I wish I weren't Asian

<p>I've always defined a "straw man" as something easily put up and knocked down -- it's usually crushing an argument that really wasn't the argument. It's a way to sound "correct," but it's really just creating an easily-refutable position and then smashing it down -- however, no progression has been made and things tend to get off-track with ad hominem attacks.</p>

<p>Usually it's done through being over-selective with quotes by looking at individual pieces out-of-context that may not represent the debater's true argument, or by oversimplifying an argument into a form that's easily refutable. In general, though, it's by refuting a misrepresentation of someone's argument and then acting as if they've been refuted. If you want an example, maybe something like A: "I hate it when people shoot each other." B: "You're crazy, we shouldn't ban guns!". B has twisted A's words by extrapolating it too far without acknowledging the logical links inbetween that may be incorrect assumptions (ie. does A actually want to ban guns? All we know is that he hates people shooting each other, but we don't know if he wants anything done about it or how he wants to have it dealt with. Also mentioning that someone is crazy does nothing but anger the other dude and doesn't get the problem as a whole any closer to a conclusion). I'm not saying these approaches are bad -- they can be really persuasive if you use them correctly and nobody calls you out on them, but it's risky if you debate someone very logical and aware.</p>

<p>On this note, fabrizio, I feel it would make for a stronger argument by stating exactly why you feel certain statements are straw men.</p>

<p>This is why I asked everyone to restate their primary arguments, because it's easy to get off track and start arguing against things that weren't points of contention or by throwing around attacks on debate methods. By starting off with relevant quotes and keeping things in-context, taking things point by point, you figure out where the differences lie. Unfortunately this only tends to work if both debaters are conscious of the process and approach it similarly, but usually someone who is going off on tangents can be brought back to reality if you're maintaining your logic holds well enough.</p>

<p>So, if you guys would be so kind, please state your main arguments?</p>

<p>ok i get it. </p>

<p>Main Argument: AA is a justified because it:
a) helps promote ethnically diverse and well-represented college environments, which is desirable as a trait that all of the top universities possess.</p>

<p>b) Works to correct the lasting effects of racism on african americans in particular because it aides the group as a whole to become more educated and worldly in that they encounter a more intellectually diverse host of individuals. </p>

<p>c) promotes equal opportunities because as a whole URMs are disadvantaged in the K-12 education system and thus allows college education to be more of an equal start for all racial groups. </p>

<p>d) asians aren't discriminated against because of AA. If colleges are discriminating against asians thats just blatant Discrimination not AA.</p>

<p>Legendofmax (& with apologies to Tyler09),
The issue for college admissions is not AA. See my earlier post I’ll reference here on a similar thread, which provides a link to the important distinction between AA and diversity. If it doesn't paste well, it's post 157, page 11 on the Race Does Matter thread in the Admissions Forum.
<a href="http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/showthread.php?t=326859%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/showthread.php?t=326859&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>While there are some “equity rationales” behind diversity in private college admissions, the emphasis/goal is actually different. AA has tended to be associated with governmental or public institution mandates, and often further with percentage targets in mind, including those for gender & disability.</p>

<p>Regarding the separate issue of diversity in admissions, though, here is the
MAIN ARGUMENT:</p>

<p>The private elites seek to provide a rigorous education to the most academically deserving & those with significant potential, while also recognizing the gaps in pre-college educational opportunity among applicants. Additionally, they believe it important to admit a widely diverse class on many levels of diversity, including but not limited to racial/ethnic diversity. The admissions process is designed to select for a class which recognizes merit, drive (exploitation of opportunity), potential, and diversity combined, without sacrificing one element for another in any individual decision. However, any individual applicant may have different proportions of each of these 4 elements relative to other applicants.</p>

<p>A. Regarding merit & potential:
There is no quantifiable “minimum qualification” for admission to an Elite. The University in question sets the standard for determining which students can complete the coursework & graduate without serious difficulty and without retention risk. Meeting that standard can be determined by evaluating a variety of academic factors, including GPA, class rank, high school course content, teacher letters of recommendation, standardized test scores, high school work samples if requested, academic awards, co-curricular activities, extracurricular academic programs, community college coursework, etc. While quantitative measures play a major role in this determination, ultimately the college’s assessment of the entire merit/potential package is qualitative, subjective & comparative. </p>

