News-Record.com

"Legacy preferences overwhelmingly benefit whites."

You and the WSJ are right of course, but "Legacy preferences overwhelmingly benefit RICH whites." is probably more accurate.

The poor, black, white, yellow, red, or green have only the legacy of poverty to fall back on, and falling back on poverty usually means falling down.

I think it's time Legacy Admissions were brought to a close. Sadly, I doubt anything will change.

If you think about this from a certain perspective, you might make an argument that standards should be even higher for "legacy" applicants.

Individuals whose parents graduated from college or have a history of employment with a company have the benefit of an "insider's track."

The advantages inherited by members of these tracks should give them the background necessary to perform at a higher level than individuals who can't claim such membership.

If they don't produce credentials worthy of classification as "overly qualified," then these "legacy babies" are guilty of not taking advantage of their circumstances.

By some standards, that might be regarded as a sin and might mean that they are less worthy of being admitted or hired.

I am not saying that less qualified applicants should be hired.

What I am saying is that if you have two otherwise relatively equal applicants, the one who has not benefitted from an inherited position of privilege might be more deserving of consideration.

In such a case, we may be speaking of "underachievement" (by the "legacy baby") versus "overachievement" (by the non-"legacy baby").

And, Mr. Johnson, I agree that it is interesting how passionately people argue against racial considerations while remaining completely silent about the issue of "legacy" preferences.

Given the history of our country, I'd argue that racial considerations should be less controversial than legacy considerations.

I would heartily agree with you both. Legacy applicants already should have a leg up in the process. They would seem to be the last among us who would need special admissions consideration.
The bottom line, of course, is money.
Did anyone notice the continuing silence from those who were complaining recently on this blog about minorities?

Allen, I was there, too, and thought the very same thing. It was the "right" thing to say in front of that group at that time, but there's no political mileage in it, so it's forgotten by Bush and his posse.

Allen, are you trolling? Surely not. Since I am one of those who have spoken about minorities at this site recently, I guess you include me among those whose silence you seem to deplore. Some may be silent for no better reason than that they have moved on after realizing that it’s pointless to attempt to have a reasoned discussion with a fence post.

I don’t include myself in that number. I was silent only because I agree wholeheartedly with your point. Any college or university that receives public funds should be banned from allowing legacy admissions. I‘ll even go a step further. Sports admissions also should be banned. Why should people who can play a game well be admitted with full scholarships over those who may be better qualified, more eager to learn, and even willing to pay? Will you join me in that?

I should point out, however, that your comparison of legacy preferences with racial preferences is not apt for one prime reason: the civil rights act of 1964 says that nobody shall be discriminated against because of skin color. You and the News & Record not only favor racial discrimination, you flaunt that law, as I have pointed out previously.

Let me further state that it’s not only racial discrimination that I oppose but bigotry of whatever kind. Which brings me to another point that I also recently have been shamefully silent about: the blatant contempt that the N&R expresses on an ongoing basis for a large segment of the community it is supposed to serve.

On Valentine’s Day, an article in the N&R about an online dating service began with this sentence, “Rednecks, have you been looking for love in all the wrong places?” It went on to ask of rednecks, “Yeah, but do they know how to use a computer?”

Would anything of this type have been written about a dating service for any other group? This is but one example of the bigotry the N&R directs toward the particular segment of the population that it defines as “redneck.” Lorraine Ahearn also delights in this form of bigotry, as exemplified by her column on Billy Yow’s tips for proper attire. There are many other examples, and I’ve never seen you raise an objection to any of them.

Oh, I can hear you now, though: “But this was just humor.” Yeah, and so were Judge Daisy’s despicable jokes.

Jerry Bledsoe be careful don't step on his toes so hard he is wearing canvas shoes. LOL

Jerry, you make some very good points, but you present them in a condescending and argumentative manner, and as someone who has admired you over the years, I'm disappointed in the tone you use here to make your argument. Very disappointed.

Wow.... there's a redneck chromosome? Are rednecks born that way and can never change? Being a redneck has nothing to do with environment?

I mean, I know gender and skin color are genetic, but redneckedness is too? Or does it have something to do with that bumper sticker on my pickup, "Southern by the Grace of God?" 'Cause if it is, the argument for teaching creationism in schools might be a slam-dang-dunk.

Hooboy - I gotta do some thankin' on this.

Jerry, how do you feel about Jeff Foxworthy and his popular "...you might be a redneck" routine?

The redneck dating service seems to me to be in much the same vein, if a bit shopworn at this juncture. The decision to run a news story on it struck me more as Valentine's day fluff than condescension or hostility to a group.

But back to the question of including non-academic factors, including race and legacy status, in college admissions: fine by me.

Ed, about Foxworthy's redneck routine, I feel just as I do about Chris Rock's use of the N word in his routines. If people want to pay for that and accept it, so be it. Free speech.

