Affirmative action for white people? Legacy college admissions come under renewed scrutiny
In the wake of a Supreme Court decision that strikes down affirmative action in admissions, colleges are coming under renewed pressure to put an end to legacy preferences — the practice of favoring applicants with family ties to alumni. Long seen as a perk for the white and wealthy, opponents say it’s no longer defensible in a world with no counterbalance in affirmative action.
President Joe Biden suggested colleges should rethink the practice after the court’s ruling, saying legacy preferences “expand privilege instead of opportunity.” Several Democrats in Congress demanded an end to the policy in light of the court’s decision to remove race from the admissions process. So did Republicans including Sen. Tim Scott of South Carolina, who is vying for the GOP presidential nomination.
“Let’s be clear: affirmative action still exists for white people. It’s called legacy admissions,” Rep. Barbara Lee, a California Democrat, said on Twitter
For critics of legacy admissions, the renewed debate over fairness in admissions has offered a chance to swing public sentiment behind their cause.
As colleges across the U.S. pledge their commitment to diversity following the court’s ruling, activists have a simple response: prove it. If schools want to enroll more Black, Hispanic and Indigenous students, activists say, removing legacy preferences would be an easy first step.
Trolling, taunting, spamming, and off topic comments may be removed at the discretion of group mods. NT members that vote up their own comments, repeat comments, or continue to disrupt the conversation risk having all of their comments deleted. Please remember to quote the person(s) to whom you are replying to preserve continuity of this seed. Any use of the phrase "Trump Derangement Syndrome" or the TDS acronym in a comment will be deleted.
Tags
Who is online
589 visitors
If SCOTUS want a level playing field then "legacy'' admissions should be terminated.
Yes and using that logic, so should preferential admissions for Veterans.
Merit only ….. 100%
If SCOTUS wants a level playing field then any preferential admissions should be banned.
IMO, SCOTUS screwed the AA decision up. Unintendended consequences will keep coming up.
I agree, someone should bring them a case.
What clause of the constitution makes legacy admits unconstitutional?
Now that SCOTUS has eliminated the AA counterbalance I'm sure that there will be a case brought. In the meantime, some schools have dropped the ''legacy'' freebie.
They may violate the Nobility Clause and the Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution.
We'll find out when and if SCOTUS has a case before it.
Do you imagine that our "Justices" would be bothered by contradictory decisions?
"Special treatment for the rich is constitutional. Special treatment for the poor is not." - Clarence
My understanding is that those children of veterans still are required to meet the academic standards as well, so it is based on merit as well.
Schools that say they want diversity could stop it any time they want. Congress could do something about it if they chose. It is up to the Supreme Court to rule on issues brought before them. When was legacy admissions brought to them?
Yep. Sad to see the ignorance of the AOC types who think the Court can just unilaterally decide to wake up one morning and order universities to stop legacy admits because they think it’s a god idea.
Some already have as mentioned in the article if you read it. It includes John Hopkins and Amherst.
No one said/stated that it was brought before SCOTUS and I stated in my comment 1.1.4
It's even more sad that you don't actually read comments. No one has said/stated any such thing, in fact read 1.1.4
It's even more sad you didn't actually read my comment. I didn't say anyone here said that, did I? I'm just providing context.
Sure you were, there is plenty of context without you trying to BS your way out of your comment.
Your comment had little to do with the article, you simply parroted Down the Middle and his false assertion.
Keep swinging, Sean you're bound to hit something other than a foul ball eventually.
Why does providing context bother you so much? I'll remember your distaste for it.
What's false about his assertion?
Agreed. I have never been in favor of legacy admissions of any kind for anybody with the sole exception of the children of veterans and the military acadamies.
SCOTUS exempted the military acadamies from the AA. Something that I would like them to explain, not that I'm against it but I would like to know their reasoning.
I think Roberts said it was due to military academies not being a part of the law suit. Senior military leaders testified their support for continuing AA at the academies and the Services filed an amicus brief asserting that the policy was needed their for national security.
Of course that carve out was blasted by the left as a craven act to get more black and brown people killed.
