Smart for a white girl, but not smart enough for a minority?

http://www.nypost.com/seven/06252007/news/regionalnews/color_barred_student_regionalnews_dan_mangan.htm

Am I reading this right? This part in particular seems flat out illegal:



How is this even remotely constitutional? And does this really "boost minority enrollment?"

Whether they work like they were intended to work, or in reverse (as in this case), they are a bad, bad idea.

You can set "goals" etc, but having an actual quota, based on race? I thought the Michigan decision a few years back said no to the idea of giving points based on race. This school seems to (in effect) be doing that with different standards based on race.

At the time the order was put in place mandating a 60-40 split of white vs.minority students probably reflected demographics of the community and represented a serious decrease in the percentage of white enrollment.


on edit: IMHO the quota isn't the primary problem. It's the lack of a mechanism in the court order to assess and adjust the percentages over time to reflect changing demographics.

if they don't lower the bar for the white kids then they can't muster 60% white and eventually the majority of kids in the school are minorities? BWAAAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHA So much for white superiority.

God forbid they just say students are required to test at a minimum of 84.4 to even be considered and leave race the hell out of it.

score higher than whites on most standardized tests.

My son just went through the college application process. We found that the universities in California have a problem keeping the campus "looking like the society the students come from". Asian applicants tend to score higher on admission tests (ACT and SAT) than other groups, including whites, blacks, and Hispanics, that they would be overrepresented in the student population at the expense of the other groups, especially blacks and Hispanics. Admissions officers never admit to having higher admission standards for Asian students (that would be illegal), but they have to do that informally to keep the campus "looking like society" and to achieve diversity which is a good thing.

The higher Asian test scores are usually attributed to the emphasis that the parents put on academic success and the resulting pressure on the students to take education seriously. (I suppose their success could be because Asians are just smarter, but I don't want to go there.)

It is easy in a case like this girl in New York. If she scores higher than white applicants, she should get into the school. It would be different if her higher test scores were jeopardizing the admission of a black or Hispanic student from a disadvantaged background. On the one hand, you should reward the hard work that immigrant and second generation children put into academic success. It is not like they are succeeding because they have an unfair cultural advantage, like whites do. On the other hand, if their success as a group limits opportunities for minorities support networks that Asians seem to have, it is more debatable.

would be more fair. The whites have had immoral advantages for too long. They should be looking to make-up for those things rather than using them as an excuse to continue to punish people for being "brown." As we see, the people in charge will do anything immoral or dishonest or simply illegal to push their racist agenda.

Isn't that an oxymoron?

:)

:shrug:

How is it racism when used to correct a wrong? Think of all of the silver-spoon white kids in that area that go to private schools and all of the minority kids that are denied access to good schools.

apparently

to illicit the response it's receiving on this newsgroup. And second, at some point in the future, I'm not saying in this case, but at some point in the future when ethnic cultures start congregating in areas, like Chinatown, expect whites to rely on Affirmative Action in order to get a chance into good schools.

I haven't seen this anywhere else yet, so I may take this with a grain or two of salt.

My gut thoughts are this: Assume that the school was heavily segregated back in the 70s and desegregation made sense for the time; then, I ask, isn't 40% high, unless it reflected the true demographics of the community -- back then? And then there's another question. At what point did they require minorities to have higher test scores to get in? If this happened during the court order in the 70s, then it sounds like it was a major concession to whites.

Whatever, there are far too many freaky variables with this arrangement to use it as a reflection of all Affirmative Action style programs. It sounds like that court order needs some serious updating, but that it's not useful for anything else but for the New York Post to inflame a very volatile issue.

It's obvious to anyone who isn't already predisposed to whine about "reverse racism".


EDIT: Unfortunately, there are oodles of DUers ready and rarin' to whine about "reverse racism", so this thread will probably be wildly successful. Kudos to the bridge-dwellers on an excellent play.

Apparently you've missed my handiwork in the Lounge!

Does this count as reverse racism? It's not whites being discriminated against. Hell, it's not even men being discriminated against!

This was my first post outside of the lounge. You almost gave me a complex!

like more "traditional" racism. Requiring high scores from Asian may be intended to keep them from taking too many of the 40 percent of admissions reserved for minorities, which could displace Blacks and Hispanics.

you will end up with immoral shit like different standards based on different races.

to tun ugly. Race and quotas. need I say more?
There has already been stupid white girl remarks.