Advantage?

[BlueDevilBBall]

<p>No i do not believe asians are smarter than other races. I should rephrase it: you are penalizing asians, and whites, for being more qualified than other applicants. this has to do with the social standing of blacks hispanics and native americans in america, sure. but centuries of persecution of native americans and blacks is no fault of asian americans- and this group suffers the most from it. neither is the fact that a lot of hispanics come into america to what we would consider substandard living- but maybe above par compared to what conditions they may have come from. </p>

<p>this regarded, it is a HUGE misconception if one thinks asians come from picturesque backgrounds. youll find a large portion of the asian americans in schools come from areas that are legitimate slumps. a lot come for suburbia as well, but that proportion is im sure not much higher than blacks.</p>

<p>"This comes at a price, however, since some Asian parents push and push and push their kids which is how you end up with the numbers-crunching robots that Asians are stereotyped as."</p>

<p>-so now one turns to needing AA to blame parenting- for pushing education upon their children? i'm sorry, but if AA's goal is to change the way parents should raise their children or to make asians more "well-rounded" by denying qualified hard working individuals positions that they deserve, that in itself is horrendous. you are essentially doing what i originally said- telling a race to be less hard working because either they want to force URM's into positions they are not suited for or because they don't like the fact they take lots of math and science classes. i just can't find any justification for it.</p>

[TehRahk]

<p>One thing is for certain. AA should not be taken away until Minorities have had enough time to establish legacies. And if AA is taken away, then Legacies should be as well. Because there was a time where AA was white.</p>

<p>Although it is not Asian-Americans fault that Native Americans and African-Americans have been persecuted in America and still suffer greatly from slavery and black-opression america pre-1970. Native Americans from the decimation of their people. These groups should be allowed equal time to rebuild their communities. In addition, it is not the fault of present day whites. </p>

<p>But in a country that Blacks represent almost double of their percentage of their population in the Military and Native Americans who overwhelming exceed their representation in the population as well. America owes it to them. Especially since the effect if very MINIMAL on the affected groups but can pay huge dividends minority groups.</p>

[theslowclap]

<p>TehRahk: I can see where you are coming from but I do not agree with what you said about giving out some type of compensation for previous injustices - specifically, in the form of affirmative action. This type of thinking is another disgusting thing I find about affirmative action. It causes people to fixate on race, keep tabs on races, and then prescribe this to individuals who may not even be associated with the history or even know about it. Even when the European settlers came to the US not all Europeans were treated equally. In fact, there was much tension between the Eastern Europeans and the Western Europeans. But why arn't Russians given the advantage of affirmative action? Because people think they contributed more to the establishment of the nation and are now interwoven into the social fabric of what we perceive as American - white, indepedent, Uncle Sam. This is exactly what AA does. It wrongly lumps people into racial groups they may not even feel remotely connected with and whos cultures differ as much as the difference between France and Germany. Phillipino, Taiwanese, Mongolian, Japanese, Korean, Indian, Chinese, (in total representing more than 1/3rd of the world's population) and other asian students are lumped into a category called Asian next to a check box. This type of "us" and "them" categorization builds racial tension.</p>

<p>Furthermore, every single race in history has been persecuted or met struggles one time or another. Again, when is enough compensation and who should we compensate? Think about the logistics people, and saying these warm and fuzzy statements that have no practical way of implementation. This type of warm, fuzzy, sentiments may be with good intention but they open the gate for discrimination. If we compensate one race, say the Native-Americans, why don't we compensate the Janpanese-Americans for their internment? Why don't we compensate the Chinese-Americans for their slavery in building the railroads (which, I may remind you set way for American industrialization, which in turn, set way for the rise of American economic world power)? Again, where is the line and who gets to decide so that it is objective and just for everyone, not just one race. For one man's loss is another man's gain.</p>

[TehRahk]

<p>Im completely aware of all of that theslowclap. I am not going to disregard it. But to answer your question. 1957, the little rock nine. This happened only 50 short years ago. There was an entire army outside of the school to allow them to attend school in order to protect them. Years after this, black students in my states suffered from rocks and chairs being thrown at them while in school. It is not what just happened to blacks but what it also did the african american mentality. </p>