They might get their way as Repubs will try to end it in the FY24 NDAA.
"If schools want to enroll more Black, Hispanic and Indigenous students, activists say, removing legacy preferences would be an easy first step."
Is this claiming these groups are not capable of achieving admission based on merit?
Are there no wealthy Black people? In the real world, Blacks have done well in every field.
At any rate, these admission standards are up to the schools. Most are controlled by liberals
No, if you would read the complete article they are saying that whites have their own AA and it's called ''legecy'' and they are correct, best for you to read the stats on this before commenting.
Legacy admits of white people are about equal to their percentage of the population and, as Harvard’s admission charts show, they would be overwhelmingly be replaced by other whites and/or Asians.
And there is a good chance the 30% of non white legacy admits, the Michelle Obamas of the world, would also be disproportionately replaced by Whites or Asians.
I think it’s great that schools are voluntarily stopping legacy admits. I hope they all do.
the idea that legacy admissions are unconstitutional because they are a bad idea makes no sense to me though.
We'll find out the constitutionality of it when and if ''legacy'' come before SCOTUS.
What is comical to me is people complaining about constitutionality when neither AA or legacy are outlined in said document...
Exactly, and comical as well is that most comments here don't attempt to discuss the HEROES Act and the legality of Biden's Executive Act.
When I was in college, legacy admissions were a behavioral issue. The "legacies" could blast their music all hours of the day or night, even during finals weeks when the dorms were supposed to be on 24-hour quiet hours to allow for study. One entered my friends' dorm room drunk off her ass, ruined a bunch of their belongings, and was never required to reimburse them or spoken to at all about the invasion.
In dental school, "legacies" were given all sort of special treatment, up to and including not having to finish their requirements for graduation. Extra time to graduate, taking a year off to catch up on classes they were failing by way of private tutoring, treating patients in settings where they were given extra clinical assistance not available to the rest of us. Several weren't even required to show up for class or clinic regularly, with other students being pushed to cover their rotations when they didn't show. A few instructors objected, but were overruled by the administration who saw the donor lists.
Folks who think legacy admissions aren't a problem should consider that the next time they go to the dentist or have surgery. It could be that the only reason their doctor or dentist was admitted to school was because of their family connections. They may have failed or been excluded from admission entirely, if they'd had different last names.
Ah, the reality of ''legacy admissions''.
Thanks for the first hand experience with it, sandy.
gee, that story kind of blows a hole thru the bottom of their "merit based" admissions arguments...
It sure does and as can be seen in the comments section there are those that seem to be defending ''legacy admissions''....You have to wonder why and you don't have to wonder for long.
Who's that? Cite your evidence.
You have to wonder why and you don't have to wonder for long.
Don't hide behind innuendo. Spell it out. Why are you afraid to say you mean?
Read the comments.
Not hiding at all, and you should follow your own advice. It's pretty clear that it is people who believe that ''Legacy'' overrides AA....
I did. Cite your proof or retract..
Why are you so afraid to speak plainly?
I did and no I won't retract.
Not afraid to at all. That's funny coming from you who is someone that doesn't have the will or way to speak plainly.
Now do you want to further discuss the article? If not then best you sign off.
[✘]
But that reasoning doesn't apply to AA? Lol.
Well, it seems SCOTUS thinks it applies to minorities, but not legacies, Sean. I personally think admissions should be based on merit, but I apply that consistently. Preference given to legacies is in opposition to merit-based admissions. It's odd that you're defending preferential treatment given to legacies, while objecting to preferential treatment based on belonging to a racial minority, don't you think?
We are discussing what you wrote about legacy admits. Not SCOTUS. It's your opinion. Your warning about legacy doctors or dentists would apply equally to AA admits.
No, It's that I'm an adult who realizes that just because I don't like a policy, or thinks its a bad idea, it's not automatically unconstitutional or illegal. I fully support getting rid of legacy admissions.
Ok, let's play that game. If we're discussing what I said, please tell me where I said
You seem to be arguing against something I never said, Sean. YOU brought up race, not me. Why is that?
