H 32°, L 7° | Tomorrow: 
H 17°, L 4°
In my last column I argued the promotion of “diversity” on campuses and throughout the culture is, at root, a rejection of standards. It is the attempt to erase the distinction between essential differences and non-essential ones — between values and non-values.
For example, attempting to achieve a student body composed of a certain racial makeup gives credence to something that has no actual value in an academic environment: race. Race is irrelevant to one’s ideas, character or ability to learn.
But the idea of “diversity” is much broader than race and sex. It acts to destroy essential differences across the board by putting over the idea that difference as such is a value. But is diversity a value?
If a student attends class naked and threatens to smash people in the face, that would be different, but should we embrace it? Inviting panhandlers from State Street to bring their change cups to class would be different, but is this a value? Not if education is the standard.
And this is precisely the problem. Diversity, per se, cannot be a value because the term has no meaning apart from a standard to which it is applied.
A diversity of investments or a diversity of talent, for example, can be a value only because these things prescribe a standard by which to evaluate them. Adding sand to one’s portfolio would be different, but it would not count as a diversification because it fails to meet the standard by which investments are judged: return on investment. Enshrining “diversity” as an unqualified good would be a disaster if applied to investment strategies and it is equally harmful when applied to education.
Recent lawsuits brought against universities for their use of the Kindle electronic reader is a good example of the destructive effects of diversity. The president of the National Federation of the Blind states their position as follows:
“American higher education institutions that are subject to federal laws requiring that they not discriminate against students with disabilities plan to deploy this device (Kindle), even though they know that it cannot be used by blind students. The National Federation of the Blind will not tolerate this unconscionable discrimination against and callous indifference to the right of blind students to receive an equal education.”
It is wrong, says the federation, to adopt technologies that are only useful to sighted students. Why? Because this is discrimination. And it is discrimination — the Kindle is designed for people who can see, and not for people who cannot see. But is this kind of discrimination bad?
Unlike race, which is irrelevant to a student’s academic abilities, being able to see is an essential asset. This means that, unlike racially different students, blind students and sighted students should not be treated the same. They should not receive an equal education, but the best education given their actual abilities. And the best education for a sighted student will often be different than that of a blind student.
Yet, in the same way that diversity proponents urge us to embrace difference as good without regard to the nature of those differences, anti-discrimination proponents treat discrimination as universally bad regardless of what is being discriminated. Missing from both is any notion of a standard for evaluating the differences or discriminations.
If, instead of “diversity” and “non-discrimination” we adopt a standard of for making discriminations and diversifying, we will see that many of the policies being adopted are wrong.
For example, if providing the best education for individuals is the standard, then it becomes readily apparent that race is irrelevant to an individual’s education and technology that takes advantage of his sight is a tremendous boon. One should therefore reject the idea of seeking more racial diversity and the shunning of a valuable technology because it does not benefit the blind.
In cases where a particular technology satisfies the needs of both blind and sighted students, it may make sense to adopt such a technology. It’s also valuable to offer technologies that assist the blind. But these are values only by the standard of educating individuals. To sacrifice the sighted to the blind and the qualified to the ethnically underrepresented is to drop the standard of education.
Jim Allard ([email protected]) is a graduate student in biological sciences.
IP hash: ce893422
Racial diversity is pretty much the same as having naked people in class.
And once again, a BH writer makes the assumption that racial diversity requires sacrificing “the qualified to the ethnically underrepresented.” When will you kids get over yourselves?
IP hash: f151ec33
Well, what does racial diversity require in your opinion?
IP hash: 6ac7847b
Employers have pretty much said that they are reluctant to recruit from Madison despite it’s stellar reputation because of our lack of diversity.
All of us have a vested interest in the school recruiting more ethnic minorities. If you want to call it Affirmative Action, fine, I just approve of anything the UW does to improve my marketability as a graduate.
IP hash: f151ec33
So if racism advances your cause, you’re for it?
IP hash: 6ac7847b
If it can work for the Republican Party, it can work for me!
IP hash: 0dd3f08f
Where? Who says this?
IP hash: 9af10465
http://badgerherald.com/oped/2006/04/13/badgersneednot_app.php
IP hash: 5bb54100
That’s just blatantly false. Tons of employers recruit from our campus, particularly in engineering and hard sciences.
IP hash: 81f1adcd
Haha. What a credible statement. You’re a joke
IP hash: d889b916
My uncle from California employs students every year from our engineering department saying they are more rounded and qualified than students from Ivy Leagues and Notre Dame.
IP hash: ffdbd426
Diversity should not become an obsession, it should become a goal. It all depends on what we’re willing to do to achieve it. If it means discriminating against qualified applicants just for the sake of diversity, then it’s nothing more than window dressing. Besides, the problem doesn’t begin at the admissions office. It began way back in elementary school. Minority children suffer poor academic performance at an early age. That is where the problem starts. Any college applicant who cannot pass an entrance exam satisfactorily and without adding extra points simply because he/she is a minority does not deserve preferential treatment. We all live in the same world, under the same laws, governed by the same natural laws, we all eat, sleep, laugh, cry, and dream the same. No one deserves undue favor over others.
IP hash: d056deeb
How do you feel about athletes? Legacies and rich students whose parents might be able to make substantial donations the university? Students with special talents, like the ability to play a particular musical instrument? Technically, these students get preferential treatment, too.
You need to realize that race, standardized test scores and grades are not the only factors considered in college admissions. Why the attack on race specifically?
IP hash: f151ec33
Because race is an irrelevant factor, whereas the other things like talents are relevant. To use race as a factor is racism.
