Affirmative Action Ethics

Applying to College
261

<p>"Although I'm personally not a huge fan of recruited athletes and legacies, institutions can use athletic ability as a means to accept/deny a person. I mean, look at the NBA. The certainly take people based on athletic ability. BUT YOU CAN'T DISCRIMINATE USING RACE. At least, the last time I checked the Constitution. Maybe I should open up a public restaurant and refuse service or jobs to Hispanics. Oh wait, IT'S AGAINST THE LAW. That's why it's a different topic."</p>

<p>A private business owner can hire who ever he wants. There is no law banning him from choosing who he thinks is a favorable employee. If I think that black employees are better I can choose them for that reason, liberals like you feel the need to butt into every ones business.<br>
What heck is a public restaurant, do you mean a restaurant that serves the general public. Private business owners do not have to serve people who they DO NOT want to serve.</p>

<p>"Maybe the cops should bust down your door, arrest you, rob you, and then execute you without trial. The crime: grand idiocy."</p>

<p>You have shown that your arguments go as far as a .22 through ballistic glass, your arguments are based around insults.</p>

<p>"I don't care how small the injustice is, its still an injustice."</p>

<p>Thats your opinion.
You liberals are the biggest hypocrites, do I see you rally in the streets after every injustice. I guarantee an injustice is happening right now, do the liberal scum parade through the street, no.. They pick and choose there problems.</p>

262

<p>Wow, lots of vicious questions here. Let's start one at a time.</p>

<p>Courtjester19, to be clear, I ended up choosing Rice over Duke and the University of Illinois. What are the honest reasons I chose Rice and Duke of UofI? Well first, and this is no joke, UofI was the most expensive school for me to attend (I'm instate!!); it was more expensive than Rice and Duke after finaid. But that's hardly relevant to anyone's argument here. I chose Rice because I felt it had a more dedicated faculty while many classes at UofI are taught by TAs. I also felt that Rice had in general a smarter student body, which was appealing to me. Also, out of the three universities, I liked the atmosphere of the university and its housing. I did not choose Rice over UofI because I felt it would help me socially or economically (because I know this is untrue). In fact, on the way to my first visit to Rice, the car rental salesman said he went to Rice (I don't know if he was making smalltalk, but I don't see why he'd lie about that). Also, Rice's alumni connections are almost nonexistant where I come from in IL. Rarely does a common person from IL know what "Rice" is. Yet I chose Rice because I felt I could learn more and challenge myself, not necessarily to somehow infiltrate the top strata of society. In fact, Rice and Duke don't even have business schools when UofI has many top business programs, including an extremley high rated accounting program. Yet nonetheless, do you really think something like the engineering at Rice or Duke is much different from that taught at UofI? I mean, its generally the same material. Do you think elite universities such as MIT teach from some 'secret' engineering textbook where the concepts inside have not been discovered by other universities? Now granted, the teaching may be better and more hands-on opportunities may be given, but given a person's abilities the outcome will be the same at least in terms of career/salary.</p>

<p>
[quote]
Yes I too read the studies, and know that you are not the one who came up with the whole “they were already ambitions” notion. How about you use your own arguments and not plagiarize from the internet, ok?

[/quote]
</p>

<p>KK19, I never claimed those arguments were original. It's not plagiarizing at all, which is directly lifting words, and I don't think I need citations on an internet forum, I don't even remember the sources where I got the info. </p>

<p>
[quote]
Injustice, huh? How do you reconcile this with places such as WASHU, with Black acceptance rates that are lower than the overall pool? I guess you can't agrue against numbers. That's why you are taking the "injustice" high ground.