Okay. Just clarifying you believe your reasoning applies equally to AA admits. Now we know it does.
YOU brought up race, not me. Why is that?
I wanted to know if you applied that line of thinking to AA admits. Now we know you do.
Sure you were. That's why you followed up with "lol". Nice backpedal.
Sure you were.
Of course I was. What else could I possibly have meant?
You admitted your reasoning applies to AA applicants. You believe doctors or dentists who were AA applicants are a problem. I wrote LOL because I didn’t expect you to admit that’s what you thought.
But now we know what you think about those who got into school through AA
Now, as a compulsive last word haver, feel free to make a snarky comment.
But that's not going to change anything. .
[deleted]
Everybody here recognizes a question that's really an accusation, Sean.
And it's rich that you bring up snark. "lol" after your "clarifying question" was snark. But keep on projecting...
Which is also a problem.
But at schools that aren't traditionally Black colleges and universities, legacy students are much more likely to be white, resulting in indirect racial considerations in admissions.
Yes and of our public schools, California State schools seem among the worst in that regard - surprising.
That’s interesting.
Schools/Colleges can lose their accreditation over behavior like that. One of the engineering schools I was accepted to was going through just that. Their Mechanical Engineering school lost their accreditation between the time I applied and when I had to make my decision.
They got it back a year later but that was a year too late for me.
I'm not sure how closely they would have looked at the minutiae. As far as I know, our accreditation was based on our standardized test scores and our ability to pass clinical boards, along with an inspection of our clinics. We went through an accreditation while I was enrolled, and from what administration told us, the only thing the accreditation board requested that the school change was the setup of the oral surgery clinic, to allow for easier patient monitoring and to make the crash cart more accessible. So I have to assume our pass rates were ok.
They wouldn't have been privy to the fact that legacy students were receiving intensive remediation not available to the rest of us. They likely wouldn't have seen legacies given credit for "observing" procedures that the rest of us had to actually perform, or seeing patients in the clinic where the faculty practiced, so that they'd have a trained assistant helping their procedures go smoothly while the rest of us worked without an assistant at all. If they had observed in a clinic where a legacy student hadn't shown for a rotation, another student would have been roped into covering, so there would have been no lack of coverage, and the student who hadn't shown would have been given an excused absence. I was frequently the student roped into covering, but it helped me get a chance to do required procedures, so that was fine by me.
You raise an interesting point, though. Legacy admissions might bring in donations, but they can hurt a school in non-monetary ways.
Isn’t it mostly about the money?
My understanding of “accreditation” is that independent agencies review school/college records for just such inconsistencies. Students not meeting minimum requirements needed to obtain the degree in question. Required credits, required grade point, etc.
It came out later that the school in my example had been cooking the books for payola. Not the school per se but certain administrators.
It’s a quality control thing and a good thing. Lest colleges could be awarding every Joe Smuckatelli a degree without doing the required work.
For them to know that credit was awarded inappropriately for clinical procedures, they would have needed to witness it. Didactic grades would have been difficult to fudge, and standardized tests pretty much impossible to fake, because security was pretty tight on them. But providing a student extra clinical assistance to which other students don't have access? Excusing absences for the chronically absent? Grading clinical procedures is subjective by its nature, so granting or denial of credit was pretty much up to individual instructors' discretion.
Why do you think that Sandy? Was legacy students brought up by either side in US vs Nebraska? Did the court discuss it in their decision?
So there are no minorities that are legacies? I think assuming that is racist. African American women are the demographic with the highest percent of college degrees.
No one said any such thing in this article and the fact remains that white ''legacy'' admission far exceed minority ''legacy'' admissions.
And the lawsuits over legacy admissions have been filed.
While I would agree that legacy admission should be discontinued, I think they are making a mistake by trying to make this about race. Legacy admissions are usually because of donor and legacy preferences would not be admitted otherwise. Afraid money is still king and those who make the larger donations usually get the preferential treatment. That's the way the world has been all along, as the saying goes he who has the gold makes the rules.
