<p>As simplistic as atomicfusion's post seems, I'd have to agree that the previous post you made supports AA based on socio-economic factors.</p>
<p>just do it; if you got it flaunt it.</p>
<p>it's philosophically untenable to separate socioeconomics from race from other factors that define identity.</p>
<p>critical race theorists, gender studies scholars, et al. have long argued that the different sectors that constitute identity intersect in ways that make each inextricable from the other. being <em>myself</em> is not just the aggregate of my race, my gender, my socioeconomic status, my sexual orientation, etc. to separate one of them as independently meaningful is to essentialize me and devalue my unique experience of being in the world. thus, saying "aa on race is bad and aa on socioeconomic status is ok" is meaningless.</p>
<p>delgado, butler, johnson, etc. are a few good authors to look up if you want to read some good literature.</p>
<p>personally, i would argue that substantive equality (affirmative action) is necessary to rectify the aftereffects of institutionalized historical injustice.</p>
<p>Nice big words iostream. I'm sure you haven't even read this entire thread. Anyway, I'm not very impressed by your long-winded, senseless, and idiotic post. I understand what you are trying to say, but it is simply wrong. Why does the government tax people based on income? You can't separate income from a person's identity!!</p>
<p>Hell, why are there even male and female restrooms?? My identity is not a sum of individual parts, it's more than that; therefore, no individual part, component, or detail of me can be used for anything anywhere!!! Let me walk into the ladies restroom to prove to them that their "categorizations" are meaningless!</p>
<p>I hope the sarcasm is noted. What I said about socioeconimics stands. </p>
<p>If anything, your post actually OPPOSES affirmative action. Applicants must be looked at as individuals, not defined by their race.</p>
<p>I would wholeheartedly support AA based on economic status alone, if the purpose of AA were only to make those who are underrepresented economically equal to those in the majority. Since the point of AA is to help those who are traditionally underrepresented in different aspects of society become more represented, having the program be based solely on economic status of a student’s family would not be sufficient enough to help the program achieve its goals. If an engineering school is looking to increase the number of women it has by taking Affirmative Action, how in the world will a student’s economic status help the college reach said goal? It won’t. College admissions officers are not stupid; they do not admit a person based only on one characteristic. </p>
<p>Thus, the people who, for one reason or another, refuse to understand that AA is not simply based on race, fail to understand the basic concept behind the program: better societal integration, integration for genders, religions, ethnicities, etc. Most schools are simply looking to diversify their campuses, knowing that with diversity comes a broader understanding of the world.</p>
<p>
1) i wasn't hoping to impress you. i was hoping that i could provide a convincing case as to why "aa for race = bad, aa for socioeconomics = good" is not a coherent viewpoint. </p>
<p>2) ad hominem attacks do not make your post seem more intelligent or credible.
i never said the entire notion of making distinctions based on income or gender or whatever is bad - in fact, most of the authors i cited would agree wholeheartedly with certain forms of differential treatment. i eagerly concede that progressive taxation and separate bathrooms are there in society for very good reasons. my point was that reducing the criteria for affirmative action to just "race" or "socioeconomic status" is meaningless because the reason why people are at a disadvantage doesn't stem solely from any one of those factors. the way i have been shaped by my experiences is influenced by all these factors together, so separating any one of them as wholly constitutive of myself is foolish. this makes debates about education much different from debates about taxation or restrooms.</p>
<p>
<p> [quote=peter_parker] If anything, your post actually OPPOSES affirmative action. Applicants must be looked at as individuals, not defined by their race.