[/quote]

This is either a reflection of the applicant pool, or reverse AA, which I hardly think exists. Either way, I wouldn't mind having race-blind admissions. That is what in fact I am advocating.</p>

<p>
[quote]
You clearly do not understand the complexities of the Constitution.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>That's funny, because our school Constitution team won the state championship. I know I mistated certain facts about the Constitution. I know the Constitution is simply a limitation on the government, not the people, negative rights, yadda yadda.. trust me I know plenty. So you're right. Private discrimination is not against the US Constitution. But IT IS against the law (legislation). </p>

<p>"Both federal and state laws prohibit businesses from denying public accommodation to citizens on the basis of race, color, religion or national original. The Federal Civil Rights Act guarantees all people the right to "full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, and accommodations of any place of public accommodation, without discrimination or segregation on the ground of race, color, religion, or national origin." </p>

<p>Sybbie basically posted a lawyer who correctedly stated that Equal Protections, 14th Ammendment, basically the provisions of the Constitution concerning discrimination apply to the government, not the people. Yes, I mispoke. But LEGISLATION, a.k.a, laws DO APPLY to the PEOPLE, and protect against discrimination (even if that discrimination is against whites and asians).</p>

<p>
[quote]
A private business owner can hire who ever he wants. There is no law banning him from choosing who he thinks is a favorable employee. If I think that black employees are better I can choose them for that reason, liberals like you feel the need to butt into every ones business.
What heck is a public restaurant, do you mean a restaurant that serves the general public. Private business owners do not have to serve people who they DO NOT want to serve.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>"Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended ("Title VII"), prohibits discrimination in employment based on certain protected classifications, including race, color, sex, pregnancy, religion, national origin, age (40 or over) and disability. Many states have individual laws that prohibit discrimination in employment as well."</p>

<p>Liberals, or "liberal scum" as you prefer to call them, would probably actually agree with conservatives on the above: THE LAW. By the way, enough with the liberal hippie hypocrite B.S. If you support affirmative action, YOU ARE LIBERAL. I am AGAINST AA. IM CONSERVATIVE ON THE ISSUE. You are simply offensive, prejudicial, stereotyping, discriminating, and simply come off as dumb. Now if we stop with the personal attacks, I would just like to talk about the matter at hand. I would like to have a reasonable debate with fellow CCers who can support AA and disagree with me yet do it in a respectable, classy, and intelligent manner, which is certainly opposite yourself, Y2Kplaya.</p>

263

<p>Peter-Parker, what is your motive behind race-blind admissions? B/C honestly, when I tried to touch upon public education you turned the cheek, so caring for the greater good obviously is not your motive b/c you'd be fighting for well-funded, racially balanced, equal, fully-literate public school systems so that when they get to graduation off senior year, there is no need for AA. </p>

<p>But you seem to be fighting for sin the former or is it different? I'd agree with any of you anti-AA posters if first you showed an ounce of concern for the primary problem, public education, that leads to the sticky secondary problem, AA.</p>

264

<p>"Private discrimination is not against the US Constitution. But IT IS against the law (legislation)."</p>

<p>-You are confusing race-conscious admissions processes with discrimination. This is of course your right to believe, but is not what the law states. </p>

<p>-As this applies to Affirmative Action in higher education, the Supreme Court majority ruling in Grutter v Bollinger held: </p>

<p>"The Equal Protection Clause does not prohibit the Law School's narrowly tailored use of race in admissions decisions to further a compelling interest in obtaining the educational benefits that flow from a diverse student body. The Court reasoned that, because the Law School conducts highly individualized review of each applicant, no acceptance or rejection is based automatically on a variable such as race and that this process ensures that all factors that may contribute to diversity are meaningfully considered alongside race."</p>

<p>Justice O’Connor continued: "In the context of its individualized inquiry into the possible diversity contributions of all applicants, the Law School's race-conscious admissions program does not unduly harm nonminority applicants."</p>

<p>-Thus, despite what you say, Affirmative Action is indeed legal. Also, since the case was argued on the grounds of the U.S. Constitution, any subordinate laws (acts of congress) must be aligned to the decision.</p>