We'll have to see if this has the legs to make it all the way to SCOTUS. But IMO I don't think it will make it that far. I think there will be a settlement and Harvard will stop "announcing" legacy admissions but they won't go away. There's nobody to really hold them accountable.
A couple of major top-tier schools have already dropped the legacy admission, John Hopkins and Amherst, in the case of Amherst they have seen a big increase in new minority students.
Yes, money is still king but in the case of Amherst, it suddenly isn't that much of a king. I posted this and the links a few days ago. Here is more very top rated schools that do not allow legacy admissions. The Ass't Director of Admissions at MIT hit it right on the head.
Legacy admissions are a marketing, brand building and fundraising tool more than anything. Schools should want children of alumni, Parents and grandparents ( often where the money is) want to see children go to their school.
Those who used affirmative action to get in should have some legacies who can get that benefit, Have those all stirred up about legacy admissions even thought about that?
Yes, of course, it's been addressed. First whites have had many more decades to build on the legacy admissions whereas minorities have had much less time. The % on this is white 43% and minorities 16% able to use legacy admissions to their offspring.
so to take away 43% from one group it is good to give up 16% from the other group and leave both with 0 ?
sounds like throwing the whole pie away so nobody gets a bigger piece
If you want equality as SCOTUS seems to want then legacy admissions should be eliminated then the playing field would be much more equal. Currently it isn't.
then such promotions as frequent flyer miles, repeat customer discounts, even coffee clubs where the store gives you the 5th cup free must be eliminated because they are the same principle
No, it isn't.
they are giving something now for money you spent before to encourage more business, parents paid money before and now get something from the school back, but the school will end up making more money on the deal, It is the same deal.
And the parents of legacies probably made donations to the school
get rid of legacies and endowment drops and costs for all go up more
No, I don't believe that it does. John Hopkins does not allow legacy admissions and has endowments of $3.8 billion. The top 10 universities in the world, six do not allow legacy admissions. MIT, Cal Tech, UC Berkley, and UW are four that do not. Oxford and Cambridge are the other two that do not allow legacy admissions.
In the case of frequent flyer miles and so forth, there is not supposed to be merit-based competition for a limited number of available airplane seats. In college admissions, there are a limited number of slots available, which are supposed to go to the most deserving, if the college is to produce the best graduates.
Those big schools have enough money and applications that they don't have to use legacy programs to be completive. With A prospective new student who has choices, legacy programs encourage children of alumni to go there. It is a marketing tool, same as any sales promotion.
On a humorous note, without Legacys poor old Flounder would not have gotten into Delta Tau Chi in Animal House
And it gives them a leg up on gaining admission to schools. SCOTUS decision took away the equalizer from minorities so once again the legacy admissions leave minorities well behind in admissions.
Yeah, Flounder would be Floundering around without legacy.
Affirmative Action was wrongly forced on schools by the government, the government has nothing to do with legacy.. Legacy is a school marketing and recruiting program, affirmative action was a government creation, that is the difference.
It was ''forced'' as you say because of the huge disparity in admissions of white vs minority. Remember charger there were hundreds of years when minorities were not allowed into many schools. My father wasn't allowed in schools and neither was I, so your argument rings very hollow to me and millions of others.
As I have pointed out in prior comments six of the top ten universities in the world do not use legacy in admissions and MIT said it best:
MITs endowments are $24.6 Billion not including pledges.
So, parents should not be able to do things that help their children?
Of course, they can but in this case, there is another part that denies other kids trying to get into college. I would think that most parents want to kids to earn the way, without their intervention. It seems from the examples that I have listed thus far that many of the very best schools in the world do not allow legacy admissions and as MIT explained it earn your way in without mom and dad giving you a step up, especially after SCOTUS removed AA which was the equalizer for kids without mom and dad paving their way.
Maybe really big schools don't need it; but, A high school senior who has qualified at several schools being a legacy at one would be a marketing advantage for that school
charger, do you feel that kids coming from wealthy families need or deserve a leg up on minority kids and if you do, why?
parents should help their children succeed or not have them.