IP hash: 6ac7847b
Why is race an irrelevant factor? I’d say that race is an incredibly relevant factor because it helps make university grads more employable (12:48 am).
I also noticed that you responded to that post. I’m interested how you can still call race an ‘irrelevant’ factor when there is a clear statement of its relevancy that you have obviously looked at.
If ‘racism’ helps everyone involved, I have a hard time calling it bad.
IP hash: f151ec33
Racism does not help anyone. It is irrational and destructive. I was assuming the author of the comment understood the nature of racism.
IP hash: a3655ec5
But which race benefits mostly from this? Not minorities. And there are data that state that most athletes are below the average student academically, but are still given preferential treatment because they are athletes. Same with legacies and residencies.
IP hash: bb874224
Money is relevant? A child should have a better advantage over another because his father attended the University? That’s a load of horseshit and you know it. Far more under-qualified rich white kids get into Ivy Leagues than under-qualified blacks. In fact, NO under-qualified blacks get in, because that is not how Affirmative Action works. However, legacies are another story.
Look no further than George Bush. I wonder if he would have gotten into Yale had his father and grand-father attended the University, in addition to the incredible pull his father has in the community.
Give me a fucking break. White people have much more cultural capital than African Americans do (on average). Affirmative Action can work to change this.
IP hash: f151ec33
Why should diversity be a goal? Why is it good?
IP hash: bcba9dfc
“Why should diversity be a goal? Why is it good?” “Diversity,” as in, a diverse campus, helps people to understand the world around them more thoroughly and profoundly. Part of any academic experience, and especially the transitional nature of undergraduate education, necessitates the broadening of perspectives, to see things from different angles and in so doing, enhance one’s own understanding.
Along those lines, attempts to increase the presence of diverse groups at UW is NOT simply intended to benefit non-whites. It is for the benefit of all.
As the only white person in my workplace, I can confidently say that my extremely different background and experiences helps my co-workers and clients to better understand the world in which they live, and I experience the same thing. I feel strongly about this, as I have witnessed the benefits of diverse groups interacting in numerous settings, but especially academic ones.
IP hash: f151ec33
Understanding the world requires understanding ideas and ideas are not a product of skin color. If you want diverse ideas then you need to seek people with different ideas, not different skin color.
IP hash: bcba9dfc
“Ideas are not a product of skin color”
But they are a product of racial and cultural heritage.
IP hash: f7afa673
i think that is the important distinction. different ideas and perspectives indeed do not come from different skin colors. but they do come from different cultrual and ethnic backgrounds. if you want greater diversity, strive for people with different cultrual and ethnic backgrounds, not people with a diffrent skin color. there is a difference between the two. someone who has darker skin as mine is just as likely to have come from a family that has lived in the United States for generations, which probably means they have the relatively same ideas and perspectives. Diversity of culture, that is what a college campus REALLY wants.
IP hash: f151ec33
No, ideas are not a product of racial and cultural heritage. My cultural heritage is French, so are you’re telling me my ideas come from that? Nonsense.
Just look around at people who come from the same cultural heritages and race - many have radically different ideas.
Individuals have minds and freewill - they are not a product of their culture or race. The ones who blindly accept ideas simply because everyone in their culture believes those ideas are unthinking conformists - what new ideas will they have to offer?
The value, especially in an academic setting, is in independent, creative people who think for themselves.
IP hash: 602e5318
“No, ideas are not a product of racial and cultural heritage. My cultural heritage is French, so are you�re telling me my ideas come from that? Nonsense.”
I find this statement to be arrogant and of complete nonsense. I understand that there is a debate of the whole nature versus nurture, but to claim that we are compose wholly of one or the other is ridiculous. To claim that the environment in which you grew up, the people in your lives with whom you communicate can have no effect on your ideas is outrageous. Race in this country dramatically changes your experience and view of this world, as does being rich, being a woman, being homosexual, etc. And you’ve clearly demonstrated from your statement that as a white person, you cannot begin to understand that. So no, I don’t think a group of white person can have such different ideas to understand what it is like to experience racism. I don’t care how many countries you’ve been in where you drew stares because you were white. That is not the same.
IP hash: f151ec33
We “compose” neither nature nor nurture. Individuals have free will - they have minds and they can think for themselves (if they choose to). Nothing forces one to hold the ideas he holds.
Certainly your environment can have “an effect” but, then again, it might not have an affect, or the affect might be one way or another. It depends on the person and how he uses his mind - what he learns, and what he chooses.
“And you�ve clearly demonstrated from your statement that as a white person, you cannot begin to understand that. So no, I don�t think a group of white person can have such different ideas to understand what it is like to experience racism.”
Not true. I’ve just experienced racism. You’re telling me that I can’t understand something because of my race. That’s racism - no different than if I told a black person that he was not smart to attend a white-person school because of his race.
IP hash: 3d8f587e
You are looking at this wrong.
Your French heritage is not your cultural heritage it is your genetic heritage. Your cultural heritage comes from where you grew up and furthermore your life experiences have a great impact on how you approach and solve problems.
“Culture” is not saying that all people do everything the same. Everyone is still an individual and everyone still can think for themselves, but they still have a common cultural background.