265

<p>First of all, Cre8tive1, I do think the public education system needs to be improved immediately and great focus should be put there. I attended a so-called 'city school' in Chicago and know of at least a degree of how bad schools can be. I realise that many public schools are absoluteley terrible and the government needs to step in if its really going to guarantee education to every child. However I fail to see how AA is going to remedy this problem or its effects.</p>

<p>Kk19, you're right, AA currently IS legal, that's why all these universities practice it. I was simply comparing AA to many similar, illegal practices. </p>

<p>But anyway, let's get back to the Constitution. The Constitution tells the government what laws it CANNOT make. For instance, is a law requiring that every person where a hat 24/7 constitutional? Yes, it is, because there is no provisions in the Constitution restricting the government from passing that law. Now, that would law would never be passed, or if it did the Congress would not have any incumbents next year, but it is constitutional.</p>

<p>Now, in the case you brought up, to simplify the case it was simply a question of "is Affirmative Action legal within the Constitution?" and the answer: yes, it is.</p>

<p>Yet if we follow the required hat-wearing law, there is also nothing in the Constitution against it. Yet, and here's the important part, there is also nothing unconstitutional about HAVING A LAW AGAINST IT. Is a law prohibiting any forced wearing of hats constitional? It sure is, bub.</p>

<p>Therefore, is there anything unconstitutional about a law prohibiting AA? Nothing remotely. The state or national legislatures can easily pass laws against it, however, currently the governments have little interest in the matter, not to mention the debate is somewhat like the abortion issue, no politician wants to ever take a side. Plus, abolishing AA would likely only lose minority votes for the politician. You see, politicians aren't always focused on ethics or justice, especially when it comes to a matter like this.</p>

266

<p>peter, thanks for your response.</p>

<p>"Yet nonetheless, do you really think something like the engineering at Rice or Duke is much different from that taught at UofI? I mean, its generally the same material. Do you think elite universities such as MIT teach from some 'secret' engineering textbook where the concepts inside have not been discovered by other universities? Now granted, the teaching may be better and more hands-on opportunities may be given, but given a person's abilities the outcome will be the same at least in terms of career/salary."</p>

<p>i agree with a fair amount of what you say in your response. i actually am applying to MIT first of all because from everyone i know who has either gone there or knows a fair amount of people there, the financial aid is indeed very good, meaning that if i get in, i have a decent chance of being able to afford it. this probably has a lot to do with the amount of money these top schools usually have, but agreed, besides the point. im also very interested in research and those "opportunities" you call them, and at a place like MIT or other schools, i think Williams has a strong research section, CMU is geared toward research and science, i am looking for precisely that. the TA situation in many public schools is a problem due to the sheer size of the classes. i agree, i would rather not be taught by a TA. now, to respond to what you said, im not sure i completely agree with your reasoning. i think those opportunities for those who want to go into the research field are key to success (im going by my own tastes, so i apologize for seeming narrow-minded). so, the salaries for students that have a certain amount of work in the field already (MIT often has kids working 4 years and into grad school) are going to be higher, due to the immense amount of experience had while in school. im not sure what the parallels for other fields are in other ivies, but to at least defend my own choice, i brought up research.</p>

<p>and just to show some statistics for the sake of everyone learning something...</p>

<p><a href="http://www.jbhe.com/features/50_blackstudent_gradrates.html%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.jbhe.com/features/50_blackstudent_gradrates.html&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>this says something about the pre-college education system i think. if you look at where the historically black colleges are, for instance UDC, you can sort of see how if the majority of people from that area have a terrible school system and dont have much money to go somewhere else for college, they are not generally not going to complete college. 7% black graduation rate? thats about 1 in 13. most AA top schools have a higher grad rate than many of the historically black schools. is this saying they are getting sort of glanced over, or that these kids can actually compete? thats a judgment call, but im not sure i would be so quick to say its an artificial means.</p>

267

<p>sybbie posted that link before, i just realized, sorry, but just realize lower down on the page that many of the typically black schools have terrible grad rates, and think as to why this happens</p>

