A COLORBLIND CONSTITUTION????

What I think that members are calling "heritage" is what I knew as "legacy". That is, the progeny of alums (especially in prestigious schools) get preferential treatment as concerning admission to the school.

There is very practical reason for legacies. Characteristically, rich alums donate big bucks to their schools, which help poorer kids get scholarships. It also allows the school to pay for finer professors, and purchase other things that would enhance the school. So, even though at first glance it might seem unfair, it is really a win-win situation.

0 Replies

Phoenix32890 wrote:

What I think that members are calling "heritage" is what I knew as "legacy". That is, the progeny of alums (especially in prestigious schools) get preferential treatment as concerning admission to the school.

There is very practical reason for legacies. Characteristically, rich alums donate big bucks to their schools, which help poorer kids get scholarships. It also allows the school to pay for finer professors, and purchase other things that would enhance the school. So, even though at first glance it might seem unfair, it is really a win-win situation.

Excellent point, Phoenix. It's what I was trying to get at (sort of) but you explained it much better than I did.

0 Replies

Phoenix32890 wrote:

There is very practical reason for legacies. Characteristically, rich alums donate big bucks to their schools, which help poorer kids get scholarships. So, even though at first glance it might seem unfair, it is really a win-win situation.

Then why can't the university assign college places to people who donate money, whether they are alumni or not? I have no problem with your scheme if it's a private univerisity. But a state cannot hand out fiefdoms at universities to any class of people that isn't defined by academic accomplishment. Win-win or not, it's no longer equal protection of the law.

0 Replies

Thomas wrote:

Phoenix32890 wrote:
There is very practical reason for legacies. Characteristically, rich alums donate big bucks to their schools, which help poorer kids get scholarships. So, even though at first glance it might seem unfair, it is really a win-win situation.

Then why can't the university assign college places to people who donate money, whether they are alumni or not?

They can and do. If you donate a new library wing or science lab, you can pretty much count on your kid getting into that university if s/he qualifies. But the fact is, it is far more likely to be the alumni who make such contributions and that's where the heritage or legacy concept comes in. As I am not a contributor to any of the schools I attended, my kids would have no better chance of getting in than anybody elses.

0 Replies

Phoenix32890 wrote:

What I think that members are calling "heritage" is what I knew as "legacy". That is, the progeny of alums (especially in prestigious schools) get preferential treatment as concerning admission to the school.

There is very practical reason for legacies. Characteristically, rich alums donate big bucks to their schools, which help poorer kids get scholarships. It also allows the school to pay for finer professors, and purchase other things that would enhance the school. So, even though at first glance it might seem unfair, it is really a win-win situation.

You are correct, Phoenix, i ought to have said legacy admissions, but i got the word wrong.

What you describe is the theory--it is far from the practice. I worked for two universities. With the drastic cuts in funding which came at the time of the Reagan administration, the first and larger university put on the fundraising effort with a vengeance. Their goal definitely was not donations to the general scholarship fund, and fundraising was done by representatives of each College, School or Department, who were seeking donations for their particular bailiwick.

At the second university which employed me, i was employed at a facility which practiced agressive fundraising efforts. We were first sent to a seminar at the office of the Vice President for Academic Affairs, our "parent" organization. We were told there (nothing about this was in writing) that we were not to mention the general scholarship fund, and that we were to make sure that any fundraisers we employed were told the same. All the techniques we were taught were designed to target donors who could be convinced to support our programs, of the the VPAA programs in general. We were told that corporate donors were more likely to contribute to the general funds, so that we should be sure to make an appeal to them on the basis of a program which would highlight their product or services, and thereby secure a donation to our particular unit. With private individuals, we were told up front that private donors are far more likely to wish to make donations to specific programs or departments and that we should attempt to capitalize on that.

What you have described is a nice idea--in my experience, practice operates at a considerable distance from the ideal.

0 Replies

Thomas writes

Quote:

But a state cannot hand out fiefdoms at universities to any class of people that isn't defined by academic accomplishment. Win-win or not, it's no longer equal protection of the law.

There's a logic to this statement, but there is also the fact that the system at some universities allows for you to buy a berth for your kid by donating that library wing or science lab or a nice endowment. If only polka dot people were allowed to do that, it would be a problem, but if anybody who is able can do that, then wouldn't it still be equal protection under the law?

0 Replies

I am ambivalent on this issue. But, I will try to explain the reason that I think affirmative action, especially in education, is justifiable.