IP hash: f3de2dad
I agree with this. We should be trying to increase the numbers of ethnic minorities on campus. One of the major reasons they are not well represented here is because of centuries of damaging oppression and discrimination, and this must be rectified. However, the problem starts way back in elementary school and that’s where it needs to be addressed. We should be improving districts like MPS, providing inner-city kids with more opportunities and increasing community support services. This will not be cheap, and funds will need to be diverted away from richer districts to pay for these improvements. But, it’s the only way to address issues of systemic racism and stop the self-perpetuating cycle of poverty. The goals of affirmative action are laudable, but it’s just a band-aid. We have to address the problem at its source, and then we won’t need to have this debate about who to admit to college - because people from all races and classes will be equally competitive academically.
IP hash: f151ec33
The damaging oppression and discrimination was a result of racism. You can’t “rectify” this by institutionalizing further racism.
The way to rectify the injustice of racism is to stop practicing it.
IP hash: 55d0923d
All in all, not a terrible article. While people seem to disagree on the content, that’s ok. It’s an opinion piece, we all have our own…
IP hash: ffdbd426
The problem is that minority applicants are far less prepared for college than everyone else. And that problem took root long before they took their SATs. Look at the stats all the way back to kindergarten. Minority kids under-perform at an early age. Whatever the reasons for it, this is where improvement needs to be made. Waiting until they apply for college and give them a few extra points so they can clear the bar won’t make them better performers the rest of the way.
IP hash: f151ec33
What is a “minority kid?” The individual is the smallest minority, so all kids are minorities.
IP hash: 6ca239c0
The assumption that “Race is irrelevant to one�s ideas, character or ability to learn” is completely false. Like gender, sexual orientation, childhood, etc, one’s race is an essential component of one’s identity.
IP hash: f151ec33
One’s eye color is part of one’s identify, but so what? The point is that race does not determine a person’s character, ideas or ability to learn.
If you think one’s skin color affects one’s ability to learn, then explain how.
IP hash: c46d079e
That’s a great question and deserves an answer because it highlights a major point of confusion and oversight in this debate.
Race affects one’s ability to learn because the institutions of this country are designed to make every step of learning (and every other part of life) easier for people of European descent and more difficult for people of color (Due to historical injustices cyclically recreated generation after generation).
A person of color and a white person of equal talent AND MATERIAL RESOURCES will not achieve the same outcomes in this country. Affirmative action policies are one MINUSCULE effort to eliminate vast unfair privileges white people like myself benefit from every day.
It is crucial that affirmative action policies be viewed in this context of elimination of white privilege as opposed to creation of privilege for people of color.
That affirmative action policies are largely debated solely around the issue of creation of privilege for people of color demonstrates just how ingrained white domination of discourse and life are in this country and how ignorant many white people are of their own privileges.
IP hash: f151ec33
“Race affects one�s ability to learn because the institutions of this country are designed to make every step of learning (and every other part of life) easier for people of European descent and more difficult for people of color”
Example?
This doesn’t address the alleged claim of race affecting one’s ability to learn. It just states that institutions are discriminating based on race. But this is precisely what the affirmative action opponents are saying. Stop treating people differently based on their race.
The argument for eliminating affirmative action policies is to NOT favor people based on race. The idea is to treat people the same regardless of their descent.
IP hash: be01a389
Excellent response. The argument that race (or any other kind of currently or historically marginalized identity) has “no actual value” or relevance is only proffered by someone who, as a result of privilege (white, male, heterosexual, class, etc.), is never forced to be aware of his or her difference. I do not believe it is coincidence that the rash of recent opinion columns making this argument have been written by white authors.
IP hash: f151ec33
But why does it matter what you believe if, by your own logic, it’s just a product of your “privilege” or lack of it? Maybe you can’t see the truth of opposing arguments because of your level of “privilege.”
Saying that people hold certain ideas because of their race is racism. Either you deal with the issue by reason and arguments or there’s no point discussing the issue.
IP hash: c46d079e
If you are a white person and don’t understand how “the institutions of this country are designed to make every step of learning (and every other part of life) easier for people of European descent and more difficult for people of color”, it is precisely because you have the privilege not to experience this.
Ask a person of color (or any marginalized person) and you might get quite a different response.
Try it. Dialogue with your fellow human beings feels so much better than debate. It wont hurt you.
IP hash: bcba9dfc
Jim Allard: “To sacrifice the sighted to the blind and the qualified to the ethnically underrepresented is to drop the standard of education.”
Ah, there it is: the old canard that enrolling the “ethnically underrepresented” is in some way at the expense of the “qualified.”
(sigh, deep breath) THIS NEVER HAPPENS. IF YOU ARE MORE QUALIFIED, YOU GET IN. IF YOU ARE NOT, YOU DON’T. Just because the university might more proactively seek out minority applicants, does not mean that they get admissions points for being a minority.
People insist that diversity necessitates the sacrifice of the “more qualified” out of ignorance, fear, or outright racial hatred. So Jim…which is it for you? My money’s on ignorance.
IP hash: f151ec33
Failing to adopt a valuable technology because the blind cannot use it is sacrificing the able to the disabled. It is giving up a value for the non-value of the blind not being able to use it. This is what sacrifice means.
Actively seeking applicants based on their race means that applicants are not sought exclusively on their qualifications. If a person has higher qualifications but the wrong skin color he might be passed by because the university is seeking a desired race. Failing to find the better qualified candidate because of a policy that seeks race is a sacrifice of the qualified to racism.
IP hash: bcba9dfc
Not really though…if someone is qualified and wants to apply, they will. Whereas, many people may not consider applying to UW, often exactly because UW is a sea of white faces. I was qualified, I applied, I got in. So did you. Generally people who piss and moan that “their spot” was “given” to a minority are not as qualified as the one who “took their spot.”