268

<p>"Therefore, is there anything unconstitutional about a law prohibiting AA? Nothing remotely. The state or national legislatures can easily pass laws against it, however, currently the governments have little interest in the matter, not to mention the debate is somewhat like the abortion issue, no politician wants to ever take a side. Plus, abolishing AA would likely only lose minority votes for the politician. You see, politicians aren't always focused on ethics or justice, especially when it comes to a matter like this."</p>

<ul>
<li><p>If the government wishes to make AA illegal for public schools, it sure can; it was after all, the government which created the program in the first place! In fact, this is already the law in some places. I’m sure any measure to do so for private colleges, however, would be met with many federal court cases challenging the constitutionality of such an action. </p></li>
<li><p>To say that politicians aren’t focused on ethics or justice is relative. I happen to believe the opposite. To me, any action taken toward limiting the ability of private colleges to choose their students would not only be unjust, but would not serve the good of society in general. Who knows better about what would be good for a college than the college itself? Certainly not the government. </p></li>
<li><p>Now think about this on the most basic level. If Private College X, announced today that it shall no longer give preferential treatment to racial minorities, how would anyone know it is telling the truth? The fact of the matter is: there is no way to know how a private school chooses its students, short of the school making the information public. So while the school could have a written policy of race-blind admissions, it is impossible to know if said policy is being realized, just like the only way one could know if a private college has an admissions program that looks at race, gender, religion, etc is to hear it directly from the college.</p></li>
</ul>

269

<p>"By the way, enough with the liberal hippie hypocrite B.S. If you support affirmative action, YOU ARE LIBERAL. I am AGAINST AA. IM CONSERVATIVE ON THE ISSUE."</p>

<p>The term LIBERAL means; A person who favors a political philosophy of progress and reform and the protection of civil liberties. You are indeed the liberal on this issue, you have already gave your jive on the "injustices" that you must correct. </p>

<p>The governement can pass an bill, but a lesser court can still find that bill unconstitutional. The civil rights bills have been deemed unconstitutional by many lesser courts. PM for the list.</p>

<p>And you have the nerve to say I come of dumb when you post your faulty reasoning, I loved the statment you made about URMS not trying because they had AA backing them up.</p>

270

<p>As a black male of direct African descent who is involved in the community, it is hard for me to say that AA is correct. I feel that jobs and slots and public schools should be based on merit. </p>

<p>But without AA blacks would be in a far worse hole in society. True freedom for blacks came with the civil rights bills of the 60s. Thinking that blacks could jump up and compete academically with whites after 100s of years of social and mental atrophy is ubsurd. They needed a boost that could help them become better members of society. Speaking in todays terms, I beleive that AA is left over piece of legislation that can fuel debates and sometimes even violence. People arguing for it are indeed for minute values of discrimination.</p>

271

<p>How do you feel about whites who got in with lower SAT scores and a lower GPA? I hate when people who get their first taste of defeat blame others for their failure, blaming the negro is your cop-out of not having to tell yourself you are not good enough.</p>

272

<p>"That's funny, because our school Constitution team won the state championship."</p>

<p>This is so funny, my High School football team won the state championship, I guess I must be qualified as a referee. Our HS mock trial team won the regionals, I guess that means I can open up my own law practice.</p>

273

<p>To Peter Parker</p>

<p>While I do understand your analogy with the injured leg your sense of place and time are extremely out of place. African-Americans were seen as property for over 400 years. Only until about forty years ago we were LEGALLY seen as second class citzens. 400 years versus approx. 30 years. So you see how out of context your remarks are now. It takes generations upon generations to change the perception and drive of a race that has been immorally dehumanized for centuries. AA was and IS and effective tool to speed up the healing process. I do not however want my race to stay dependent on AA, because it is a crutch, but Damn our leg just got broken, Let it heal first, or it will be broken again and in worse shape.</p>

