Affirmative action: the specter of artificial diversity
Democrats are getting ready to make changes to what is allowed in school admission policies so that schools can have their race-based criteria back again--after voters rejected it via Initiative 200. I don't think they are going to benefit by it, though. From the Seattle Times:
When does it ever not serve a compelling interest in student-body diversity. It always will by most university standards.
If it does pass and we are again racially profiled on campus, I think some active protesting would be in order. I really don't understand the need for it when the good people of Washington already rejected it. I've had people try just about everything they can to convince me that affirmative action is needed. I'm still not convinced.
As for this compliance with rulings bit, if they thought the high court would want us to be doing something, why don't they file a lawsuit instead?
There's no justification for giving someone preference based on their racial background--you'd think that was abundantly clear to the Democrats since they try to pretend they are champions of civil rights.
There's more than consistency at stake, though. It is a serious issue to say, as many do in academia, that the diverse atmosphere on campus is just as important as the academic quality of the student body. I don't think I've ever been excluded based on my non-minority status...it doesn't matter though because I'm supposed to thank the school administrators for providing me with all this diversity! It's such a good experience you know. I won't deny that exposure to diverse types and characters during my education could have some small positive effects on me (let me think about that one for a bit), but if the next Einstein is going to be discriminated against before he can get into higher ed, then I'd have to say no, the price is too high to create an artificial diversity which isn't even representative of the real world.
Sen. Jeanne Kohl-Welles, D-Seattle, who introduced the Senate bill, said it would put Washington state in compliance with a U.S. Supreme Court ruling, which in 2003 said the University of Michigan law school could consider race in admissions as long as it served "a compelling state interest in student-body diversity."
When does it ever not serve a compelling interest in student-body diversity. It always will by most university standards.
If it does pass and we are again racially profiled on campus, I think some active protesting would be in order. I really don't understand the need for it when the good people of Washington already rejected it. I've had people try just about everything they can to convince me that affirmative action is needed. I'm still not convinced.
As for this compliance with rulings bit, if they thought the high court would want us to be doing something, why don't they file a lawsuit instead?
There's no justification for giving someone preference based on their racial background--you'd think that was abundantly clear to the Democrats since they try to pretend they are champions of civil rights.
There's more than consistency at stake, though. It is a serious issue to say, as many do in academia, that the diverse atmosphere on campus is just as important as the academic quality of the student body. I don't think I've ever been excluded based on my non-minority status...it doesn't matter though because I'm supposed to thank the school administrators for providing me with all this diversity! It's such a good experience you know. I won't deny that exposure to diverse types and characters during my education could have some small positive effects on me (let me think about that one for a bit), but if the next Einstein is going to be discriminated against before he can get into higher ed, then I'd have to say no, the price is too high to create an artificial diversity which isn't even representative of the real world.
posted by Mark at 5:10 PM
<< Home