The best online Debate website - DebateIsland.com! The only Online Debate Website with Casual, Persuade Me, Formalish, and Formal Online Debate formats. We’re the Leading Online Debate website. Debate popular topics, Debate news, or Debate anything! Debate online for free! Does race/ethnicity matter when applying to college?in Education

JohnBrask

Should your college decision be based upon a quota from a college based upon the diversity of their student body?

landerson18

I say no because I truly believe you admission into a university should be decided by outstanding academics and care for your community through service, not due to race/ethnicity/skin color. 

BaconToes

I believe we should first consider giving more money to poorer areas since that's where most minorities live. By first succeeding in lower educations, then they could succeed in college. To make a diverse body of students, we need a diverse body of educated people first.

joecavalry

Yes, some colleges may be required to have a minimum amount of students from certain ethnicity.

someone234

The instinctive answer is no. The wiser answer is yes.

If there is already a bias, you must bias it the other way through force to make it truly 'fair'.

AmericanFurryBoy

Is it not obvious that there isn’t any bias? The BLM students can protest all they want on campus and say racist things. But when the white kids stage a rally against BLM the BLM students get triggered and the college usually ends up expelling them.

someone234

@AmericanFurryBoy do you know how and why BLM started? Do you? Do you know what MLK spoke for and Malcolm X physically fought for?

Shut up and study the history to know how much equality was fought for tooth and nail.

someone234

@AmericanFurryBoy The original abuse to blacks was completely real and only has stopped BECAUSE OF BLM.

someone234

@AmericanFurryBoy the protesters against the killings were themselves mocked and treated unfairly at first, do your research, this was just 4 years ago.

Vaulk

Bias set aside, anytime you transgress against someone...the transgression goes into the reprehensible side of the equation.  It doesn't matter if you're transgressing out of spite or transgressing because you think it's justice.  

When a child strikes another child, should we correct the issue by instructing the other child the strike him back while restraining the original offender?  Mind you that we're not talking about crime and punishment here, when you willingly live in a Country like the United States and knowingly commit a crime to which you're very aware of the repercussions...that's action and consequence.  When Joe transgresses against John by stealing his car...the corrective measure is not for John to steal something of equal value from Joe...that's retaliation.  No matter how many times you cycle this as a consequence...it will never be equal.

The only way to equalize the atrocity that was slavery along with the discrimination, racial prejudice and god-awful treatment of Black Americans...is to stop doing it and allow them to recover.  There's not one single instance or precedent of a successful equalization between races by means of overcompensating by punishing an entire race of people for something their ancestors were guilty of.  If it were even remotely ideal to practice this, then the first people to get a swing would be the Jews and long after Blacks got their swing at White people...the People with Israelite heritage would get their swing at Blacks for enslaving their ancestors in Africa.  We could go on forever like that or we could accept that it's over, it's part of our history and move on.

someone234

@Vaulk No Vaulk what a truly strange analogy to draw.

Affirmative Action is actively helping future candidates get fairly picked by fighting bias in the system which includes that they had access to worse schools and had less ability to do well in the first place. Your quips are cute but the analogy is not what's happening.

White children can feel punished as can Asians, it's not my fault they have a huge bias in their favour in getting picks and opportunities earlier in life.

If and when it is clear that all races, genders etc are having equal quality of education and healthcare (both physical and mental), then maybe we can get rid of affirmative action. Even then, if it appears there is bias in the brains of those hiring and interviewing, better than to lash out at all of them and put them in prison is indeed to not hurt them back but solve the issue a more pleasant way.

AmericanFurryBoy

@ someone234 i know the original intent was what you say but it has turned into something worse. 

#alllivesmatter

someone234

AmericanFurryBoy said:

@ someone234 i know the original intent was what you say but it has turned into something worse. 

#alllivesmatter

Would you care to elaborate? I am happy to defend affirmative action.

AmericanFurryBoy

@someone234 did you not see Ferguson? BLM has become a terrorist organization. 
Ter-or-ist (adjective) unlawfully using violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political arms.

And they’ve become anti-white. Calling non supporters, especially ones that have chosen to try and continue on with their life during one of thier unlawful “protests”, racist. Explain to me, how they haven’t turned sinister. 

Also, did you hear about what they’ve done to cops? Calling them all pigs, killing them. In fact, i even have a friend whose dad is a cop. He gets called a pig daily. Especially when people try to resist him and he starts to use force to arrest them.

BaconToes

AmericanFurryBoy said:

@ someone234 i know the original intent was what you say but it has turned into something worse. 

#alllivesmatter

https://splinternews.com/the-next-time-someone-says-all-lives-matter-show-them-1793849332

"Imagine that you're sitting down to dinner with your family, and while everyone else gets a serving of the meal, you don't get any. So you say "I should get my fair share." And as a direct response to this, your dad corrects you, saying, "everyone should get their fair share." Now, that's a wonderful sentiment — indeed, everyone should, and that was kinda your point in the first place: that you should be a part of everyone, and you should get your fair share also. However, dad's smart- comment just dismissed you and didn't solve the problem that you still haven't gotten any!