274

<p>confused me, Mrpolo. Do you mean African were slaves here in U.S. beginning around 1465? As far as the generational thing, are you saying that the grandparents of a modern 20 yr old black man would have told their offspring that they weren't as good as any other American, or that they could not become whatever they studied/ earned to become, but that only now, the (now grown) parents of that 20 yr old are realizing he can be what he wants?<br>
I thought American blacks of African ancestry became second class citizens around 1865? Not to be interpreted that thats good enough. Only looking at dates you provided. I hear higher percentages of black girls are preg in school more than 20 yrs ago, and more black families without a hubby, too. How does one reconcile that? Certainly black Americans have it better than they did 20 yrs ago, and surely that was better than 20 yrs before that? Recent changes that are not improvements, cannot be blamed on events 150 yrs ago. Wouldn't one expect the lifestyle to have been in a continuous improvement every generation? I don't offer answers here, but questions.</p>

275

<p>“Do you mean African were slaves here in U.S. beginning around 1465?”</p>

<ul>
<li>African slaves and servants were brought to the colonies around 1620 and remained in that capacity until 1865.</li>
</ul>

<p>“Recent changes that are not improvements, cannot be blamed on events 150 yrs ago. Wouldn't one expect the lifestyle to have been in a continuous improvement every generation?”</p>

<p>This began to happen in a period just after the Civil War ended; this “reconstruction” period ended in the late 1870s, however. From then until about 1965, Black people were seen in many parts of the country as second-class citizens. Thus, the ability of Blacks to achieve social mobility (especially Southern Blacks) was pretty much destroyed. Hence, it was not really 150 years ago - much more like 40. And think about it; if we say people live an avg. of 65 years, counting from the year slavery ended until this year, Black people have only experienced two generations since slavery, and less than one since Jim Crow ended.</p>

<p>“I hear higher percentages of black girls are preg in school more than 20 yrs ago, and more black families without a hubby, too.”</p>

<p>-Teen pregnancy for Black women dropped well over 40% in the last decade. The rate of Black single families is, by all accounts, much higher than it should be. This is, however, a reflection of the culture of Blacks in America, a culture that in many respects does not seem to fit into American mainstream idealism. Is this a bad thing? That is a relative question, I suppose…..</p>

<p>America is, in a way, “designed” so that a child can better succeed with more than one parent. In fact, if families could have three or four working parents, the socioeconomic benefits would be even greater than having two.</p>

276

<p>kk19131, the African slave trade began in Portugal in 1441, that's where the "over 400 years" statement comes from. </p>

<p>Younghoss, responding to that comment is not worth the effort, so I'll just note to you to review cause & effect and find another explaination for econmic dispairities and the socioeconomic gap, unless you believe naturally, one race is superior to the others.</p>

277

<p>A generation lasts 30 years, not 65.</p>

278

<p>First of all, courtjester, the low graduation rate at that all-black college you showed is probably to a certain degree a function of the student body.</p>

<p>Secondly, passing an anti-AA law is completely constitutional. I don't think you understand what that means. Legalizing heroine is theoretically constiutional, as is lowering the drinking age to 2. Now you may not agree with them, think they are insane, and Congress probably would never pass them because they represent their constituents, BUT THEY ALL ARE CONSTITUTIONAL IF PASSED. SHOW ME ONE PROVISION OF THE CONSTITUTION THAT FORBIDS THE GOVERNMENT TO PROHIBIT AA. And btw, I was on my HS state champion constitution team. If you were on you h.s. state championship football team, I WOULD give you credit for being a good football player. Is it that hard to understand?</p>

<p>As to your 40/400 years concept---</p>

<p>automobiles have been around for less than 100 years, but they haven't been around for billions of year. How does anyone understand how to use a car?</p>

<p>computers have barely available to the public at all until the last 20 years (probably even less)-- How can anyone function a computer???</p>

<p>Britain and France have been fighting for centuries, hell nearly 1000 years, they have only become allies in the past 120 years or so. I can't believe French people and British people can get along now!!</p>