IP hash: f5436a6a
Some of these comments make me furious. 1. Do NOT group all white people into the racist category. I am not one nor do I wish to be grouped with those that are. This is the exact problem with this type of dialogue regarding race. Nothing gets resolved because everyone resorts to name-calling. 2. This campus is NOT diverse and those that think it is are sadly mistaken. 3. While racism is an important issue to address, keep in mind it is not the only type of discrimination.
IP hash: e269055b
Mr. Allard, what you’ve just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.
IP hash: 5044b121
bm ftw
IP hash: c54de1fa
Well we now have our first Affimative Action President. Let’s see how the next 3 years work out - the first year has certianly been a bust.
But maybe it’s mostly Congress to blame. Things seemed to be better bfore the Democrats took over Congress in 2006. But then “took over” may be a misnomer,l since even with a huge majority in the House and a filibuster proof majority in the Senate the Democrats don’t seem to be able to do a darn thing.
IP hash: bcba9dfc
FYI Obama crushed McCain, and if “things seemed to be better” before the 2006 election then you need to check your meds. Did you vote for Bush? Then you can’t have the country back because you fucked it up!
IP hash: 4e3d7eba
‘and if �things seemed to be better� before the 2006 election then you need to check your meds.’
Just check the stats Bozo, things like unemployment, federal deficit, real estate, stocks, actually about everything.
I was worried that the Age of Obama would be a replay of the Mr. Peanut Years but now that seems to be a best case expectation.
IP hash: 4e3d7eba
Yeah, Obama and his crew are a real bunch of idiots about everything, not just the economy.
Further, Obama’s and Holder’s assurances that KSM will be convicted (and, according to the president, “put to death”) make a mockery of due process. Nothing is more fundamental to America’s criminal justice system than the presumption of innocence, and if terrorist detainees are to be treated as criminal defendants, they are entitled to that presumption.
For the sake of political expediency, Obama and Holder are refusing even to make a pretense of respect for due process. If KSM & Co. are convicted and put to death, America’s critics and enemies will point to Obama and Holder’s assurances in arguing that the defendants were subjected to sham justice. Nice work restoring America’s moral standing, Mr. President.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704888404574547933018090304.html
IP hash: f151ec33
Due process does not apply to KSM. Pretending that the enemy in war is like a criminal makes a mockery of justice.
IP hash: 4e3d7eba
Is Obama Poised to Cede US Sovereignty?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PMe5dOgbu40
I highly recommend that people watch the full version of this? video. This Monckton fellow is one of the finest speakers I have ever heard and pretty witty also.
Obama is sooooooooooo smart that he’s gone around in a circle and now dumber than Bush.
IP hash: 85265cac
The senate is only filibuster-proof if all 60 dems blindly vote with their party. Thanks to personal principles, this isn’t the case.
IP hash: 4e3d7eba
Democrats have no principles. They are bribing each other with the taxpayers money. Republicans may not have principles either, but for now the “Louisiana Purchase” sure takes the cake! Why can’t the Wisconsin Senators get some bribe money for the state?
And so it came to pass that Landrieu walked onto the Senate floor midafternoon Saturday to announce her aye vote — and to trumpet the financial “fix” she had arranged for Louisiana. “I am not going to be defensive,” she declared. “And it’s not a $100 million fix. It’s a $300 million fix.”
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/11/21/AR2009112102272.html
IP hash: 85265cac
And/or Obama’s been stalled because he’s been busy fixing everything that Bush fucked up.
IP hash: 4e3d7eba
Obama has been too busy campaigning, both for himself and others.
He continues to spend much of his time running for President and too little time actually being President.
The Democrats in Congress are MUCH more to blame for our problems than Bush.
IP hash: 50987a6a
Why is this about Obama now?
White privilege, and privilege of all sorts, allow people from agent groups of oppression to feel as though they EARNED their spot in a higher socioeconomic class.
This idea of sacrifice is based on a system built to support colonialism, domination and patriarchy, and it would define being “qualified” only meaning passing some standardized tests and getting good grades at schools made up of primarily people who already have privilege. (upwardly mobile, white, second- or so-on generation families)
It is to my mind, too narrow of a scope, as it ignores those who may come from backgrounds that make it tougher to do well on those tests or make those good grades count for as much. It focuses its ire on those who don’t meet incredibly arbitrary benchmarks instead of at least also asking for some experiential evidence of qualification.
Let’s put it this way, if I get say 1200/1600 on the SAT (1600 was the max score when I was in school) and a 3.0 GPA, but I’m in a school that is ranked well below a lot of schools in mostly white, mostly wealthy suburbs, one without test prep or college prep classes, a school with low numbers of AP classes, and underwhelming numbers in graduates, am I as qualified, or just an ethnically underrepresented sacrifice waiting to happen?
If I do this at a wealthy white school, with lots of AP students, tutors, and prep classes, do I get in to UW-Madison? Am I more qualified? I believe I would be.
Maybe not, maybe we’re both “equally qualified”, but if so, why? Why should someone who probably has an easier time getting through school and doing well at what’s asked of them in school, getting good grades and getting into honors classes that make them look smart, get even the SAME treatment as someone who does the same work in a tougher situation?
Also, what about when people come here? Should we have, ethically speaking, an all-white school? An all-wealthy and well-connected school? Doesn’t that push people of color away, poor folks away? If so, what does that say about the inclusivity of our campus? Should we be focused on educating some master race, or master class, or try to find ways to educate all peoples?
