qualified candidates.
This. Who could argue against this? Wouldn't this make it so you can only get admitted on merit?
The problem with this is that there are places in this country where students attend schools with such low academic performance and do not have the best aid given to them that performing well can be a challenge for the students.
|
Hello black people, you should vote for me because what have you got to lose?!
|
Equality is a good thing Race and gender shouldn't matter at all on a college or job application
Shenmue II = best game of all time
Shenmue = 2nd best game of all time
|
|
|
dragnmaninferno posted...
Sephiroth1288 posted...
Nomadic View posted...
I'd be fine if they took name, sex, birth, and race off applications and just let in the most qualified candidates.
This. Who could argue against this? Wouldn't this make it so you can only get admitted on merit?
The problem with this is that there are places in this country where students attend schools with such low academic performance and do not have the best aid given to them that performing well can be a challenge for the students.
If someone has low academic performance then why would you want to put them in challenging universities where they're doomed to fail
The person who writes for fools is always sure of a large audience.
Friend Code: 2723-9696-7248
|
dragnmaninferno posted...
Sephiroth1288 posted...
Nomadic View posted...
I'd be fine if they took name, sex, birth, and race off applications and just let in the most qualified candidates.
This. Who could argue against this? Wouldn't this make it so you can only get admitted on merit?
The problem with this is that there are places in this country where students attend schools with such low academic performance and do not have the best aid given to them that performing well can be a challenge for the students.
I agree completely, but the solution to this is a dramatic overhaul of the quality of education in those areas. Right now the approach to solving this via race base affirmative action is literally to assume black or hispanic student = s***ty school, white or asian = good school. It's all about the race box that is checked and not about the individual.
My main is currently warned for silly reasons.
|
|
|
|
|
Sephiroth1288 posted...
Nomadic View posted...
I'd be fine if they took name, sex, birth, and race off applications and just let in the most qualified candidates.
This. Who could argue against this? Wouldn't this make it so you can only get admitted on merit?
The problem with this is that, for engineering schools, males VASTLY outnumber females in applications. Ethnicity-wise, Asians and whites also outnumber the other ethnicities by a significant margin. If you want a diverse student body, you have to go out of your way to look for those that can fill the niches you're looking for. It's not just looking for students that can survive the classes, you also want students who can contribute to the student life. And you do not want a class comprised of 10% females, 90% males.
imgtc.com/i/4HgTl0ebzq.jpg imgtc.com/i/60CWP2Gtlg.gif
|
White people already have the advantage when getting to college... oh well who would have guessed Trump wanted to hurt black people even more. I love how most of the people who agree with Trump on stuff like this have s*** to say about legacies, or the numerous other advantages white people have. But I take it they will not address those ever . f*** Trump and the people who he gets to ago with this.
Bender: Well, everybody, I just saved a turtle. What have you done with your lives?
|
Sad_Face posted...
Sephiroth1288 posted...
Nomadic View posted...
I'd be fine if they took name, sex, birth, and race off applications and just let in the most qualified candidates.
This. Who could argue against this? Wouldn't this make it so you can only get admitted on merit?
The problem with this is that, for engineering schools, males VASTLY outnumber females in applications. Ethnicity-wise, Asians and whites also outnumber the other ethnicities by a significant margin. If you want a diverse student body, you have to go out of your way to look for those that can fill the niches you're looking for. It's not just looking for students that can survive the classes, you also want students who can contribute to the student life. And you do not want a class comprised of 10% females, 90% males.
Are there affirmative programs then for men in fields such as nursing, teaching, social workers?
Bender: You know, I was God once.
God: Yes, I saw. You were doing well until everyone died.
|
Sad_Face posted...
The problem with this is that, for engineering schools, males VASTLY outnumber females in applications. Ethnicity-wise, Asians and whites also outnumber the other ethnicities by a significant margin. If you want a diverse student body, you have to go out of your way to look for those that can fill the niches you're looking for. It's not just looking for students that can survive the classes, you also want students who can contribute to the student life. And you do not want a class comprised of 10% females, 90% males.
Who cares? Why should a black woman get preferential treatment over an asian man? I would be ok with preferring a low-income person over a high-income person, but why should the asian man be penalized for the way he was born?
The person who writes for fools is always sure of a large audience.
Friend Code: 2723-9696-7248
|
Sad_Face posted...
