<p>AA is not all that bad. So what it helps minorities (Native americans, african americans, mexican americans, and other hispanics) gain like an aggregated 25% (at a really diverse school) university space. whats the big fuss? whites still get the majority of the space. I really don't see the problem.</p>
<p>Yes, but what makes me mad is that more qualified students are getting rejected just because they're white. It's not 1954 anymore. People shouldn't be judged my their race. That's exactly what's happening in colleges today.</p>
<p>Firstly, you don't know who is more qualified [plus your statement implies that whites are superior]. Also, another problem with people's arguments against AA is that they make it seem that not a single minority is deserving of his place in a certain college and that basically every campus should be 100% white. So just say that already if that's what you want, and then we'll understand your issue, that basically your a racist, case closed.</p>
<p>I, myself am an African American and I did used to think AA was unfair. Of course I didnt mind it because it benefited me. But after my my mother who is a professor of sociology explained it more in detail to me, its purpose seemed clearer.</p>
<p>Basically, Black people unlike many other races and ethnicities came to this country came to this country chained up to work in plantations as slaves. This lasted up until about the 1860s. Hardly any of them were well-educated because of this. And it wasn't like after slavery black people were on the same level as white people. They were discriminated from working in certain places and were forced to work low pay jobs. And laws such as Jim Crow laws that advocated segregation created things such as seperate water fountains white and black people, seperate bathrooms, and seperate schools. Black people's were of course always of lower a quality. Eventhough today those laws no longer exist, blak people in general still do not live in good areas where they can receive a high quality education. Affirmative action is used to make up for all the years of oppressment black people have experienced and how it affects it affects there representation in higher learning institutions.</p>
<p>Affirmative Action isn't fair but neither was Slavery</p>
<p>Same is true for native Americans who were consistently being tricked by their white neighbors and constantly being moved from to less preferrable reservations. Native Americans used to be plentiful on this continent but this was all changed because of wars, being forced to migrate, unhealthy conditions, a lot of which could be attributed to the Europeans that came. They, too, are few in number and overall are not very wealthy, which equals a poor education.</p>
<p>As for Asians, they too were discriminated against but not as much in my opinion. They were in a position where they were able to work hard and get themselves to the top.</p>
<p>Colleges also like to promote diversity</p>
<p>I'ms sorry several of you feel affirmative action is racist and that you suffer because of it. However, its purpose in society is not to be racist, but rather to make up for racism.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Affirmative Action isn't fair but neither was Slavery
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Exactly. It's 2006. We shouldn't be doing things like this.</p>
<p>Affirmative Action is to make up for tragedies such have slavery, which is still reflected in the class social class status of African Americans today</p>
<p>"Affirmative Action is to make up for tragedies such have slavery, which is still reflected in the class social class status of African Americans today"</p>
<p>The only reasonable explanation I can think of for Affirmative Action is to increase the diversity of a campus and therefore enhance its selling power to potential applicants. I don't believe in the "payback" rationalization at all; it's ridiculous, and although the "evening the playing field" argument is well-grounded, it would mean that AA should be based on socioeconomic factors and NOT something like race. AA is racist not only because it puts non-URMs at a disadvantage, but because it propogates the idea that URMs are inherently less capable of making it on their own.</p>
<p>Everything I have just said has been said 140950696 times before.</p>
<p>Thank you, happypoo. Nice post.</p>
<p>Happypoo is right. Socioeconomic AA makes MUCH more sense than the racial varity. Really, any race can thrive in todays environment, sure theres a little racism here and there, but it goes every which way. We need to abolish racial AA, its really unfair to treat people differently purely because of their skin color and ancestral background. It wont be long until AA is gone though, theres a lot of controversy and anger surrounding it.</p>
<p>for the record . . . the pros to eliminating AA outweigh the cons.
