California state colleges consider asking students about sexual orientation on application forms
posted at 3:30 pm on March 30, 2012 by Tina Korbe
Is it a stretch to imagine activists might someday push for affirmative action programs for lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender students? For now, administrators are just weighing whether to include a question about sexual orientation on application forms to determine whether California’s state colleges are presently adequately serving the LGBT community:
California’s state colleges and universities are laying plans to ask students about their sexual orientation next year on application or enrollment forms, becoming the largest group of schools in the country to do so. The move has raised the hopes of gay activists for recognition but the concerns of others about privacy.
The questions, which students could answer voluntarily, would be posed because of a little-known state law aimed at gauging the size of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) populations on the campuses. The law encourages UC, Cal State and community colleges to explore whether they are offering enough services, such as counseling, for those students.
“It would be useful to know if we are underserving the population,” said Jesse Bernal, the UC system’s interim diversity coordinator. In addition, giving students the opportunity to answer such questions, he added, “sends a positive message of inclusiveness to LGBT students and creates an environment that is inclusive and welcoming of diverse populations.”
Last fall, Elmhurst College in California became the first college in the country to ask about sexual orientation on a college application:
Elmhurst College, a 3,400-student school, asks applicants: “Would you consider yourself a member of the LGBT (lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender) community?” A positive response could help students qualify for scholarships given to diversify the student body, according to Dean of Admission Gary Rold.
Some critics argued that the college’s move could be seen as a tool to bolster the gay population.
The school was not seeking to be a pioneer or to advance any political stance, Rold said.
“That we are first is not of any great consequence,” he said. “We are just trying to collect information for our purposes to help out students.”
The negatives of this vastly outweigh the potential benefits. Not only could the information be improperly used — say to either discriminate against or give preference to LGBT students — but it also suggests sexual orientation is somehow relevant to education. The college admissions process should aim to determine what students would be able to meet the rigorous academic requirements of a university experience. While any number of factors — including family background, ethnicity, religion and state of health — affect a student’s ability to succeed in college, it’s not necessary to know details about those aspects of students’ lives to know whether they have been successful academically in high school and whether they demonstrate a propensity to be able to effectively engage and internalize appropriate course materials. The more I think about it, the more I wonder why schools ask for any of that information. Why not look exclusively at demonstrated academic performance? This goes back to the expansion of the purpose of universities beyond education to some kind of four-year rite of passage to adulthood.
Related Posts:








Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: « Previous 1 … 3 4 5
What is that thing on his head, for heavens sake?
Valkyriepundit on April 21, 2013 at 4:56 PM
If the teacher had handled the situation correctly there would have been no need to crininalize the 8th grader. Sane teachers don’t persecute students.
kemojr on April 21, 2013 at 4:56 PM
Beatle tribute.
Cindy Munford on April 21, 2013 at 4:59 PM
Will the ACLU come to the student’s defense because his First Amendment rights were violated? Hmmm….
Philly on April 21, 2013 at 5:01 PM
Couldn’t find the voting booth.
VegasRick on April 21, 2013 at 5:01 PM
I think it’s a shoutout to The Donald.
VegasRick on April 21, 2013 at 5:02 PM
I think it’s the new look for guys that age after 3 years of the buzzcut.
Going through it with my Grandson.
Barred on April 21, 2013 at 5:13 PM
Rhetorical question, right?
AZfederalist on April 21, 2013 at 5:20 PM
If you were a school administrator, what would you do?
rickyricardo on April 21, 2013 at 5:51 PM
Ignore the shirt and get out scissors.
Valkyriepundit on April 21, 2013 at 6:17 PM
Hope the family sues for mega-bucks and the teacher and administrators are fred.Enough is enough!
redware on April 21, 2013 at 6:45 PM
English, math, and history. You?
rogerb on April 21, 2013 at 6:56 PM
The Donald wishes.
Cindy Munford on April 21, 2013 at 7:11 PM
I think the school district has a big clusterfark on its hands. Let’s see if they double-down on stupid and dig in their heels, or if they backpedal.
Philly on April 21, 2013 at 7:37 PM
Hey, if you got it, flaunt it. God will give him haircut enough in thirty years or so.
PersonFromPorlock on April 21, 2013 at 7:40 PM
And yet SWalker is the one that gets banned. Why is nonpartisan still allowed in? It NEVER makes ANY meaningful contributions to the debate.
Nutstuyu on April 21, 2013 at 7:47 PM
Now you’ve done it. Insulting the bloggers is ban-worthy. Just ask SWalker.