If we are to give the same treatment to people of privilege that we do to people without that same privilege, are we actually getting only people qualified for education in? Are our aims then toward education in an egalitarian sense or in an aristocratic sense? Really think about this.
IP hash: f151ec33
“Should we have, ethically speaking, an all-white school? An all-wealthy and well-connected school?”
We should have a school that ignores ethnicity, wealth and connectedness and instead focuses on educating those who are educate-able. That is, those who have a willingness and capacity to be educated.
“Doesn�t that push people of color away, poor folks away?”
No, people who have a real desire to learn do not care what the color of their classmates are, nor how much money they make. These people care about learning. It does not matter that the guy sitting next to you has ancestors from East Asia.
“Should we be focused on educating some master race, or master class, or try to find ways to educate all peoples?”
All peoples, without regard for their race or wealth.
“If we are to give the same treatment to people of privilege that we do to people without that same privilege, are we actually getting only people qualified for education in?”
There’s no point in having students who are not qualified for education (the mentally retarded, for example); it would do them no good.
“Are our aims then toward education in an egalitarian sense or in an aristocratic sense?”
The aims of education should neither be egalitarian nor aristocratic, but individualistic. Is a particular individual a good candidate for success in college, and what is the best way to education him or her? This is what education should focus on.
IP hash: ec064101
It appears you are comparing minorities to people with developmental disabilities? Wow, a new low.
IP hash: b828891e
Simply put, the article and the author are both absolutely ridiculous!
IP hash: 7ed42c17
As a former BH writer, I’d just like to say that from a writing standpoint, this should probably still be sitting on an editor’s desk right now.
IP hash: 7ed42c17
As a former BH writer, I’d just like to say that from a writing standpoint, this should probably still be sitting on an editor’s desk right now.
IP hash: 07fce647
Viewing people as groups and belonging to a certain race as affirmative action does is inherently racist. I think most 3rd graders know that. We should understand that racism will always endure in this country if we keep viewing people as belonging to different groups or races, instead of in terms of individual liberty. Does this mean we can’t talk about race or acknowledge race? Absolutely not. We should continue our discussions on race, but all people (minorities, women, gays) should be treated the same way and affirmative action does the opposite.
IP hash: 6684ec13
Cultural heritage is a tremendous factor in a personas ideology and identity. To deny that your experience shapes a person, is like saying rain doesn’t make a plant grow. Bullshitt.
Racism does exist, and inherently takes a negative tone as do many “ism”s in popular thought. We, in adopting affirmative action policies, are being racist. Does positive racism exist as a means of reversing negative racism?
IP hash: f151ec33
“To deny that your experience shapes a person, is like saying rain doesn�t make a plant grow.”
No, it’s like saying that a person is not a plant; a person can choose his actions and ideas, a plant cannot. And that ain’t no bullshit.
“We, in adopting affirmative action policies, are being racist.”
Yes you are.
“Does positive racism exist as a means of reversing negative racism?”
There is no such thing as “positive racism.” Racism is racism. And it’s always negative.
IP hash: 6684ec13
Affirmative action is clearly ‘racist.’ Does positive racism exist as a means of combatting disadvantage?
IP hash: 5a69bb26
Race is irrelevant to one�s ideas, character or ability to learn.
Could this statement be any more ignorant? I actually doubt that. Sure, from birth race is irrelevant to all of those things. But tell me something, where do most racial minorites live? Where do they go to school? Alright now let’s compare those schools to the schools that suburban white families send their children. Seriously, as a minority who was lucky enough to be born into a family that got out of the ghetto and was able to send my brother and I (who goes here as well) to decent schools, I realize I AM THE EXCEPTION. I’m damn lucky. There’s hundreds of years of history of exploitation and oppression that DO affect minorites today. People who deny that are simply ignorant. I agree that affirmative action is absolutely not the solution to this problem, the only way to fix the problem of lack of diversity, not only on this campus, but on campuses everywhere in this country is to actually go to the inner city and SOLVE this inequality rather than try to make colleges and employers hire minorites that are less qualified. End of story. You can dislike affirmative action, but don’t be stupid enough to say that “We all live in the same world, under the same laws, governed by the same natural laws, we all eat, sleep, laugh, cry, and dream the same. ” Whoever said that clearly lived a privileged life and has no idea what some people go through. No, we do NOT all live in the same world. Some people live in a world with much less oppurunity than you do and could never get into this college simply due to the color of their skin. Let’s educate ourselves a little bit because until people stop thinking that racial inequality isn’t a problem, we will continue to live in a bitterly racist America.
IP hash: f151ec33
All you’re saying is that people start from different places and some have to work harder than others to reach their goals. This is no reason to think someone’s race determines their ideas, character or ability to learn.
Also, it’s not race that keeps people in the ghetto. It’s primarily decades of really bad public policies that created ghettos and perpetuated them through welfare programs (e.g., the “projects”) specifically targeted toward people of color. (Hurricane Katrina revealed a particularly sad example of this.)
“There�s hundreds of years of history of exploitation and oppression that DO affect minorities today.”
Everyone’s ancestors were exploited and oppressed at one time or another. So what? The solution is to eradicate exploitation and oppression and encourage individuals to succeed in life to the best of their abilities.
IP hash: 5a69bb26
“targeted toward people of color” = yes it is their race that keeps in the ghetto. your counter argument just supported my argument….
no, not everyones ancestors have been oppressed and exploited anywhere NEAR the extent to which Africans and African Americans have. NOT EVEN CLOSE. Go take a history class please.
IP hash: f151ec33
“�targeted toward people of color� = yes it is their race that keeps in the ghetto.”