I especially like this [url=<a href="http://www.balancedpolitics.org/affirmative_action.htm%5Dwebsite%5B/url">http://www.balancedpolitics.org/affirmative_action.htm]website[/url</a>], which presents both arguments unbiased.</p>
<p>i had a beautiful 240+ post thread before it was deleted with no real reason, while other ones stay. stupid racist moderators.;</p>
<p>anyway</p>
<p>flyguy:
That doesn't make sense dear, to promote more racism to the previously opposing race? Today, everyone has a chance to succeed, blacks/hispanics can succeed if they really work hard. If there is racism, well it's not so much as before that they cannot succeed no matter what. Don't believe me? look at colin powell, condi rice, etc. VERY POWERFUL BLACK PEOPLE. If a black person is meant to succeed, has the willpower and motivation, and is living in America*, then s/he will. they don't NEED the boost just cuz they were born with a little more melanin! maybe for other reasons, but NOT for that . . </p>
<p>*and in other places, but for the purposes of this argument, i will stick to america since that is where AA is primarily practiced, if not, the only place in the entire world that still has this silly race AA system</p>
<p>Yes, minorities might tend to go to poorly funded public schools, to live in ghettos of violence, to have a low income, but colleges will see that anyway, they don't have to mark "black" to see that. Which is why so many have said a countless number of times that AA should be based on socioeconomic conditions, not race.</p>
<p>basing AA on race alone excludes the other asians, whites, etc who are also disadvantaged, and gives RICH minorities a boost, which in fact DO exist, unlike what an idiot tried to tell me last time, that there are NO successful blacks whatsoever.</p>
<p>Also, the diversity argument is flawed. If that really is the case, why are we trying to accept ANY blacks, to add diversity? That's like saying that blacks are all the same, and we need to keep promoting more of them to add diversity to the campus. Isn't that insulting? I'm sure you, me, we could be very different than another fellow black person. Read:</p>
<p>
[quote]
But if "diversity" were really the goal, then preferences would be given on the basis of unusual characteristics, not on the basis of race. The underlying assumption -- that only minorities can add certain ideas or perspectives -- is offensive not merely because it is untrue but also because it implies that all minorities think a certain way.
[/quote]
Also, reality here. If a white person previously chose to not associate with blacks, then s/he will continue to do so, as much as we hate to hear that.</p>
<p>MtL07, I think you have a good point. One of my oppositions to affirmative action is that it poor whites and asians are most affected by it. But in general, black people are worse off than whites and socioeconomic AA will still benefit black ppl more than white ppl.</p>
<p>exactly^^ even if it still benefits black people more than white people, then thats great! power 2 blacks! and i hope you read my last post, i was wondering if you could argue the point i brought about the flawed diversity argument?</p>
<p>doing it that way ensures ALL are given equal preference. </p>
<p>
[quote]
What's gone wrong? The basic problem is that a racist past cannot be undone through more racism. Race-conscious programs betray Martin Luther King's dream of a color-blind community, and the heightened racial sensitivity they cause is a source of acrimony and tension instead of healing.
[/quote]
MARTIN LUTHER KING would probably be against AA.</p>
<p>sarorah, you are right that it is kind of insulting. Yes, I am afraid of going into college and having ppl say you only got in because you were black. But the truth is, black people (me included) probably would look past that and be grateful for the chance that we have been given (dont mean to offend anybody).</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Please, I did not imply that anywhere in my post (if it seems like that -- my mistake, as it was not my intention). I have not voiced my opinion on Affirmative Action. I simply stated that you should stop acting as a victim and blaming affirmative action on you being dinged from your school of choice (remember, you're NOT entitled admission). Maybe it's time for some introspect and self-reflection.</p>
<p>Racism is a choice, not a force of nature. AA doesn't make ppl racist, racist ppl just use this to fuel their racism. If AA didn't exist those who are racist would find something else to fuel their ideas. Eliminating AA won't make things equal among ppl in america. Some ppl will be entitled to better schools just because of where they live, and others will be able to take SAT lessons because they can afford it, for example. Socioeconomic factors make the difference between a 4.0 and a 3.7. It also makes the difference between the number and quality of EC's one has also.Society is separated on so many levels that i can't list them all here. </p>
<p>And for all of you who said that AA exists only to give a place to an underdeserving individual, I disagree. If that was the case then the retention rate of these minorities would be low cuz they couldn't handle the coursework. Minorities would also have trouble graduating from these universities and AA would prove useless.