<p>A selective 4-yr University is not a remediation academy. Thus, no candidate is considered who cannot meet the academic standard, including those within any of the following categories:
(1) recruited athletes
(2) legacies
(3) major donors
(4) celebrities
(5) traditionally under-represented minorities (Southeast Asians; Native Americans; Latino/Hispanics; & students of African descent, whether foreign or domestic)</p>

<p>An additional factor in merit & potential is the quality of, degree of commitment to, and ultimate achievement in, non-academic pursuits (i.e., extracurriculars such as performing arts off-campus, community service long-term commitment, sports on & off campus, etc.)</p>

<p>B. Regarding opportunity:
The results of one’s K-12 education can be tied directly to opportunity combined with wealth:
<a href="http://www.highereducation.org/crosstalk/ct0203/voices0203-undermining.shtml%5B/url%5D"&gt;www.highereducation.org/crosstalk/ct0203/voices0203-undermining.shtml&lt;/a>
{scroll down to “Inequalities within the system”}</p>

<p>A positive relationship between achievement and opportunity is one of the 4 primary factors in considering a candidate for admission, including opportunities for extracurriculars.</p>

<p>C. Regarding diversity:
The Universities seek many categories of diversity. Among the most important are:
(1) racial/ethnic
(2) economic
(3) geographical
(4) academic interests
(5) extracurricular pursuits, prior to college & possibly including college (music, debate, intramurals, drama, etc.)</p>

<p>The University does not have specific percentages of representation in mind when considering variety within a composite class profile. (No minimums, no maximums) Thus, these 5 categories may appear in varied proportions year to year, because diversity is always contingent upon merit/potential, and because these 5 elements fluctuate year to year.</p>

<p>(P.S. The above discussion is limited to the question of the role of diversity in class selection. It does not take into account the additional factors in admission: applicant self-evaluation, communication of suitability for that campus, & similar personal qualities such as insight, passion, maturity -- which may be apparent within the quality of the application and the content of any interview.)</p>

<p>Tyler,</p>

<p>Yes, there is a difference. Disadvantaged Blacks are a subset of disadvantaged Americans. All disadvantaged Blacks are disadvantaged Americans, but not all disadvantaged Americans are disadvantaged Blacks. Therefore, the most inclusive policy seeks to help disadvantaged Americans, as doing so would also help disadvantaged Blacks.</p>

<p>There is indeed a reason why many Blacks are disadvantaged, particularly those who have deep ancestry in our nation. Consequently, I support policies that seek to help them. Affirmative action is not one of these policies.</p>

<p>I believe Dr. Steele's comment regarding deprivation of competition is slightly out of date, given that the Supreme Court has ruled Michigan's former race-segregation admissions policy unconstitutional. As far as your never having heard someone going "oh, i don't have to try to get good grades, AA will just get me in," I present you the following quotation from Dr. John McWhorter:</p>

<p>*
I can attest that in secondary school I quite deliberately refrained from working to my highest
potential because I knew that I would be accepted to even top universities without
doing so.*</p>

<p>
[quote]

If you're going to be in complete denial about that, then just think at it this way: URMs get AA because it's basically impossible for them to have legacy admits at this point because they weren't even aloud to attend universities till 50 years ago, and even then were discriminated against. Asians aren't helped by AA because they aren't having any trouble being well represented. Theres you're equal opportunity. Deal.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>How "basically impossible" is "basically impossible," exactly? Dr. Stephen F. Smith is an endowed law professor at the University of Virginia. He is also a Dartmouth alum who graduated almost two decades ago ('88, if I recall correctly) and is currently vying for a trustee position on the Board. He is just one of the many Black alums from top universities who exist. Naturally, this bothers you, so you discredit them by saying it's "basically impossible." Your definition of equal opportunity is pretty skewed if one group gets preferences based on their race and another group doesn't.</p>

<p>legendofmax defined it pretty well. An example, given on Wikipedia, is "[Presenting] a misrepresentation of the opponent's position, refute it, and pretend that the opponent's actual position has been refuted." You have done this several times, most recently with your confusion of "in the year" and "following."</p>