Life is a competition.
When I was little Kindergarten and preschool; was not free. My parents paid for me to go. Later if kids qualified they got preschool for free but middle class parents had to pay, was that fair?
So only children of affluent parents would get the benefit. Everyone else is locked out. If we are really talking about leveling the playing field, then that should be removed, too.
If we are really talking about leveling the playing field, then that should be removed, too.
charger isn't talking about a level playing field as can be seen from his comments, he doesn't think that his group can compete without Legacy so he is in full support of it.
So throw away the whole pie so nobody gets a bigger piece?
Why should one person get a bigger piece than anyone else? We're talking about everyone being treated equally. Would you give one kid a bigger piece of pie than your other one?
No Charger has always thought affirmative action was wrong and now that Supreme Court has agreed some want to get revenge and going after legacy programs is a way to get that revenge
With the pie example: The government required some groups to be given a slice of free pie but not all could have it, Schools on their own. before the government orders, had been making some pie and gave it to people who had previously paid for pie.
Now the government required pie is gone, so to make those who got to eat that pie happy they want all the pie thrown out and no more pie for anybody.
Legacy is a school tradition not a forced government thing, it is not the government's business
Since public universities are funded by state government it damn sure is there business.
That doesn't matter. They are going to cry regardless.
The only one crying here is charger, now that you have joined him there are two criers on the article.
You're crying over a school policy. Not some government mandated hand out.
You don't like the policy, don't go to the school. How hard is that for you all to grasp?
That is best answer I have heard
Really? Just do not go there if you do not like it that you were excluded there because a legacy took you deserved place there?
SMH...
That is some great reasoning you two fellas are using today! /S
No, if you don't like the policy apply to a different school
There you go again with the childish ''crying'' comment self-awareness is certainly AWOL in your thought process. It is a school policy and that does not make it right or equitable. Which of course is the contention of the article and comments.
As for it not being a ''government-mandated hand out'' you're quite correct, it's a school-mandated hand out to a select few.
Why in the world would anyone that wants an equitable system not go to a school? One does what they can to make the system more equitable for all. A simple concept that seems to have gone over your head.
When you can understand the difference in a government policy and a school policy, we'll talk.
I have no problem understanding both and the difference. You, it seems have a difficult time understanding that if it's discriminatory it really doesn't matter if it's government or school policy.
Your crying say otherwise. So, as I said before, when you can understand the difference in a government policy and a school policy, we'll talk.
And yet here you are whining as usual about something that you don't understand.
Carry on
No, it is a school policy that gives a leg up to specific children.
The school is free to use it as a reward to alumni and use it to get future generations to go to that school, just like all kinds of other promotions, discounts, repeat customer rewards,
Food Lion stores MVP card gives a discount to specific customers
“The school is free to use it as a reward to alumni and use it to get future generations…”
Ah, capitalism…even among those dastardly bastions of liberal indoctrination. Imagine the true legacy if a diverse group, regardless of being members of the donor class, were allowed the same opportunity.
Exactly. It is a school policy. Not a policy pushed / backed / directed by the government. Many can't wrap their heads around that.
“Not a policy pushed / backed / directed by the government.”
And yet with this regressive decision, the schools are barred in one instance and yet retain their admission standards for another set of circumstances? Rather fucked up logic, no?
There is a difference between Government mandate and School Policy. These differences happen all over the place.
I think some want to take this away as revenge for affirmative action finaly being declared wrong
It seems that you're afraid of a little competition, don't the legacy kids measure up so they need to have an unfair advantage over the minority kids, but if it's equal they cry like the little babies.
Good to know that you don't seem to care that a large part of America is at a disadvantage.
I care more about people who care about me
So you're afraid of a little competition...LOL, so sad.
No but I don't want to give away anything,
I did not get into college on a legacy nor leave one and they probably would not have let me in if I clamed the one relative that went to that school
I wasn't speaking specifically of only you but of you and the group your supporting
You understand if the playing field is level, the legacy kids (white and minority) will be overwhelmingly replaced by other whites and east Asians, right? Just look at the numbers.