How do you get this equation? It is not their race that keeps them in the ghetto, it is the policies that treat people differently based on their race. It is racism that’s the problem, not their race.
The whole point of this article and my comments is that we need to eliminate racism, i.e., treating people differently based on their race.
IP hash: f2e45f47
“They should not receive an equal education, but the best education given their actual abilities. And the best education for a sighted student will often be different than that of a blind student.” (Kinda sounds like separate but equal…) This entire article is irrelevant. Race, for the most part, can be attributed to cultural diversity. While, intellect has nothing to do with race it does not mean that racial diversity isn’t beneficial and something to strive for. Cultural diversity and the experience of associating with people different from you is beneficial. And yes, there are many ways to do that but race is one of them. Given our countries history and recent as well as past attitudes, it’s an important one. When you leave Madison and Milwaukee, the majority of people will be white. Being constantly surrounded by people who look like you puts you at a disadvantage when you enter the real world and have to build relationships with people who are, and will be, racially diverse. It is crucial that universities strive for diversity in regards to race as well as ability. Being disabled has nothing to do with intellect or the level of education you can achieve. No one learns the same. Yet those with less obvious disadvantages are still given the opportunities and have the efforts made to give them the same education as “able” students. This article is ridiculous, narrow minded, and is asking for things that would only put us farther behind. “If a student attends class naked and threatens to smash people in the face, that would be different, but should we embrace it? Inviting panhandlers from State Street to bring their change cups to class would be different, but is this a value? Not if education is the standard.” That is completely ridiculous and far stretched. None of those things are relevant. Using these examples only make you seem as if you are desperate for a realistic example because you know that you really have no argument here. All you’re going to succeed at, with this article, is bringing out the bigots and ruffling up a few feathers. As as a result, getting your name out. Pretty despicable, hope you’re proud of yourself because the school and state shouldn’t be.
IP hash: 4aa69c0a
This is absolutely about dismantling white privilege, not about giving an unfair advantage to those who don’t deserve it. White privilege is all-encompassing in this country, and only a white person could possibly not be aware of it. I am white. I don’t know what it’s like to be Black, or Asian, or whatever, but I do know from experience what it is like to be a racial minority from living abroad, not as a tourist. I know what it is like to know that it doesn’t matter how hard you try, you will never have the same opportunities that are just handed so blithely to those of the majority race. I know the frustration that you can never explain to that majority why it is wrong, that it is privileged unfairly. I try and use that experience to reflect on my position as a white person in America. White (male, straight) people have privilege that they do not deserve, and which is only possible by the oppression of minorities. This privilege must be undone, before an equal society is possible. It is not enough to say we need to fix the primary schools. What about the minority teachers? The minority doctors, and other community leaders? What about parents? They all need to be educated so they can raise their own children in a fulfilling and opportune atmosphere. College education is the first step to creating a truly equal society. You can’t just send some naive self-righteous white person to go into a minority community and “rescue” their poor children from themselves. This attitude is the real racism. Those you may deem to be “unqualified” have experiences that enrich our campus community, and bring a new perspective to higher education, something that benefits everybody. If UW only admitted high test scorers and AP students, I wouldn’t be here. Fortunately, admissions are based on the totality of one’s experiences, in the hopes that we can all learn from each other. I hope it stays that way, and improves in that direction. UW is clearly not diverse enough. Those like the writer of this article should stop congratulating themselves and make up for their own educational deficiencies they’ve suffered living in their pampered and isolated white universe.
IP hash: f151ec33
Are you aware that the article is arguing against white and black privilege? It is saying that individuals should be treated equal.
IP hash: 4e3d7eba
“I don�t know what it�s like to be Black, or Asian…”
Hey moron, it’s harder for an Asian to get into a selective school than it is for a white! They have to exceed whites, and FAR exceed blacks, in all areas to get the same entrance consideration.
IP hash: 4aa69c0a
Umm…so you just take a random phrase out of context, then say something that agrees with my point, but call me a moron? I don’t get it…
IP hash: 3fb23c74
I am not sure which is more disgusting, the article or the comments. A little lesson for all of the white racists who are commenting on this article: Racism is race prejudice AND institutionalized power. People of color in this nation have been shut out of any institutionalized power since Europeans landed on this continent and systematically raped, kidnapped, and killed Africans and Native Americans. It continued throughout our history and still continues today.
You, my fellow white people, are NOT experiencing racism. Stop trying to be the victims here and recognize that your white privilege played a big part in getting you where you are today, as did mine.
No one is color blind. To act as if we are only perpetuates racism. People of color have experienced the world differently than we have. If you have any meaningful relationships with people of color, sit down and have a conversation with them about this.
Who is the idiot who compared diversity of race to having someone who is mentally retarded (not my words) attend the school? How dare you compare race to the inability to learn at a higher level of cognition?!?!?!
Are you all afraid of making this campus more diverse? of seeing people that don�t look quite like you? Ask yourself those questions and do some major self-reflection. In the mean time, the university needs to step up its efforts at making this campus diverse!
IP hash: 4e3d7eba
Do you think that the descendants of the Africans who stayed in Africa have better lives than the descendants of the Africans who were sold into slavery in the USA?
IP hash: f151ec33
Of course it wasn’t the slavery but the fact that the U.S. abolished slavery to be consistent with its founding principle of protecting individual rights.
IP hash: 00abb528
Skin color has an absolute impact on a person’s ideas, beliefs, and perspective. When people see you, they see your skin color and how they act towards you, whether consciously or subconsciously, is based on that. Minorities experience racism from people that know nothing about them or their cultural background and stereotype them specifically on their skin color.