There are two problems that persist in this country. The first is that Americans still give a (perhaps usually unconscious) preference to people of their own race. The second is that there are still big gaps in wealth, education level and power in society that are largely based on race.

I am afraid that the first problem is part of human nature-- we evolved as tribal creatures and we still gravitate to an "us" vs. "them" solution to problems that very often has a racial component.

But we can address the causes of the unbalanced wealth, education and power that are caused by parts of our system that are still unfair at a basic level. The unfair parts include the fact that wealth begets wealth and that success in education correlates very well with the education of ones parents. Traditionally disadvantages segments of our socity still find it more difficult to succeed.

There also is still discrimination in our society based on race. Ask anyone who is not white if they have been judged based on their race.

When all races are competing equally.... than we know that our society is working well in this regard. Unfortunately this is far from the case. The numbers of African/Americans and Latinos in poverty far exceed those for whites, and the education level of Whites is far higher.

Education is the great equalizer and I am far more inclined to support affirmative action in education than in any other area. Once you have equal access to education for all segments of society, the gaps in other areas will decrease naturally.

You will argue that affirmative action isn't about equal access-- but you will be wrong. It is much easier for children from wealthy, educated families to get a good education from the very begining. Where you live, whether both parents need to work, how much help your family can give, what quality teachers do you get... all of these things add up to how easy it is for you to compete.

Based on the clearly inequal outcomes for the education system in educating Whites vs. educating African-Americans and Latinos... the system isn't working.

One solution is to provide addition opportunities at the college level to compensate for the more difficult task of gaining an education. If there is more to overcome to succeed then grades or testscores are not a good reflection of the work or the talent of the students. Affirmative action will reflect this.

Affirmative action is not a perfect solution, and I understand the discomfort with it. But education is a key to success and influence in society. This more than anything demands an answer to the unbalanced rates success in educating our students.

A colorblind interpretation of the constitution is a great solution for a colorblind society. We aren't there yet.

0 Replies

Thomas wrote:

Phoenix32890 wrote:
There is very practical reason for legacies. Characteristically, rich alums donate big bucks to their schools, which help poorer kids get scholarships. So, even though at first glance it might seem unfair, it is really a win-win situation.

Then why can't the university assign college places to people who donate money, whether they are alumni or not? I have no problem with your scheme if it's a private univerisity. But a state cannot hand out fiefdoms at universities to any class of people that isn't defined by academic accomplishment. Win-win or not, it's no longer equal protection of the law.

I've never heard of this happening at a State school. Really no need to, since tuition at State schools is cheap whereas at some Private Colleges, tuition+room and board is over $50,000/year right now at the undergraduate level.

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

Thomas writes

Quote:
But a state cannot hand out fiefdoms at universities to any class of people that isn't defined by academic accomplishment. Win-win or not, it's no longer equal protection of the law.

There's a logic to this statement, but there is also the fact that the system at some universities allows for you to buy a berth for your kid by donating that library wing or science lab or a nice endowment. If only polka dot people were allowed to do that, it would be a problem, but if anybody who is able can do that, then wouldn't it still be equal protection under the law?

The kids from rich alumni families are NOT the first in line for the select spots. The athletes who''ll be bringing the big bucks to the College are the "chosen", followed by the wealthy alumni. Just take a good look at Duke University, for example.

0 Replies

Miller wrote:

Thomas wrote:
Phoenix32890 wrote:
There is very practical reason for legacies. Characteristically, rich alums donate big bucks to their schools, which help poorer kids get scholarships. So, even though at first glance it might seem unfair, it is really a win-win situation.

Then why can't the university assign college places to people who donate money, whether they are alumni or not? I have no problem with your scheme if it's a private univerisity. But a state cannot hand out fiefdoms at universities to any class of people that isn't defined by academic accomplishment. Win-win or not, it's no longer equal protection of the law.

I've never heard of this happening at a State school. Really no need to, since tuition at State schools is cheap whereas at some Private Colleges, tuition+room and board is over $50,000/year right now at the undergraduate level.

Log onto any university site, state or not, and you'll find a link to their endowment program. No state school can survive on public monies and tuitition/fees alone. At least it can't survive well. A booster program for sports, an endowment program for capital expenditures, scholarships, and grants, and a strong alumni association are all critical for a good state school. It's why great football coaches draw mega salaries at state universities because a winning sports team draws in those big contributions like nothing else does.

And of course it is even more critical for the private schools.