Charger,
Both my hubby and I went to college, as did my daughters. So let me tell you a little story.
My daughters were both amazing students and applied to many schools, including UVA. UVA has legacies. At that time, I had a member who he and his wife were UVA legacies and their daughter was also applying to UVA.
When my daughters got in, and his didn't he flipped out and said it wasn't fair, because he gave the school money, but my girls had far better grades. He expected something for money and not based on actual performance. That is the very definition of wealth trumping ability.
I understand that for those that want equity, that legacy is the furthest thing from it. Now if it is removed then admissions becomes much more equitable. As for those legacy admissions being replaced with more white and east Asians would mean that they actually earned it without having Legacy to support them. It would also give other minority students a shot at those positions.
It doesn't make much sense to support keeping an exclusion policy in place when those students already have an advantage.
Exactly!
So really it did not hurt you or your daughters. and the final result was ability trumped wealth,
Exactly why equity demands getting rid of affirmative action. I'm glad we agree and progressives are abusing the concept of equity to justify race based discrimination.,
AA no longer exists, Sean, and trying to put words in my mouth makes you look quite ill-equipped to have a debate on this.
Since you seem to want to keep legacy admissions you are the one that is abusing the concept of equality to justify discrimination, to no one's surprise.
My daughters were smarter but it did hurt their friends, who also applied to UVA, and were not Legacies but on par with Legacies. Why should someone have a leg up because their parents went to a school or donated money? Then money becomes the great divider.
Equal should be equal across the board. No special compensation for those who have more.
Lol. My bad for assuming you arguing from principle and not just convenience. Expecting a logically consistent position might be too much of an ask on my part.
If legacy applicants are "afraid of competition" and don't actually earn their admission, than the same logic applies to applicants who were accepted because of AA. Only a massive hypocrite would say those things apply only to one group who students who are admitted on grounds other than academic merit but not the other.
nce you seem to want to keep legacy admissions
I suppose you could claim that if you can't read English and/or are compelled to project arguments on others instead of engaging in honest debate. I'll say it again as simply as possible to ensure you get it this time.
I don't support legacy admissions. My position is perfectly consistent and logical. Shame you can't say the same.
A lot of things could be looked into but I think our system is entrenched in the way it does things.
To me it is no different than athletes getting preferential treatment or a free ride because they can play a sport.
True enough, but there is a difference. One can say that they are applying to a school with a particular talent, and not because of race or money. Talent is different than that.
I guess my point is they are going to give preferential treatment to star athletes, legacy people, etc.
It has been that way for a long time. They are always going to get first shot before everyone else.
I mean, Imo it sucks but kinda has always been that way. I don't see any way it will change.
Never assume, you know what they say about assuming.
The AA students that were admitted under that program, one that no longer exists, had that because of decades of discrimination against them. Most legacy admissions tend to be white or non-minority and have not experienced the same discrimination in school admissions. AA no longer exists and my argument from the start was that having legacy admission is discriminatory in itself and anyone with half a brain can see that. So there is no hypocrisy in simply pointing out what did and does exist.
Now that is hilarious coming from the off-topic/deflection king of NT. It's good to know that you don't support legacy admissions. This makes it quite strange that you keep whining about AA, which no longer exists.
Right. I assumed you were arguing from a position of principle. I was wrong and will never make the mistake of thinking that again.
, had that because of decades of discrimination against them
Start with getting your facts right. They were admitted because they added "diversity."
ost legacy admissions tend to be white or non-minority
Like most students? Crazy!
xperienced the same discrimination in school admissions.
I think it's hilarious that anyone believes American schools have been discriminating against non Asian minority students since AA was created.
So there is no hypocrisy in simply pointing out what did and does exist.
Get that strawman! That's a really, really pathetic attempt right there. Go back to the drawing board.
How strange that you were against AA and now against Legacy admission but continue to try to make some strange point. One would think that you'd be on the front line demanding that legacy admission be trashed.
But here you are going on and on about everything but that.
They were discriminated against for centuries so there was no diversity...LOL, your comment is at best ignorant.
