<p>What is your opinion on affirmative action?? DO u think it should be based on ethnicity or finacial need??? I know the primary purpose was to aid african americans, but as we all know since the late 70s things got outa hands, and i have to write a report on this and i was just trying to get different opinions.Thanx for reading and answering this ;)</p>
<p>I'm pro affirmative action, but I feel the current system is ineffective and needs to be tweaked. It should definitely be economically based, diversity is more the color of your skin, imo.</p>
<p>I think both ethnicity and financial status should be considered. I don't understand why people think only one should be used, in any case.</p>
<p>I think only financial status should be used. I even think that race should not be indicated on the app. Universities should be race-blind, if you will. Otherwise, you're judging candidates on the color of their skin. The reality, though, is that if admissions were race-blind, African-American and Hispanic populations at elite colleges would be almost nonexistant.</p>
<p>This is not the forum for this discussion.</p>
<p>AA is racial discrimination. If you believe in and practice racial discrimination in our society, you are weakening it. Anytime you give opportunity to anyone less qualified, you are taking opportunity from someone else who earned the opportunity. </p>
<p>There are no laws stating who can claim minority status. If you believe that you are .0001% of a certain ethnicity, you may check the box and claim it. There has never been a lawsuit that established a standard for who is or is not a certain minority. An exception may be with Native American status at some institutions. </p>
<p>Universities say that they do not discrimnate based on race in their policy manuals, but this is a lie. Schools should at least have the integrity to acknowledge they discriminate based on race.</p>
<p>The argument that racial diversity enhances the learning experience is wrong. This implies that this minority student has some sort of obligation to the other students to enhance their learning experience based on their ethnic background. Students have no obligation to other students. Just what type of ethnic perspective is a minority student supposed to provide in my chemistry class? </p>
<p>The problem is that the student who was denied opportunity because he/she did not check the little box does not know that he/she was denide the opportunity because of his/her race. If this could be proven, there would be far more lawsuits. </p>
<p>Why does AA last a lifetime? It is not enough that schools practice AA at the college level, but grad school, scholarships, gov contracting, employment, ect is all impacted by AA. </p>
<p>My advice, if you do not want to be racially discrimated against, is to check the box. Nobody will require you to prove your ethnicity. </p>
<p>Few people object to socioeconomic status being used as an admissions factor.</p>
<p>Amen (12char)</p>
<p>If you want to see extreme horrible Affirmative Action come to South Africa and then you will change your liberal opinions and see what true destruction Affirmative Action really is.</p>
<p>AA is indeed needed in our society -- especially in our country. Nevertheless, I do not advocate for AA based on skin color. I do favor, however, AA based on socio-economic circumstances and a holistic review of a student's background. At a bureaucratic-government level it'll probably never happen, but, at least in Academia it could. </p>
<p>We need AA because, although we are the world's superpower and consequentially considered today's empire, we seek to be a humane empire. Without any sort of AA consideration, we would lose much of our humanity as a society and directly, or indirectly, oppress many. That's certainly not the kind of country I would like to live in.</p>
<p>Most of you are quite young and inexperienced; some of you --without attempting to point fingers-- may just not like seeing less privileged people receive a hand. For the most part, indeed, most of you have lived shletered lives. However, as you come to the realization that AA is not designed to benefit the lazy or the guy of color next door, you may come to understand the need for AA.</p>
<p>Surely, I think AA needs to be reformed -- as mentioned above it should focus on socio-economic circumstances and not merely skin color. But doing something is better than doing nothing. I am in favor of giving a hand to those in need. And trust me, unless you have been on the needing end (and I mean the truly needy), it may be impossible for you to fathom what it's like to so desperately need a hand. In our society we are taught that it's all about choices, but that's not always the case.</p>
<p>And, yes, the simple notion of checking the box to get ahead is silly. That should change. Also, I don't really think we should look to other countries when deciding/ designing our policies. We have a unique history, unique circumstances, and, as claimed by many, a unique manifest destiny -- why should we look to South Africa to decide what's best for us?</p>
<p>Best,</p>
<p>WF</p>
<p>What is the actual rule for being allowed to check the box? Do they verify the truthfulness behind it. If you do check the box, is there some sort of catch-22 that goes with it</p>
<p>
[quote]
If you want to see extreme horrible Affirmative Action come to South Africa and then you will change your liberal opinions and see what true destruction Affirmative Action really is.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Yeah, ok. Why can't we be more like apartheid-era South Africa? That seems like a winning slogan to me.</p>
<p>The most fun thing about AA debates is watching a bunch of sheltered, entitled white people, who ignore racism on a daily basis, act like this is the most horrible oppression that has ever been perpetrated on a racial group in history.</p>
<p>I spent 5 years in a rufugee camp, my father picked strawberries for his first 3 years in America, and we've been poor for most of my natural life and I HATE Affirmative Action.</p>
