Trump administration to urge colleges to ignore race in admissions

steddyeddy

CNN reports that Trumps team will rescind guidance in college admissions that promote race diversity. In Colorado where I work part of the time there's talk of that eventually being extended to gender and class policies. This came about as colleges like Harvard and Cambridge were criticised as being very white Anglo-Saxon and full of toffs. I'm wondering is college admissions where we tackle the problem of race/gender/class diversity or do we fix the problems early on? I personally think we should fix problems before university but if that's not always possible universities should recognise those problems at administration level.

Washington (CNN)The
Trump administration is planning to rescind a set of Obama-era policies that
promote using race to achieve diversity in schools, a source familiar with the
plans tells CNN.


While the decision does not change
current US law on affirmative action, it provides a strong illustration of the
administration's position on an issue that could take on renewed attention with
the departure of Justice Anthony Kennedy from the Supreme Court.


"The executive branch cannot
circumvent Congress or the courts by creating guidance that goes beyond the law
and — in some instances — stays on the books for decades," Justice Department
spokesperson Devin O'Malley told CNN in a statement. "Last year, the Attorney
General initiated a review of guidance documents, which resulted in dozens of
examples — including today's second tranche of rescissions — of documents that
go beyond or are inconsistent with the Constitution and federal law. The Justice
Department remains committed to enforcing the law and protecting all Americans
from all forms of illegal race-based discrimination."

2 Scoops

Race diversity, is that the thing where Asians and other high IQ groups get discriminated against because of their intelligence?

Obama did some incredibly stupid things, one of which was where air traffic controllers weren't recruited based on their experience or skill, but rather their ethnicity and rewarded those who were longer unemployed, all in the name of diversity.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-airport-control-tower-is-no-place-for-racial-redress-1528240025

Diversity quotas are nonsense.

listermint

2 for 2 on the usual posters. Must have alerts set up for these subjects.

Craebear

"If you have always believed that everyone should play by the same rules and be judged by the same standards, that would have gotten you labeled a radical 50 years ago, a liberal 25 years ago and a racist today." - Thomas Sowell

Credit where credit is due President Trump.

Fr_Dougal

Race and gender should be ignored. Get your place on merit, by studying hard and getting the grades.

Fr_Dougal

Fr_Dougal wrote: »

Race and gender should be ignored. Get your place on merit, by studying hard and getting the grades.

but but but we want everything handed to us without working for it

Call Me Jimmy

steddyeddy wrote: »

"if that's not always possible universities should recognise those problems at administration level. "
[/FONT]

what a sentence. Weird way to say you care more about appearances than the quality of students?

Underground

So the admissions will be made on a meritocratic basis, this is good no?

steddyeddy

Fr_Dougal wrote: »

Race and gender should be ignored. Get your place on merit, by studying hard and getting the grades.

I agree but there are economic and other circumstances that will affect how different genders, races and class will do throughout school which will affect how the universities see them.

For instance some girls might go to a top school offering physics. If the same girl went to a regular school then she might not get the opportunity and then be denied entry to science at third level. The same girl, same intelligence but different opportunities informed her future.

Are Am Eye

steddyeddy wrote: »

For instance some girls might go to a top school offering physics. If the same girl went to a regular school then she might not get the opportunity and then be denied entry to science at third level. The same girl, same intelligence but different opportunities informed her future.

Surely that's an argument for increased equity at High School level.

The solution isn't to put these less able and less qualified people into College while of course pushing out others to make room.

RandomName2

listermint wrote: »

2 for 2 on the usual posters. Must have alerts set up for these subjects.

The ironing is delicious

steddyeddy

Are Am Eye wrote: »

Surely that's an argument for increased equity at High School level.

The solution isn't to put these less able and less qualified people into College while of course pushing out others to make room.

The point made is that they're not less able. It's just that they appear less able at school level when competing with someone from a different background.

Are Am Eye

steddyeddy wrote: »

The point made is that they're not less able. It's just that they appear less able at school level when competing with someone from a different background.

What do you mean appear less able?
Either she has achieved the requisite academic standards or she has not.
If she has not then she should not get someone's college place who has. In
the name of a diversity quota. If she went to the wrong school then also the
student who is higher than her on merit should not lose her place because
this girl chose the wrong school.

Donald Trump

Losers

Taytoland

Well done Trump. Racial quotas, utter nonsense.

magma69

Should be there on merit. The merit of being born into a rich family that can afford to send them to the best universities. 
Seriously, race and gender quotas are ridiculous and regressive but a lot of people that are against it also like to pretend everyone is starting from the same point. Very hypocritical imo.

mcmoustache

steddyeddy wrote: »

I agree but there are economic and other circumstances that will affect how different genders, races and class will do throughout school which will affect how the universities see them.

For instance some girls might go to a top school offering physics. If the same girl went to a regular school then she might not get the opportunity and then be denied entry to science at third level. The same girl, same intelligence but different opportunities informed her future.

While I don't disagree with you, especially on your second paragraph, I don't think quotas are the way to go. In the US for example, far east asians often come from poor areas and are still discriminated against. Even when they're poor, those cultures still believe in the value of education but they still get penalised. I think that a better solution would be college-sponsored extra-curricular activities.


Quotas are a blunt instrument that just raise suspicion about people's talents.

mcmoustache

listermint wrote: »

2 for 2 on the usual posters. Must have alerts set up for these subjects.

Anyone familiar with me knows that I have a dislike for both and that the feeling is mutual but policies should be discussed on their merits and not as some form of tribalism. I know that the trumper types will automatically be against quotas because it doesn't give them any advantage but there are other, less racist reasons why quotas are a bad thing.


