<p>Jazzpark
In your question you try to insinuate that minorities have made their achievement because they have been recruited through diversity program, then who are you to point a finger, your question is ILLOGICAL. The truth is that there are a lot of outside factors. The Diverse applicant may also have exemplar grades but you generalized that the applicant would not have good “academic standing” and the academic student may bring something else other than grades to the table.
The kettle calling the pot black, eh.</p>
<p>Facedownclap, your post doesn’t make much sense. I did not say that minorities are where they are because of diversity programs. </p>
<p>I was responding to kmurry’s post that minorities should be admitted simply because of their minority status.</p>
<p>Discrimination based on nothing more than a person’s race is dangerous, regardless of which way the ax falls.</p>
<p>Rarugged
True, slave owners and slaves have died but stereotyping and racism hasn’t. The truth is that meritocracy is dependent on background; if I come from a bad school where APs are scarce and the success rate is low, I cannot compete with someone who is in a nationally ranked school.
Affirmative Action levels meritocracy because achievement is relative, just like the word average. </p>
<p>Jazzpark.
Of course you never said that but you asked if kmurray would prefer a diversity recruit (a minority) to an academic applicant, therefore saying that minorities cannot fall into both categories. So basically it was not a logical question. You condemn her for what she says, yet you insinuate the same beliefs.</p>
<p>Facedownclap, I’ll put it in simple language for you: admitting someone to college based on <strong>nothing more</strong> than race is discrimination.</p>
<p>^ better put but colleges don’t accept student purely based on race. There are other factor that colleges take into account; but colleges prefer certain races over other races because no race goes through the same experience.
We as humans have preferences why can’t colleges?</p>
<p>Facedownclap, do not forget that discrimination that can favor you because of race can also discriminate against you. </p>
<p>Wouldn’t you rather be judged on personal merit than on the color of your skin?</p>
<p>The thing is that merit is relative. How can I be judged on my SAT scores as a lower class student when a rich student from a rich town has the resources to score higher.
Obviously merit wise they are better but how they produced that merit is questionable; wealth undoubtedly correlates with SAT score. So how is purely merit a good indicator of college performance.
That meritocracy just creates a prettier form of wealth aristocracy.</p>
<p>If you grow up in a neighborhood that is poor, then even the slightest bit of effort will show and if you work hard, you can prove yourself to colleges that you’re not the same as everyone else.</p>
<p>On the other hand, if you grow up in a rich neighborhood, you need to work even harder to stand out, as everyone has resources.</p>
<p>So I simply do not see the difference. Do you really believe colleges compare someone who has a family annual income of 35K with someone that has 75K. It’s all relative.</p>
<p>RaRugged
I completely agree with your first assumption but like you stated in your last post choosing poor kids “devalues merit and disparages the virtue of our meritocracy”. That is why the institution of purely meritocracy is flawed disadvantaged student should receive admission benefits.
Yes the competition is fierce in competitive schools but rich student have a clear advantage when they are compared on a national level. They tend to have higher SAT scores and a large amount of competitive schools send students to ivy leagues and schools of similar caliber. So because they work hard (in some cases) they are more likely to reap their hardwork. While poor student with low merits (SAT)even if they work hard may not be admitted to top school because of the lack of information and school resources.</p>
<p>Just saying, but affirmative action has been declared unconstitutional in the past…
And also, colleges won’t just pick you because you are black. That’s not even how it works. It pretty much sets quotas for how many black people they need in their school… So you could say that after they reach that quota all black people after that would be rejected.
Clearly thats not how the world works.
I got into Stanford in december and I’m black, and personally it gets annoying when people tell me I only it in because of affirmative action.</p>
<p>Asian immigrants are generally not financially wealthy (and often do not have English as their first language), so using Face’s logic, they should receive affirmative action, as well.</p>
<p>Yet, quite often, they fare much better than those with advantaged backgrounds.</p>
<p>The term Asian immigrants is broad, Chinese and Indian immigrants are as a whole very financially wealthy and academically sound so they are not given AA, but their Cambodian and Filipino counterparts are usually not as wealthy that is why they receive affirmative action.
So at Face logic some Asians do receive AA.</p>
<p>Please remember all that you’ve said when someone discriminates against you. Remember, it isn’t discrimination, it’s “affirmative” discrimination in favor of someone else.</p>
<p>Let me put this in simpler words for you: discrimination in this sense is completely different from discrimination in the sense of segregation and racism. Discrimination has turned into such a nasty word, but in this case discrimination is not only good but necessary for minorities (ethnic and religious), low income students, and (white) women. We need to level the “playing field”; other races have reaped from past Affirmative Action now it’s the minorities turn.</p>
<p>It saddens me to see people so selfishly against AA; I’d like you to remember what you said and what I said when you look into the face of someone not as racially or socioeconomically advantaged as you. You were not born equal, you were born with significantly more advantages than him but when he gets admission benefits, you selfishly denounce it as racism even though all your life you’ve reaped the benefits of being born privileged.</p>
<p>just to clear something up:</p>
<p>“Just saying, but affirmative action has been declared unconstitutional in the past”</p>
<p>maybe in lower courts, but while quotas are unconstitutional, the supreme court did declare affirmative action completely constitutional.</p>
<p>Face, you’d give admission status to people based nothing more than the color of their skin. So, people like Tiger Woods’ children (who will undoubtedly grow up more “privileged” than almost anyone else here) will receive affirmative action over someone who’s white and poor.</p>
<p>Do you not see the problem with that?</p>
<p>Also, you’re making an ignorant assumption about my race. Just because I don’t agree with your brand of discrimination, you think that I’ve been born somehow privileged. Perhaps I was – I had caring parents who brought out my best and drilled into me that all people were born equal and that I should NEVER rely upon my race to get ahead in life, only my hard work. </p>
<p>If you don’t believe that all people born equal, then you don’t believe in our Constitution.</p>
<p>Seeking equal chances is something that everyone should promote and work hard for. Seeking special treatment based on only skin color is seeking superior treatment and is fodder for the very racism you claim to profess against.</p>
<p>“Discrimination has turned into such a nasty word, but in this case discrimination is not only good but necessary for minorities (ethnic and religious), low income students, and (white) women.”</p>
<p>You really need to become educated. The average Asian in the US is not only not handed any special favors but usually has race AGAINST his/her side. Asians are often discriminated against because of their hard work ethic. And most Asians are not wealthy, as you assumed.</p>
<p>@jazz, not saying i disagree with you, but please don’t use the constitution as evidence against AA since the discrimination that AA seeks to make up for is written into the constitution. sure, we’ve had amendments to make up for it, but in the original constitution a black man counted as 3/5 of a white man. blacks have been put down so long that they still need help to get back up on an equal plane with everyone else. AA does need change, mainly factoring in socioeconomic status more than race. but don’t use a discriminatory document to argue that we don’t need to make up for discrimination, and don’t say all men are created equal because they aren’t. people are born into much different situations and that needs to be recognized.</p>
<p>“blacks have been put down so long that they still need help to get back up on an equal plane with everyone else.”</p>
<p>What do you think the best way to do that is?</p>
<p>i think AA helps, though not as much as it should under the current system. as i was saying, it needs to take into account economic status to be fair, but since more blacks are poor than whites, it would hopefully have the same effect, letting in more minorities, but instead letting in the minorities that need the most help.</p>