<p>No need to foster antisemitism in you lostincode apparently it has already been fostered enough. What else would you attest the over representation of Jews in academia too? What would you equate the over representation of Blacks in the NBA to? It is a matter of culture, not race. People like you hang on the word's of Jew's like me so that you may find an excuse to let your antisemitism be outed on the grounds that it was somehow provoked by the Jew's words, or opinions. For the antisemite their is always justification to hate the Jew's whether it be the myth of the Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion, or what today's left perceives to be the manifestation of the activist "evil Jew" in neoconservatism. Regardless, Judaism is just a religion, despite your attempts, and people like you to vilify and distort it's true definition.</p>
<p>Actually....my step dad is part-Jewish...</p>
<p>Racist? Hardly...he agrees with me. He believes Jewish achievement, which is culturally a positive--part of the tradition, does not always translate to the whole. Like the Asian stereotype, it can force those Jewish individuals that don't fit with that profile to be seen as somehow lesser--a failure. That does have ramifications.</p>
<p>Some argue at the macro level (group), while some argue the micro (individual) when it comes to AA. The issue I have is that Asians, and other groups that benefit by virtue of their stats, assume it is ALL about ethnicity, which it is not, given the holistic process. A stats based policy, like some of those practiced by public schools (CA, TX, FL) have quotas...which disporportionately affects those who have already experienced marginalization pre-college.</p>
<p>So because your STEP DAD is PART Jewish...suddenly it would be ridiculous to believe that you harbor racist thoughts? Yeah that makes sense... My last post if you had actually taken the time to READ it was not even directed at you IsleBoy...Nevertheless your making the argument that somehow AA is a holistic process...that is simply not true..(<a href="http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/affirmative-action%5B/url%5D">http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/affirmative-action</a>) if you cannot even get the definition correct you have no standing to argue the merits because what you are speaking about is pure fiction.</p>
<p>It is really great to hear everyones opinion.</p>
<p>These affirmative action threads are so stupid...if you want to complain, go to your congressmen and state leaders... lol its pathetic complaing about how your at a disadvantage...there are plenty of disadvantages that you will incur youe entire life....the same way you believe that going to a good school = getting a good job and becoming successfull....is the same way schools view URM's at a disadvantage in applying to college because of the lifestyle they were brought up in and the oppurtunities YOU may of had that they did NOT</p>
<p>"AFFIRMATIVE ACTIONS REWARDS A GROUP FOR THE SUFFERING THEIR ANCESTORS ENDURED AND PUNISHES A GROUP OF PEOPLE FOR THE SUFFERING THAT THEIR ANCESTORS CAUSED"</p>
<p>Yea that sounds accurate. If England operated the same way as the United States, I would get amazing affirmative action into Oxford or Cambridge because of how many times they MASSACRED the Irish (which I am). The English did so many worse things to the Irish, Scottish and Welsh than the United States ever did to slaves yet England doesn't care. Not to say that that is the right idea, but why do current citizens of the United States feel so responsible for slavery that they give Affirmative Action?</p>
<p>Additionally, affirmative action tends to work backwards. It allows wealthier minorities into college while still keeping the poorer minorities out. For this reason, affirmative action is probably bad. I also don't think it is needed for diversity because I've met several minority students who are very intelligent and would probably achieve their goals in life and get into many colleges, graduate schools, etc without affirmative action.</p>
<p>"AFFIRMATIVE ACTIONS REWARDS A GROUP FOR THE SUFFERING THEIR ANCESTORS ENDURED AND PUNISHES A GROUP OF PEOPLE FOR THE SUFFERING THAT THEIR ANCESTORS CAUSED"</p>
<p>Did you make this definition up? The reasoning behind affirmative action is to provide oppurtunity to an unprivelaged group... including african-americans but not limited to native americans, hispanics, and even women</p>
<p>he didn't make that up..a professor (i forgot the name) said that</p>
<p>its a somewhat famous quote</p>
<p>"Affirmative Action is a negative action. Only racist consider race."</p>
<p>Laguna:</p>
<p>Then there must still be a lot of racist in the US. See the following article...</p>
<p>Study Says Skin Tone Affects Earnings
Jan 26, 7:21 PM (ET)
By Travis Loller</p>
<p>
[quote]
NASHVILLE, Tenn. (AP) - Light-skinned immigrants in the United States make more money on average than those with darker complexions, and the chief reason appears to be discrimination, a researcher says.</p>
<p>Joni Hersch, a law and economics professor at Vanderbilt University, looked at a government survey of 2,084 legal immigrants to the United States from around the world and found that those with the lightest skin earned an average of 8 percent to 15 percent more than similar immigrants with much darker skin.</p>
<p>"On average, being one shade lighter has about the same effect as having an additional year of education," Hersch said.</p>
<p>The study also found that taller immigrants earn more than shorter ones, with an extra inch of height associated with a 1 percent increase in income.</p>
<p>Other researchers said the findings are consistent with other studies on color and point to a skin-tone prejudice that goes beyond race.</p>
<p>Hersh took into consideration other factors that could affect wages, such as English-language proficiency, education, occupation, race or country of origin, and found that skin tone still seemed to make a difference in earnings.</p>
<p>That means that if two similar immigrants from Bangladesh, for example, came to the United States at the same time, with the same occupation and ability to speak English, the lighter-skinned immigrant would make more money on average.</p>
<p>"I thought that once we controlled for race and nationality, I expected the difference to go away, but even with people from the same country, the same race - skin color really matters," she said, "and height."</p>
