<p>^^yea they helped by displacing someone more deserving of the spot</p>
<p>As defined by webster’s dictionary the word discriminate means “to make a difference in treatment or favor on a basis other than individual merit” so AA is discrimination as defined by the dictionary</p>
<p>Being that I am not always the best test takes (anxiety), I have a hard time believing that a test should be the sole indicator of who deserves a spot. But to all their own. Also, for our debate, I think we need more contemporary facts to analyze and talk about, being that your example comes from the days of quotas</p>
<p>In denotative terms, yes it is disciminatory. However, I dare say, AA is more helpful than it is harmful. I’m really curious as to know how much AA truly hurts Asians and Whites.</p>
<p>so are you saying that you are all for discrimination as long as it is minimal?</p>
<p>I’m saying that the world is not perfect and that we all have to deal with inequities. AA may not be pristine, but since it’s helping people like me get into college and good colleges at that, I am finding a hard time deeming it as completely corrupt and worthy of abolishment. But think about an advantage you have in this world. Whether it be your father’s paycheck, or your high-ranked high school, whatever it may be. Do you find it easy to find fault in something that is helping you? I doubt it. Maybe that’s wrong, and maybe it’s not</p>
<p>And again, I am still forming my opinion on the matter. Please keep that in mind.</p>
<p>All I can do is speak for myself. Maybe I didn’t have the “average” stats of people that were accepted to Michigan, but I think I was certainly qualified to get accepted and although I wasn’t in science Olympiad or other academic groups that many people here on CC are in, I took advantage of the opportunities available to me. Although this is different from the typical applicant and may not be seen as stellar to those who think merit is based off of academic accomplishments alone, Michigan obviously thought I could succeed at their university. I certainly think I was qualified to get in. I am a product of Affirmative Action and so are many African Americans and minorities in high positions.</p>
<p>The world is unequal and it never will be equal. I’m not for discrimination even though I’m a product of discrimination and prejudice in my daily life as an African American student and citizen. I can see how AA is discriminatory, but there is a difference between inherent discrimination (the cops stopping me to ask me why I’m driving too slow when it’s clear that I’m looking for a particular street) and discrimination that I myself can’t control (college admissions).</p>
<p>imo, Aff. Action doesn’t fairly target those who truly need it. If an African American lives in the same suburban neighborhood as me, has the same parental resources - supportively and financially, has gone to the exact same school as me his/her entire life, has put in the exact same amount of work as me and thus accomplishes what I have accomplished academically and ec’wise, then it is, in my eyes, discriminatory that he/she gets the ability to get into a more selective college merely because their skin is of a darker pigment. However, if this kid were from inner city detroit, then I would gladly host the idea of giving an extra boost in admissions. To my point, I believe AA should target socio-economic differences rather than differences in skin color.</p>
<p>Jojo, if this were a debate, you’d be getting ur ass kicked.</p>
<p>AA is discrimination. It favors one group over another based on race. Sounds like discrimination to me.</p>
<p>The “life isn’t fair” argument doesn’t work either. I am sorry you had to grow up in the situation u did, but no one could change that. AA can be changed though. We don’t need to have it. Its like saying life isn’t fair to a slave a few hundred years ago. </p>
<p>Also, you dont get into a college for being qualified. It’s the MOST qualified group and the amount the university is willing to enroll. If every qualified student got into umich we’d have a giant class.</p>
<p>You take the most qualified applicants, and a darker skin tone doesn’t make an applicant more qualified.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>No one, or rather… neither I nor the US government, denies that this could be discrimination.</p>
<p>However, our country is NOT set up to stop all discrimination. Rather, as a constitutional REPUBLIC we are specifically mandated to protect the rights of minorities against the majority which requires de jure discrimination… </p>
<p>No one can make the argument that minorities in this country do NOT need protection from the majority. The only legitimate argument AND change that can be made is who we consider a minority or majority. At this time, the majority is still clearly low to middle class, Caucasian, Christians… </p>
<p>There is also a clear and documented pattern to college admissions and jobs offered that leans toward the majority across the country. Now, there are pockets where this is reversed AND this trend is changing. That, however, doesn’t change the fact that the current minorities are still at a disadvantage.</p>
<p>Perhaps the hypothetical black student that grows up in the upper class suburb is FINANCIALLY the same as the white student that happens to be his neighbor he is still in need of protection due to his minority status. That hypothetical student also represents a very tiny percentage of his minority class so even if he does benefit from AA his benefit would not affect the distribution of AA helping those that clearly need it. That student is merely an outlier statistically. </p>
<p>Is it unfair? Blame the founding fathers for founding America as a republic…</p>
<p>At this point, your ONLY legitimate position would be to push to have low socioeconomic status, regardless of race, included as a minority group. </p>
<p>Until then, despite having grown up a African-American, in an upper middle class environment and currently being middle class I will still take advantage of AA. While I may be violating the spirit of AA I am surely not violating the letter of AA. </p>
<p>Plus… </p>
<p>As a minority I have clearly needed physical, social and even financial protection from the majority at various times in my life. Can you say that you, as a member of the majority, even if in a lower socioeconomic tier have ever needed this protection???</p>
<p>On a side note… Women, specifically lower to middle class, Christian Caucasian women benefit MOST from AA.</p>
<p>[White</a> women benefit from affirmative action](<a href=“http://lmgtfy.com/?q=white+women+benefit+from+affirmative+action]White”>http://lmgtfy.com/?q=white+women+benefit+from+affirmative+action)</p>
