Posted on 08/07/2004 12:33:42 AM PDT by familyop
President Bush on Friday told a conference of minority journalists that he believes the practice of "legacy admissions" - accepting the applications some students because their parents were alumni - should be abolished.
Bush, whose own family has its own Ivy League legacy, should be credited for his statement.
The president was a self-described "'C' student" at Yale and was admitted to that prestigious university despite an undistinguished prep school career. But his father, future President George H.W. Bush, and grandfather, the late Sen. Prescott Bush, were Yale alums, so the younger Bush of course would be accepted. Since then, our current president's daughter, Barbara, also has graduated from Yale.
But Bush said there should not be "a special exception for certain people in a system that's supposed to be fair." And for the most part, he's right.
Many private colleges and a number of public universities favor legacy applicants as a means of building institutional loyalty and boosting fund-raising. And we believe that a private school such as Yale is entitled to accept such applicants if it so chooses.
But taxpayer-funded universities should be choosing students based primarily upon their academic qualifications. Conservatives argue that quotas based on race give some students an unfair edge over equally or better-qualified students, and choosing applicants whose scale-tipping qualification is that Mommy or Daddy is an alumnus is even less merit-based.
Bush, who opposes quota systems, says universities should seek diversity, and we agree. That diversity is best reached by offering a top-notch educational experience that attracts a wide array of applicants, then selecting the very best students who apply, regardless of race, gender, religion, color or creed.
Particularly when taxpayers are footing much of the bill for a public university's operations, "Who's your Daddy?" shouldn't be part of any equal-opportunity admissions equation.
Gutsy how he came out swinging on this issue AFTER his daughter graduated.
What a load. Legacies are MORE legitimate than affirmative action. At least legacies have a family history and connection with the institution. It's no more wrong to give a family with a connection to the school preference than it is to give frequent flyers free upgrades.
I'm pissed at Bush for all sorts of things, and I'll probably still vote for him, but on this, he's a complete hypocrite, and selling out to the left AGAIN. I have no way of benefitting from a legacy situation, but if Adnan Kashoggi wants to donate millions to American University and his kids get in, or the Woodruff family wants to build a stadium at Duke and their kids get in, it's only right that the school show some loyalty in return. Bush says that the only loyalty institutions should have is to diversity. Let's all worship on that worthless high altar.
One more check against the not-as-bad-as-the-Rats party.
State universities that are of high quality get a *lot* of alumni donations. Most alumni donate not only out of the goodness of their hearts, but so that their kids can get legacy points some day. If parents *know* that all the donations in the world won't help, many will donate far less. Then guess who gets to pick up the slack - the taxpayers.
We can either pay in higher education taxes, or pay when our state universities slip because of loss of funds (i.e. pay in out of state tuition to send our kids to some *other* state that hasn't adopted such a stupid policy.)
I'll buy this if they agree skin color shouldn't be part of the process either.
You, like far too many, don't understand the meaning of 'hypocrite'. For example, a recent anti-drug commercial has a dad talking about how he used to use drugs as a teen and how he's a hypocrite for telling his teen now not to use drugs. The ad concludes with a voice-over saying something to the effect that it's better to be a hypocrite than to have the kid on drugs. This is an incorrect use of the word. Now, if the dad were currently doing that which he was telling someone else not to do, then he would be a hypocrite.
Now I understand. If George Bush opines before a minority journalist's conference that he now believes that 'legacy admissions' should be abolished after both he and his daughter Barbara are now finished using them to help gain admission to Yale, that is not 'hypocritical'. However, if he had made the same statement before the same organization the day before his daughter's graduation from Yale three months ago in May, then he could be considered a hypocrite.
Wait a minute, this seems familiar... The meaning of the word depends exclusively on the time-frame involved. It's coming back to me... Ah, yes. "that depends on what the meaning of 'is' is."
dvwjr
"It is good for both the students and the school when such students graduate"
Affirmative action students graduate? When did this happen?
"Now I understand."
No, it's that if you realize that you were wrong to do something and shouldn't have done it, and in fact you stop doing it, you regain your standing to tell others they shouldn't do it without being a hypocrite.
Oh, yeah, that's right. I heard about the drastic lowering of standards and requirements.
hypocrite
\Hyp"o*crite\, n. [F., fr. L. hypocrita, Gr. ? one who plays a part on the stage, a dissembler, feigner. See Hypocrisy.] One who plays a part; especially, one who, for the purpose of winning approbation of favor, puts on a fair outside seeming; one who feigns to be other and better than he is; a false pretender to virtue or piety; one who simulates virtue or piety.