<p>Although many cultures show a bias toward lighter skin, Hersch said her analysis shows that the skin-color advantage was not due to preferential treatment for light-skinned people in their country of origin. The bias, she said, occurs in the U.S.</p>
<p>Economics professor Shelley White-Means of the University of Tennessee at Memphis said the study adds to the growing body of evidence that there is a "preference for whiteness" in America that goes beyond race.</p>
<p>Hersch drew her data from a 2003 federal survey of nearly 8,600 new immigrants. The survey used an 11-point scale for measuring skin tone, in which 0 represents an absence of color and 10 the darkest possible skin tone.</p>
<p>From those nearly 8,600 participants, she focused on the more than 2,000 who were working and whose skin tone had been recorded during face-to-face interviews.</p>
<p>William Darity Jr., an economics professor at the University of North Carolina, said Hersch's findings are similar to a study he co-authored last year on skin tone and wages among blacks.</p>
<p>"We estimate that dark- or medium-skinned blacks suffered a discriminatory penalty of anywhere from 10 percent to 15 percent relative to whites," he said. "This suggests people cue into appearance and draw inferences about capabilities and skills based on how they look."</p>
<p>Darity said it is not clear whether the bias is conscious or subconscious.</p>
<p>Hersch said her findings, which will be presented at the annual meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science next month in San Francisco, could support discrimination lawsuits based not on race, but on color.</p>
<p>"There are very few color discrimination suits, but they are on the rise," she said. "But these suits can be hard to prove."
[/quote]
</p>
<hr>
<p>Color-blind, indeed. Does that mean there is inequity pre-college? Maybe. Does it affect primary and secondary school opportunities? Maybe. Does it affect household income? Maybe. Does it affect social interactions? Maybe.
Does it exert a socio-economic and/or a socio-political force on those discriminated against pre-college? Maybe.</p>
<p>So, why would you ignore that there is discrimination (and it's root causes) which can make applicants unequal when they apply to a competitive college? Why attack a holistic process at private colleges and want admissions to be stats driven (ignoring socioeconomics, political marginalization, inequity in public pre-college institutions, etc...)?</p>
<p>Rather than attempt to modify the behavior of the majority against using color identity (to discriminate) under the normative banner of fairness, what would make one think that color-neutral policies would protect against positive (rather than normative) inequity?</p>
<p>Who the **** cares about what some researcher says?
If you are trying to persuade people your going to have to come up with a lot more than that.</p>
<p>Most people do not want to be persuaded...they marry their position based on personal factors. That is why arguing the normative for those who are negatively (or think they are) affected by the inequality of opportunity (because they are in the majority) do not concern themselves with the positive (i.e. what is). They already have the political/social/economic might in most areas of daily life.</p>
<p>I don't mind arguing the theoretical, but that is not my concern. My concern is how the shift in normative value, which reinforces the status quo of the majority will mean continued oppression and marginalization based on ethnicity, gender, religion, geographical residence, test scores, pre-college education, etc....</p>
<p>It's just an opinion, but I wouldn't be too quick to throw out research, although you do have to vet the sources that it comes from. Many people care about the research, even if you dismiss it. Funny, but there were people who posted earlier that said far less...unless you count parroting of an opinion or calling others names (for a lack of a better, more reasoned response) more important or significant a contribution.</p>
<p>Two hypothetical examples:</p>
<p>A white orphan grew up on the brink of homelessness being raised by a single mother. His mother can't afford to give him lunch money so he works 30 hours a week while going to high school so he can eat and help support his family. He pulls through it through an extremely hard and very poor childhood, he makes it to the age of 17 to apply to colleges.</p>
<p>An African American kid's grandparents were slaves. His parents worked hard all their lives and now are middle class. He never had to work during high school because his parents supported him. Now he is 17 and applying for colleges.</p>
<p>Should the African American get priority consideration for admission?</p>
<p>ITS NEVER EVER going to happen like that.... you can think up a million different scenarios... there is this huge misconception in this forum that if your black, spanish, or native american that your a sure bet at any college. Honestly, if you believe a less qualified URM will prevent you from going to the college of your dreams.. your insecure and probably below the colleges average standards...because its the LAST thing they consider although it is considered.
Honestly look at this thread...one person titles it affirmative action and you have 200 hits and everyone from whites, blacks, hispanics, asian and jews are offering thier own diverse opinion.. that is all colleges are looking to add to the learning experience "diversity"..giving the unprivelaged a chance to catch up</p>
<p>Initially, I used to actually support Affirmative Action, but over the past two years, my stance on the issue has gradually changed, due in part to the inherent futility and circular reasoning that AA's principles fall into.</p>
<p>AA is essentially a discriminatory policy cleverly packaged as an equalizer. Most people are aware of this, but it is the minorities (who fear the truth) remain in denial and refuse to acknowledge its futility.</p>
<p>UC's system is good. You have to give a personal statement of three essays with a total of 1,000 words (200, 200, and 600). The schools that have essays equalize it becuase if you are borderline, you can get in with EC's. EC's and personality are good to be measured in admissions becuase you, as a student will seperate their school from another.</p>
<p>I know a few people who definitely were accepted due to AA.</p>