93... I am responding to your responses here, and only these.. and trying to do so only as far as they are represented here... Feel free to add your impressions of my comments based on our historical conversations; please do not add anyone else's thoughts to mine. I am not responding IN PLACE of OO, though perhaps I may pick up my version of some of his comments

(01-15-2021 10:47 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  Right. So if it turns out that there are very, very few minority students at elite institutions relative to today's situation you would be OK with that as opposed to have the current admissions policies. Got it. I disagree.

The way you write it makes me think that you're essentially saying that 'having minorities graduate from elite institutions' is (in and of itself) a virtue. It's only a virtue if THEY want it to happen. It wouldn't be a big stretch to see you turn your comment into claiming that the person you're talking to is racist, because they would be 'fine' with not discriminating against anyone, letting them choose their options, and them choosing something OTHER than OUR elite institution. You didn't say this, but from my experience, this is the comment that comes next... and to be honest, I struggle to think that this isn't what you were thinking yourself but were just polite enough not to say it.

A system that recognizes and adjusts (at least reasonably tries to) for the racism that exists in the rest of society, especially public education by doing as I suggested (and you support) by evaluating the quality of people and not necessarily the quality of their opportunities can STILL result in an under-representation of minorities at elite institutions... ESPECIALLY in that there are a number of HBCs as well as every state school (some of which are pretty damn good) competing for that same talent. See Rice, with about 8% black students in a society where it is about 13% and a city where they make up more like 25%.

OO seems to be suggesting that SOCIETY correct the underlying racism/educational opportunities rather than asking 'Elite Institutions' to do it. Why is he wrong about putting the burden of fixing the problem on the institutions who are creating and perpetuating the problems as opposed to putting it on 'elite' institutions? In sports, that would be like requiring Nick Saban to play 'x%' of 2 star or lower players.... making it Alabama's job to fix the fact that some kids who might eventually be great at football grow up in places where they are too small to sponsor a football team.

Said differently (and I need to do that...) I am okay with what I suggested SOLELY because it is adaptable. If you do as OO has suggested then at some point, the 'adjustment' becomes zero. If you don't do what he suggested, then we have institutionalized and perpetuated systemic racism that ONLY gets addressed through the actions of places like Rice for that SMALL number of people who a) ASK to go to Rice b) WANT to go to Rice and c) meet 'whatever' criteria we set for their admission. We aren't solving the underlying problem.

SO I get what you're saying, but OO is still correct... AND his focus ENDS systemic racism..... but your response to him is one of those that I almost always see that turns the tables... and calls someone who is not engaging in racism a racist, while allowing someone who is perpetuating systemic racism (and I don't mean you, but people who ignore 'solving the underlying problem') to claim to be virtuous. That is so wrong I can't see straight.

Quote:I think we would not have enough students of color as they are more likely to come from less-privileged backgrounds. It's hard to compete with the private tutors, SAT classes, better schools/teachers that wealth brings. We don't have enough economic diversity at these school regardless of race. Would school vouchers address this? I really don't know... I've definitely heard competing opinions on this and I'm not that tuned into the issue as to have a strong opinion on it.

Why wouldn't they? You describe some economic differences and a solution that eliminates economic differences (because it covers the cost) and 'wonder' if it would address the issue? It is not be a magic wand that suddenly makes centuries of problems go away.... but think about what you're suggesting... Kids of two college educated parents are going to have advantages over (as an extreme example) kids of recent immigrants who weren't educated in their home country who struggle with basic things like the language in which their kids are learning. How do you suggest we fix that? The fact is we can't. We can offer their parents ESL courses, but we generally can't give them a college education in the time they're here raising their family.

The whole point of school vouchers is that they allow kids who are struggling because of poor teachers/schools (which you specifically identified) to attend the same schools as wealthier kids. While there will always be 'premium' services and options available, these schools almost always also come with access (often free to the child) to SAT prep and/or tutors... OR such things could often be afforded in a much more cost effective way by seeking to augment good teachers and good facilities rather than trying to overcome poor teachers or facilities.

Quote: To be clear... minority kids are just as capable as white kids at handling a rigorous educational pathway. Unfortunately... not enough of them are offered that option. I believe that's what affirmative action has historically tried to address.

I agree that they are just as capable... I also agree that this was the intention of Affirmative action. I suspect that there are hundreds of thousands and likely millions of minority kids whose lives have been improved as a result of affirmative action.... yet 50 years in, we STILL are struggling mightily with the very foundation of the issue... and that is PRIMARY education. I'm still trying to figure out why we gave up on the idea of school integration.. which is essentially what vouchers and magnet schools etc create.... and instead, we rely on higher education to somehow magically fix this problem.

I support looking at the whole person because it allows for adjustments based on opportunities which exist for all people. It CAN include racial inequalities... but it does not proscribe them. By that I mean we aren't looking to make sure that we have 'enough' kids from bad schools or single parent households or low income households.... so why are we looking to make sure we have 'enough' (fill in the race) kids? I think that encouraging minority students or actively recruiting them has value and brings value to the community. Sports (and growing up in a military household) for me overwhelmingly reduced my perception of race being a dividing factor... and one of the reasons why I am so adamant in my support for athletics at Rice. I also feel that you get a lot of kids from smaller towns (and some larger ones) where high school football is what unites the town. Those kids have pride as a result. They want to compete.... and they want to encourage the next generation and beyond to compete... and as a result, they are 'loyal' to their school, just like in those small towns where people are 'loyal' to their town.