A, I understand your concern about the time frame mitigating the hypocrisy. But I disagree completely with your assertion that in order to be a hypocrite, you need be doing the thing you are condemning at the time you condemn it.
Certainly, the worst hypocrites are the self-righteous bastards like Jimmy Swaggart, who spout "Do X!" while they do Y. But that doesn't make someone like Bush, who benefitted doubly from legacy admission via his and then his daughter's admission, less of a hypocrite. If these beliefs of his weren't shouted AFTER his daughter was free of the taint, but before his daughter ever went to college, he would still be a hypocrite, but less so. Here, he's blatantly avoided making a strong statement against legacy admissions until his daughter has benefitted. DVWJR hits the nail on the head--would he be even less of a hypocrite if, say, he'd waited until he's out of office? Retired? On his deathbed? From a quick search, I find no condemnation from Bush of legacy preferences until he and his kids were clear of repercussion ("He doesn't like them, eh? Good, his daughter can go to Hell and Barnard!")
You don't suddenly regain your purity with regard to hypocrisy. Time doesn't heal all wrongs. Virtue lost cannot be redeemed--it can only be compensated for, which isn't the same thing at all. The drug-warning dad is indeed a hypocrite. He's just compensating for his error, and while that doesn't redeem his hypocrisy, at least he's well-intentioned.
Bush's intentions, however, SUCK, in that he's destroying the right of a service provider to preferentially treat good customers better than the average schmuck. If a bank did this for its big money/long term depositors, giving them preferred customer service or increasing their interest, you'd be pissed but you'd understand. If an airline does it, you grind your teeth, but you'd understand. Legacy admissions are the same for colleges.
A true conservative does not mandate the private market serve all customers equally. If so, there could be no discounts for bulk purchases, no special rewards for those who buy the discount card.
I don't love being on the ass end of the consumer service pile, but I won't hold back the head of the market to make the butts feel better. You pay (or your family pays), you deserve play.
Nope, you're still a hypocrite. You did what you're telling others not to. That makes you a hypocrite. You're just wiser and well-intentioned. Still a hypocrite. But your hypocrisy is mitigated somewhat by apologetic frankness on the issue and good intentions in the advice.
Let's not forget that Chicago is almost certainly offering special help to 'at-risk' students (read "affirmative action"), too, which is reprehensible. While I was in school, black students were taught in separate classes by the same professors a second time (after our professors lectured to the entire section), so that they would know where to focus on the exams. I found out about this when a black student in my section told me he could not join my study group because he sheepishly admitted he 'had to go to class,' which he knew I didn't attend and was not allowed to attend, though we were in the same section and took all the same classes--but this special tutoring class, of course. Scholar-athletes (a laughable term) are often given the same consideration.
If there was no drop in standards and requirements, it would be largely because the academically underqualified are given extra consideration. However, there is VERIFIABLY a drop in standards and requirements, and this is shown in the inflation of grades nationwide and the high dropout/low graduation rate of the underqualified students accepted to highly rated colleges and universities. They simply are not ready for the silver platter handed them because liberals wanted them given a place at the table instead of making them earn it. And they leave as a result.
"Nope, you're still a hypocrite."
Well, I'm sorry to be confrontational, but you are absolutely and unconditionally wrong about that.
Blech, here is my admittedly very biased opinion (I am an undergraduate planning to seek admission to grad school next year).
I despise AA. Ive been busting my hump the last 3 years to make stellar grades, and the thought that someone less qualified could take my slot at that prestigious graduate school because I have the wrong skin color or my dad didnt contribute tons of money to the school sickens me.
Im a white male, with working class parents. The only socio-economic group who truly gets shafted by AA/Legacy admission policies.
That being said, Im not wholly against legacy preference, because it does help the school by pulling in tons of money.
/rant
The legacy system at privately funded institutions is EXTREMELY legitimate. As far as government colleges (a.k.a. public universities), I do agree that if the colleges themselves cannot be abolished (or made private), then the legacy system should at least be abolished.
I assume you, dsc, mean you, dsc, are not a hypocrite. In that case, I'm sorry, I was merely continuing your abstract hypothetical and had no intention of calling you personally a hypocrite.
However, if you didn't mean it that way, if you meant instead to provide the view that I am simply incorrect--great argument. Way to demolish the definition I posted from Merriam-Webster with a quick "You're wrong." Do I just respond "Nuh-uh!" or is "Am Not!" better? Either would be an appropriate response, I think, but I'll defer to such a masterly debater, and learned authority on the English language as it pertains to the word "hypocrite."
"Way to demolish the definition"
It wasn't intended to demolish. It was intended only to indicate that I disagree and stand ready to discuss it. It was analogous to pushing the first pawn in a game of chess.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.