IP hash: 3b3882a7
All other arguments aside, this article is very poorly written! Does the Badger Herald have an editor? Controversial articles are always interesting and exciting, but there is something to be said about quality work as well.
IP hash: 588d5778
When students are applying to schools, they should be accepted based on their academic accolades, not their skin color. THAT is discrimination. Whether that means a greater percentage of the minority or the majority gains acceptance, that’s what is right. Differences in skin color won’t make a difference in the classroom.
IP hash: 4b3766e6
Journalists really have nothing to write about anymore now huh? So they pick on race. The SAME issue that’s America’s been talking about for years. Well, GET OVER IT. Because we got more culture, roots and respect than you people ever will for ANYTHING.
IP hash: 4b3766e6
You and Miss. Jaimie Chapman must be best friends to have wrote about race. Hrmm, interesting. Two racists.
IP hash: 6d476193
I agree that UW needs to look past superficial notions of race and skin color in recruitment. We need to ask the question, “how does recruiting a diverse student body benefit students?” and go from there.
However, I think that the author’s statement that only by sacrificing the qualified to the ethnically underrepresented can we gain diversity is insulting to minorities. Yes, ethnic minorities are often disadvantaged when it comes to education, and yes, disadvantaged students can succeed in college. We should invest more in college preparatory programs and counseling for disadvantaged students, such as Madison’s own PEOPLE Program.
IP hash: f151ec33
The author didn’t say that “diversity” is gained by sacrificing the qualified to the ethnically underrepresented. He said that “diversity” is not a valid goal and ends up resulting in the sacrifice of the qualified to the ethnically underrepresented.
If you want to help students - disadvantaged or otherwise - the solution is to adopt standards for finding the students who have the best chance of being educated.
By placing value in ethnicity, the real value of education is necessary watered down. Saying that race is only one factor in targeting students just means that the selection process is only partly racist. I.e., it only partly sacrifices rational standards to irrational ones.
IP hash: 559a5210
look at this guy’s off-centered, grizzled writer photo! Of course he’s a deusche bag!
IP hash: 1b6f5ee7
This is a lose lose situation.
Recruiting students based on skin color suggests that their skin color represents their cultural beliefs and values. As a student of color, I can say that my skin color does not. Im grew up in the same world as most of my peers. I do not see my presence at this University as adding any diversity what-so-ever to the student population.
On the flip side, recruitment based on purely academic qualities, as this article suggests, results in the type of student body we have at this University, mainly white. This proves that if skin color did give you an advantage of getting into a college, you’d better hope that you are not an underrepresented minority.
We need to stop colorblind racism in this country before we can sit down and talk about diversity.
IP hash: f151ec33
“We need to stop colorblind racism”
There is no such thing as colorblind racism. Colorblind and racism are opposites.
“On the flip side, recruitment based on purely academic qualities, as this article suggests, results in the type of student body we have at this University, mainly white.”
So what? Why does it matter?
Recruitment based on character qualities results in all sorts of racial proportions (look at various sports). Who cares? Does it matter how many white people are on a basketball team?
IP hash: ceebcd20
�On the flip side, recruitment based on purely academic qualities, as this article suggests, results in the type of student body we have at this University, mainly white.�
“So what? Why does it matter? “
-Maybe it matters because people, whose skin color for some reason correlates with the fact that they grew up marginalized in our society, want the same things out of life as a person who grew up with all the tools they needed to succeed.
“There is no such thing as colorblind racism. Colorblind and racism are opposites”
Yeah we really live in an equal world. We have laws that prohibit discriminating. We have laws that abolished slavery. The civil rights movement made it so black people can ride the bus just like white people. Look how far we have come. Minorities have all the same rights as whites.
-That kind of mentatility and argument is colorblind. Statistics shows minorities dont even come close to equality when it comes to things like socioeconomics, education, healthcare, life expectancy, infant mortality. Why is that if they have all the same rights as whites?
IP hash: f151ec33
You ask: If people have the same rights then why are they not equal in wealth, education, health care, etc?
You have to look at the individual, his circumstances, goals, choices, etc. You can’t determine this by statistical distribution of some physical attribute. It’s like asking why so many brown-eyed people are successful.
Having equal rights and freedoms and being treated as equal regardless of race is “all the tools” people need to succeed. This is the only valid meaning of “living in an equal world.” No one has the right to equal outcomes.
IP hash: 1b6f5ee7
I completely agree. However race is relevant. The effects of discrimination in history are still being felt today.
Example.
Redlining.
Blacks were denied the right to build and/or own a home in white neighborhoods. FACT, plain and simple. Yes we proposed legislations that made this illegal in subsequent years, but this did not change the fact of where these black and white families originally built their homes and raised their kids. Fast forward to 2009, the houses in the inner city where most Blacks built their homes have depreciated or remained the same value, where as the homes in the white neighborhoods ( suburbs) have appreciated a lot. This is a prime example of why race still matters. This is why you can say blacks and whites are still not equal, because what happened decades ago is still marginalizing minorities today. Which if these to families has the ability to take out a HELOC (home equity line of credit) to put their kids through college? You get what I’m saying. Whether we like it or not race still matters today.
IP hash: f151ec33
The solution to injustice is to treat people justly, not to engage in further injustice. Continuing to treat people differently based on their race is just more of the same injustice.
IP hash: d1e186fd
Dear Mr. Allad.