<p>legendofmax,</p>

<p>I really only have two main arguments. They've pretty much been dissected, sometimes fairly, often times not, in the last forty or so pages.</p>

<ol>
<li><p>Treating people differently based on their race is wrong.</p></li>
<li><p>The only way for people to improve is to constantly meet and exceed new and tougher standards.</p></li>
</ol>

<p>A common misconception is that my definition of equal treatment means giving Blacks the boot and forcing them to compete without any help at all. Not so. There are two kinds of help - the right kind, and the wrong kind. I'll use an anecdote.</p>

<p>As a math tutor, appropriate questions students can ask are, "Can you show me how to do this?" and "I got stuck. Can you tell me what I did wrong?" I like to set up an equation and then ask the student what the next step is. I try not to give away the answer. It's better for me to underline or circle the key point than for me to say it. Most students can see the key points and solve the questions after a few hints.</p>

<p>Once, a student gave a variation of the first question I mentioned. He said, "Hey, do this." I looked at the problem, wrote the appropriate equation on the board, and told him that if he plugged in the numbers and variables at the corresponding parts, he would definitely get the answer. He looked at me, scoffed, and left. That was the first time anything like that ever happened. Normally, students who ask the first question start experimenting with the equation. And, most of them end up solving the question correctly on their own. This particular student thought he could just get a full solution with no input on his own. Inappropriate help.</p>

<p>Affirmative action as currently practiced is therefore a kind of wrong help. Students who belong to certain racial groups get admissions preferences just for being members of racial groups. As nbachris has pointed out, this means that the children of African and Carribbean immigrants receive preferences when they have little to no association with American slavery and segregation and may already be in the American middle-class.</p>

<p>So, what is the right kind of help? It is sending a clear message, "You can do this. Not only can you do this, but you must do this if you want to reach your dream. If you get stuck along the road, I'll walk with you, and then you can keep going."</p>

<p>It makes no sense to simultaneously say, "You can reach high standards!" and "You deserve special treatment because you're [insert race here]!" The second statement weakens the first.</p>

<p>Unfortunately, in all affirmative action discussions, no matter how civil the users are initially, they invariably degenerate because of disagreement on one belief - whether certain races are entitled to preferential treatment or not.</p>

<p>I say no (my first point). Others say yes.</p>

<p>I applaud fabrizio. These two are very comprehensive posts that pretty much sum up what should be done. Race should not be looked down upon but also should not be extolled.</p>

<p>But it does make sense to say "we know that you african americans as a group can perform as well as everyone else when given the opportunity" and say "we're going to do all that we can to help, because it's the right thing to do."</p>

<p>"If you get stuck along the road, I'll walk with you, and then you can keep going."</p>

<p>-And how exactly would this be accomplished in your mind, tie the analogy to real life.</p>

<p>I'll quote something that I said to fabrizio.

[quote]
One's liberty stops where somebody else's liberty starts

[/quote]

I am all against racism, but it gets to a point where whites are discriminated against due to admission standards, falsely generalized standards, that undermine the actual strength of some applicants and extol some others even though they do not generally deserve it. Equality is what minorities have been advocating and pursuing, and got it by all means. But special treatment would be unfair and racist to others. And bear in mind that there are TONS of other kids equally and even more underprivileged than minorities, yet there is no special treatment for them. </p>

<p>


Equality for all, no racism, neither in favor nor against applicants. That's all there is to it.

</p>

<p>But reading epiphany's post, it makes sense too; we do overlook the main reason colleges seek diversity. </p>

<p>-I agree that it is wrong to treat people differently because of race. But you've got to fix the way people are treated negatively because of race before you get rid of the ways to counteract it. Just like you'd want to make sure you have ways to prevent your country from going to war before you got rid of it's army. </p>

<p>-If you want to abolish ways that help URMs because of their race, all the ways that they are negatively affected because of it should be taken care of first.</p>

<p>Epiphany's post sure does make sense. But I think we should all agree on the following:</p>

<p>Racism, either in favor or against a person is reprehensible.</p>

<p>Really, white discrimination? So you're saying whites are discriminated against more in the education system than blacks? -even on the college level they are over-represented, which means its definitely not racism against them.</p>