The problem is that the statement "I should get my fair share" had an implicit "too" at the end: "I should get my fair share, too, just like everyone else." But your dad's response treated your statement as though you meant "only I should get my fair share", which clearly was not your intention. As a result, his statement that "everyone should get their fair share," while true, only served to ignore the problem you were trying to point out.

That's the situation of the "black lives matter" movement. Culture, laws, the arts, religion, and everyone else repeatedly suggest that all lives should matter. Clearly, that message already abounds in our society.

The problem is that, in practice, the world doesn't work that way. You see the film Nightcrawler? You know the part where Renee Russo tells Jake Gyllenhal that she doesn't want footage of a black or latino person dying, she wants news stories about affluent white people being killed? That's not made up out of whole cloth — there is a news bias toward stories that the majority of the audience (who are white) can identify with. So when a young black man gets killed (prior to the recent police shootings), it's generally not considered "news", while a middle-aged white woman being killed is treated as news. And to a large degree, that is accurate — young black men are killed in significantly disproportionate numbers, which is why we don't treat it as anything new. But the result is that, societally, we don't pay as much attention to certain people's deaths as we do to others. So, currently, we don't treat all lives as though they matter equally.

Just like asking dad for your fair share, the phrase "black lives matter" also has an implicit "too" at the end: it's saying that black lives should also matter. But responding to this by saying "all lives matter" is willfully going back to ignoring the problem. It's a way of dismissing the statement by falsely suggesting that it means "only black lives matter," when that is obviously not the case. And so saying "all lives matter" as a direct response to "black lives matter" is essentially saying that we should just go back to ignoring the problem."

someone234

@AmericanFurryBoyAmericanFurryBoy said:

Ter-or-ist (adjective) unlawfully using violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political arms.

How do they use violence and intimidation against civilians? Would you consider most BLM to be pro-gun-rights?

AmericanFurryBoy said:

 did you not see Ferguson? BLM has become a terrorist organization. 

You mean where Police used tear gas and beat up protesters with batons who dared stand up for the right to protest?

AmericanFurryBoy said:

And they’ve become anti-white. Calling non supporters, especially ones that have chosen to try and continue on with their life during one of their unlawful “protests”, racist. Explain to me, how they haven’t turned sinister. 

You can be white and a support of BLM and be black and a non-supporter as well as another race and either of the two. They are sinister indeed from their origin, they seek to conquer corruption in the police force and fight against the ability of police to get away with brutality and even murder (that is dubbed 'self-defence' to get away with it). They seek to not just stop police abuse of people but to help blacks have equal education and quality of mental and physiological healthcare regardless of income. Please come at me with more right-wing rhetoric, I am happy to tear your side to shreds because believe me it makes my blood boil and I want to make your blood boil as you understand what real defeat is and real tyranny-losing-to-justice is.

AmericanFurryBoy said:

Also, did you hear about what they’ve done to cops? Calling them all pigs, killing them. In fact, i even have a friend whose dad is a cop. He gets called a pig daily. Especially when people try to resist him and he starts to use force to arrest them.

Does your side not defend unfettered freedom of speech? Are you going to end the First Amendment in order to stop them calling cops 'pigs'? When have they killed cops, their entire protest is about the opposite (cops killing blacks and getting away with it). Your friend's dad supports the first amendment to its extreme like other right-wingers does he not? You can't have unfettered freedom of speech and complain they call you pigs. Either legally punish those who verbally abuse blacks and then outlaw them calling cops 'pigs' or let both be legal.

someone234

AmericanFurryBoy said:

Especially when people try to resist him and he starts to use force to arrest them.

Why does he need to use said 'force'? Define it please.

someone234

BaconToes said:

AmericanFurryBoy said:

@ someone234 i know the original intent was what you say but it has turned into something worse. 

#alllivesmatter

https://splinternews.com/the-next-time-someone-says-all-lives-matter-show-them-1793849332

"Imagine that you're sitting down to dinner with your family, and while everyone else gets a serving of the meal, you don't get any. So you say "I should get my fair share." And as a direct response to this, your dad corrects you, saying, "everyone should get their fair share." Now, that's a wonderful sentiment — indeed, everyone should, and that was kinda your point in the first place: that you should be a part of everyone, and you should get your fair share also. However, dad's smart- comment just dismissed you and didn't solve the problem that you still haven't gotten any!

The problem is that the statement "I should get my fair share" had an implicit "too" at the end: "I should get my fair share, too, just like everyone else." But your dad's response treated your statement as though you meant "only I should get my fair share", which clearly was not your intention. As a result, his statement that "everyone should get their fair share," while true, only served to ignore the problem you were trying to point out.

That's the situation of the "black lives matter" movement. Culture, laws, the arts, religion, and everyone else repeatedly suggest that all lives should matter. Clearly, that message already abounds in our society.