<p>As you can see, African immigrants excel in school, while being poor and working from the bottom to the top. The same as the Asian people have done in great numbers. The difference is the time of arrival. All immigrants that have arrive to this country in recent years see this as the country of opportunity african, asian, whatever. However, try telling that to a family who's living african-american grandmother who still walks with a limp and had to drop out of school because some kid didn't want her here and pushed her down the stairs. Many African-Americans have lost faith in the system and the "land of opportunity" So it's not just what has been done, but what is still occuring today. African Americans have been excluded from being American. </p>

<p>In addition, I think you are missing some key points. Chinese Slavery did so to say exist. But the bulk of Chinese that live in America now their parents and grand parents and great grandparents are recent immigrants. Same with other races that have suffered at the hands of America. Two or Three generations is not enough to break down the mentality of a people. However 300+ years and a system that got completely out of hands, that resulted in Racism. Racism is the child of the slave trade. There was a time when people just looked different and that was it. To justify slavery africans were seen as animals and stronger than normal humans. How many times have you heard that 1 black slave was stronger than 5 native americans? Just simply not true. In the end African descendants worldwide still suffer from this system. That's why it is necessary for blacks and not for so called Chinese-Slavery. To be very frank, racism was the child and is too late to abort it. We must work around it. </p>

<p>So now where do we draw the line? I've already said the current AA system is flawed. Should be based more on economic status and encourage hard work. However what we have now is better than nothing by a far shot. We draw the line when the majority of whites stand up AGAINST AA and AGAINST advantages they have when obtaining a job. Which as of 2003 is extremely lopsided, when white name applicants got more callback than ethnic names. </p>

<p>But seriously when do we draw the line? I'd say when minorities are given a reasonable chance to have their grandparents as legacies. Possibly in towards the end of our lifetimes. In addition, one man's lost is one man gain. But this statement is only valid when both players have an equal footing. Here someone definitely has an overwhelming advantage. Not everyone can pay for thousand dollar SAT prep courses. And people wouldnt pay for SAT prep courses if AA was that strong. AA is only slightly detrimental to a very few people.</p>

[theslowclap]

<p>Correct me if I understood incorrectly, but I believe the first part of your argument is that African-Americans suffer from racism, they have suffered from racism before Asians and other races, they have people in their immediate family who tell them about this suffering, and therefore they should receive the benefits of AA. My objection to this argument is not that it is completely and always false, but it is the fact that this is a generalization that emphasizes one race’s struggles more than another’s because people see race in a dichotomized, simplified, factory-packaged, way. The race issue is not just black and white and other races besides African-Americans have received the same type of destructive treatment unobserved and not as widely documented as African-Americans. How can you quantitatively mark one race’s challenges over the other? Now follow me on this logic: as you claim, because of the struggles of African-Americans in the past and present, we should compensate ALL African-Americans with AA in the present. If this stands true, then would it not be logical to say: because my great-great-grandfather was brought to America as a slave to work on the railroad, ALL Asians today, even those not associated with my family, even those born after, even those who are ignorant about the past should reap the benefits of AA? If you follow this type of logic, I do not even want to know what you think about criminals. Because one man’s great-great-grandfather committed mass murder, all of his descendents should be imprisoned and ostracized by society?</p>

<p>Also, I see an inconsistency in your logic. You claim that we should help African-American based on their past more than Asian-Americans just because you subjectively view their struggle as worse than that of the Asian-Americans. Do you understand where I am coming from? AA causes people to judge other races and say, race A suffers more than race B. Race C suffers more than race B, and so forth, based on personal feelings toward a race, which is discrimination.</p>

<p>You cite the study in which, all else equal, African-American names received less call-back interviews than other non-African-American names. However, this serves to go against your argument that AA helps people it strives to help.</p>