<p>Once again, THERE IS SPECIAL TREATMENT FOR "kids equally and even more underprivileged than minorities" -look at any to university's admission and you'll see that they "seek others from all economic backgrounds" and a tip is given to poor students and first generation college students.</p>

<p>-It's looking like the entitlement complex. Top universities choose from a pool of qualified applicants, and none is "more deserving" of a spot than anyone else; No matter how much time you've spent trying to be what you THINK they're looking for. Colleges can choose which ever students they want, and if they want a diverse environment in all those ways that epiphany stated, then they should recruit students that promote that. Just as if colleges want to admit more URM students because they're at a disadvantage and they want to help a race discriminated against in all other areas then they have the right to do that to. </p>

<p>-If you feel that that is so "racist against white people" then don't apply to those schools. But obviously the way that they admit students is among the best ways because all of those top universities are consistently recognized for having the best and most diverse student bodies in the world. It is exactly the way they admit students that makes them the best, and most beneficial to society.</p>

<p>
[quote]
Treating people differently based on their race is wrong.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I agree. But unfortunately, some people only complain when minorities are treated better, and not as much when they're treated worse. These are the people who are always whining about Affirmative Action and Political Correctness but never about gerrymandering, urban gentrification, immigration quotas, etc. </p>

<p>And Whites don't bear the harshest brunt of AA: Asians do. Whatever spots Whites lose to URMs are made up through legacies and athletic scholarships in obscure sports. Asians have to mostly rely on their middle-class wealth and academic accomplishments. But I have a feeling that some people against AA are not really for racial equality, but for preserving some kind of pre-1960s state of White Privilege. Not all, but some. The idea of Asians overrunning admissions is just as horrible as Blacks and Latinos doing the same thing.</p>

<p>
[quote]
If you want to abolish ways that help URMs because of their race, all the ways that they are negatively affected because of it should be taken care of first.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I agree wholeheartedly. We could start with nullifying the votes in the parts of the country that are "not ready" for a non-White male president. Nah I'm joking of course. That would be way too expensive to undertake.</p>

<p>lol nbachris</p>

<p>lol i just keep seeing the same arguments over and over again for these aa threads.</p>

<p>haha thats kinda true, they all end up with just two conflicting philosophies that are purely opinion based, and almost impossible to solve through debate. </p>

<p>The debate on AA is at a stalemate. </p>

<p>But because top colleges seek diverse environments, and want to look diverse on paper, that becomes what tips the scales and until a better method comes along AA is going to stay around.</p>

<p>My position is this:</p>

<p>Everyone, except blacks, wishes to ignore the profound unequal treatment that causes so much pain today, to now demand “equal treatment” for all Americans. It is completely unrealistic, and immoral. It is indeed contrary to all of nature-- contrary to the way of the entire universe.</p>

<p>What has happened here is that a certain person, Mr. White, had grandparents who formed a certain group called America. By its rules, America allowed Mr. White’s grandparents to destroy the grandparents of Mr. Black. Mr. Black’s grandparents wanted to leave, but America demanded they stay. America even enforced its demands with weapons. By the authority of America, Mr. White’s grandparents destroyed Mr. Black’s grandparents future, taking their considerable wealth, and passing much of it back to America. Both Mr. White’s grandparents and America, enjoyed Mr. Black’s grandparent’s wealth. They shared it with one another, and by their own rules they excluded Mr. Black’s grandparents from ever seeing it. Mr. Black’s grandparents wanted to develop additional wealth and start anew, but America used weapons to deny them this right. Because of this, both America and Mr. White’s grandparents grew healthy and strong.</p>

<p>As a result of this ill treatment, Mr. Black’s grandparent’s suffered incalculable deprivation. They became sick and uneducated because they did not have the resources to access healthcare and education. And America rigged the rules so that only people with the name “White” could ever gain healthcare and education. Indeed, it was punishable by imprisonment to even allow someone named “Black” to ever improve themselves by education. So Mr. Black’s grandparents languished away in physical and emotional poverty, hopelessness and bitterness.</p>