But if Foxworthy uses the N word and Rock uses the R word, it becomes a different thing, doesn't it?

A newspaper has no business using either.

Do you actually believe that if some black guy had opened an online "Nigah" dating service that the N&R would have published a story saying, "Nigahs, have you been looking for love in all the wrong places?" And gone on to ask, "Yeah, but do they know how to use a computer?"?

Bigotry, not fluff.

I've been lurking on these sites for sometime and I wonder whether Jerry has anything else to talk about other than his hate of the News and Record. Does he ever address anything other than race and the paper? It's clear where you stand on both, Jerry. Can you lighten up, at least sometimes?

Jerry, I think you are correct that a newspaper should be careful about glibly using the term (and again, I would rather not spend valuable newsprint on such silly articles) but I think you err in positing any sort of one-to-one equivalence between the terms.

The history of this country, as well as of the words themselves, don't support that assumption.

"Redneck," although historically and still sometimes used as a perjorative, lacks the cultural baggage of the N-word, as evidenced by the fact that we're all spelling out the former in this forum, even when we decry it's usage, but we are more careful with the latter.

Both terms have been claimed by the groups they stigmatized, but "redneck" can appear in the Billboard charts (eg, Gretchen Wilson) and Barnes & Noble displays Foxworthy's books, while the N-word is still elided in almost any such context.

Maybe that lack of equivalence is wrong in your view, but it does seem to be a cultural norm of some sort.

I posted a defense of legacy preferences.

The arguments against legacy admissions do not justify racial preferences. Many universities award extra consideration to applicants from low income or disadvantaged backgrounds. Racial preferences are an insidious racist idea of quite another flavor.

A few points

1. Legacy admissions are unfair

2. While a larger percentage of children of alumni are admitted, just comparing 11% to 40% implies a greater boost than there is. The children of Harvard or Princeton alums applying to college are likely to be better educated than the applicants at large.

3. One reason for greater complaining is that at least in all the cases I've seen comparisons, the boost for someone through affirmative action was much greater than the boost for legacy admissions. For instance, in the Michigan point system a person received 4 point for being the kid of an alum vs. 20 points for being of the right race, whatever your economic background, and an additional 20 points for coming from a poor socioeconomic background.

4. Legacy largely benefit whites. Some whites. Affirmative action doesn't just hinder whites. When making a comparison between the two I don't hear Asians brought up much. Either way, I don't live vicariously through members of my own race. That's the biggest problem in using arguments about whether one program helps or hinders the percentage of one racial group vs. another.

I'm sure members of some religions are overrepresented while some are underrepresented at schools. I'm equally sure you could find that the members of some religious groups come from poorer socioeconomic backgrounds than others. If you help people from poor socioeconomic backgrounds, though, help people from poor socioeconomic backgrounds. The fact members of my religious group are over or underrepresented in the overall student population of a school is just not as important to me or doesn't make me as upset as I'd be if I found out I was either being hindered or given a boost in the admissions process by a school to achieve a certain percentage. The same goes with race.

I would abolish them, but ....

The current structure of AA is for the benefit of whites at elite institutions, who don't want all-white schools but aren't really willing to tackle the real problem of educational wastelands for the underclass. The prognosis: legacies will stay put, because the system is designed for well-off whites.

But, legacies will be benefitting the well off blacks more and more as the years roll on, so you'll hear fewer and fewer complaints from those quarters. In fact, if AA suffers some blows due to ballot initiatives, legacy admits for African-American candidates will be an increasingly important end-run for university administrators to increase diversity.

You will hear fewer and fewer people, black or white, addressing the deeper systematic problem of schooling for the underclass -- until something very drastic happens.

I fear my main point is getting lost in all this rationalization for legacy admission.
No matter how you slice it, this practice amounts to privilege for the privileged.
But the main theme in the original post was the muted reaction legacy preferences tend to elicit as compared to minority admissions and hiring initiatives.
Something is not right about that.

Now now, folks. If you end legacy admits, you'll dry up legacy fundraising. And without that, what would John Edwards do for a job?

omorfia astynomikos II avi dagkomatia fotografia II binteo tsoyla syllogi II maleiaros foto II tulehdus hampaassa masturbating II masturbating kauniit perse II naken bad erotikk II pa kammerset billig II skol fitta vagina II nakense vagina II juegos cunt II henati masturbating II uhkarohkea beibit toiminta II hindulaisuus II prostituerad naken gymnast II tjejer naken dildo II hynda undertexter II annica escort dick II drole lesbienne sodomie II blonde secretaire double penetration II ubeskrivelig cowboyjente rompepuling II forbloffende tenaring puling II soprannaturale giovane II fair cowgirl strip II mobie fysikos klima II download gymnostithi eikones II skonhet sekretar prostituerad II utomordentlig elev alska II