<p>I do not understand your argument about legacies. I think legacies are another form of discrimination that should be discarded. If the right to vote operated on the system that college admissions operate on today, it would set us back at least a century in civil rights. Legacies would not help the new immigrants from receiving education. Is this not the same struggle races today must face? Why perpetuate it even further? As time goes on, competition exponentially rises because of more and more legacies. I suggest the best way to go about this is to have a completely merit based admissions.</p>

<p>Also, both players do not need an equal footing for one man to gain and for another to lose. The richest, most powerful, men can take from the poor as we see occurring every day.</p>

<p>“People would not pay for SAT courses if AA were not that strong.” I disagree. In fact, draw a simple supply and demand curve and tell me what you see when the supply goes down. Demand goes up, am I correct? Now, this is what I see happening. AA has pit Asians against Asians and people know they MUST take the course to at least stay in the game.</p>

<p>“AA is only slightly detrimental to a very few people.” I again, disagree. I will provide you with a very crude argument. Let’s say one less qualified person gets the job over a slightly more qualified person. Multiply this by a large population over multiple institutions and over multiple years, and you will find that society as a whole will suffer economically, certain races will get angered (such as the Asian-Americans), and racial tension will rise. Rarely does a legal policy governing such a large population affect only a few people.</p>

<p>It's one thing to be charitable, but it's another thing to force someone else to give at their expense.</p>

[TehRahk]

<p>I think you are seeing inconsistencies in my arguments because you are trying to generalize my thoughts. (Some, I realize because of incomplete thoughts.) However, I never once said ALL in any of my postings. ALL is such a powerful word. I never said ALL URMs should reap benefits of AA. </p>

<p>In fact I said that current AA is flawed. And I've said that it should depend more on socioeconomic standing. High acheiving low income students of all races should be given equal benefits of AA. </p>

<p>But I do agree with you that a complete merit based admission would be ideal. However, people become fixated on SAT scores and the amount of EC's they've done. These things do not make up a person and does not make one person more qualified than the other. Admissions directors seem to be aware of this.</p>

<p>The Amherst admissions director, Tom Parker, explains, “Tony Jack with his pure intelligence—had he been raised in Greenwich , he would have been a 1500 kid." About a african american kid who scored a 1200 on SAT but is now graduating with Honors from Amherst. People just don't like to admit that they come from priviledge backgrounds and wholeheartedly believe that their perfect score SAT is only from hardwork they put on their own. </p>

<p>The majority of people believe that since on average URMs have lower average SAT scores and EC's means they are not qualified. That's just simply not the case. They just have not been nurtured from every angle possible. Schools just simply would not admit anyone who they believe was not capable of the work. </p>

<p>About the study in 2003 about resume research. Ultimately education in the end can topple racism. That's why it supports the AA argument. Because their are definitely schools with better education. </p>

<p>Oh and I am well aware that slavery was not exclusively African. But racism was indeed born from the African slave trade, because it got so out of hand, that it has deprived the entire continent of Africa of its more ablest workers for centuries. So if it seems like I'm saying that African slavery was worse. I'm not saying that because slavery is slavery and there was no work more crude than others. However what I am saying is that African Slavery has very apparent longlasting effects that can be seen everyday. NO other race can claim this in the US. All ethnic groups of people have been enslaved but African slavery was by far the most extensive and African descendants worldwide suffer from it. More extensive and therefore more detrimental. This can be measured in numbers and definitely not a subjective view. Just check the numbers for the African Diaspora (especially as a percentage of world population), absolutely horrendous.</p>

[theslowclap]

<p>So to make things clear, you think AA is flawed and it would be acceptable if modified. I believe AA does more harm than good and should be destroyed.</p>

<p>About selecting qualified applicants: if you say that SAT scores, grades, and extracurriculars do not measure potential success in college, then tell me what does. I highly doubt race, or socioeconomic status, has anothing to do with it. What you seem to be implying is that there is this "other" predictive factor that can be put into admissions, and I think this opens the gates for subjective pick-and-choosing based on personal beliefs and biases (like racial prefrences or maybe even a personal vendetta with someone or some family). Also, high SAT scores, good grades, and good extracurriculars are correlated with success, not causes to success. For this reason, it would be wise for people to admit people based on merit and not by a socioeconomic or racial standard as your Amherst story implies. Sure, one randomly chosen person from the ghetto can become the validictorian of Amherst. But if we have a bet on who would do better in college, I would bet on the guy with a perfect SAT score and straight As rather than the random guy from the lower socioeconomic group.</p>