Sephiroth1288 posted...
Nomadic View posted...
I'd be fine if they took name, sex, birth, and race off applications and just let in the most qualified candidates.
This. Who could argue against this? Wouldn't this make it so you can only get admitted on merit?
The problem with this is that, for engineering schools, males VASTLY outnumber females in applications. Ethnicity-wise, Asians and whites also outnumber the other ethnicities by a significant margin. If you want a diverse student body, you have to go out of your way to look for those that can fill the niches you're looking for. It's not just looking for students that can survive the classes, you also want students who can contribute to the student life. And you do not want a class comprised of 10% females, 90% males.
What do you mean by "contribute to the student life"? Why should you prioritize that and achieving a certain demographic over simply picking the most qualified students?
"If the day does not require an AK, it is good." The Great Warrior Poet, Ice Cube
|
Kirby posted...
Are there affirmative programs then for men in fields such as nursing, teaching, social workers?
I recall where I live, there are pushes for more males to go into nursing and teaching. Heck, if you're a male, you're practically guaranteed a job teaching for your gender. There's a severe lack of a respectable male presence in a lot of kids' lives (most kids live in single parent households) and male teachers can fill that niche of being a positive male influence on their lives. It makes a big difference. Sephiroth1288 posted...
Who cares? Why should a black woman get preferential treatment over an asian man?
I would be ok with preferring a low-income person over a high-income person, but why should the asian man be penalized for the way he was born?
Dude, you just brushed off my point and still asked the very question my post addresses.
imgtc.com/i/4HgTl0ebzq.jpg imgtc.com/i/60CWP2Gtlg.gif
|
|
|
DifferentialEquation posted...
What do you mean by "contribute to the student life"? Why should you prioritize that and achieving a certain demographic over simply picking the most qualified students?
Because you still have to live and interact with those very students for 4 years. At any engineering school, the application pool is going to have a ratio of 7:1 male to female and the ethnicities I mentioned before dominate these fields. That means they could easily create a class of solely males. This is bad for the student population because those students are going to be disappointed over the gender ratio, and it's bad for the school because it's going to deter potential applicants (both male and female) from applying during the next application cycle. The school is still a business, they have everything to gain from being choosy and risk a lot settling for a homogeneous student body.
imgtc.com/i/4HgTl0ebzq.jpg imgtc.com/i/60CWP2Gtlg.gif
|
Sephiroth1288 posted...
Nomadic View posted...
I'd be fine if they took name, sex, birth, and race off applications and just let in the most qualified candidates.
This. Who could argue against this? Wouldn't this make it so you can only get admitted on merit?
meritocracy is a myth. everything has a bias. in the US, the whole system is set up in favour of white men. there's no way that won't have an effect.
|
Sad_Face posted...
DifferentialEquation posted...
What do you mean by "contribute to the student life"? Why should you prioritize that and achieving a certain demographic over simply picking the most qualified students?
Because you still have to live and interact with those very students for 4 years. At any engineering school, the application pool is going to have a ratio of 7:1 male to female and the ethnicities I mentioned before dominate these fields. That means they could easily create a class of solely males. This is bad for the student population because those students are going to be disappointed over the gender ratio, and it's bad for the school because it's going to deter potential applicants (both male and female) from applying during the next application cycle. The school is still a business, they have everything to gain from being choosy and risk a lot settling for a homogeneous student body.
Are there any cases of schools not having enough qualified students apply to their engineering programs due to disappointment with these gender ratios?
"If the day does not require an AK, it is good." The Great Warrior Poet, Ice Cube
|
Good. I'm sick of this anti white bulls***. It's everywhere.
|
Sad_Face posted...
DifferentialEquation posted...
What do you mean by "contribute to the student life"? Why should you prioritize that and achieving a certain demographic over simply picking the most qualified students?
Because you still have to live and interact with those very students for 4 years. At any engineering school, the application pool is going to have a ratio of 7:1 male to female and the ethnicities I mentioned before dominate these fields. That means they could easily create a class of solely males. This is bad for the student population because those students are going to be disappointed over the gender ratio, and it's bad for the school because it's going to deter potential applicants (both male and female) from applying during the next application cycle. The school is still a business, they have everything to gain from being choosy and risk a lot settling for a homogeneous student body.
