<p>Yes I have actually</p>
<p>(and sry on #39 i take back the "beat that :)" part)</p>
<p>At the end of the 19th century, when many Jewish and Irish immigrants came here, they were deprived of many jobs as well. They were forced to live in slums and work in factories under horrific conditions. </p>
<p>The blacks worked in factories to the same extent that the Jews and the Irish did. Ever heard of the "Great Migration"? millions of blacks didn't move northward so that they can be unemployed over there... they worked in the factories...</p>
<p>(beat that) </p>
<p>;-)</p>
<p>Ethnic prejudice was not as virulent or pervasive as racism. Again, white immigrants could assimilate, blacks could not. Blacks faced many lynchings and the like, so did white immigrants, but it wasn't as bad. Blacks were forced to have seperate eveything: Jim Crow Laws. And Mr. Statistics, when european immigration in NYC reached 76% of the total population, eviction of blacks was intensified.</p>
<p>:)</p>
<p>There is no doubt that racism against blacks was more intense. I never denied that. But that would not explain the education factor.</p>
<p>The Jews and the Irish, while not segregated officially, were, in reality, pushed into their little communities. Take the Boston area, for instance.
Whites didn't sell land to Jews up until the 1960's! the only town in the region where Jews lived up to that point was Dorchester (which is now predominanetly black, btw). All the rich towns - Boston itself, Cambridge, Newton, Brookline - were controlled by rich white families who refused to let Jews in, until the civil-rights laws. </p>
<p>And yet, despite being driven aside by mainstream society, Jews managed to educate themselves! there's a reason why close to a quarter of HYP are Jews, while only 2.5% of the country is comprised of Jews.</p>
<p>what school are you going to?</p>
<p>I'm a junior lol</p>
<p>how about you?</p>
<p>Anagarcia987, you definitely seem to know what you're talking about. I like how you recognize that there are significant differences between the two groups' experiences. I'm sorry, Orrican, but you cannot at all assert that conditions were THE SAME or even substantially the same for those groups. Statistics can never support that. I'm sorry, but you shouldn't have invited Anagarcia987 to "beat that," b/c she really did!</p>
<p>It's extremely necessary to do cross-cultural research on African Americans and say, Jewish people, for example. You will notice a completely different mindset due to their particularly different histories and experiences. Their culture, in part, dictates their outlook on life and the value they place on essential issues such as education. You absolutely cannot expect that one group's actions are justifiable over - or even comparable to - another group's action b/c you have unfortunately neglected the culture aspect! For example, it is very well known from studies that the Eastern Culture (particularly the Oriental culture) is a lot more group-centered than their independence-oriented Western counterparts. Thus, for example, one cannot judge the Chinese solely on Western standards b/c their outlook on life is vastly different. One cannot assert that just because one group was able to educate itself, that another group is lacking or even inferior. It just doesn't work that way. I believe context is the most important factor, that you seem to have overlooked. Statistics - all your numbers and figures - mean very little unless they are substantiated with contextual evidence and seen in a comparative light - not a narrowminded one.</p>
<p>:)</p>
<p>"Their culture, in part, dictates their outlook on life and the value they place on essential issues such as education."</p>
<p>APDoolittle - bingo.</p>
<p>Haha... that's been my view all along. You've been equating the groups with sweeping generalizations such as "they faced the same conditions; they had the same experience" etc... I honestly don't believe we hold the same view (at least not from your past posts).</p>
<p>You are confusing two distinct issues. Though there is some correlation between historic experiences and culture, these are two different factors. </p>
<p>Take the Blacks and the Jews. Both groups suffered horrific discrimination for centuries upon centuries. The Jews, while they did not suffer as much as the Blacks in America, (they did suffer quite a bit, and that cannot be denied - read my above posts), suffered immensely in Europe. They endured expulsions after expulsions, pogroms, massacres, legal discrimination, etc, which are no less horrific than slavery and apartheid. And yet, through the pogroms, Jews retained their literacy. We underwent firey hell and managed to educate ourselves nonetheless. </p>