<p>"People just don't like to admit that they come from priviledge backgrounds and wholeheartedly believe that their perfect score SAT is only from hardwork they put on their own." When it comes to academic success in higher learning, does it matter what or who you attribute your success to? If you're a janitor of a company and you do your job well, does it matter where your hometown or how supportive your parents were?</p>

<p>"Schools just simply would not admit anyone who they believe was not capable of the work." I never said URMs were not qualified for the work. I think a high school freshman could make it through college with enough determination and support. I just mean there are others that are more qualified who did not get in.</p>

<p>"Ultimately education in the end can topple racism. That's why it [sic] supports the AA argument." Are you implying that the CEOs of companies for which the experimental applicats submitted their resumes are not educated? There are many educated racists in the world. Racism is no longer something as obvious as name-calling. Even people who say they are not racists are often racists.</p>

<p>Also, not everyone is a racist. Let's think out a scenario here. Let's say there are two companies. Boss A runs company A and is a full-out racist who only likes to hire white men, and boss B runs company B and is a white man who sees all men of different skin color as he sees his brothers, sisters, and parents. Naturally, Boss A hires only white men even though the people of color are more qualified sometimes. Boss B hires people based on merit - nothing else. Eventually, Boss B will be hiring more intelligent and capable employees, than Boss A. In turn, Boss B enjoys higher revenue, less stress, more human assets, and more business expansion. Boss A can do two things: (1) continue hiring all white men and eventually be run out of business by Boss B; or (2), give-in to the merit-based system run by Boss B. This is the beauty of a system run on healthy, justified, competition.</p>

<p>I still stand by my argument that you can not judge the struggles of an entire race and attribute that to individuals. I for one believe that people have free will and they have the choice to shape their destinies. Just because African-Americans were enslaved does not make them doomed to a perpetual state of a low quality of life. Sure, there may be extra challenges to get an education, but this doesn't justify AA on a large scale. We do not know enough about the immigrants from Asia to say they are better off than African-Americans. Asians enslaved other Asians in the past. In fact, slavery was not born in the US. Slavery is one of the oldest human behaviors there is. To limit the hardships to the history of the US is highly close-minded. Chances are that the race of the immigrants to the US had faced slavery some time in their past.</p>

[TehRahk]

<p>I had previously decided to not respond to another post. But your post has got me completely boggled. You are taking the wrong things from my argument again and infering things I just simply did not say. You are very naive, just like the rest of the population about race relations. Dont take that statement personally. </p>

[TehRahk]

<p>Just to add to this. I want to encourage you to take these postings as objectively as you can. This is all a process of learning and making ourselves better human beings. I previously didnt know that Chinese were enslaved in the U.S. and a few other tidbits.</p>

[theslowclap]

<p>First off, your claim that the rest of the world is na</p>

[odyssey]

<p>I always hesitate to join in an AA discussion because of the intense views people present in these forums. But I have to jump in here to agree with TehRahk. I find that TehRahk has provided an articulate presentation of the way that, as I understand it, AA is viewed in higher education. </p>

<p>I agree with thelowsclap that in some ways it hurts minorities, but only insofar as many nonminority students view minorities on campus as less capable simply because of the existence of AA or perhaps because of a lower SAT score or GPA. (I think that was the point of the Amherst student who graduated with honors.) Many highly qualified students of all races lose out in admissions because of legacies with lower scores or less impressive ECs. Do students automatically assume that legacy admits are less capable simply because they are legacies? I don't see that argument on CC. But I do see time and again the assumption that minority students as a group at elite schools are less capable. </p>