One shouldn't be for quotas just because another side is against them.

2 Scoops

mcmoustache wrote: »

Anyone familiar with me knows that I have a dislike for both and that the feeling is mutual but policies should be discussed on their merits and not as some form of tribalism. I know that the trumper types will automatically be against quotas because it doesn't give them any advantage but there are other, less racist reasons why quotas are a bad thing.


One shouldn't be for quotas just because another side is against them.

I was with you until you felt the need to insult, ironically, a group of people. The bolded part isn't what it's about at all and obviously you don't get it.

What's racist about wanting the most qualified person for the job? Look at the air traffic controller link I posted, they'd prefer put people in danger rather than give the jobs to the most qualified. Skin color or ethnicity matters nothing - most qualified gets it.

The only racism I see is those who do worse on exams are rewarded extra merit points, I forget the numbers now but Asians among others are at a huge disadvantage. Those who apply such point systems are the real racists, they're basically saying because you're from x or your skin colour is x you're automatically not as smart as x group. That's racism.

_Dara_

Are Am Eye wrote: »

What do you mean appear less able?
Either she has achieved the requisite academic standards or she has not.
If she has not then she should not get someone's college place who has. In
the name of a diversity quota. If she went to the wrong school then also the
student who is higher than her on merit should not lose her place because
this girl chose the wrong school.

I think many teenagers don’t get much say in the school they attend. Especially if they are low income. For most kids, it’s the local school or nothing.

mcmoustache

mcmoustache wrote: »

Anyone familiar with me knows that I have a dislike for both and that the feeling is mutual but policies should be discussed on their merits and not as some form of tribalism. I know that the trumper types will automatically be against quotas because it doesn't give them any advantage but there are other, less racist reasons why quotas are a bad thing.

What’s this now?

Victor

Underground wrote: »

So the admissions will be made on a meritocratic basis, this is good no?

That would be assuming that Trump is promoting meritocratic admission.

Lots of admissions are on the basis of things like cold hard cash given to colleges, sport scholarships and other non-academic criteria.

Then there is the matter of uneven educations. Rich children to private schools with all sorts of facilities and advantages. Poor kids go to school hungry.

Gyalist

Victor wrote: »

That would be assuming that Trump is promoting meritocratic admission.

Lots of admissions are on the basis of things like cold hard cash given to colleges, sport scholarships and other non-academic criteria.

Then there is the matter of uneven educations. Rich children to private schools with all sorts of facilities and advantages. Poor kids go to school hungry.

Even with private education the Trump family has donated millions so that Donald and his children could get into Wharton. The same was done by the Kushner family so that Jared could get into Harvard. No way any of them could have been admitted based on merit.

Subcomandante Marcos

Are Am Eye wrote: »

If she went to the wrong school then also the
student who is higher than her on merit should not lose her place because
this girl chose the wrong school.

The way districting works in US public schools means you don't get to choose. Your street will be zoned for a specific school and no matter how intelligent you are if you end up in a ****ty school district you're ****ed. So merit has little to do with it for a lot for students.

HandsomeBob

Craebear wrote: »

"If you have always believed that everyone should play by the same rules and be judged by the same standards, that would have gotten you labeled a radical 50 years ago, a liberal 25 years ago and a racist today." - Thomas Sowell

Credit where credit is due President Trump.

The problem is that properly fixing the problems will cause infinitely more money than introducing quotas. A proper level playing field would be there from birth in everything from health to education.....that's not going to happen in a country like America.

Quotas are bull**** I agree but I'd rather they are in place than have nothing at all. Cry me a river if someone who has their pick of anywhere misses out on a place because of a quota.

Graces7

_Dara_ wrote: »

I think many teenagers don’t get much say in the school they attend. Especially if they are low income. For most kids, it’s the local school or nothing.

But the same applies. If they are not properly qualified, no matter why, then they cannot compete?

It is the same as it was for us decades ago.

steddyeddy

Graces7 wrote: »

But the same applies. If they are not properly qualified, no matter why, then they cannot compete?

It is the same as it was for us decades ago.

But the point is the school they go to plays a large part in how they do in tests. Tests are one of the few measures of ability we can use to determine ability. We could get a situation where someone better suited to medicine doesn't get into to medicine because they went to a crap school.

Canard

steddyeddy wrote: »

But the point is the school they go to plays a large part in how they do in tests. Tests are one of the few measures of ability we can use to determine ability. We could get a situation where someone better suited to medicine doesn't get into to medicine because they went to a crap school.

I agree, but if someone is not attaining adequate scores to actually cope with an intensive course such as medicine, then why just let them in because they might have been able to had circumstances been different? France does essentially this with its public universities and it's an absolute joke, and they've been vehemently protesting any changes to it despite how much money it wastes, so surely the most logical solution would be some kind of stepping stone course? Let people who almost make it in (so, as you say, may have gotten in if they were in a better school) do a supplementary year, get to grips with it, and THEN enter on their merit. Level the playing field, don't elevate parts of it.

I mean, we do it here with PLCs, or even more similar, premed -- usually for those who haven't done chemistry as far as I'm aware -- or foundation level modules in college to help people who need a boost. People who get in on PLCs or come in from premed aren't accused of 'stealing' places, precisely because it's done on merit, as it should be. Maths help centres for students in subjects like economics. The solution is absolutely not to give credit for what could have been because, unfortunate as it is, it's like putting a plaster on a broken bone.

odyssey06

What took him so long? From a political point of view this will cost him zero votes.

There might have been a case for a limited period of affirmative action in the immediate aftermath of the passing of the Civil Rights Act, nonsenical in a country where an African-American has been President.

MikeyTaylor

Is there anything bad this man can't do?