Exactly, like most students thanks for the confirmation.
Not nearly as hilarious or ignorant as someone thinking that all students were on an equal footing.
Not a strawman at all, simply pointing out what did and does exist. You're free to counter it without the pathetic whining of ''strawman'' when you don't want to or can't counter it.
Now if you want to present an argument for ridding the schools of legacy admissions please feel free to present your case it would be so much better than BS you're spewing
If not time to leave the article.
Lol. Another strawman. Your refusal to argue honestly is unmatched. I know you didn't read the Supreme Court decision, but if you did, you'd know the Supreme Court has always rejected the argument that past discrimination justified AA. The only reason the Court allowed AA in the first place was because "diversity" justified it.
Now follow your game plan and pivot to another strawman while refusing to admit you've wasted everyone's time with a false claim.
your comment is at best ignorant.
The irony. You don't even have a basic understanding of the legal justification for AA.
xactly, like most students thanks for the confirmation.
Yes, the only thing thing you've managed to state correctly so far is that most students are either white or non-minority. As usual that fact doesn't help any point you tried to make and was never in dispute. Next, you can pat yourself on the back for stating "water is wet".
arly as hilarious or ignorant as someone thinking that all students were on an equal footing.
Another strawman! You are on a roll. Remember, you are the one who made the idiotic claim that American schools (the champions of Affirmative Action) were discriminating against minorities.
By all means point out where I said that. Even the most challenged reader could understand from what I've written that AA ensured that students were never, in fact, on equal footing.
free to counter it without the pathetic whining of ''strawman''
I'd love to, if you wouldn't so pathetically rely on them because you refuse to make any arguments based on principles or rebut what I actually you wrote. All you do is make up claims, like AA students were admitted because of decades of discrimination against them or make ham handed deflections by creating strawmen to argue against.
If not time to leave the article.
Lol. Have the integrity to call uncle, at least. Just say "I'm a hypocrite when it comes to admissions and I don't like that being exposed" and I'll leave your precious article.
Perhaps for some sports, but football and basketball is all about the money at many school. Top athletes help ensure booster financial support and TV revenue especially on Conference cable channels.
US higher education calls itself nonprofit but it remains much about the Benjamin’s.
I agree you are at best a hypocrite, as you have exposed yourself once again.
Projection/deflection/bs seem to be your stock in trade, Sean. It seems most everyone is aware of it except you, willful ignorance is the best that can be said in your defense.
Lol. Stooping to games a Kindergartener would think beneath them... Is that the best you can do? Pretend you can't understand simple English in order to pretend I said something I didn't? Or are you not pretending?
All in all a classic Kavika response. Not an even an attempt at substance, just juvenile games and name calling.
But keep going. You got embarrassed on substance (notice you dropped all attempts to defend your claim that past discrimination is the justification for AA) but your obsession with having the last word means you have to keep posting. So at least try and be a little creative with the insults.
It's best that you review your own comments when it comes to kindergarten games and juvenile games and name-calling.
Not embarrassed at all, you can't have mandated diversity without first having discrimination. JFK got in going in 1961 with EO 10925 followed by LBJ in 1965 with EO 11246
For the first time, Executive Order 11246 charged the Secretary of Labor, a Cabinet–level official with strong enforcement authority, with the responsibility of ensuring equal opportunity for minorities in federal contractors’ recruitment, hiring, training and other employment practices. Until that time, such efforts had been in the hands of various Presidential committees. Executive Order 11246 continued and reinforced the requirement that federal contractors not discriminate in employment and take affirmative action to ensure equal opportunity based on race, color, religion, and national origin.
This comment is to all in this thread. Some of these comments are getting way to personal. Please stop. Only warning.
That's literal nonsense.. Of course you can. What a ridiculous claim.
. JFK got in going in 1961 with EO 10925 followed by LBJ in 1965 with EO 11246
[deleted]
We were talking about AA in school admissions, remember? Not employment with government contractors. Not only is it irrelevant, your excerpt doesn't even support your claim to begin with.