<p>In the final analysis, no one is entitled to admission to HYP -- no matter how high the SAT scores, GPA, or how impressive the ECs. So as I see it, no one ever "loses a space" to a less qualified student.</p>

[ivyleague104]

<p>being asian is disadvantage in college process lol</p>

[TehRahk]

<p>Quoting you quoting me "Quoting you: “racism was indeed born from the African slave trade.” This just shows you did claim that racism was born in the U.S. I was just saying that other immigrants had slavery in their pasts as well."</p>

<p>This does not show that I claim that racism was born in the U.S. Look at the African Diaspora... not everyone came to the land now known as U.S.A. In the African Slave Trade, Africans were brought to the Americas. Colombia, Brazil, The Carribean, and finally North America. I have yet to misquote you or pretended to know about something I do not know, which you have done to me multiple times. </p>

<p>I did see myself become condescending that's why I added the extra post at the end. So I did/do regret that. </p>

<p>But please just read above and just admit to yourself (not to me) that you are patently in the wrong.</p>

[TehRahk]

<p>About regurgitated information. 9 of 10 times the basis of my arguments never stemmed from opinions of others. All information that can be proven. Does being on the internet make it any less valid?</p>

<p>Quoting myself: "One fact of life: Everyone is racist and sexist. It's IMPOSSIBLE not to be. It's called influence. However, we can do things to combat our prejudices. If I know I hold prejudices against asian people. I would go up and above to treat that person with kindness and respect. It may seem that person would get preferential treatment. However, in the end, that person is treated with the same respect I treat everyone. Thus modifying my outward actions to treat everyone equally. (Which by the way is the basis of the AA argument.)"</p>

<p>To add upon this, with a restructuring of AA being dependent more on socioeconomic status, I see AA as leveling the playing field. The current AA is flawed but with the facts I presented before, it is better than nothing. The paragraph above is the basis of my argument. </p>

<p>Discrimination can be a good and bad thing. Refering again to my paragraph on racism. If I knew that I had prejudices against African-Americans I have to discrimate in order to make my actions equal to the way I treat all human beings. The problem with discrimination is the misuse. Discrimination is necessary in our society. </p>

<p>The reason I brought up the Amherst student was to prove that you cannot view applicants completely objectively. With a 1200 score in a completely objective system he would not have been accepted. Now he is graduating with Honors from arguably the best liberal arts college in the country. </p>

<p>Please elaborate to me why he should have been denied admission?</p>

<p>My reason for admitting him? Because he is more than capable of completing the work. Not because he’s black. </p>

<p>The SAT has not been proven to predict college success. The SAT is a test unlike any other that requires special training, not available to most people especially most minorities. Everyone can’t complete as many EC’s as the next person. Try putting babysitting my siblings while my single mom works two full time jobs as an EC. It really boggles me that you think a child should be penalized for this. </p>

<p>Sure there is a way to view people Objectively but that would be the most unethical of them all because</p>

<p>To penalize a child for living in a bad neighborhood.
To penalize a child for attending a mediocre school.
To penalize a child for being born to a poor family.
To penalize a child for having to take care of a family, thus limiting their ability to do EC’s.</p>

<p>Do you not agree that this is wrong?</p>

<p>Before you say it, this could happen with current AA. It can, but w/o AA. It will happen on a greater scale. To me the current AA is the lesser of the two evils. With a restructured AA being ideal.</p>

<p>What I said about before 18 no one has free will. What I intended for people to understand is that the majority of things in your life. Where you live, what you eat, etc. are for most children, out of their control. Not that they do not have “free will” in the sense you understand it. In a philosophical way, in fact there are many definitions of free will. What I simply wanted to state is that a 7 year old kid can’t move out of his house and have a successful life. His or Her parents have direct control over you life until you can do most things on your own. Which is at 18 in this country. </p>

<p>Theslowclap: “You don't think that a minorities don't feel inferior in U.S?” No I do not think so. </p>