Nutstuyu on April 21, 2013 at 7:54 PM
The individuals involved need to be taught a lesson in the Constitution and the law. West Virginian citizens should make a mockery of all involved in this injustice.
F_This on April 21, 2013 at 7:57 PM
I think I found the core of the problem here…
Seven Percent Solution on April 21, 2013 at 8:22 PM
When did that happen and why? Just to be nosy.
JFKY on April 21, 2013 at 8:36 PM
I’m still trying to figure out what he was arrested for. Wearing a t-shirt? School policy now has the force of law?
Fenris on April 21, 2013 at 9:07 PM
Just skimming I’d say his argument with the teacher and the ensuing confrontation/”Hoopla” was what got him arrested.
JFKY on April 21, 2013 at 9:16 PM
Probably got banned for telling the truth and calling Ed a lib or something like that.
air_up_there on April 21, 2013 at 10:37 PM
I see. Provocative speech is not good speech.
So why are you commenting here?
unclesmrgol on April 22, 2013 at 12:55 AM
If nonpartisan did not exist, someone would have to invent him.
unclesmrgol on April 22, 2013 at 1:01 AM
Nonpartisan is simply posting opinions that differ from yours. It is embarrassing to see people here call for other commenters to be banned over differences of opinion.
As for SWalker, it is my understanding that he alluded to/approvingly suggested that violence come to public officials. I don’t know the details, though. Anyway, sounds like the ban call in his case was an easy one, so let’s not make commenters who leave violent comments into martyrs. Ed and the other bloggers here do a wonderful job of allowing a wide range of discussion, and they know where to draw the line.
Calls for violence against public officials have no place on this site.
bluegill on April 22, 2013 at 3:47 AM
Probably a growth from your a$$. Good lord you’re a silly arsed twit.
DevilsPrinciple on April 22, 2013 at 6:57 AM
And nonpartisan recommended pulling Tsarnaev’s nails off to torture information out of him and then summarily executing him with a bullet in the head.
Your point?
hawkdriver on April 22, 2013 at 9:12 AM
bluegill=sesquipedalian=nonpartisan=crr6 etc etc etc
don’t listen to the fish.
alwaysfiredup on April 22, 2013 at 9:16 AM
Coming from you, that requires a spit-take and a laugh.
*spit-take*
*HARHARHAR*
itsspideyman on April 22, 2013 at 9:41 AM
I just looked at my HS graduation photo and then in the mirror, sigh. Never mind youth, hair is wasted on the young!!!
God has a vicious sense of humor sometimes.
Enjoy it while ya got it kid!!!
E9RET on April 22, 2013 at 9:45 AM
Went off your meds again, didn’t you?
dominigan on April 22, 2013 at 10:19 AM
It’s bad enough to get suspended for that, but arrested???
Hey Mr. & Mrs. Marcum, http://www.lc.org
They are used to dealing with stupid school systems like these.
Sterling Holobyte on April 22, 2013 at 10:43 AM
Oh no! Quick edit the history books…oh wait…
Pattosensei on April 22, 2013 at 11:13 AM
Re-phrasing the whole story:
“Middle school suspends, arrests 8th grader for using his First Amendment rights to celebrate his 2nd Amendment rights; school system invokes 5th Amendment rights when story goes national”
BobMbx on April 22, 2013 at 11:37 AM
Time to get monetary damages and principals and superintendents fired with their licenses pulled.
Enough.
Zomcon JEM on April 22, 2013 at 11:59 AM
How come this guy can say f*ck and this guy can’t?
johnnyU on April 22, 2013 at 12:43 PM
link to basball player story . fcc excuses the word f*ck
johnnyU on April 22, 2013 at 12:46 PM
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/04/21/fcc-chairman-personally-excuses-boston-red-sox-players-televised-f-bomb/
johnnyU on April 22, 2013 at 12:46 PM
Most schools I know say ‘no controversial apparel’. Having him arrested, well thats another story.
johnnyU on April 22, 2013 at 1:16 PM
My heartiest congratulations to bluegill for posting on topic instead of… well, you know.
As for verbaluce,…
word
S. D. on April 22, 2013 at 11:15 PM
I live in the Houston area. No doubt, SJL is pound for pound the dumbest politician sent to DC. And that’s a lot of pounds. Soooo much stupid.
Sugar Land on May 7, 2013 at 4:36 PM
She is a moron.
However, this einstein gives here a run for the money.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bs23CjIWMgA&feature=player_embedded
acyl72 on May 9, 2013 at 11:22 AM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 … 3 4 5