Remember, you falsely claimed students were admitted under AA because of discrimination against them. The Supreme Court rejected that claim 50 years ago. It's never been true. Just admit you are wrong.
What is wrong with a school wanting continued business from the same family the school has served before?
Is repeat business a bad thing?
College has turned into more of a big business and financial operation than a place to learn away
They can continue business without having legacy admissions. If the parent/donor is so supportive of the school then legacy should not have anything to do with their support/money.
The best examples of this are the schools that don't allow legacy and have very large endowments.
Pretty simple concept.
If fate, luck, family, effort and staying out of trouble, ect, ect puts somebody on higher ground that is their advantage for them and to pass on
very simple concept
It seems that the only thing that is important to you is keeping an unequal admission policy as long as it benefits you and those that support your view. That has been the view of some for centuries.
Gotta admit, I've always been a little uncomfortable with the government telling private institutions who they can, can't, or must do business with. And that includes other instances like affirmative action in admissions as well.
State or public schools? Perfectly fine, because government is the proprietor. But private schools?
State schools in California have some of the nation’s highest Legacy Admissions.
Okay. And if the state government wants to change that, then they certainly can.
Of course.
Of course, I wonder what is taking California so long.
If the policy is discriminatory be it public or private it violates the law, so they must intervene, Dig.
But is it discriminatory? Are private schools accused of denying legacy preference to particular groups? Are the children of some alumni getting it while others aren't, based on race or some other discriminatory factor? I mean, legacy preference, just in and of itself, isn't discriminatory. In a way it's always been part of the deal. Families who are enamored with particular schools like to keep it in the family, so to speak. And as long as they can continue to afford it, it's good business policy for the schools to keep them personally invested from generation to generation.
Drawing on what I've gleaned over the years from the philosophy of liberty regarding economics, there are only a couple of instances where government is really justified in interfering with private business. One is when monopoly or collusion develops, thus removing the self-regulation that is supposed to be forced by free competition. Another is when what's become known as John Stuart Mill's 'harm principle' comes into play. Discrimination based on race or ethnicity would fall under the latter, so if they are doing that, then okay. But has it been shown that they actually are, when it comes to legacy preference?
IMO, it is discriminatory since it is giving a specific group of students an advantage based on legacy and or donations. Also some of the best schools in the world will not consider legacy as part of their admission requirements. This quote by MIT hits right at the heart of the situation.
Schools like Harvard don't have a monopoly on higher education, so government shouldn't be interfering. All schools have rules governing admission. It's not like there's an infinite number of spots available. That in and of itself translates into discrimination. But as long as that discrimination isn't based on things like race, religion, sexual pref, etc., then I say let them manage their businesses however they see fit.
We will have to agree to disagree on this point, Dig.
Those are hard questions. What do you think about state-mandated driver's licenses?
We could do without. We could authorize private companies to issue them.
Driver's licenses are so rooted that we don't think about them... which makes them worth thinking about.
At least driver's licenses have a basis in broader public safety. Not a very big one, though, considering the large amount of time between renewals these days.
Mandated seat belt usage is what bugs me when it comes to vehicular law. Don't get me wrong, I use them and think they're a good idea, I've just never been able to figure out a valid justification for states mandating their usage.
If we start with a "government should do nothing" principle, then there can be no mandate for seatbelts... or vaccines or anything else. No FDA, no FAA, no regulations of any kind.
If we start with a "government should promote public welfare", then all of these things are obligatory.
The harm principle is in line with promoting the general welfare. It's not a "government should do nothing" principle.
It doesn't apply to collectivities.
Like businesses, as in groups of individuals? Sure it does.
I quoted your link.
Use a little common sense. You can't possibly have though that it meant something like murder would be legal so long as offenders act in groups and not as individuals, or that business harmful to people or the environment couldn't be regulated or shut down.
So... you are deciding to ignore the text of your own link. OK.
Have a good life.
affirmative action was about race not money, Please correct me if I am wrong
In my opinion, your wrong. It was about race and the money those programs brought in..
using race to get the money?