<p>What makes you believe the minorities don’t feel inferior?</p>

<p>To me this is manifested by Asians getting procedures for double eyelids, African Americans straightening their hair. We live in a racist world. It’s not the differences between us. It’s the inferences people make on those difference. If someone were to ask me, what ethnicity group I am, and I say I’m Latino. I don’t feel inferior. It’s when people associate stereotypes to that. It’s when a minority goes to an elite college and their peers think they only got in because of AA. </p>

<p>How can you possible say that racism affects everyone equally? </p>

<p>Do you honestly believe after this entire thread that whites are treated equally in America as every other ethnic group in every situation? Subprime mortgage rates of applicants of different ethnic groups with the same credit score. Countless other facts, not regurgitated information. Do you honestly believe people are equally affected by racism?</p>

<p>and thanks Odyssey. I do agree as well, that no one is more deserving of HYP admission and no one "loses a spot" so to say. It's individuals that believe that minorities only get in because of AA and are less qualified than their asian or white counterpart. Which is why I'm having this discussion right now.</p>

<p>AA in graduate school should be phased out. At that point people have the free will to do what they want in their life not governed by parents. Applicants should apply with only their SS# and nothing else.</p>

[theslowclap]

<p>I realize that I also got caught in the heat of the discussion and may have disrespected you, and I apologize. I will try to think through this more objectively and clearly so that we don’t keep running in circles. Honestly, as a fellow Cornellian yourself, I know you have work to do as well, so let’s keep this short, to the point, and objective as possible.</p>

<p>“Thus modifying my outward actions to treat everyone equally. (Which by the way is the basis of the AA argument).” I thought about the crux of your argument and I agree that everyone is in some way or another racist. However, I do not think that creating a systematic decision on who society views as the target of racism such as AA does any good as a whole. Your argument makes sense in a scenario in which there are unlimited resources (in our case, applicant spots). When there are a limited number of spots to fill, then preferring one applicant over the other means potentially taking that same spot away from someone who was just as qualified or more qualified but ironically happened not to have the benefit of the admissions’ racism. Furthermore, not everyone is racist toward the same group of people. One man may be racist toward whites, another toward Hispanics, and another toward Asians. But when you let the government or institution decide which groups deserve sympathy the most then we neglect the people who are victims of racism as well. Furthermore, your argument makes sense on an individual level. I applaud you if this is how you truly behave toward groups you have a prejudice against. However, when you are in a position to systematically prefer one race over the other, then you are forcing another person to give up their benefits so they can compensate for your personal prejudice (because resources are limited); in essence, the group you have a prejudice against may be receiving extra benefits while unknown group X is neglected even though they feel the same racism from someone other than yourself.</p>

<p>Discrimination in order to identify people as different and celebrate these differences is a good thing. When it gets unethical is when you discriminate and take actions differently toward that group. Again, even though being extra nice to one race would be great on an individual level, when looking at a system with limited resources, one group will suffer as a result (even though you didn’t expect it).</p>

<p>About the Amherst student: I agree that he was more than qualified for the school. However, this is only one case that happened to get publicity while thousands of other schools had summa cum laude graduates who come from good family backgrounds with sufficient support in the community. In response to your question: hindsight is 20/20. With the knowledge that he did succeed, I would not reject him now. However, while his application is on the table and I am labeling his portfolio with URM status, and if his application is not as academically competitive as another’s, I think there is plenty of justification to reject the applicant. </p>

<p>“Try putting babysitting my siblings while my single mom works two full time jobs as an EC. It really boggles me that you think a child should be penalized for this.” I never said she should be penalized. She should neither be penalized nor rewarded. I admit this is a very unfortunate situation. However, many people who have these same exact struggles took responsibility for their capacity for free will and studied while taking care of these burdens. Then let me ask you this: try putting my father is a billionaire alcoholic who sexually abused me as a child who is never around to guide me as an EC. The question we should be asking is this: how do we make admissions as just and ethical as possible? The question should not be: how do we help the poor and unfortunate rise in the social ranks?</p>