<p>There are no slave traders anymore and to remark people have the same mindset is absurd and insane. In fact, there has been such hordes of materials supporting minorities and crucifying racists that people are afraid to say anything racist in this country. And btw, African tribes held slaves also. Maybe they have negative stereotypes about themselves!!! Hardly.</p>

<p>And btw, no one has showed me how a more selective institution leads to a significantly greater salary, higher social value, or a self-perceived notion of success. Oh right, because it doesnt.</p>

279

<p>"kk19131, the African slave trade began in Portugal in 1441, that's where the "over 400 years" statement comes from.”</p>

<p>-I know this, but Portugal is not, by any stretch of human imagination, closely enough related to the United States and its history with the slave trade.</p>

<p>"A generation lasts 30 years, not 65."</p>

<p>-That is my definition of generation, one that is characterized by the average age of a person, not by a particular epoch in American history. In fact, there is no definitive number for a generation.</p>

<p>"There are no slave traders anymore"</p>

<p>-Maybe not in this counrty. :)</p>

<p>“automobiles have been around for less than 100 years, but they haven't been around for billions of year. How does anyone understand how to use a car?</p>

<p>computers have barely available to the public at all until the last 20 years (probably even less)-- How can anyone function a computer???</p>

<p>Britain and France have been fighting for centuries, hell nearly 1000 years, they have only become allies in the past 120 years or so. I can't believe French people and British people can get along now!!”</p>

<p>-Silly and flawed logic….. </p>

<p>"In fact, there has been such hordes of materials supporting minorities and crucifying racists that people are afraid to say anything racist in this country."</p>

<p>-I'm sorry, is this a bad thing????</p>

280

<p>
[quote]
First of all, courtjester, the low graduation rate at that all-black college you showed is probably to a certain degree a function of the student body.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>One of the biggest contributors to low graduation rates at HBCUs and mainstream universities has to do with $$$ and inadequate k-12 education.</p>

<p>High dropout rates appear to be primarily caused by inferior K-12 preparation and an absence of a family college tradition, conditions that apply to a very large percentage of today's college-bound African Americans. **But equally important considerations are family wealth and the availability of financial aid. According to a study by Nellie Mae, the largest nonprofit provider of federal and private education loan funds in this country, 69 percent of African Americans who enrolled in college but did not finish said that they left college because of high student loan debt as opposed to 43 percent of white students who cited the same reason. Under any circumstance, a college education costs huge amounts of money. Not only are there very large outlays for tuition, books, and travel, but, even more important, going to college takes a student out of the work force for four or more years. The total bite into family income and wealth can amount to $160,000 or more per student. High and always increasing college costs tend to produce much greater hardships for black families. **</p>

<p>Deep financial pockets enable some schools to provide greater financial aid than others And this is a major factor in student graduation rates. This is not the case at HBCUs where even if a student is given FA it is most likely in the form of loans as there is not an overwheming amount of free money. The students who most likely would be eligible for a "free ride" are part of the same pool that woud be admitted to Ivies and that ilk. </p>

<p>Well-funded universities such as **Princeton, which has the nation's largest endowment per student and probably the nation's most generous financial aid program for low-income students, will undoubtedly claim an advantage in black student retention and, subsequently, in producing high graduation rates. Clearly, the availability of a high level of financial aid shields low-income black students from financial pressures that may force minority students to leave college to fulfill family obligations and financial responsibilities. **</p>

<p>The low graduation rates at black colleges are due to a number of reasons. Many of the students enrolled at these institutions are from low-income families, often ones in which there are few books in the home and where neither parent nor grandparent went to college. In addition, the **black colleges on the whole have very small and totally inadequate endowments. They often lack the resources necessary to generate funds for student financial aid. Often they are unable to furnish sufficient aid packages for upperclassmen to permit them to stay in school. This circumstance appears to be a major factor in accounting for the low black student graduation rate at these schools. **</p>

<p><a href="http://www.jbhe.com/features/50_blackstudent_gradrates.html%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.jbhe.com/features/50_blackstudent_gradrates.html&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>