Twangbanger
Grandmaster
- Oct 9, 2010
- 7,100
- 113
I think this is getting fairly close to my perception of the issue.
In my mind, I divide admissions requirements into two "buckets:" those based strictly on academic factors...and those based on "everything else." Studying the current case law on this subject, what you find is that Universities are given leeway or the authority to utilize non-academic factors in shaping what "kind" of University they want to be. And "race," in certain places and at certain times, has been allowed to be one of those factors. But this authority is not absolute. The degree to which race is allowed to be taken into account varies depending on the situation, and under certain circumstances, the voters of a state are even allowed to completely remove that leeway.
That's where the Kuts of the world have a problem. In their opinion, on a scale of 0 to 100, the only value that race-based preferences should never be allowed to have is "zero." It always has to be some positive, nonzero value, in their opinion.
But where I'm trying to take him to task, is in his assertion that if we've already allowed the camel's nose under the tent by allowing simian brutes into athletic programs, the floodgates have thus been opened to all sorts and levels of non-academic-based considerations in admission policies - and the concept of "zero consideration" has been forever stricken off the board when it comes to race-based diversity admissions policies. I'm attempting to point out that he's engaged in the fallacy of turning a quantitative phenomenon into a qualitative one. Allowing the Cro-Mags on the Football team admission to the University doesn't "shatter" the concept of academic-based admissions; it simply represents the Phys. Ed. department setting a different quantitative level of entry than the Medical, Scientific, or other fields. And thus, the little tiff he was trying to drive with Chris Pat is really a non-sequitur. A merit-based admissions policy simply does not require people in all fields of endeavor to demonstrate the same levels of academic merit.
Essentially, what this is saying is that, in the absence of really, super-major extenuating circumstances, Universities ought to be able to set merit thresholds, and then let the admissions chips fall where they may. And if some people don't make the cut, they have the option to look elsewhere. Twangbanger didn't get into CalTech; so he went to Purdue and got the frick on with his life. And some people can't get into U of M, and they go to Michigan State instead, same with U.C. vs. Cal State, and so on, and so on. And as much as I may, as a native Buckeye, despise the University of Michigan come football season, I nonetheless respect the views of 58% of Michigan Initiative voters, who want to uphold the ability of that fine educational institution (and others in that state) to set a merit threshold, without being assailed by armies of lawyers and hauled in front of the Courts by the Obama Administration or other political panderers.
