<p>Private actors or public actors? </p>
<p>The reason that the AA or reverse discrimination cases come from public schools (Michigan, Mississippi University for Women) is that the state cannot discriminate (14th Amendment); there are no such prohibitions on private actors.</p>
<p>First of all, I should let it be known that I don't care if a "less talented" black person "takes my space;" if you're black, in this country, and have gotten even close to my level of achievement, kudos to you. I've had a lot of things handed to me - good family, expectation of academic achievement, good school systems - which is nowhere near the reality for many people of colour. </p>
<p>Secondly, let's say that you have a highly competitive school of 500 people. The admissions office admits 10 black people solely on the basis of race; overall, 1500 people are accepted and 4500 rejected. Pop quiz: did those "undeserving" AA admits displace:
a) 4500 qualified students:
b) those white students in the 4500 rejectees; or
c) 10 students?</p>
<p>Correct answer is (c). What I can tell you, though, is that (b) number of students will be up in arms about the situation. Now, if those 10 kids were rejected and the slots given to another 10 students, the vast majority of those complainers would still be... rejected.</p>
<p>Third, criticism of AA is based on the theory that numbers and stats are the best predictors of success and the best indicators of merit. At some schools, that might be the case; however, at other schools, there is something more important going on. First of all, a racially diverse school is more attractive to racial minorities and many white students who don't want a lily-white school. Second, the "what can a black student add to my chemistry class" question misses the point. So much of college learning takes place outside of the classroom - outside of academia - that the real question is, "What can I learn from an inner-city black kid that I can't learn from an overprivileged white kid?" A lot. </p>
<p>Also, chemistry is a bad example; I can tell you, from experience, that background is a tremendously important aspect of the law. There are kids who say things that make me think... "Wow." Just no clue that there is more to the world. I've heard students in tax class say that, when an employer saves money on airfare by sending an employee out to a city for a Saturday night stay, the employee should be taxed. Hello! Work in a real job, travel, and you'll see that it isn't a perk - it's how business is done. I've heard people call the pro-life position "misogynestic," which ignores the religious and moral reasons for it; I've heard people say some interesting things about mental illness, patents, business, and civil rights that come from either experience with the subject or complete ignorance. There is a tremendous benefit to having a wide range of backgrounds, views, and experiences in a law school classroom; that is even more true in legal scholarship. </p>
<p>Imagine if the legal scholars, judges, politicians, and lawyers - those who essentially run the legal system for our entire country - were made up entirely of one group of people. Tough luck for everyone else - they end up living in a system which does not represent them. </p>
<p>Theoretically, I did not deserve admission to my school. My GPA was way, way too low; however, I'm here. I might have punched a geographic hole (being from the northeast), or maybe just been an interesting person. Maybe some of it was my medical history - an unmitigated disaster. Nevertheless, I think I add a lot to the school that you wouldn't get from a person with better stats. As for merit, I would like to think that my grades are a testament to my ability to succeed - more than the people who had higher stats coming in.</p>
<p>That gets me into predictive value of stats: men's SAT scores overpredict their college performance, while women's SAT scores underpredict their performance. People with relatively low grades and high SAT scores tend to have SAT scores that overstate performance. Should an admissions committee use only the latter fact when evaluating fitness of applicants? Should it use the former one as well, knowing that a certain person will likely succeed more than scores indicate? </p>
<p>I will say, however, that I dislike affirmative action as it is currently practiced. IMO, the check box does amount to racism; there is no holistic approach, which a student demonstrates on his own. If a student thinks that his grades and SATs don't adequately demonstrate what he can bring to the table, then that should be explained in an essay. Not hard to say that your family is poor and that you don't have the opportunities that other students do; that you high school doesn't offer you the fabulous stuff that other people have, but you did the best you could by initiating things on your own; that your parents are not educated and therefore couldn't help you as much, etc. Should be holistic - which would give a benefit to all students who are not white, male, and upper-class, should they make a compelling case. </p>
<p>Also, the stigma is incredible. Cannot tell you how many people told me that I only got into my engin. school because I'm a woman. My favourite was my (obviously ex) ex-boyfriend who would tell me that his admission to MIT meant "more," and said that I shouldn't have been rejected because I was a woman. Nevermind that he had a good friend who sat on the admissoins committtee... I'm a woman and therefore, must have been pretty dumb to get rejected... and only got into my alma mater because I lack a y-chromosome. Sick stuff, all around.</p>
<p>Anyway... hard for me to get worked up about it. I would much rather be white and "penalized" via AA than be black and helped out by it.</p>