<p>Maybe a little anecdote will help you understand why I feel this way. My Asian-American friends’ parents come from China. His parents had to work in sweat shops to give him the opportunities he has today. Because of the sacrifices his parents put into his future and because of his talent and academic merit, he is where he is today. The point is, it took sacrifice AND he demonstrated merit.</p>

<p>“Do you not agree that this is wrong? Before you say it, this could happen with current AA. It can, but w/o AA.” I do agree it is wrong. But let’s think about a scenario in which AA is gone. Students apply without any indication of name or race but are identified only by social security numbers. The people who suffer most from this system are the URMs. Now let’s think of a system with AA. The people who suffer most are the ones who are being denied a spot because of a URM. Although “helping a fellow man” is touching, when it comes to admitting a person into an academic institution, they should be evaluated based on their academic merit and not on their social status.</p>

<p>“What makes you believe the minorities don’t feel inferior?” Sure, sometimes they do feel inferior. But as an admission dean you can’t control how people feel. People can feel whatever they want, it’s the overt acts of racism we need to worry about as a society.</p>

<p>“Do you honestly believe people are equally affected by racism?” Yes and no. On the individual level, racism affects the individual. He may be psychologically, physically, or financially damaged due to racism. However, on the larger scale of society, everyone suffers because of racism. Acts of hate rarely contain themselves within one group of people or individual. People see this act of racism and they may retaliate. People see this act of racism and become racist. People take things into their own hand and perpetuate the hate. Nobody in society is completely isolated from other members. On the economic, social, political, and personal level, racism affects every person.</p>

<p>“I do agree as well, that no one is more deserving of HYP admission and no one "loses a spot" so to say.” If we can agree that a college education is not a human or civil right but rather a privilege, then what makes it necessary to “[level] the playing field” (as you said in paragraph 3)? This is a major contradiction I am anxious to hear you justify. Also, if URMs are not less qualified then why do we need AA? Pleading to their “struggles” is not a sufficient argument for academic merit. Think about it.</p>

[datdude]

<p>Racism is prevalent in America, simple as that. Ivy League and highly competitive universities simply will NEVER have enough black people attending for some bigot with a mask on to complain about "losing a spot...," at least not to black people. Also, I wonder how America is going to take it when the number of blacks competing for spots at top universities, top jobs, buying prime real estate and sending their children to top elementary, middle and high schools starts to improve dramatically. What then? The moon will soon be fully inhabitable and taking applicants, but only for those who can afford it. I take theslowclap's argument like this: When blacks start to improve their station in life, it is invariably at the expense of "more qualified white's." When have things in America ever been equal for black people in the world of education, employment, housing, the legal system, the media and anything else in this country that is recognizably desirable and symbolic of power? When is the last time anywhere on the globe black people ran their own governments without intervention from European governments? And don't give me any crap about "nobody said that" or "you're taking it all wrong," or "you're angry." I just read TehRahk put the truth out there for you; eloquently, patiently and politically correct, and still this?</p>

[TehRahk]

<p>Ok to begin I do want to apoligize back to you. Then just address the only question you asked of me. </p>

<p>Why yes I do honestly take action to never allow actions based off stereotypes I have. These are usually internalized and hard to not think about. It's not the thinking of it that is wrong, but basing your actions on them. I do however hold very little predujices against any race, because unlike many people, realize that as humans we are part of the same specie and are the same. </p>

<p>Low-Income students (Not only URMs, but students of every race.) need AA because the application system IS believe it or not, objectively based and ran. Low-Income students are just as qualified and definitely as intelligent as their counterparts, but do not have the test/grade scores to match because of a lack of resources and usually destructive environments. Low-Income students (this word and URM are used interchangeably; which they shouldn't. I'm guilty of it too. I'm going to stop now) would not need AA if the system really were used in a truly holistic approach. Which many college say, but it really just accepts URMs just because race. Which is why Harvard is full of rich blacks and hispanics. </p>

<p>About your example about the billionaire child, harsh situation. This is a rarity on the rich. However, I have been very involved and volunteer at a inner city after school program. I know for a fact that probably half of the kids around 9-10 years old, know how to change a diaper and cook a full course dinner. Just because of having to babysit for parents while they are at work or just absent. This is everyday life for many children.</p>

