>"Minding the Campus readers probably need little instruction on the corrupting effects of the racial balancing game played by almost all our elite universities"
Racial balancing is somehow corrupting? If I am making a claim like that I would definitely like to back it up with some facts.
>" The typical African- American and Latino student who gets admitted to the most elite colleges and universities in the U.S...."
What is a typical African-American student? Can I meet him? Racial stereotypes are loaded, and the authors throws them around like bad puns.
>"a requirement often interpreted to mean that if there is a male lacrosse, soccer, water polo, volleyball, cross-country, or fencing team there must be a female equivalent"
And this is a problem, why? Why shouldn't there be a female equivalent of a fencing team?
I don't think the author is racist or sexist, I am sure he is a perfectly nice person to meet. However, his deep hatred for programs to achieve social equality leads him to have beliefs that are very very worrisome from a racial and gender equality point of view.
> And this is a problem, why? Why shouldn't there be a female equivalent of a fencing team?
What's the definition of "female equivalent"?
Doesn't the validity of your assumed "should" depend on the definition we're using?
> However, his deep hatred for programs to achieve social equality leads him to have beliefs that are very very worrisome from a racial and gender equality point of view.
Are you suggesting that all current programs to achieve social equality are worthwhile, that none of them are bad? Or is it just that any criticism is necessary wrong?
Author's words not mine. I should have put quotes around "female equivalent". I believe that female sports should be given as much attention as male sports.
>Are you suggesting that all current programs to achieve social equality are worthwhile, that none of them are bad? Or is it just that any criticism is necessary wrong?
No. Some of them might have failed spectacularly and deserve criticism. But to criticize the social equality programs in colleges because they get students with lower SAT scores into colleges is a very imprecise argument to make.
> I believe that female sports should be given as much attention as male sports.
Why should they be "given attention" and by whom? What about folks who don't provide said equal attention? (While the majority favor male sports, there are folks who favor female sports. Surely both are in need of correction.)
For example, why shouldn't womens' preference be given some weight?
I note that women are less likely to attend women's sports than men are to attend men's sports. Heck - women are more likely to attend men's sports than they are to attend men's sports.
Be careful - the "provides valuable diversity" argument requires differences (in aggregate). If there are differences, then exact duplicate treatment is inappropriate.
> But to criticize the social equality programs in colleges because they get students with lower SAT scores into colleges is a very imprecise argument to make.
Is it? The SAT folks claim that SATs correlate somewhat with college achievement, and the college folks seem to agree (otherwise they wouldn't use it).
What do you think that the goal of college admissions is?
You ask a nice question - why no female fencing team? Well if a) there are students who want to form it and b) they will be good enough competitors for similar teams ok, but imposing it just because a male fencing team exist is stupid.
Regardless the color of the skin, of the eyes, or of any other ridiculous parameters only one thing matters : excellence.
You talk about social equality. But is social equality a goal to reach ? If so, would you care to explain me why, and according to whom ?
There are bright people, there are dumb people. Fact of life. I don't care how you try to make them into groups through the aggregation of some parameters I find ridiculous - all I see is the end result.
Trying to impose social equality means working against this natural repartition. This takes cash and energy that could be used differently. Even worse - the added burden from those who can't pull they own weight is put on those who could excel.
To me, excellence seems like a better (and fairer) goal to reach.
>Regardless the color of the skin, of the eyes, or of any other ridiculous parameters only one thing matters : excellence.
See, here lies the problem. Define: excellence. As I have maintained, excellence is not tied well with SAT scores or GRE scores or papers or citation counts. I think excellence is very personal. If I am a economically disadvantaged student, but held my own in a violent high school in a bad neighborhood, worked a job but still scored good grades; much better than my peers. Did well in SATs without having any money for extra SAT training. If I resisted peer pressure to join a gang while focusing on my studies, I would think I did a pretty excellent job at my life. To compare me with a kid who comes from a privileged background had extra tuitions for SATs and had all the time in the world to spend on his studies and did much better in SATs is probably unfair.
>There are bright people, there are dumb people.
In your mind which likes to simplify things. Not in the world there aren't. If you think you are smart because you are really good at Math, I would like to introduce you to my friend who is an exceptional soprano.
>Trying to impose social equality means working against this natural repartition.
There are no natural repartitions. Only artificial ones imposed by the complex societies. I am not blaming the society, just saying that we could improve it to be much fairer and to aspire for anything less would be unfortunate.
>To me, excellence seems like a better (and fairer) goal to reach.
We agree, just not on the definition of excellence.
> compare me with a kid who comes from a privileged background had extra tuitions for SATs and had all the time in the world to spend on his studies and did much better in SATs is probably unfair
It sure is. But life itself is unfair. If you resisted all the pitfalls that society or the environment put in front of you, good for you, but I'm sorry it is not what matters.
What can you produce ? Can you outcompete others who do not have had such obstacles ? If you can, then yes I call that excellence, if you can't that personal growth/karma/name it the way you want.
As you said - "much better than my peers" - that's good, but we are all in a big pond called mankind. The way I see it, some people think they deserve something just for the randomness of their birthplace, or for not screwing up.
Sorry they don't. There are a lot of people on this earth who may have surpassed even greater problems, yet did not make it.
Trying to improve or fix society means making the situation even more complex, with artificial restriction - thus even more unfair in the end.
Bright people come in all shapes and colors. A soprano, a sport pro, a math wiz - bright people in different areas. They all reach for excellence.
I don't believe I'm smart. I just believe I'm doing my best to become excellent in one specific domain, and I don't want to be judged on anything but my performance.
None of the quotes you list suggest that the author is attacking any minorities, only that he is criticizing these programs. I'm not saying the author isn't an angry person, I'm just taking issue with you saying he is attacking minorities.
Incidentally, I decided to add to my original comment and address your other points. I'd love it if you had the time to respond. If you prefer, I can move those points to a separate reply.
>Incidentally, I decided to add to my original comment and address your other points. I'd love it if you had the time to respond. If you prefer, I can move those points to a separate reply.
Racial balancing is somehow corrupting? If I am making a claim like that I would definitely like to back it up with some facts.
>" The typical African- American and Latino student who gets admitted to the most elite colleges and universities in the U.S...."
What is a typical African-American student? Can I meet him? Racial stereotypes are loaded, and the authors throws them around like bad puns.
>"a requirement often interpreted to mean that if there is a male lacrosse, soccer, water polo, volleyball, cross-country, or fencing team there must be a female equivalent"
And this is a problem, why? Why shouldn't there be a female equivalent of a fencing team?
I don't think the author is racist or sexist, I am sure he is a perfectly nice person to meet. However, his deep hatred for programs to achieve social equality leads him to have beliefs that are very very worrisome from a racial and gender equality point of view.