(06-11-2021 09:06 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  I don't think we should have admissions policies that clearly admit people who are not academically qualified to attend said university. But given how varied and diverse applicants' resumes are, and how many factors go into making someone a successful student, I have zero issue allowing race to be used in the evaluation to help increase the diversity of the student body. Same thing with socioeconomic status, or where someone grew up, or if they play sports, etc. etc.

I think, as Rice graduates... we most all (especially on this forum) support the idea of using a variety of factors including race, gender identity, opportunity and a large variety of other factors in creating a diverse and varied student body. What is the line? Travel is a cure for bigotry?? This is a means of allowing a university and its students to 'travel' in familiar settings.

That's the plus.

Where we disagree is mostly in 'how you do that'. We sort of assume that Rice will do it, but we (as a nation) seem to also assume that lots of places won't.... and as a result, we have to find ways to 'enforce' this.

Most often, the means used to 'enforce' this have to do with outcomes.

As an example (because we talked about it) there is an assumption that although black players make up say 40% of the NFL (I don't know the number) but only 10% of the population, that they should make up 40% rather than 10% of the head coaching (not even just coaching, but head coaching) positions.... as well as the front office, etc etc etc. Which assumes that just because they're interested in being players, that they should be equally interested in becoming coaches or administrators.... So the mere LACK of having outcomes that some groups expect (with little other than assumptions to support their expectations) is used as evidence to support a claim of 'systemic racism'. That is the public reaction/outcry.

The government usually responds to this by instituting some sort of 'test' based on outcomes and not on the inputs. Like if 50 white people, 20 Hispanics and 2 black people apply for jobs (based on their interest in the jobs) you are still expected to somehow hire them in a percentage that somewhat approximates the general population.

THIS is almost always what the right unites against, and they are accused of racism by the left if they don't.... which imo only masks the ACTUAL incidences of bias and racism

I say this because I experienced it.
I LITERALLY offered positions to every single black applicant I had in SF because it was the only way I could 'prove' that the reason I didn't have a commensurate number of black employees was that they chose not to apply or take the jobs, and not because I was racist. Even so, I was told that I needed to do a better job of reaching out to that community through means other than 'indeed'... so now all of a sudden, using indeed or really the internet is an act of systemic racism.... because despite the fact that I'm looking for people with specific training and skills (including significant use of the internet and internet technology), SF believes that poor black people can afford the schooling necessary to get these jobs, but not the internet necessary to apply for these jobs...