The Editorial Board from the Fort Worth Star-Telegram Newspaper clearly has an issue with simple logic in making an argument for UT to not consider race in the selection of students to attend their prestigious school.
Although its very difficult to find what their stance is in their article, the Editorial Board presents the idea that UT no longer needs to accept people through affirmative action, but instead through the top 10% rule in which those with the top 10 highest GPA scores will be automatically accepted at UT. This top 10% rule is an example of a "race-neutral program that has helped enroll more African-American and Hispanic students." Abigail Fischer was not in the automatic top 10% nor was she selected from the bottom 90% and so sued the University of Texas on grounds of reverse discrimination.
Readers of the Star-Telegram may think that this article needs more intensity to attract or keep the audience. The Editorial Board must spark some human interest by covering the effect of the Abigail Fischer v UT ruling, whether the decision is to uphold the ruling in 2003 allowing race to be a factor in selecting a diversified student body or to overturn the 5-4 ruling. Readers of the Star-Telegram must be wondering what would it be like for the upcoming college-aspiring students if the Court ruled in favor of reverse discrimination? Star-Telegram might put in more statistics of percentage of college drop outs per ethnicity and back up their argument for how prospective students would be selected and what would the drop-out rate and graduating rate would be.
Though very difficult to discern, their basic argument: UT no longer needs to use race as a factor in selecting students into their system as we have a "race-neutral" method of selection that will help more African American and Hispanic students.
The assumptions this argument relies on proves that their logic is faulty. By implementing a race-neutral method for student selection such as the top 10% rule, minorities might very well be ruled out. The top 10% rule does not guarantee diversity in regards to race and does not guarantee Hispanics or African Americans will be considered as who is to say whether they have the resources and background to make the top 10%. Further, if the method is a race-neutral implementation then it will disregard race, as this is the definition of "race-neutral." As it disregards race it can't discern-such as in the top 10% rule-who is making the grades or not. How can a race-neutral implementation distinctly help the minority ethnicities if it disregards race? Race must be a factor in implementation in order to help Hispanics and African Americans.
This article assumes a student body may be diversified without regarding race or ethnicity. For a student body to be diversified race and ethnicity must be observed. How diversified could the college colleagues be if they are of the same race?
The values this article contends is difficult to find. The values would be to have government help mobilize students of lower classes and discriminated ethnicities rise in class and have equal opportunity to be admitted to college to obtain a degree.
The author's stance is not easily discerned. He cites 7 states denouncing affirmative action and lists other ways to help equal opportunity then states "are they enough?" He randomly gives information about the case and ends with the projection that the court will rule in favor of reverse discrimination. This article is poorly written and is very difficult to see what stance the author is trying to stake.
The argument is completely unsuccessful. The argument that we can promote a diverrse college student body by have race-neutral methods makes no sense. If they are neutral and unrelated to race how can it have a determinate effect on keeping the student body diverse through ethnicities?
One point to make is how would discerning by socioeconomic status might help blacks who are disproportionately poor however the Editorial Review never makes this connection and how would the casual reader leap to that conclusion?
I believed it would be a well-written article but my beliefs on that have changed drastically. As far as content, I still hold all my beliefs as the same.
The Editorial Board of Star-Telegram should rethink their logic. The content has done nothing to convince me as it is impossible to find what they are arguing for or against.
Though very difficult to discern, their basic argument: UT no longer needs to use race as a factor in selecting students into their system as we have a "race-neutral" method of selection that will help more African American and Hispanic students.
The assumptions this argument relies on proves that their logic is faulty. By implementing a race-neutral method for student selection such as the top 10% rule, minorities might very well be ruled out. The top 10% rule does not guarantee diversity in regards to race and does not guarantee Hispanics or African Americans will be considered as who is to say whether they have the resources and background to make the top 10%. Further, if the method is a race-neutral implementation then it will disregard race, as this is the definition of "race-neutral." As it disregards race it can't discern-such as in the top 10% rule-who is making the grades or not. How can a race-neutral implementation distinctly help the minority ethnicities if it disregards race? Race must be a factor in implementation in order to help Hispanics and African Americans.
This article assumes a student body may be diversified without regarding race or ethnicity. For a student body to be diversified race and ethnicity must be observed. How diversified could the college colleagues be if they are of the same race?
The values this article contends is difficult to find. The values would be to have government help mobilize students of lower classes and discriminated ethnicities rise in class and have equal opportunity to be admitted to college to obtain a degree.
The author's stance is not easily discerned. He cites 7 states denouncing affirmative action and lists other ways to help equal opportunity then states "are they enough?" He randomly gives information about the case and ends with the projection that the court will rule in favor of reverse discrimination. This article is poorly written and is very difficult to see what stance the author is trying to stake.
The argument is completely unsuccessful. The argument that we can promote a diverrse college student body by have race-neutral methods makes no sense. If they are neutral and unrelated to race how can it have a determinate effect on keeping the student body diverse through ethnicities?
One point to make is how would discerning by socioeconomic status might help blacks who are disproportionately poor however the Editorial Review never makes this connection and how would the casual reader leap to that conclusion?
I believed it would be a well-written article but my beliefs on that have changed drastically. As far as content, I still hold all my beliefs as the same.
The Editorial Board of Star-Telegram should rethink their logic. The content has done nothing to convince me as it is impossible to find what they are arguing for or against.
Editorial Review
Base affirmative action on class rather than race?
10/5/12
No comments:
Post a Comment