<p>Tell me, was it illegal for Blacks to learn how to read in the post Civil War period? No. It is true that for countless decades thereafter they were deprived of equal state-sponsored education, but did the Jews receive a state-sponsored education from the Khazacks? No. Then how come illiteracy among Jews is almost non-existent while the latter is a serious problem for the Black community in America today?</p>
<p>The Jews and the Blacks historically underwent very similar plights, as you can see, and the social performance of the two groups is essentially on the two oppostie sides of the spectrum... Jews are way way way way overrepresented in industry, politics, the economy, and academia (25% of HYP!). How is this so?</p>
<p>The answer is, as APDoolittle astutely pointed out, culture. The Jews had the terrific advantage of having an education-oriented culture; since our very origins nearly 4,000 years ago this has been so. This accounts for the huge gap between African Americans and American Jews, (in fact, frankly, Jews all over the world). Education just happened to be a central prerequisite for success in modern Western civilization, and thus the Jews rose to the top and the Blacks lagged behind.</p>
<p>I believe that affirmative action has greatly enhanced the representation of minority communities at elite American universities and this of course has led to many, many well-established political, medical, business, literary, artistic leaders who happen to be members of minorities.</p>
<p>Elite universities would not endorse affirmative action if it were not working to enhance diversity and dispel commonly-held misconceptions about racial issues in America.</p>
<p>In addition, I must ask those who argue against affirmative action what the alternative would be? The alternative would be modern-day France. The French educational system has ALWAYS opposed the implementation of affirmative action and as a result the large Arab minority is EXTREMELY under-represented. Without access to advanced college study, most Arabs lack the ability to earn college degrees. This in turn has resulted in very few Arab leaders in politics, medicine, art, literature, journalism and business. The Arab minority feels greatly disenfranchised and the brooding racial tension exploded in France a few months ago with the MASSIVE violent protests organized by economically oppressed Arab youths.</p>
<p>Without affirmative action, these displays of violent racial tensions might occur on the streets of Chicago, Los Angeles, or New York just as they did on the streets of Paris, Lyon and Marseille.</p>
<p>another hispanic accepted. My SAT's are higher than 2200; thanks but I'm qualified to walk the hallowed halls as well. i am the whole package - my interview was great, my essays great - check the facts before you make
assumptions. I was accepted to Harvard, Yale, Princeton, and Dartmouth as well. I guess they must have seen the same thing.</p>
<p>Everkingly,
excellent point.</p>
<p>But AA is a solution that deals with the symptoms, not the problem. Instead of lowering standards (on the whole) for URM applicants, the U.S. should invest money in under-priviliged communities, particularly in education.</p>
<p>Its not an either/or choice, Orrican. One can support affirmative action (which addresses the problem of racial exclusion) and support increasing resources to inner-city and rural schools (which addresses the problem of economic inequality). I support both.</p>
<p>Incidentally, the median SAT scores of African-American admits and those of All admits is lower at Harvard (less than 100 points on the 1600 point scale) than at any other highly selective college or university (where it can often exceed 200 points).</p>
<p>Swtbutterfly,
I didn't say it was an either/or situation.
I'm saying that AA is unjust, in all of its manifestations.</p>
<p>Minorities often cry about prejudice in the workplace; when racist employers are spotted, the entire Black community goes berserk - and justifiably!</p>
<p>Why is AA any better? it favors certain applicants over others because of their race. It is, therefore, racism as defined by the books.</p>
<p>AA is unacceptable. There are other ways of helping out the under-priviliged ethnic groups. Trying to mend a certain injustice by committing another is not the way to go.</p>
<p>orrican, as President Lyndon Johnson said"You do not take a person who, for years, has been hobbled by chains and liberate him, bring him up to the starting line of a race and then say you are free to compete with all the others, and still just believe that you have been completely fair"
Also, as a one Supreme Court Judge said, to get beyond racism, we must first take account of race</p>