<p>But I'm glad we agreed on many things, I respect you stance, don't agree. But as a fellow cornellian I know you have worked hard regardless of your background and will be sucessful in the future. Good Luck</p>

<p>Quoting myself "With that in mind, how can we all create no need for AA? That is the answer and should be what everyone should be fighting for."</p>

<p>This would be killing two birds with one stone. Destroying the need for AA and improving low income area school districts. However notice how many people want this? It's truly sad. </p>

<p>Addendum: Thanks datdude, african descendants worldwide won't ever be treated as equals and chronically opressed long after we all die.</p>

[datdude]

<p>Maybe you can help me a bit. I get so irate at people who give these BS arguments. All these words to defend something that he knows the truth about. By being reasonable to a fault TehRahk, you give people ... a stage to defend an indefensible position. All these pages ... to get a point across about affirmative action not being right? As if AA has even made a small dent in the legacy of slavery and the existing conditions black people face today. And how about the "slight" possiblilty that blacks don't need AA, but just need a fair shake in this highly racist world of ours. It's as simple as looking at the disproportionate numbers of black males working in upper or lower-level positions in corporate America compared to white males. It's as simple as who runs the labor unions and contracting and landscaping businesses in our country. For construction on the World Trade Center site, how many millions will black people get for their work there as opposed to whites? How about drug sentencing laws? How about racial profiling and highway stops? It would appear to me that[someone] so high on "justice" ... would be fighting for blacks to get a better shake in the areas I named in my last few posts, not clinging to something as crazy as AA, because AA, for all intents and purposes in the black community, is ineffective, particularly to black men. No black man should ever argue over such things with people who do not care about their interests. I wonder how [such people feel] about Barry Bonds. Oh, I know. He's guilty until proven guilty. I'm mad as hell, frankly, because people on this forum, like typical Americans, can't stand when a black person is unafraid to speak honestly about existing race relations in America. Period.</p>

[theslowclap]

<p>datdude: I find no constructive input from your posts. You really said it best: "you're just mad." Maybe you have some passive aggression and you're targeting the wrong place. I do not have anything against African-Americans as you so claim. And calling me a bigot for examining a controversial issue is plain retarded. In fact, the only bigot is you for refusing to think through these issues. Do you really think I would type all of this stuff if I didn't believe it? I don't "know" it as truth; far from it, I am arguing against it because I believe it as false. If you have anything to bring to the table except whining then I would be happy to respond to your post. Discussions are meant to help people open up to the views of others and either strengthen or weaken your own. I see nowhere in my posts where I claimed that I wanted to see African-American people suffer or any other race suffer at that. In fact, I would be delighted to see them prosper and gain positions of power. I'm just saying AA is the wrong way to go about it. And being that the subject of this discussion is AA, I don't think it's wrong to be discussing it. Go cool off a bit and use your head when you speak.</p>

<p>TehRahk: Thank you for your eloquence and patience. I have gained much from our conversations in that they helped me learn more about my views. I too respect your opinions very much although I may not agree with them. I hold nothing personal against you when I got upset during the heat of the argument. I hope you understand. I wish you much success in the future and I hope racisim is destroyed as to make AA a thing of the past. In essence, would you agree that our ultimate goals are the same? We both want to see people prosper.</p>

[TehRahk]

<p>datdude: it really does upset me when people say that they are for justice and equality. The same people that are quite aware of our oppressive society towards minorities. Refuse to help minorities directly and then to top it all off...Declare illegal and deject anything that potentially could help minorities (to LEVEL the playing field, READ: Not give preferential treatment). You want justice and equality didnt you not say? Then why are you STILL working against minorities. It really does boggle my mind. It is a complete contradiction. </p>

<p>theslowclap: thank you. I too learned much from you (especially more about the ideal that mine is up against). I wholeheartedly believe that our ultimate goals are the same. However, I have yet to hear what you believe is the solution to help people who want to do good out of their slump. So what is it?</p>