<p>^^ Gay people don’t see and hear stereotypes of themselves being dumb and athletically inclined.</p>
<p>I will not act as if I’m a great debater. - rarely do it and have little practice in the art, so yeah maybe I am geetting my *** kicked, but I still want to voice my opinion. </p>
<p>Quick question: if AA was based solely on the salary of the parents, would it be discriminatory and therefore inherently bad?</p>
<p>Also I think tht blacks in affluent neighborhoods are still affected adversely due to their race. I know that first hand. </p>
<p>Here’s something radical: what if everybody, and I mean everybody, regardless of race and status, had the same means of studyin for the sat. No private tutoring, only one official prep book. I wonder how qualified URMs would be then</p>
<p>xSlacker, I’m sorry for what you had to go through and I’m glad that you were able to make achieve great accomplishments. However, people of a majority can have similar terrible experiences as well. Yet, do they get the same benefits of affirmative action?</p>
<p>@xSlacker when do white people have to stop apologizing for things they didn’t do. my family wasn’t even here til almost 100 years after slavery ended. why should i be punished for something that had absolutely nothing to do with me or my ancestors? </p>
<p>also, the latest group to have “endured systemic discrimination by a country, it’s government and it’s people” are not blacks, or hispanics, or native americans, but the Japanese. remember WW2 when they were rounded up and put in interment camps? what do they get from this? they get discriminated against further through AA</p>
<p>Post # 49 was largely my position, concerning socio-economic status as the key driver that should be evaluated and hopefully it was during Michigan’s holistic evaluation. But, xSlacker’s post #84, changed my opinion. It isn’t your parent’s economic status or the opportunties your school or community give you that should be the sole determinant (beyond results). There are minorities that have been discriminated against for 100’s of years. Many of these are to this day - no denying. They need consideration, serious consideration.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The SAT has always been culturally biased. ([News:</a> New Evidence of Racial Bias on SAT - Inside Higher Ed](<a href=“http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2010/06/21/sat]News:”>http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2010/06/21/sat))</p>
<p>You’d have to change all sorts of things before everyone was on equal footing.</p>
<p>@woeishe you are right they are not seen as dumb or athletically inclined. they are seen as abominations, feminine, not a man. they are also routinely bashed in many parts of the country. more people are killed every year because they are gay than because of their race. in fact, most states don’t even have laws protecting them from being fired because of their sexual orientation, or the rights to marry…</p>
<p>they are the ones who need protection today, not different races</p>
<p>To say the SAT is racist because of lower test cores on average, you just have to be admitting an intellectual (or whatever variable is determined from the SAT) inferiority. Since no minority group will announce that, there must be another reason…</p>
<p>…Which would be correlation between socioeconomic status and race. but if socioeconomic status is the cause (socioeconomic status vs. test scores, and then derived from that race vs. test scores), why do admissions have bias for a correlated factor instead of socioeconomic status?</p>
<p>@xSlacker…take the ACT which doesn’t show racial bias</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>1) Who said you have to apologize?
2) My mother is white so I’m NOT asking you to apologize for anything. 
3) In answer to your question, because we know what happens in America when there is no system in place to address inequality. Any course in American History will show you this. Plus, as a member of the majority living in a constitutional republic this is how it works. In the future, when the power structure among the races changes then the laws will change. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Actually it is Middle Eastern people. Remember the peopel that disappeared post 9/11 only to be released later with no explanation and the slight suspension of habeas corpus.</p>
<p>But, you seem to be forgetting the entire 1940-1960 civil rights era. You forget that the police were essentially the strong arm of the KKK.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Racists say things like this about black males all the time.</p>
<p>“Do you think we care if “it makes us look bad?” The only people that discriminated against us were racist and the only ones tat would ASSUME we made it only because of AA are no better…”</p>
<p>I don’t know how many times I have to state this. There are recipients of affirmative action who do not like it because it taints their accomplishments. Just because you don’t, your friends don’t, or most of the people you know don’t care, does not mean there are not people who do care.</p>
<p>Like, mjmay7 mentioned earlier, a horrific experience is a horrific experience. Is there a difference in the result between somone breaking into your house because you are a minority and someone breaking into your house because you are gay, or someone breaking into your house for no apparent reason? The motives may be different, but nonetheless, your house was broken into.</p>
<p>woeshie, there are gay people who endure plenty of negative stereotypes and horrific treatment.</p>
<p>@xSlacker i am not against banning AA per-se, i am just for the holistic process in admissions. I do believe that if something horrible happens to you(your parents die, you got cancer, you were discriminated against(doesn’t have to be because of race)) then that should be allowed to be taken into consideration. there are so many more things that can cause someone to underperform besides race. Colleges already do a holistic process so AA has become unneeded since the students are already not weighted the same when they came from vastly different schools/areas. AA gives a boost to those that don’t deserve it and leaves out those who do</p>
<p>I wasn’t even talking about whether or not the SAT was racists or biased I was simply saying that if everyone had the same opportunities to study for th test, things wuld be different. I mean come on, $2000 for 20 hours with a tutor? That’s ridiculous</p>
<p>^^ So you are okay of Private colleges using race as a factor for holistic process? Since it’s not Affirmative Action?</p>
<p>Woeshie, my mom was a teacher and she faced racism because she is white. Racism is not a one way street.</p>
<p>^^^then the origin of the discrepency is socioeconomic, not racial. Hence AA for race still has no role.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I believe I already stated that I have no issues with other minority groups being added to AA. </p>
<p>Minority group being a class of people, not just a race… I have no problems adding groups that need protection FROM THE MAJORITY…</p>
<p>The majority by definition needs no protection. So, if poverty stricken caucasian kids from somewhere in Michigan NEED the boost then by all means give the the “Poverty” status. </p>
<p>However, if a minority is also in poverty then don’t be mad when they get the “poverty” and “minority” boost.</p>
<p>I don’t claim it’s fair but I don’t remember anyone being promised life would be fair…</p>
<p>^^^ For every racist act experienced by a white person, there are 100 racist acts experienced by a minority.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Wrong. We have historical evidence that minorities NEED protection from the majority. Evidence that can’t be disputed.</p>
<p>When the majority of any particular race is floundering thinking it is only because of the economic status and that it is an easy fix is naive at best…</p>