0 Replies

Quote:

Log onto any university site, state or not, and you'll find a link to their endowment program

State Schools have endowment programs, why would a student need this "crutch" ( via family donations) to gain admittance.
Unless, the State of interest is NOT your State of residence, and if admitted you'd have to pay out-of-state tuition.

So, to add fuel to the fire, what about "in-state" tuition charges for illegal immigrants??????????? Twisted Evil

0 Replies

Miller wrote:

Quote:
Log onto any university site, state or not, and you'll find a link to their endowment program

State Schools have endowment programs, why would a student need this "crutch" ( via family donations) to gain admittance.
Unless, the State of interest is NOT your State of residence, and if admitted you'd have to pay out-of-state tuition.

So, to add fuel to the fire, what about "in-state" tuition charges for illegal immigrants???????????

Well at the expense of bragging, one of my kids applied for acceptance to graduate schools at six great state universities around the country, and one private school. She was accepted with great financial packages offered at all seven, and accepted an offer which allowed her to earn her Masters and PhD with little or no contribution from us. She opted for the private school that offered her the best deal, but had she accepted one of the other offers, it would have been the endowment program that provided the scholarships, fellowships, and grants that allowed her to get her advanced degrees. There is no way her parents could have afforded to send her to any of those schools and no way she could have worked her way through within a reasonable time frame. Even in state tuition is difficult for people of modest means these days.

As for the immigration problem, take that one to the immigration thread. We need some fresh meat there. Smile

0 Replies

Since your daughter applied to out-of-state schools, she would have been charged out-of state tuition, which in general is higher than in-state tuition.

So you don't really have anthing to complain about then, do you?

Isn't this a form of "affirmative action"? The schools want diversity, and that includes race, color, gender, religion and socioeconomic status. Your daughter was lucky because of this affirmative action. If the school hadn't offered her money, then she wouldn't have been able to attend the select schools and moreover, she would have not been able to add to the diversity of the College.

Thus, because of the afffirmative action of the College, your daughter and the school greatly benefited.

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

They can and do. If you donate a new library wing or science lab, you can pretty much count on your kid getting into that university if s/he qualifies. But the fact is, it is far more likely to be the alumni who make such contributions and that's where the heritage or legacy concept comes in. As I am not a contributor to any of the schools I attended, my kids would have no better chance of getting in than anybody elses.

I just took a look at FindLaw's annotated constitution, and it seems that the last few decades of Supreme Court precedent agree with you on this point. Here is how I understand their overview of the cases:

(1) The government cannot privilege one individual over another.

(2) The government can, with limitations, put people in different categories, and treat categories differently from each other.

(3) Different forms of unequal treatment by the government trigger different forms of scrutiny by the courts, depending mainly on two variables: (a) How suspect is the government's classification? and (b) How fundamental is the right being infringed unequally?

(4) If a right is fundamental, or if the category is suspect, the court applies strict scrutiny: It prohibits the unequal treatment unless the government can prove that the unequal treatment is narrowly tailored to serve a compelling government interest.

(5) Race is a prototypical 'suspect´class for puroposes of characterization. Income and past donations are not, as far as I can make out.

(6) Admission by a university does not seem to be a fundamental right.

(7) (Not on the same page, but elsewhere on FindLaw:) In 2002, the Supreme Court decided a case called Grutter v. Bollinger. It held in a 5:4 decision that maintaining a racially diverse university was a compelling state interest, and that universities could use race as one factor among many in their admission policies. Sandra Day O'Connor wrote the opinion of the court, and it is this decision that is back in play now that Alito sits on O'Connor's seat.

So you're right: The US constitution, as interpreted by the Supreme Court, does scrutinize discrimination by race more strictly than discrimination by alumni status. I still don't think it's bad policy to reserve places for the children of alumni, but it does not seem to be unconstitutional policy.

0 Replies

ebrown_p wrote:

Affirmative action is not a perfect solution, and I understand the discomfort with it. But education is a key to success and influence in society. This more than anything demands an answer to the unbalanced rates success in educating our students.

A colorblind interpretation of the constitution is a great solution for a colorblind society. We aren't there yet.

If the problem is that black children are born poor, and poor high school graduates find it harder to get into good colleges, why not have a program that supports poor people? On the face of it, such a program would be color-blind and still have the effect you want.

0 Replies

Miller wrote:

Since your daughter applied to out-of-state schools, she would have been charged out-of state tuition, which in general is higher than in-state tuition.