<p>Mr. White’s grandparents gave birth to Mr. White’s parents, and then passed all of Mr. Black’s grandparent’s wealth to them. America agreed that Mr. White’s parents would receive all the legal benefits of Mr. White’s grandparents, not because of merit, but simply because Mr. White’s parents had the name “White”. Meanwhile, Mr. Black’s grandparents gave birth to Mr. Black’s parents, then passed to them all of their poverty, deprivation, hopelessness, and bitterness. America and Mr. White’s parents agreed that Mr. Black’s parents would receive NO legal benefits, not because of anything Mr. Black’s parents did, but simply because Mr. Black’s parents had the name “Black”. Meanwhile, Mr. Yellow’s parents, and Mr. Offwhite’s parents immigrated to America. The rules, while not as kind to them as they were to Mr. White’s parents, still allowed them to make progress. Seeing this and enduring everything else, Mr. Black’s parents became so filled with hopelessness and bitterness, they did not even think of beginning anew. They simply could not fathom it.</p>

<p>Mr. White’s parents grew even healthier. They also used Mr. Black grandparent’s wealth to build schools for themselves. They invested part of it and became richer. Sitting proudly on Mr. Black’s grandparent’s wealth, they laughed at Mr. Black’s parents, laughing at the poverty and ignorance. They called Mr. Black’s parents ugly names, printed jokes about them, publicly scorned them. It added shame and even self-hatred to Mr. Black’s parents’ hopelessness and bitterness.</p>

<p>Mr. White is finally born, and he receives all the wealth and privilege passed to him from his parents. He receives the best schools, the best nutrition. He receives the best clothes. He gets to own most things. He controls commerce. Like his parents, and grandparents before him, he gets to lead America. On the other hand when Mr. Black is born, he receives all the poverty and ignorance of his parents and grandparents. He receives all of their hopelessness, and bitterness. He also receives the ridicule of Mr. White. Indeed, referring to the progress of Messrs Yellow and Offwhite, Mr. White claims Mr. Black is poor and ignorant because of nature. And since he controls the press, Mr. White prints books to get this word out. He also prints holy books where even God looks, unsurprisingly, like Mr. White. It all increases the hopelessness and bitterness of Mr. Black.</p>

<p>Mr. White produces a son. Whiteson receives all the wealth and privilege of his ancestors. Messrs Yellow and Offwhite also produce sons. They receive the benefits afforded by the system that emerged of Mr. Black's grandparent's wealth, and the accumulated financial and/or cultural wealth of their ancestors. They are all eager to learn, to capitalize on opportunity, to make progress, just as they have always seen in their ancestors. Since Whiteson controls everything, he finally allows America to allow Mr. Black freedom to gain wealth for himself. But Mr. Black cannot see the use of it because his parents could not see it. He fathers Blackson, and gives the boy the same ol’ hopelessness and scorn he received from his ancestors.</p>

<p>Whiteson, Yellowson, Offwhiteson all have children and pass to them the same hope they have always had. They all look at Blackson and think themselves justified in blaming him for his condition. Blackson has children, and for them its the same old poverty and despair their ancestors have always received. A son of Whiteson, now in control of America, decides to throw a few dollars to the sons of Blackson because he knows a little of the history and thinks “something” should be done, but other sons of Whiteson take as much of these dollars as anyone else. Indeed, even some of the sons of Yellowson and Offwhiteson get these dollars, generally leaving the sons of Blackson exactly where they have always been. Yet the sons of Whiteson grow angry at the lack of progress, and blame the sons of Blackson even more.</p>

<p>The sons continue producing sons. And all of them continue moving forward, except for the sons of Blackson—generally speaking. Inexplicably, out of a hundred of Blackson’s children, one of them has a hope that is similar to that held by the children of Whiteson, Yellowson, and Offwhiteson. This son of Blackson works within an environment of profound hopelessness, and yet he is still able to hang in there to produce creations that are comparable to the others. He is responsible for Blackson Culture. He produces art, music, literature, he even creates technology here and there. But he is also responsible for producing gangsta rap and a host of other atrocities that come out of his bitterness. Almost all of this, including the rap, is exploited by the sons of Whiteson.</p>