<p>Hurdsl makes excellent points. Compensatory action is often mischaracterized because it is often poorly implemented. Eg. If that suburban peer gets preferential treatment based on race, then indeed it is reverse discrimination. But if AA is evaluated on socioeconomic criteria and students have demonstrated a high degree of innate intelligence and motivation but did not have access to equal resources, then it makes sense to reserve a portion of spots to help offset or equalize conditions in an effort to improve an increasingly stratified society. Historically, AA was a mechanism, although a clunky one, with which to produce measurable results because clearly our society was not mature enough to balance and heal itself left to it’s own devices. However, you could argue that an institution that needs the mandate of AA to actually enact holistic, socioeconomic evaluations is itself problematic. If the end result of the current system produces results, I think they will be hard pressed to argue for aa’s return. Or should be ;)</p>
<p>Not seeing it. This gonna go back to “You just don’t understand” but I am not seeing this blatant, damaging discrimination against minorities that you are talking about. At least not in a way that having an easier path into college would right. </p>
<p>A cop stops you and asks why you are driving slow, so we let you go to college over a better qualified non minority candidate?</p>
<p>And what minorities do we give lifts to? Race? Religion? Financial? Height? Weight? What?</p>
<p>Also, just because there aren’t a lot of some minority group in an occupation or something that doesn’t mean there is a racist conspiracy going on. Nuclear Engineering at umich is nearly all white males. Why? I don’t know. But no one is telling minority students (race or gender) that they can’t join. They even have an eager time getting in…</p>
<p>xSlacker, I don’t care who benefits the most from AA. I dint think anyone should be getting an advantage based off of something like skin color or gender.</p>
<p>XSlacker: indeed there are plenty of very poor white, and every other color under the sun, children in urban school systems who both deserve protection and warrant opportunities to escape dismal circumstances. The day when every school in every city or suburb in this country has EQUAL resources is the day I say “okay, now every man/child for himself.” I do not expect to live to see that day, though other countries have figured out how to do this. Remember that children are born innocent into their circumstances. What I like about Michigan is it’s emphasis on “what have you done with what you’ve been given.”</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Your argument is based on the premise that all other considerations (social experiences, instances of overt/covert/institutional racism, actual discrimination that you can’t see), besides what you listed are equal. Clearly they are not. Nor will they be for awhile…</p>
<p>Sure, the college COULD be blatantly choosing the African-American student over you solely because he is African-American. This is still a tiny percentage when considered against the times African-Americans are NOT chosen because they are African-American…</p>
<p>It’s interesting that the argument is given that minorities are given more weight in getting into any college, elite or not, yet this supposed imbalance is NOT reflected in leadership positions in private industry such as CEOs/CFOs/COOs, the NFL and NBA, etc… Sure it’s changing… Sure the president is mixed. But it’s still not equal…</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I understand your position. However, your position is irrelevant since we are a constitutional republic.</p>
<p>You, my friend, [are</a> tilting at windmills…](<a href=“http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tilting_at_windmills]are”>Don Quixote - Wikipedia)</p>
<p>@KMCmom - I agree COMPLETELY. I have no issues whatsoever with socioeconomic status being given equal weight. In fact, it should have been done so long ago.</p>
<p>xSlacker, where are your numbers on this? How do you know more people don’t get hired because of race then those that get into college because of race?</p>
<p>And just because there isn’t the national ratio between blacks and whited in some profession why does that mean there must be discrimination?</p>
<p>xSlacker- Fundamentally, a Republic is not meant to protect the minority from the majority. A Republic is simply a form of government in which the people retain supreme control over it and its offices are not hereditary. Theoretically, it doesn’t even need to have voting and democracy. In this definition, there is nothing saying that minorities need to be protected from the majority. Besides the founding fathers wanted to ensure that the rights of the minorities were protected from the majority but ensuring that minorities have lower standards than the majority is not a right. A right is something like freedom of speech, freedom to pursue happiness, etc. While I admit minorities sometimes have those rights infringed upon, for the most part they are ensured and college admissions has absolutely nothing to do with those rights. </p>
<p>Besides, what about Asians? That “race” (I don’t believe in race, it’s been biologically proven to be false) is the ultimate minority in the US. They are the smallest group and the least established one here in the US but why do they not get the benefit of affirmative action? In fact, I feel they heavily discriminated against because of AA. Asians constantly have to face obstacles to succeed yet they find ways to do so. It’s completely unfair when one group that works hard has to work even harder just to succeed when another group that works less hard has to work even less to succeed.</p>
<p>I really don’t think race should be a factor at all, rather socioeconomic class should be. There is a real and relevant difference between the conditions of the rich and the poor. And that difference would definitely matter in terms of college admissions. I think this will still benefit URMs because, whether we like to admit it or not, URMs have a proportionally higher amount of members in the lower socioeconomic classes. It is the most fair solution to this problem because all people would have a fair chance to benefit from AA.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>[Black</a> Fortune 500 CEO’s: Black Entrepreneurs, Black CEO, Black Executive, Black Billionaires, Entrepreneur Profile](<a href=“http://www.blackentrepreneurprofile.com/fortune-500-ceos/]Black”>Black Fortune 500 CEO's - Black Entrepreneur & Executives Profiles)</p>
<p>The argument is not how I know, nor is it who researches the best. This is a well known phenomenon that is widely documented. If more minorities ARE getting into college (especially elite colleges) and are being educated more then there should be a noticeable rise in the higher ranks. </p>
<p>If the argument then becomes that the minorities are not “leadership” material and that higher college admissions aren’t helping than clearly there is some other imbalance that is preventing this.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I never called it discrimination. It, however, IS an imbalance. Whether the imbalance is due to discrimination or lack of access or whatever it’s not a natural imbalance but an artificial one that should be corrected.</p>
<p>Clearly those imbalances exist in America…</p>