Obama’s College Desegregation Guidelines

0
Share

The Obama administration continues to interfere with colleges and universities. Obama’s new guidelines offer ideas for increasing diversity among the college student population. They include race with other factors such as demographics and socio-economic groups, but the goal is to increase the enrollment in colleges and universities by race.

Colleges rely, to varying degrees, on funding from the government, and a guideline from the President of the United States must be taken seriously.

Obama’s guidelines refer to race-neutral ideas, but emphasize that colleges can consider race a “plus” when deciding enrollment. In other words, race can trump scholarship and talent or at least be its equal.

The  guidelines state that there is a need for tutoring, mentoring, and remediation to make certain the students succeed. So there you have it, colleges need to pick unqualified students and then remediate them so they can get a diploma. This is college?

Not only is this an expensive idea, but it is in no way what a college should be doing. It defeats the purpose of “higher” education, which is to promote advancement of those who are ready and able to advance.

We need racially diverse student populations that mimic the population-at-large, however, the main goal should be to get the best qualified. There was a time when college meant a lot more than it does today.

We now have the misguided ethic that everyone should go to college, whether they need it, want it, can handle it, can afford it, and the government feels it should do everything possible to make sure that happens. It’s not just race, many young people are pushed into college when it is not where they should be.

Adding race as a “plus” in college entrance requirements does not improve the diversity so much as it increases the divide with reverse discrimination. It is integration according to a characteristic that has nothing to do with the purpose of college.

Interestingly, the most liberal states, such as New York, are the least successful when it comes to integration. Black and Latino exposure to whites has fallen in every suburban district since 1986 and we have actually gone backwards according to recent scholarly research out of Harvard.

The research out of Harvard concludes that desegregation programs do work and the lack of them has led to this backwards trend. They also recognize that poverty and minorities often exist together.

The Harvard study makes several suggestions about what to do to remedy the situation, including, integrating school programs, rejecting “choice” in public schools, making changes in public housing programs, adding voluntary city-suburban school transfers, and ending poverty.

Government officials are looking at ways to eliminate “choice in public schools” here on Long Island, by spreading the tax money around equally from one centralized school district per county. The problem is the “poorer” districts will still receive a much larger piece of the federal funding pie.

One thing we must do better is get to the children before they are college age.

Obama’s guidelines are not about leveling the playing field, they are about giving unfair advantage. Supreme Court decisions have clearly prohibited quotas, which is what Obama’s plan is promoting.

A satire, Justice at Last, written by Fred Reed, takes a very funny look at this exact issue. It’s a must-read –

November 29, 2011

The Look Like America bill, originally H.R. 1533, seemed a perfectly ordinary piece of feel-good legislation when proposed by Barack Osama Obama. “Our diversity is our strength,” he said. “We must increase the representation of minorites in our institutions to reflect our diverse population and ensure the fairness for which America stands.” Congress passed the bill without reading it. It was the sort of thing one passed. Besides, there was no money involved, and the bill was not obviously anti-Semitic.

Not obviously. But then one of the obscure policy shops that abound in Washington, the Committee for Ethnic Piety, filed suit against Harvard for noncompiance. The proximate cause was an article in the Harvard Crimson, the school newspaper, about a course called Math 55, the hardest math course at the univrsity and thus, Harvard liked to think, in America. The students in Math 55, reported the Crimson, were 45 percent Jewish, 18 percent Asian, and 100 prcent male. The class didn’t, said the Committee for Ethnic Piety, look like America.

It certainly didn’t.

Harvard, ever sensitive to questions of justice, which it conflated with federal funding, agreed to make the class Look Like America. The administration asserted that only through inadvertence had it failed to notice the clear racism, sexism, and continent-ism occurring under its nose. It established a committee of reform, which set to work.

The first and most ticklish hurdle was The Jewish Question. Jews were two percent of the American population. At 45 percent in Math 55, they were over-represented by a factor of over twenty. The injustice was undeniable. Two percent of a class of twenty-five meant that Math 55 should contain half a Jew. It would then look like America. The Jewish students would have to go.

As news of the proposed ethnographic hecatomb spread across the country, alarm erupted among the prejudiced. Over seven hundred departments of engineering across the country protested. They could see where Looking Like America was going. Math departments, Silicon Valley, the National Institutes of Health—all reeked of injustice, meaning Koreans, Jews, Indianss, and Chinese, and were conscious of sin. They didn’t Look Like America. They Looked Like Math 55. In the Bay area, the proportion of geniuses from India in computing was alarmingly high. Some laboratories Looked Like the Punjab. These malefactors knew well that the coming of justice would gut their enterprises.

Desperate to maintain their positions of racial and patriarchal privilege, they pointed out that the Jewish kids, like all the students in Math 55, had 800 math Boards and had done things like independently develop tensor calculus by the age of three…Continued here: Fredoneverything.net

 

 

Share