There's plenty of other women going to that same college those students can interact with. No student should be declined enrollment to their college and field of choice based off of their gender or race. Furthermore, I find it interesting there's so much push for women education initiatives despite the fact 56% of people enrolled in public universities are female. There have been more females than males going to college since the late 1970s (Forbes). Women, for the most part, aren't very interested in certain fields and men aren't interested in others. There are plenty of qualified women who can get enrolled to the university and field of their choice without someone with a net roping them in while kicking out others.
"I think that man will be president right about the time when spaceships come down filled with dinosaurs in red capes" - Tom Hanks
|
|
|
dragnmaninferno posted...
Sephiroth1288 posted...
Nomadic View posted...
I'd be fine if they took name, sex, birth, and race off applications and just let in the most qualified candidates.
This. Who could argue against this? Wouldn't this make it so you can only get admitted on merit?
The problem with this is that there are places in this country where students attend schools with such low academic performance and do not have the best aid given to them that performing well can be a challenge for the students.
there is a problem with this. You can be setting up that person to fail. and with college admission so ridiculously priced(and say this person is dorming since they do come from a s***ty neighborhood), failure is going to hurt that person significantly down the line. say this person spends 8k a semester, and within 3 they are out. thats 24k in loans for a 19-20 year old.
|
John_Galt posted...
Good
About damn time
I agree. And they say Trump/his Administration conned his voters.
"I think that man will be president right about the time when spaceships come down filled with dinosaurs in red capes" - Tom Hanks
|
Good. It's about damn time too.
FFVII Remake: A disaster in the making.
I'll laugh at whatever I find funny whether you like it or not.
|
Antifar posted...
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/01/us/politics/trump-affirmative-action-universities.html
The Trump administration is preparing to redirect resources of the Justice Department’s civil rights division toward investigating and suing universities over affirmative action admissions policies deemed to discriminate against white applicants, according to a document obtained by The New York Times.
The document, an internal announcement to the civil rights division, seeks current lawyers interested in working for a new project on “investigations and possible litigation related to intentional race-based discrimination in college and university admissions.”
The announcement suggests that the project will be run out of the division’s front office, where the Trump administration’s political appointees work, rather than its Educational Opportunities Section, which is run by career civil servants and normally handles work involving schools and universities.
The document does not explicitly identify whom the Justice Department considers at risk of discrimination because of affirmative action admissions policies. But the phrasing it uses, “intentional race-based discrimination,” cuts to the heart of programs designed to bring more minorities to university campuses.
Supporters and critics of the project said it was clearly targeting admissions programs that can give members of generally disadvantaged groups, like black and Latino students, an edge over other applicants with comparable or higher test scores.
The project is another sign that the civil rights division is taking on a conservative tilt under President Trump and Attorney General Jeff Sessions. It follows other changes in Justice Department policy on voting rights, gay rights and police reforms.
Roger Clegg, a former top official in the civil rights division during the Reagan and George Bush administrations who is now the president of the conservative Center for Equal Opportunity, called the project a “welcome” and “long overdue” development as the United States becomes increasingly multiracial.
“The civil rights laws were deliberately written to protect everyone from discrimination, and it is frequently the case that not only are whites discriminated against now, but frequently Asian-Americans are as well,” he said.
But Kristen Clarke, the president of the liberal Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, criticized the affirmative action project as “misaligned with the division’s longstanding priorities.” She noted that the civil rights division was “created and launched to deal with the unique problem of discrimination faced by our nation’s most oppressed minority groups,” performing work that often no one else has the resources or expertise to do.
“This is deeply disturbing,” she said. “It would be a dog whistle that could invite a lot of chaos and unnecessarily create hysteria among colleges and universities who may fear that the government may come down on them for their efforts to maintain diversity on their campuses.”
The Justice Department declined to provide more details about its plans or to make the acting head of the civil rights division, John Gore, available for an interview.
“The Department of Justice does not discuss personnel matters, so we’ll decline comment,” said Devin O’Malley, a department spokesman.
The Supreme Court has ruled that the educational benefits that flow from having a diverse student body can justify using race as one factor among many in a “holistic” evaluation, while
|
The modern conservative political strategy is pandering to the imagined fears of white people
No one gets in the way of my frisbee games! NO ONE!
|
Nintendo Switch Friend Code: SW-3032-7898-9500
No comments:
Post a Comment