You are in dire need of a reality check. Unfortunately, race is irrevocably embedded within our history and it has molded the racial hierarchy that still exists today. To ignore that fact and claim race is irrelevant is an embarrassment to the pursuits of journalism.
IP hash: f151ec33
The fact that people regard race as relevant - which is what your statement claims - does not make it relevant in fact.
Race is in fact irrelevant to one’s ideas and character, if only people would recognize this fact and stop treating race as if it were relevant.
IP hash: d889b916
The truly sad part of all this, is that race was necessary to be dragged into this. Diversity, by definition, is as much related to race as any difference between ideas or objects, but the fact that the only thing that is contemplated when diversity is mentioned is race, it shows the dismal fact that we have still not conquered the racial divide. No matter how much we try, the more we solely focus on race, the more it continues to divide us. No one should claim that one race is better than the other or worse, rather we should all be given equal opportunity for everything based on personal prowess with disregard to differences in creed, race, gender, etc. The only idea of diversity that should be followed is what another comment said: culture, opinions, etc. They should all be embraced and accepted even if disagreed with.
IP hash: e2c1439e
Did you consider that race as a factor in admissions may be used to help correct for the disparities that existed previously in students lives and is actually an attempt to use race to identify students who had fewer opportunities, or are you pretending to be so naive that that you ignore that race does have something to do with the education and cultural experiences that a student has had and brings to the classroom, or do you prefer to ignore the centuries of Euro-centrism that sill exists and works as an obstacle making it harder for children of color to receive a quality education which is always shaped by their race - because no matter how hard you fight it, race and culture, and therefore the way that knowledge is learned and used, are linked.
IP hash: f151ec33
“because no matter how hard you fight it, race and culture, and therefore the way that knowledge is learned and used, are linked.”
It doesn’t have to be. There’s nothing about race that in fact changes the way knowledge is learned and used. People can choose to link race and education, but that is a choice - a wrong choice.
IP hash: e2c1439e
I’m not sure you understood my point… race by itself does not affect learning, but race does often affect where a person will be educated and how. Education is not not something that happens in isolation, but within a cultural context determined (in part) by the environment, and that is why race does affect learning and subsequently what is done with that knowledge.
IP hash: f151ec33
“but race does often affect where a person will be educated and how.”
How? Do you have an example?
IP hash: e2c1439e
Race often determines where a person what job a person can get, what neighborhood he can live in and therefore what kids he can send his kids to.
IP hash: d90cd3a0
Wait, what? Blacks can live in “white” areas but it’s too dangerous for whites to live in “black” areas.
IP hash: f151ec33
No, race doesn’t determine this, racist policies determine this. And that is what this article is arguing against. (And so am I.)
You don’t “correct” for racist policies by adopting racist policies.
IP hash: 3985f5cc
The notion put forth in this post is repugnant and wrong. The author assumes that blind people are, to a certain extent, incapable of learning because they cannot see. They are, therefore, according to the author, not entitled to an equal education. The problem with this argument is that blindness, like race, is merely a physical characteristic and is “irrelevant to one�s ideas, character or ability to learn.” Blindness has no effect on a person’s intelligence or his or her ability to absorb and utilize information. Nonetheless, people like the author of this blog post routinely assume that it does—as any blind adult who has ever been shouted at or treated like a six-year-old can tell you. A blind person merely gains information in a different manner from a sighted person—namely by reading Braille, listening to audio via the human voice or synthesized text-to-speech, etc. The Amazon Kindle already incorporates text-to-speech to read books aloud. That same technology, which is again already on the device, simply needs to be applied to the menus so that blind people can use the device independently. This is a simple fix, and once Amazon makes it, the Kindle should become available to all students.
IP hash: 59731657
This article makes several wrong assumptions. I think they were addressed well by Chris Danielsen. However, I’d like to add something else. The author seems to know nothing about accessible technology, and that lack of knowledge has led him to produce an ill-informed opinion piece.
Blind people are not asking that a learning tool that cannot be made accessible be withheld from sighted students. They are saying that when accessibility is possible, universities should support their blind students by refusing to use the technology until accessibility is included in the product. As Mr. Danielsen said, minor adjustments to the Kindle will make it as accessible tot he blind as it is to the sighted, and everyone can utilize it in the same learning environment.
it is interesting that some people who have advantages are intimidated by the concept of offering a different advantage to another person. I suspect that they feel insecure and are concerned that when all their advantages disappear their dominance will disappear as well.
Access to the Kindle doesn’t give blind people an unfair advantage. Nor does it promote diversity for diversity’s sake. It simply offers blind students the opportunity to access the same material as their sighted peers at the same time the sighted students get it. In short, it simply offers the chance to compete. It doesn’t guarantee success any more than access to the same material guarantees success to the sighted student. If the blind student can’t learn the material using the same learning tool as their sighted peers, that student will fail. It will probably happen to some blind students. it is also likely that some sighted students who use the Kindle visually will fail. So be it. At least we will know that the blind student failed because he or she couldn’t do the work and not because the university chose to use a teaching tool that precluded him or her from having access to the knowledge it offers freely to its sighted students.
IP hash: f151ec33
“They are saying that when accessibility is possible, universities should support their blind students by refusing to use the technology until accessibility is included in the product.”
This is not what they’re saying. As pointed out in the article, the Federation for the Blind is saying they will sue any university that offers this technology and “will not tolerate” discrimination.
This is more than asking for support.
There’s a difference between asking electronic producers and universities to adopt technologies that help the blind, and refusing to use the technologies because they can’t be used by a very small number of blind students.