So you don't really have anthing to complain about then, do you?

Isn't this a form of "affirmative action"? The schools want diversity, and that includes race, color, gender, religion and socioeconomic status. Your daughter was lucky because of this affirmative action. If the school hadn't offered her money, then she wouldn't have been able to attend the select schools and moreover, she would have not been able to add to the diversity of the College.

Thus, because of the afffirmative action of the College, your daughter and the school greatly benefited.

Who is complaining? She wanted the best education she could get and with a 4.0 grade point, multiple honors, and earned respect from mentors to vouch for her, she EARNED her opportunity. She made herself desirable for graduate programs. The course of study she wanted was not available in her state. Affirmative action, however, had nothing to do with it as we are white, middle class, and while we are by no means wealthy people, we are not disadvantaged in any way. Had she been poor and black or a Martian, she still could have gotten into any program she wanted with her record.

0 Replies

Does all this long winded personal story provide scientific evidence that Foxfyre's DNA is superior to that of lesser mortals such as my Mum who had the temerity to bring a toss-pot like me into the world as a result of circumstances much too complex to be analysed in a short post such as this?

0 Replies

spendius wrote:

Does all this long winded personal story provide scientific evidence that Foxfyre's DNA is superior to that of lesser mortals such as my Mum who had the temerity to bring a toss-pot like me into the world as a result of circumstances much too complex to be analysed in a short post such as this?

Nope, since none of the rest of us can claim any superior abilities of any kind much less explain why our daughter has excelled to the degree she has.

0 Replies

Thomas wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:
They can and do. If you donate a new library wing or science lab, you can pretty much count on your kid getting into that university if s/he qualifies. But the fact is, it is far more likely to be the alumni who make such contributions and that's where the heritage or legacy concept comes in. As I am not a contributor to any of the schools I attended, my kids would have no better chance of getting in than anybody elses.

I just took a look at FindLaw's annotated constitution, and it seems that the last few decades of Supreme Court precedent agree with you on this point. Here is how I understand their overview of the cases:

(1) The government cannot privilege one individual over another.

(2) The government can, with limitations, put people in different categories, and treat categories differently from each other.

(3) Different forms of unequal treatment by the government trigger different forms of scrutiny by the courts, depending mainly on two variables: (a) How suspect is the government's classification? and (b) How fundamental is the right being infringed unequally?

(4) If a right is fundamental, or if the category is suspect, the court applies strict scrutiny: It prohibits the unequal treatment unless the government can prove that the unequal treatment is narrowly tailored to serve a compelling government interest.

(5) Race is a prototypical 'suspect´class for puroposes of characterization. Income and past donations are not, as far as I can make out.

(6) Admission by a university does not seem to be a fundamental right.

(7) (Not on the same page, but elsewhere on FindLaw:) In 2002, the Supreme Court decided a case called Grutter v. Bollinger. It held in a 5:4 decision that maintaining a racially diverse university was a compelling state interest, and that universities could use race as one factor among many in their admission policies. Sandra Day O'Connor wrote the opinion of the court, and it is this decision that is back in play now that Alito sits on O'Connor's seat.

So you're right: The US constitution, as interpreted by the Supreme Court, does scrutinize discrimination by race more strictly than discrimination by alumni status. I still don't think it's bad policy to reserve places for the children of alumni, but it does not seem to be unconstitutional policy.

Re the sentence I highlighted, did you mean to say that you still think it is bad policy to reserve places for the children of alumni?

I am actually ambivalent on that one as I haven't really had a dog in the fight, but I would object I think, if the opportunity wasn't available to everybody whether or not most are unable to take advantage of it. As Phoenix said, all students do benefit from the contributions from a strong alumni association, and a little incentive to keep the alumni association strong is not likely to be detrimental.

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

Re the sentence I highlighted, did you mean to say that you still think it is bad policy to reserve places for the children of alumni?

Yes, I denied this once too often, maybe I should have said 'We don't need no policy like that'. No, I don't think universities should admit high school graduates who do not qualify on their merits, just befocause their parents are alumni. I can see a case for an exception for the kids of donors, if their donation is so large their kids don't take away places from anybody else. But even then it's dubious. Certainly the university can't sell diplomas, or lower the academic standards to make unqualified kids of donors pass. And absent that, I suspect they'll stay in college forever because they can't make the cut at graduation time.

But your question was about the constitution, and I now concede the practice is constitutional.

0 Replies

A COLORBLIND CONSTITUTION????

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know