<p>Let's not make ad hominem attacks here and assume that every anti-AA person has to be white.</p>
<p>In fact, my family has faced the most personal racism from so called "liberals" who love affirmative action because it hardly affects them as they are already rich or helps them a lot because their skin happens to be the right color. As someone who has lived in many mixed race communities, I have faced much, much greater racism from the so-called "under-represented minority" groups than I have ever faced from a white person. </p>
<p>I, for one, would make the case that Affirmative Action contributes to their ideology of entitlement and the pervasive anti-intellectual subculture of many of these so-called URM's. I've known a few smart black people that have worked less hard despite being capable of more because they knew affrimative action would give them the bump they needed into the good life--or more accurately the really good life since they were mostly middle class to begin with.</p>
<p>Being a first-generation recent immigrant, I would agree that having things be difficult for you because of Socio-economic status is a valid point, and many people from poor backgrounds deserve a break, but not at the expense of high standards. If a person who would've normally ended up at a good state university suddenly ends up at Harvard because their skin is brown, they are disenfranchising another person. I feel the same way about legacies and allowing in the scion of wealthy contributors as well. If they have the scores to get in, or are slightly under, than individual review of their circumstances should allow them to get in.</p>
<p>But the truth of the matter is, AA is a defacto quota system as anyone familiar with the admissions process knows that lets in students with substantially sub-par grades in because their skin happens to be the right color.</p>
<p>In addition, AA leads to moral hazard. People that happen to be URM's know they don't have to work as hard to get in, and many do not. This hard work is necessary to integrating into the melting point of American culture. When you study here, you are learning the language, the customs, and the practices of American society. This steps are necessary for empowering individuals to enter the mainstream. Its not easy, you have to study more, read more, and learn how the game works versus those people who are already here, wealthy, and have a leg-up in the game; but it is necessary in order to gain the skills necessary to make it in life.</p>
<p>Lets give people credit for their actions here. Many people are poor because they are lazy and don't want to work. </p>
<p>The biggest problem with AA is that it gives credit to the culture of victimization which has destroyed the 25% of African Americans who live in inner-cities. At the same time it has done very little to actually help these people since AA quotas are usually filled up with those 75% that are now middle class.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Yeah, ok. Why can't we be more like apartheid-era South Africa? That seems like a winning slogan to me.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Actually, everyone lived way better off under the apartheid. Public services were top notch and SA was the economic and military powerhouse of all Africa. Not saying apartheid was the correct route, but it was a million times better for everyone than this post-1994 current state.</p>
<p>
[quote]
The most fun thing about AA debates is watching a bunch of sheltered, entitled white people, who ignore racism on a daily basis, act like this is the most horrible oppression that has ever been perpetrated on a racial group in history.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Understand South Africa before you make up your liberal Western view on my country. I've take it that you have never been to or know anything about the current state of South Africa so further more you shouldn't even open your mouth on it.</p>
<p>Oh, I finally get it -- silly Wildflower!</p>
<p>Let's see...</p>
<p>"I spent 5 years in a rufugee camp, my father picked strawberries for his first 3 years in America, and we've been poor for most of my natural life and I HATE Affirmative Action."</p>
<p>Is this supposed to give more validity to your post? Just wondering. Claiming that you are the exception to the norm doesn't necessarily deny the fact the there, indeed, exists a need for AA in the US.</p>
<p>"Let's not make ad hominem attacks here and assume that every anti-AA person has to be white."</p>
<p>I don't believe anyone here claimed that "everyone" arguing against AA was white. The majority, probably.</p>
<p>"In fact, my family has faced the most personal racism from so called 'liberals'" </p>
<p>Ad hominen? I think this is irrelevant. There are a few "bad apples" everywhere. Besides, I've known many conservatives who favor AA.</p>
<p>"As someone who has lived in many mixed race communities, I have f
aced much, much greater racism from the so-called "under-represented minority" groups than I have ever faced from a white person."</p>
<p>Racism in the US quite often is not direct. Furthermore, most often it is systematic, due to the nature of our society. Nobody is arguing that AA will create an utopia in America; it should, however, give a hand to those who really need it. </p>
<p>"I've known a few smart black people that have worked less hard despite being capable of more because they knew affrimative action would give them the bump they needed into the good life--or more accurately the really good life since they were mostly middle class to begin with."</p>
<p>Too bad for them; they are the only ones cheating themselves. Really.</p>
<p>"Being a first-generation recent immigrant, I would agree that having things be difficult for you because of Socio-economic status is a valid point, and many people from poor backgrounds deserve a break, but not at the expense of high standards."</p>
<p>I am glad that at least you recognize that there exists a need. However, you may want to think twice about putting "standards" before people. Certainly, a few students benefiting from AA does not lower the standard for the rest of the pool.</p>