<p>The sons produce more sons. Whiteson Culture, Yellowson Culture, Offwhiteson Culture are filled with traditional hope, due to the inherited capital of the past. Blackson Culture is still consumed largely by the same profound hopelessness that has gripped Black ancestors since the day Mr. White’s grandparents destroyed the grandparents of Mr. Black. Yet inexplicably, a son out of a hundred Blacksons, despite laboring in profound hopelessness, still has the guts to hang in there and produce performances comparable to the others. He has a great burden to carry, due to the fact his name is “Black”, and this burden slows him down. But he still refuses to give in to the hopelessness that is attached to Blackson Culture.</p>

<p>Whitesons, Yellowsons, and Offwhitesons claim that treating him as an “equal” takes place when they refuse to hold him down as has been the case for his entire ancestry. They overlook the fact that due to his Blackson heritage (a heritage that came to him due to the execrable behavior of America working with Mr. White’s grandparents, and due to all the sorrow that they heaped on The Blacks since the beginning), he is still carrying a tremendous weight that slows him down. I think a truly equal treatment takes place in one of two ways:</p>

<ol>
<li><p>(Forgetting for the moment about what is practical, and seeing only the moral concept at play here) If true equality is to be reached, then all the horror that was heaped on The Blacks must now be heaped precisely on the Whites, Yellows and Offwhites, and the resulting wealth, prorated by group, should be given to The Blacks. If this does not take place, then “equality” is an utter sham.</p></li>
<li><p>The Blacks come to think of themselves as so much a part of America, and they come to set their sights so much on progress and achievement, they no longer feel the pain and longing of the past, and are willing to forgive it. In this way, a repair of the past (reparations) can take place.</p></li>
</ol>

<p>I advocate a national effort to achieve number 2 above. I have seen for myself, in just one generation, that education can make this possible. I think the entire nation has a debt to itself to bring this option to fruition, since the progress of America rests on wealth stolen from The Blacks. I think The Blacks have a debt to themselves to make it happen, since they are the ones who suffer most. But while I have seen it take place on a small scale, it will take very much time to promote it nationwide.</p>

<p>Meanwhile, as work takes place in the communities, that same one-out-of-a-hundred Blacksons is going to be striving, inexplicably, against the odds, doing well in school, and pulling down great performances despite the burdens against him due not because of anything he deserves, but due merely to his name being “Black”. And since Whitesons, Yellowsons, and Offwhitesons do not possess his burden, there will be many more of them performing at least as well he. What of this kid? Do we just throw him to the trash heap of chance, a kid who is pouring it on when there really is no reason to? Or do we pay special attention to him? I think the only honorable thing to do is to be sure to consider his accomplishments in view of his Blackson history.</p>

<p>In culling off these rare kids, we do not give them anything they do not already deserve. They are doing as well as the other deserving kids. But if there are only 1000 spots for 5000 deserving kids, to what do we appeal in order to select that thousand students? Chance? If we appeal to chance, then we are almost certainly claiming that that relatively rare Blackson will get lost in the swamp of similar students. It would be a disaster, a shameful disaster because that kid, simply because he is a Blackson, has had to work against a history that none of the others have had to endure.</p>

<p>We do not wish to subject him, an already deserving student, to chance. We want to cull him along with others. They have already demonstrated an inexplicable hopefulness that we wish to promote. We wish them to grow and have families to keep that hopefulness growing. That is Affirmative Action in a nutshell. It is a way to better ensure we maintain the inexplicable flicker of hope coming out of the Blacksons, as we work in the communities to alter Blackson Culture generally.</p>

<p>I do not advocate AA for the Blacksons who have given in to the hopelessness they have inherited. They do need help, but not AA. I advocate AA for those relatively rare Blacksons who are obviously filled enough with hope to keep fighting against the odds. They deserve whatever they get. AA should just let them go out and get it, instead of throwing them to mindless chance.</p>

<p>Drosselmeier,
Where you do get "everyone" :( in your first paragraph?</p>

<p>Re: Post 697</p>

<p>Compared to a guy who advocates a reprisal in the form of mass genocide against races that didn't even enslave him on the basis of "moral principle," I'm the racist?</p>

<p>OK...</p>

<p>Sigh. Nevermind, everyone. I'm stepping out on this one.</p>