From reading the anti-AA posts, I get that one of the main arguements agianst AA is that it's unfair against deserving whites because mediocre minorities are taking the space. well, minorities are just as capable as whites (for those who disagree, that is another forum altogether). so who is to say that the minority isn't a good candidate?</p>
<p>Maybe in the future, because minorities are getting better opportunities to go to good colleges, there will be a more diverse middle class. Maybe the socioeconimic factor won't be a great factor anymore. And AA won't really have an effect, but until then I support it. </p>
<p>Besides, everyone who applies to college with a 4.0 won't always get into his/her top choice, so don't make it seen like a less than deserving minority took your place. Maybe the school just didn't want you.</p>
<p>I agree with predictable. The whole point of Affirmative action is to even out the overall socioeconomic statuses of the different races</p>
<p>
[quote]
exactly^^ even if it still benefits black people more than white people, then thats great!
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Umm... what?</p>
<p>Why should college admissions be based on more than your GPA, EC's, and other academic achievements. It's stupid to add anything else to their decision. Admissions shouldn't be based on how much money you have, or the color of your skin. We're going back to 1954 really quickly, except this time, blacks have the advantage.</p>
<p>The more competent applicant should be accepted, not the one who's poor and black. It's ridiculous. I'm not saying that all minorities that are accepted and worse academically than the whites, it's just that most of the time that's what happens. They rather take the poor, black girl from Jacksonville who's a solid B student with a couple EC's, and nothing special than the white, middle class guy from Massachusettes who has straight A's, is valedictorian, and has founded a few clubs and is president of the student body.</p>
<p>I'm not saying all cases are like that, probably very few are, I kind of exaggerated, but this is what happens. </p>
<p>It's so unfair that students are rejected just because they're white or asian. </p>
<p>Also, is there a list out there that has a list of schools with AA and without AA?</p>
<p>How long has AA been around? What are some efforts that kids are trying to do to stop this?</p>
<p>students don't get rejected just because they are white or asian. There must resonably other things that the admissions committee ruled against the candidate; not another valedictorian, or 4.0 GPA, or 2400 SAT, or something like that.<br>
If the student was qualified and the school wanted the student then the candidate would have found a spot in the 75% of the class that isn't minority.</p>
<p>Social economic AA is flawed as well, if you think about it. AA in any form is very communist-ish. "Let's share!" "Everything HAS to be fair!"</p>
<p>In the real world, lots of things aren't fair.</p>
<p>JK said "Why should college admissions be based on more than your GPA, EC's, and other academic achievements. It's stupid to add anything else to their decision."
Well is the fact that a person is a good lacrosse player an academic achievement? Is the fact that someone comes from a long line of people that have gone to a school an academic achievement? Is the fact that a person is from an exotic foreign country an academic achievement? And yet admissions is based on these things also. So I hope you're protesting against recruited athletes and legacy students too!</p>
<p>And do you know the black girl from Jacksonville who got in over the guy from Massachusetts. Did you read both of their applications? Were you in the room when the adcom had to choose between these two people? Maybe the reason why this girl only had a few EC and was a solid B student was because they had to baby sit after school or deal with a dying relative. All things that will be taken into consideration when admissions decisions are being made. Its not like the Adcom are just acepting every single black, latino, or native american person that applies. And if this is the case then I'm applying to Harvard and will be sure to get in even though I have a low ACT score right?</p>
<p>And the minute AA takes socio economics into consideration and not race there will be a million thread saying how unfair that is and how its not your fault that your family has a lot of money and can afford to send you to a good school. So I don't that will solve the problem. I agree with predictable I think people just like to blame AA for not getting into their top college instead or realizing that maybe they were just not right for the school.</p>