<p>"If a person who would've normally ended up at a good state university suddenly ends up at Harvard because their skin is brown"</p>
<p>Unlikely! I know more than one person of color with excellent grades, test scores, and ECs that have been rejected. Surely, some probably have benefited undeservingly from AA since the time it started being implemented in school admissions, but admissions is an art -- and the admission officers make those decisions, it is not black and white. </p>
<p>And please, if at all possible, stop referring to people's skin color as brown or whatever else.</p>
<p>"But the truth of the matter is, AA is a defacto quota system as anyone familiar with the admissions process knows that lets in students with substantially sub-par grades in because their skin happens to be the right color."</p>
<p>Again, you seem to be claiming that AA is a ticket not only for admissions but to success itself -- not true. AA doesn't, or at least shoudl not, ignore the rest of a student's profile. It merely supplements it.</p>
<p>Then again, most of us would agree that AA needs to be reformed.</p>
<p>"This steps are necessary for empowering individuals to enter the mainstream. Its not easy, you have to study more, read more, and learn how the game works versus those people who are already here, wealthy, and have a leg-up in the game; but it is necessary in order to gain the skills necessary to make it in life."</p>
<p>So, let me get this, by preventing people from access to high quality higher ed we are actually empowering them and teaching them the skills necessary to "make it in life." That's funny. I guess they'll be just fine going to ITT Tech or Devry. Who needs a quality education, anyway?</p>
<p>"Lets give people credit for their actions here. Many people are poor because they are lazy and don't want to work."</p>
<p>The few that truly need it should be penalyzed because of the few that are truly lazy? I don't see the fairness in this claim. Granted, this may be true in some cases, but it's not always the case. For you to argue this is silly and naive; the claim is very weak and categorical -- simply a conjecture with no validity whatsoever. </p>
<p>"The biggest problem with AA is that it gives credit to the culture of victimization which has destroyed the 25% of African Americans who live in inner-cities."</p>
<p>Enough said. I am probably not going to shift your point of view, but, please, at least think twice before being so categorical. </p>
<hr>
<p>"so further more you shouldn't even open your mouth on it."</p>
<p>Yay. Let's forget about civility and advocate for censorhip! :)</p>
<hr>
<p>OP: Please let us know --or at least let me know-- about what you end up writing. Good luck.</p>
<p>Cheers,</p>
<p>WF</p>
<p>CantSilenceTruth,</p>
<pre><code>I must say your posts are some of the most well thought out, and persuasive, I have seen here on college confidential. Whether one agrees with you or not, they cannot attack your ability to effectively communicate. Everyone on this board could take a pointer or two from you.
</code></pre>
<p>Transvaal, Blacks were better off before Apartheid in S. Africa?</p>
<p>Seriously.</p>
<p>There is a bigger AA program in most private school, legacies...</p>
<p>
[quote]
Transvaal, Blacks were better off before Apartheid in S. Africa?</p>
<p>Seriously.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>In today's current setup in South Africa? Yes. Maybe a few are better off, but the vast majority is not. Unemployment, poverty, the infrastructure of the whole country is horrible today.</p>
<p>You have to remember the apartheid system was a guest worker system like the one the USA is trying to create with illegals. Blacks are non-natives to South Africa, only certain groups like the Bushmen are natives to SA (that were practically killed off by the Blacks). Blacks came here after the great tribal wars up north and were allowed to work here. The Afrikaans stupidly allowed them in to swamp the Afrikaans demographically much like the USA is about to do with everyone else (greed got a hold of them). Actually as I think about it, the Boers never really wanted the apartheid; if you look into history we had republics (Orange Free State, Transvaal etc) so you can thank the British who united the whole country under White rule, otherwise it would just be a loose confederation of republics with Afrikaans being the majority in their land. Now Boers are second citizens in their own country because the Western world betrayed them after they let them fight off communism in Africa, then after then Soviet Union collapsed they back stabbed the Boer people and put economic sanctions on their country.</p>
<p>Very interesting.</p>
<p>Look here --->
<a href="http://www.africancrisis.org/%5B/url%5D">http://www.africancrisis.org/</a>
<a href="http://www.genocidewatch.org/BoersSlain01.htm%5B/url%5D">http://www.genocidewatch.org/BoersSlain01.htm</a></p>
<p>Beware some images of what is going on are extremely disturbing. Here are some English articles on some situations -- <a href="http://www.praag.co.za/engels.htm%5B/url%5D">http://www.praag.co.za/engels.htm</a> </p>
<p>If you want to see how affirmative action works in South Africa I'll gladly explain it and find some sites that explain it as well. I can also talk about SA in general because it seems most Western nations are extremely ignorant and filter just about everything. All you probably here about South African history is the usual Whites here are so horrible etc.</p>
<br>
<p>Blacks are non-natives to South Africa Boers are second citizens in their own country</p>
<br>
<p>Huh.</p>
<p>So if blacks came from elsewhere in Africa to SA, that makes them "guest workers," yet SA is the Boers' "own country"? How does that work? Are the Boers somehow more "native" to SA than black people whose ancestors came from a country next door?</p>
<p>How do you decide which set of immigrants to SA are living in "their own country"?</p>