The problem is that, in practice, the world doesn't work that way. You see the film Nightcrawler? You know the part where Renee Russo tells Jake Gyllenhal that she doesn't want footage of a black or latino person dying, she wants news stories about affluent white people being killed? That's not made up out of whole cloth — there is a news bias toward stories that the majority of the audience (who are white) can identify with. So when a young black man gets killed (prior to the recent police shootings), it's generally not considered "news", while a middle-aged white woman being killed is treated as news. And to a large degree, that is accurate — young black men are killed in significantly disproportionate numbers, which is why we don't treat it as anything new. But the result is that, societally, we don't pay as much attention to certain people's deaths as we do to others. So, currently, we don't treat all lives as though they matter equally.

Just like asking dad for your fair share, the phrase "black lives matter" also has an implicit "too" at the end: it's saying that black lives should also matter. But responding to this by saying "all lives matter" is willfully going back to ignoring the problem. It's a way of dismissing the statement by falsely suggesting that it means "only black lives matter," when that is obviously not the case. And so saying "all lives matter" as a direct response to "black lives matter" is essentially saying that we should just go back to ignoring the problem."

Beautifully written. ;D

BaconToes

AmericanFurryBoy said:

@someone234 did you not see Ferguson? BLM has become a terrorist organization. 
Ter-or-ist (adjective) unlawfully using violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political arms.

And they’ve become anti-white. Calling non supporters, especially ones that have chosen to try and continue on with their life during one of thier unlawful “protests”, racist. Explain to me, how they haven’t turned sinister. 

Also, did you hear about what they’ve done to cops? Calling them all pigs, killing them. In fact, i even have a friend whose dad is a cop. He gets called a pig daily. Especially when people try to resist him and he starts to use force to arrest them.

Ferguson has a terrible justice system. Bribery in court and police are common.
https://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/05/us/us-calls-on-ferguson-to-overhaul-criminal-justice-system.html

"Their report described a city where police officers did not know the law or did not bother to follow it. Internal documents showed Ferguson police officers conduction 'pedestrian checks,' in which they stopped people walking down the street and demanded to see their identification without any probable cause."

Also, did you hear about what they've done to civilians? Stunning the people who don't follow their unconstitutional orders using stun guns, even when they were't threatened. "Blacks in Ferguson accounted for 85% of traffic stops, 90% of tickets and 93 percents of arrests over a two-year period studied by investigators."

Hmm... totally not racist right?

AmericanFurryBoy

@someone234 they looted stores. They destroyed property. They beat people up. They basically turned the whole damn town into a riot. They used tear gas as a tactic to get people to go home. That’s what riot police use gas for, to try to get people to go home. Oh, and the use of batons was only against violent protesters. 
On cops. My friends dad is actually a democrat. And I support free speech. But I think its quite dumb to call the people that are out their everyday risking their lives for you “dumb”.

someone234

@AmericanFurryBoy They are not out there risking their lives for the blacks from their point of view. In the eyes of those calling them 'pigs' (of which many are white in more white-dominant areas) hey are out there protecting white land owners and that's why they get called pigs.

drodgers

It should not but it does

MayCaesar

I think quotas are incredibly unfair and divisive, and they contradict the spirit of the education, where it is the effort that is rewarded, not a product of chance. Personally, I would never want to be accepted to Harvard because I am a foreigner - instead, I would prefer to be accepted to Harvard because of my merit and academic showcase.

At the same time, some minorities have a potential to perform just as well in education as everyone else, but they simply may not have had the opportunities to demonstrate it before applying to college. For example, a blind person may have struggled in a public high school due to the lack of infrastructure and prejudiced attitude from teachers and other students - but grant them a seat at a modern university lecture hall, and they will do just as well as anybody else. Same applies to many minorities - not only physically limited, but also extremely discriminated against by the society. It is pretty hard to perform well at high school, when your teachers and peers mock you daily for your gender identification, for example.

So, while I am against quotas themselves, I think it is reasonable to give certain minority members a higher benefit of doubt, than to a random "conventional" applicant, and maybe to offer them additional tests before denying them admission, to make sure that the documentation they have provided truly matches their potential and is not a result of other applicable factors.

Polaris95

It shouldn't matter, at least. You should be applied to universe based on your academic merit. However @BaconToes is right in that if we fund schools in poor areas better, we would have more diverse universities.

MayCaesar

There is an interesting case to consider, by the way, when the academic merit is directly related to one's other properties, such as race. For example, in China foreigners from First World countries get preferential treatment by the government, that aims to build strong relations with other states and try to attract potential investors. Those foreigners also mostly (albeit not exclusively) happen to be white. So in a way, it is more beneficial for a Chinese university to accept a white student from the West, compared to similarly skilled Chinese student, because the student from the West will have better opportunities to pursue their research due to the support from the government and, hence, has more merit when it comes to academic achievements.

This is a very complicated and grey area. When a merit-based choice also happens to collide with nation-based choice under the given socio-political circumstances, is it discrimination? I do not know.