<p>By definition, affirmative action endorses stupidity because it assumes that those minorities accepted based on some type of affirmative action would have otherwise not been admitted based on more pertinent credentials e.g. academics. De facto, affirmative action endorses stupidity. </p>
<p>If you agree that we should all be treated as INDIVIDUALS and not based off the skin color, then you would logically oppose affirmative action. </p>
<p>And for all those curious, I AM a minority--just one that has my head together. </p>
<p>There is no reason why intellectual potential should be inhibited merely because colleges value diversity as an end within itself.</p>
So you can confidently claim that every single URM comes from a poor socioeconomic environment? The current system of AA in the US is stupid because it is based on race/ethnicity rather than socioeconomic conditions.</p>
<p>racial affirmative action doesn’t make sense to me. A rich minority student offers not much more to a school as a rich white student looking at race as the sole evaluator.</p>
<p>Affirmative action for socioeconomic minorities at college, however, does make more sense.</p>
<p>The purpose of affirmative action isn’t to promote diversity. A diverse environment is an outcome of affirmative action; it is not the purpose of affirmative action. The purpose of affirmative action is to remove inflation/deflation from candidate profiles so that they can be judged on the basis of accomplished merit instead of privilege. So, by definition, affirmative action fights stupidity by deflating privilege and promoting a “real value” of merit. It’s similar to the concepts of real value and nominal value in economics.</p>
<p>It appears you are unfamiliar with or do not understand the logic behind affirmative action. If you want to argue against something, you should first understand the logic before coming out against it. Then you can use facts to support your argument. For example, you may want to try to prove that the logically-sound concept isn’t effective in real life. That way you don’t look like the “stupid” one.</p>
<p>By the way, I support socioeconomic affirmative action which includes, but is not limited to, race. In such a system underprivileged (often rural) White applicants will also be supported; even though they have benefited from some benefits of White privilege, they have not benefit to the same extent (or even close to the same extent) as a White candidate from a very wealthy neighborhood.</p>
I think the OP was referring to affirmative action programs used by US colleges rather than the idea of affirmative action. The problem is that the majority of affirmative action programs in the US, whether explicit or implicit, are primarily or entirely determined by race/ethnicity. How does ethnicity/race inflate or deflate a candidates profile? Socioeconomic factors certainly have a strong influence on a candidates profile, but ethnicity/race with all other factors held constant does not. I am all for socioeconomic affirmative action as well.</p>
<p>Ethnicity/race affects a candidate’s application when it comes to things like extracurricular activities and letters of recommendation. (White applicants have very different networks than do Black applicants. I have read extensive research on this. If you have access to an academic journal archive you should search for keywords involving race/ethnicity, privilege and networks.) But ethnicity/race ALONE doesn’t even come close to fulfilling affirmative action’s intentions.</p>
<p>You must have responded to my post before I added in the fact that I support socioeconomic affirmative action. I think we are in agreement here.</p>
<p>Edit: The OP didn’t state “the problem with affirmative action in the US is that it is primarily based on race.” The OP stated “affirmative action endorses stupidity.” That’s why I replied to the OP in support of affirmative action as a concept and not in support of the US’s short history of improperly-done affirmative action. But it seems like you and I completely agree with each other regarding AA as a concept and also the US’s historical failures when it comes to AA.</p>
<p>Actually, even when socioeconomic conditions are equal, the networks are vastly different. The White networks were shown to include access to individuals, loans, and financial tools that were “above” the subject’s socioeconomic status. The White network had access to tools that could be utilized for upward mobility. The Black networks were void of access to individuals, loans, and financial tools “above” the subject’s socioeconomic status. And therefore the opportunities of the Black individuals were stagnate with regards to upward mobility.</p>
<p>Man… I’m trying really hard to find the study. It was very interesting and I think you’d like it but I can’t find it! It was on EBSCO host; it’s a scholarly article and is full-text… Hmm…</p>
<p>It is impossible to impartially implement affirmative action. The last time the UC’s tried it, they ended up with an influx of Eastern European immigrants, not exactly what they had hoped to achieve. It almost always ends up doing more harm that good.</p>
<p>Hmm, I learned from my sociology class that affirmative action primarily gives advantage to low-income white women (not even African-American women). If anything, Asians and middle-class whites are not positively affected by AA, but negatively.</p>
<p>Do athletic programs encourage stupidity? What about legacies? What about children from politically powerful families? What about the children of donors? What about famous applicants? What about those with military backgrounds? I’ll respect these ‘affirmative action encourages stupidity’-arguments when I see their proponents direct the same level of outrage at these other considerations that college admissions make.</p>
I think we are in agreement here.</p>