(09-13-2020 07:06 PM)Rice93 Wrote: My point was (and is) that I don't see how Rice would want to model itself on Hillsdale. I don't think that you want that either and I agree that there are things that, despite my point, may be admirable about Hillsdale.
Who said we did? I believe someone said they'd like to see us be 'more like them', but that's not the same as modeling us after them.
Quote:I lost you... which principle has "been proven to the be right one"? That affirmative action is bad? I agree that refusing to play in a bowl that prohibited minorities has been proven to be the right stance.
Affirmative action only became an issue for Hillsdale in the 1980s when Federal Funding for education was tied to engagement in it.
The principle that has proven to be right is the one that racism is wrong. I thought that was made pretty clear referencing their stance in 1844, before the civil war and in 1956 (or whatever it was) before Rice integrated and before places like the Tangerine Bowl allowed blacks to play.
Quote:Quote:and let's be honest... using Walt's figures... an 1100 white or asian student is 'average'... but an 1100 black student is in the top percentiles. How much competition do you think there is for that 1100 black student vs the 1100 white student from all these schools that take federal funds? Clearly they accept minorities.
Yes... they clearly accept minorities. Just very few of them mostly like (I don't know what the acceptance rate looks like and probably nobody outside of their admissions department does). It's up to them how they want to engineer (or not engineer) the makeup of their student body. Again... it's not a system that I would personally want Rice to emulate.
One of the things that often happens on this forum and also frequently when speaking on sensitive subjects is that someone makes a rather nuanced statement... and then someone on the other side of the discussion claims that they don't understand... in this case, I believe 100% that you are earnest... but that's not always the case. Sometimes the reason that is done is so that the person (in this case me) will eliminate the nuances completely and make a statement that is far less accurate, but more clear to someone who doesn't get the nuances... and then all of a sudden, that far less nuanced and far less accurate description becomes 'what the person really meant'... and that's horribly wrong.
At the risk of that...
iirc, Rice is 8-10% black. If we eliminated athletes, I'm betting we would be more like half that. While Rice still has standards and this is more about the general situation and somewhat less about Rice.... Rice and other schools that admit minority athletes with much lower scores are not really engaging in affirmative action... Instead they engage in valuing athletic talent over academic talent.
Rice more than most others, certainly engages in practices that ensure that these are actual educational opportunities... but some schools do not. Is a school that routinely recruits one and done basketball players with low scores and other actions like removing scholarships REALLY offering an educational opportunity to a disadvantaged person as the intent of affirmative action? Or are they just exploiting athletic talent under the guise of it?
It seems that Hillsdale, who EASILY could engage in the same 'improving their athletic outcomes and thus their public profile and perhaps revenue' like everyone else does not seem to do so... Yet they do seem to still admit people of color with below average scores and disadvantaged backgrounds.
I guess I'd say it this way... Any school that admits someone with below their internal standards scores, and doesn't set that person up for success has doomed them to failure. Whether it be no tutors, or tutors who do their work for them... Whether it be no serious job related degree plan, merely maintaining eligibility towards a mostly symbolic degree... Or even simply offering someone a full scholarship to play sports, but if they decide not to continue and instead focus on academics, an unrealistic financial burden because of the lack of aid resources.... Yes, some will overcome, but many others are simply being exploited. Some will
Bottom line, If someone wants to argue that Rice does affirmative action through sports correctly... that's fine. Not everyone does... In fact, I'd say that most don't. Those who don't are VASTLY worse than what Hillsdale does... and only better than those who have inclusion profiles similar to or worse than Hillsdale, without their LONG and CONSISTENT history of inclusion. Inclusion wasn't popular in 1844, nor in 1956.
(09-12-2020 09:01 AM)Rice93 Wrote: Quote: (09-12-2020 09:01 AM)Rice93 Wrote: Quote:Are you saying that racial equality is a right-wing bend?
God, no.
That's obviously rhetorical
I know, but I couldn't help answering that one.
I hope you at least saw it as humorous. I don't see racial equality being strong within the left either. I see a lot of people talking like it is, but far fewer of them acting like it is. If you didn't see it as humorous and this was a serious answer, I really don't know where to start. Maybe you need to hang around 'better' Right wingers or visit the dregs of the left wing.
Quote:Affirmative action is reverse racism? I see it more of trying to pull a race that has had historical disadvantages UP rather than tear white people DOWN.
(09-13-2020 11:13 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: Racism is racism, no such thing as reverse. Any policy that makes decisions based on race sounds inherently racist to me. Changing the words from white to black or from black to white does not change that.
This.
Lots of words are used with different definitions in here. Racism vs prejudice vs bigotry.
Racism at its core is making decisions about someone based on their race... often based on stereotypes. Many but not all stereotypes are derogatory.
I agree with you 93 on the PURPOSE of Affirmative Action, but there is a difference between something's purpose and what it is. I am not against affirmative action, especially for places like Rice and any other school that engaged in racism... but I AM against someone (in this case, entities) who engage in practices for 100+ years, get scolded and then try and do it in reverse... seeking to make up for their sins... casting shade on entities that NEVER engaged in those practices, who still don't.
Let me put it in a different context...
I don't know where you come down on reparations, but for the moment, let's say that we both agree with them. Do you think it would be fair to put the same burden on Rice University, who 50 years after the civil war instituted a racist policy, and still engaged in it 50 years later... and on Hillsdale, who 50 years before Rice was even founded and 20 years before it was the law of the land, refused to practice it? I don't. So even if I supported affirmative action, I place that burden more on the people who practiced segregation, not those who didn't. How is this any different than a progressive tax? The more you benefitted from something, the more you should pay for it.
Again, this is all an attempt to be clear. It somewhat overstates some positions for clarity.
Said simply... Hillsdale does not prioritize affirmative action in order to reach guidelines established by the government... the same government that allowed Rice to segregate until the 1960's. That does not mean that they don't engage in actions designed to address the same opportunity inequalities... they certainly seem to in at least some cases... but they are not competing with 'the big boys' in exploiting athletics as a means of reaching some of those guidelines.
ETA... For a school that engaged in such openly racist practices, I certainly prefer that we are engaging in practices today clearly designed to ACTUALLY give academic opportunities to minorities as opposed to those schools who mostly seem to exploit them... but all things being equal, I'd rather we never engaged in those practices at all.... and didn't today feel the need to make up for what we didn't do. For all we know, Hillsdale would have been Rice and Rice Hillsdale if the situations were reversed.