affirmative action != discrimination based on race alone, even though that is how it has been historically implemented. i support a system of substantive equality that attempts to gauge holistically to what extent discrimination has undermined an individual's educational opportunities and to rectify such injustices through differential treatment.</p>
<p>I would also support such a system, but unfortuntately that system is currently a dream. But let's make one thing clear- the current AA system is not that ideal system you describe. The current system is the wrong solution -- it doesn't "rectify" anything because minorities are not benefitting socially or economically from the system. Other changes and solutions must be found. The current system must be dispatched.</p>
<p>being asian, it gets to me sometimes that even though we only make up about 4 percent of this entire country. we are not considered an URM, even though i think asians are more under represented than the blacks or the hispanics. when i read the paper or whatever, its always comparing statistics between the white and the blacks , blacks and the hispanics. but colleges instead raise the standards for us when it comes to admission because there are just too many that are those over-achieving perfect grades math wizzes. In the process those who dont fit the stereotype gets hurt. at UC berkeley they put asians in a separate admissions pile as the other races. If colleges are all for URM, than that should include all minorities. if they dont consider asians as having disavatanges ( which is not true at all) than call it something else.</p>
<p>"at UC berkeley they put asians in a separate admissions pile as the other races."</p>
<p>-Proof... Or did you just make this up to bolster your points?</p>
<p><a href="http://www.ceousa.org/berkeley.html%5B/url%5D">http://www.ceousa.org/berkeley.html</a></p>
<p>i didnt make it up. do u honestly think all is fair? to me you're just another american who doesnt get it. ask another asian and chances are they'll feel the same way</p>
<p>disclaimer: i am asian.</p>
<p>the reason why we're not considered a URM, jenzhi89, is because we're not underrepresented. while we make up only 4% of the total population of the united states, more than 4% of all college students in america are asian. underrepresentation is a measure of <em>proportionality.</em></p>
<p>it's important to realize that admissions to very selective institutions is largely a negative-sum game. if i am accepted into an Ivy, that necessarily means that many others will be denied. affirmative action, by increasing the representation of a certain group of people, will necessarily decrease the representation of others. thus, while i can understand why many of us asians feel disillusioned by a system that smacks of reverse discrimination, we should understand that we're not entitled to special treatment just because there aren't many of us. arguably, african-americans and hispanics have been the target of injustices that place them at a much greater disadvantage than asians. it's difficult to equate internment with slavery.</p>
<p>yes i know at many top colleges asians make up a lot of the population. and that is why we are not considered under represented. but there are many asians, who like my own family came to this country with nothing and had to start all over again and finally worked their way up to middle class comfort. how is that not disadvantaged? african americans are probably the most inbedded into american culture and society, and yes they are discriminated against. but i dont think asians are "disillusioned". many first generation asians in this country face the same issues with poverty and racism just like the black and hispanics. its just that many get themselves out.</p>
<p>That link is 10 years old. California public schools don't even use race as a factor for admission anymore, it is illegal- Hence the absurd number of Asians in the schools.</p>
<p>"many first generation asians in this country face the same issues with poverty and racism just like the black and hispanics. its just that many get themselves out"</p>
<p>-And they get help from AA too- this just depends on the school to which they apply. LIKE ALL PEOPLE.</p>
<p>Jenzhi, your posts are another reason why AA should be abolished: as you state, not all Asians are the stereotypical math/science geniuses. The ones that cannot compete with the MENSA members are definitely at a disadvantage. AA just perpetuates stereotypes of ALL races. We should all be on an even playing field, don't you think?</p>
<p>Many of you who come on and argue against AA don’t have the faintest ideas about what you are arguing. It’s annoying to see so many people who are uneducated on the facts come on and make ridiculous claims of “injustice” and “abolishment”. How about you add something to the debate instead of just saying AA is terrible and should be abolished. Anyone can have an opinion, but only those who take time to do research and READ, are the ones to whom I listen.</p>
<p>citygal: the idea is that an even playing field is impossible when the system systematically puts some at a disadvantage. there's a lot of good literature about how some cities in america have become, for all intents and purposes, segregated, and how black and hispanic communities can't educate their children sufficiently, much less as well as wealthier, whiter communities can.</p>
<p>one good book that talks about this is "savage inequalities" by jonathan kozol.</p>
<p>I don't care if there is one white person and 10,000 Asians at a school. If the Asians were better than everyone else at whatever the school wanted, then they deserve to be there. </p>
<p>Of course, this is only hypothetical. Any school I would want to be at would have a group of students with diverse interests, socioeconomic levels, opinions, and from different geographic areas. This would naturally result in a class with more than "ridiculous amounts of Asians."</p>
<p>I think what people DONT understand is that race does not hinder your ability to learn or be successful whatsoever. Poverty does. Therefore racial AA is obsolete and socioeconomic AA makes the most sense.</p>
<p>mtl: read my post about intersectionality on the last page.</p>
<p>citygal: the problem is that racists can use your reasoning to retroactively justify discrimination as being objective: "really, black people are just inferior to whites! it's not a problem that everyone at this college is white!"</p>