<p>All things being equal, happends when?</p>
<p>Let's see, to combat racism, you need to not recognize difference. I wonder who that benefits?</p>
<p>Historically, non-URMs built those barriers (i.e. the Chinese on the railroads, internment of Japanese-Americans during WWII, the Trail of Tears, Slavery, and taking control of Hawaii, redistricting). Notice how people treat kids of Middle Eastern descent since 9/11? You think doing away with AA will alter their perceptions? Probably not.</p>
<p>Wow. The barriers are there because the majority buit up those stereotypes.</p>
<p>And they are not going to be broken down by perpetuating said stereotypes.</p>
<p>Right,</p>
<p>So the non-URM majority need to be placated to break down what they may already think? Never mind that the social and cultural beliefs developed over many, many generations.</p>
<p>Wonder why Italian and German-Americans were not intered during WWII? They looked like the non-URM majority.</p>
<p>AA in my view is elitist thinking by the whites who implement it. "Minorities can't help themselves, we must help them!" It's old-school white-man's-burden Social Darwinism at its finest.</p>
<p>I agree with that...that non-URMs sometimes believe they are superior or know best. I've been dealing with that all my life. It is my reality...non-URMs often do not understand that because they deal with it less often--usually not on a daily basis.</p>
<p>But, the question is who has the power, and why did those people feel that there was a need, if all was well with the status quo?</p>
<p>BTW, I'm not liberal by any means, except for this.</p>
<p>
[QUOTE]
But I don't see how racial AA helps URMs be treated "fairly" in the admissions process. I think, instead, it helps overrepresented groups be treated unfairly.
[/QUOTE]
</p>
<p>That's if you assume those spots that URMs took "rightfully" belonged to the majority in the first place.</p>
<p>I don't agree with that.</p>
<p>Grad:</p>
<p>You single out race and make a judgement with respect to college admissions that you do not extend to non-URMs who benefit from legacy status, special talents, geography, etc...</p>
<p>It seems, in a way, that you are keeping those barriers in place by focusing on just one sub-group--URM, without dealing with the other groups.</p>
<p>Maybe I'm wrong, but that seems to single out race as the defining characteristic, rather than inequity in the whole process.</p>
<p>By bracketing the debate to just race, the idea that AA is somehow more wrong than using the other sub-group definitions when making college admissions decisions reinforces what some non-URMs may think.</p>
<p>That's what I don't understand. What you dislike is also the means by which you define the debate.</p>
<p>LewisLoftus, that logic actually makes sense to me.</p>
<p>However, I honestly think in 100 years we're going to have race-blind admissions across the board just like we have need-blind admissions now. </p>
<p>Why should race be a basis for discrimination? Answer: It shouldn't. </p>
<p>Why should race be a basis for college acceptance? Answer: It shouldn't.</p>
<p>No one likes legacy admits. But at least they have a legitimate tie to the university they are applying to. Same with athletes and talented students. They bring a tangible benefit to the campus. </p>
<p>I guess I'm just not one to see some abstract "diversity" as a tangible benefit, especially when it leads to academically less qualified applicants being accepted.</p>
<p>Why should race be a basis for under funded school? It shouldn't.</p>
<p>Why should race be a basis for higher borrowing rates given the same credit? It shouldn't.</p>
<p>Why schould race be a basis for where you can buy a house? It shouldn't.</p>
<p>Why should race be a basis for different treatment in public? It shouldn't.</p>
<p>Why should race be a basis for longer sentences for the same crimes? It shouldn't.</p>
<p>Wow.</p>
<p>I don't feel like talking too much but</p>
<p>-I agree with economic AA to some extent. It should only help and not harm though. (i.e. a millionaire shouldn't be screwed over)</p>
<p>-AA should apply to environment as well. Where I live (South Texas), we "supposedly" have a "third world" education system (according to TIME), which clearly is a disadvantage when compared to those pampered prep-school kids. (I'm using stereotypes because I feel like it... not all prep-school kids are rich/pampered/etc)</p>
<p>There are too many factors, however, to weigh. As a result, the best representative factor is AA for URM's since they, generally, are poorer and go to less rigorous or worthwhile secondary schools.</p>
<p>So your definiton eliminates URM categories, but not legacies???</p>
<p>Legacies tend to be disproportionately non-URM. Go back a generation or two, and these families were the only ones who could afford college. So they are blessed with admissions because their fore fathers had status and wealth.</p>
<p>As for athletes and special talents, it's okay to relax standards??? </p>
<p>It really seems like the only sub-group you don't want that to happen for is URMs.</p>
<p>How do you feel about state schools getting federal funding, while they discriminate against out-of-staters? I'm going to suppost that you will point out that public schools also get money from the state, so it is justified...I may be wrong.</p>
<p>I would agree with every statement there.... who wouldn't?</p>
<p>I just don't see how you can allow race to be a basis for some things without expecting that race-first person-later mentality to bleed into other aspects of life.</p>
<p>IsleBoy, of the few URM's that were accepted to those top 25 schools decades ago, many were poor and received full rides. For example, my uncle was accepted to Princeton on a full-ride.</p>
<p>I don't think Legacies tend to be non-URM because of wealth, but because of the % of undegrads tends to be mainly whites.</p>
<p>Aaaah. I think what has happend is the reverse. Discrimination happens everywhere in daily life, it's just that it bled into admissions--and is unfavorable to some (affluent) non-URMs.</p>
<p>Education, because it is an avenue to wealth is the last hold out. If that goes, all the other stuff goes.</p>
<p>Diversity is important considering this country is filled with various groups who are different whether it is due to ethnicity, class, cultural beliefs, religion...whatever. I think living in an environment that doesn't represent the world environment to some degree is detrimental to students in the long run. I would hope having various individuals with various perpectives and outlooks would enrich the environment.</p>
<p>Anyhow, ever notice that money contributions, leagcy status, and even gender never get as much emotion as race...I have to agree with Isleboy about that...maybe because those factors benefit mostly white individuals.</p>
<p>Race is something that permeates society...affording special advantages to certain members of society(white privlilege-a whole 'nother topic)...AA attempts to give opportunity to those who have been historically disadvantaged.</p>
<p>My opinion...</p>
<p>Grad:</p>
<p>I do understand where you are coming from to a certain extent. I do not like abuses of AA, but there hasn't been a way to ensure that affluent non-URMs don't gain by a change in policies meant to help poor non-URMs.</p>
<p>Merit scholarships already disproportionately are given to those affluent kids. But, everyone is okay with that. Because you can always say it was performance, rather than due to income level, etc...</p>
<p>Ostensibly it is fair, but its unintended consequences for poor URMs and poor non-URMs is less need-based aid--especially if the schools don't guarentee to meet need.</p>
<p>Well said Shaddix.</p>
<p>Thanks :) (10 char)</p>
<p>I'm definately long winded, huh? My gf usually just slaps me or falls asleep. Heh-heh.</p>
<p>I hope I'm at least making some sense. It's way too late, but I haven't heard from all my colleges yet.</p>
<p>BTW: since you're from VA, how is URichmond?</p>