<p>No offense aweiho, but that post makes it clear you are not a sociology major. Statistics on something like that mean nothing in my mind, it doesn't matter if reported numbers are off because of police descrimination. It's a very good chance that IF there is an increased likelihood that the black man is a criminal that it is likely because society (directly or indirectly) encouraged that behavior. You can't possibly believe that a man whose distant ancestors came from Africa has some genetic predisposition to theft or murder, etc. So what are we really saying....that if we have programs that allow them to rise above this, that statistic would change. In your opposition to AA you just made the case for it. A course or two in logic will show you the fallacy of your own argument. I've been trying to read and not post on this thread, but a comment like that just could not go unchallenged.</p>
<p>Allow me to clarify-Oriental as in form the Far East(Chinese, Japanese, Filipino), Indians need not apply. And yes, those stereotypes were in the States by the time your people came here, I'm sure. Besides, you're most likely Caucasian anyway, not white, but Caucasian.</p>
<p>If you read my post, I didn't say that AA needs to be implemented as it is now, but there must be something to help negate the prejudices that minorities face(which doesn't involve creating racial tensions). </p>
<p>Speaking of MLK, I was just reading this article on the Interweb...</p>
<p>The exploitation of King's name, the distortion of his teachings for political gain, is an ugly development. The term "affirmative action" did not come into currency until after King's death "but it was King himself, as chair of the Southern Christian Leadership Conference, who initiated the first successful national affirmative action campaign: "Operation Breadbasket."</p>
<p>In Atlanta, Philadelphia, Chicago and other cities, King staffers gathered data on the hiring patterns of corporations doing business in black communities, and called on companies to rectify disparities. "At present, SCLC has Operation Breadbasket functioning in some 12 cities, and the results have been remarkable," King wrote (quoted in Testament of Hope, James Washington, ed.), boasting of "800 new and upgraded jobs [and] several covenants with major industries."</p>
<p>King was well aware of the arguments used against affirmative action policies. As far back as 1964, he was writing in Why We Can't Wait: "Whenever the issue of compensatory treatment for the Negro is raised, some of our friends recoil in horror. The Negro should be granted equality, they agree; but he should ask nothing more. On the surface, this appears reasonable, but it is not realistic."</p>
<p>King supported affirmative action";type programs because he never confused the dream with American reality. As he put it, "A society that has done something special against the Negro for hundreds of years must now do something special for the Negro" to compete on a just and equal basis (quoted in Let the Trumpet Sound, by Stephen Oates).</p>
<p>In a 1965 Playboy interview, King compared affirmative action";style policies to the GI Bill: "Within common law we have ample precedents for special compensatory programs.... And you will remember that America adopted a policy of special treatment for her millions of veterans after the war."</p>
<p>In King's teachings, affirmative action approaches were not "reverse discrimination" or "racial preference." King promoted affirmative action not as preference for race over race (or gender over gender), but as a preference for inclusion, for equal oportunity, for real democracy. Nor was King's integration punitive: For him, integration benefited all Americans, male and female, white and non";white alike. And contrary to Gingrich, King insisted that, along with individual efforts, collective problems require collective solutions.</p>
<p>Like Supreme Court Justice Thurgood Marshall, King viewed affirmative action as a means to achieving a truly egalitarian and color";blind society. To destroy the means, the gradual process by which equality is achieved, destroys the dream itself. And the use of King's name in this enterprise only adds derision to destruction.</p>
<p>lol?</p>
<p>zuzusplace:</p>
<p>I'm not saying that they're inherently predisposed to committing crime. In no way. I'm saying that the statistics say that a black person is more likely to have comitted a crime than a white person. It doesn't matter if society did this to them or not. I agree that it did. Still, the statistic stands. A course in logic would reinforce my point.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Believe it or not, you have many things working in your favor despite being a minority.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Many things? Like what? Asians get all the disadvantages of being a minority but none of the benefits. Tell me who has a greater disadvantage: an Asian kid who came to America knowing little English or an African American kid who has been living in America (possibly in a suburb) all his life. According to the Michigan Daily, Asians are excluded from the minority list and certainly do not bring any diversity. Tell me that's not sad.</p>
<p>awheio: What you really mean is a course in basic statistics illustrating the difference between association and causation, and the effects of confounding variables.</p>
<p>Yes :). He said logic, so I said logic, but you've done much better. The point is that causation is irrelevant in this case. Thanks, dilksy.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I'm sorry, but I am Chinese and I can't believe that you could say this. It <em>is</em> just as damaging. They may sound great but it's not. I was once a terrible student and what did people say to me? "You're Asian, why aren't you smart?" </p>
<p>And then when I worked really hard and got myself those great grades people just said, "Oh it's just cause you're Asian." As if my hard work meant nothing. That it's just a magical given that I am smart.</p>
<p>What this means is that if we aren't super studious we get criticized for not fitting the sterotype.</p>
<p>If we are super studious then it's like, oh well, we're <em>supposed</em> to be. It's in our nature so it's not big deal! Which is completely untrue because we work just as hard as everyone else.</p>
<p>There is no such thing as a sterotype that isn't damaging or even less damaging.</p>
<p>Oh, and by the way, you really should say "Asian" rather than "Oriental" (which to many is the equivalent to what a word like "blacky" might mean to you) and rather than "Far East" the appropriate way to refer to that region is "East Asia", and that would include China, Japan, and Korea (not the Philippines, which is part of South East Asia).</p>
<p>aweiho: First of all she said, not he.... and second of all I don't see how logic can make the point for you. How is it logical to assume that AA is a bad thing when you yourself are agreeing that there is some association between the crime and lack of opportunity. And to both you and dilksy, assuming that sociological reasons are not the cause would turn right back around to the statistic being due to a genetic or other inborne reason of some kind (which you yourself aweiho have said you do not believe). And yes dilksy, there are many variables all inter-related, but do you question that they are all related to social factors? There are really only three options I can think of psychological, sociological, and genetic. If we assume that it's not genetic (which I'd love to see someone with the nerve to question that with some statistics to back it up.....I don't think anyone could) then it is either sociological or psychological. And even psychological influences are going to be a persons reaction to what is happening to them sociologically in this case. So really, giving a person who would like to improve their socio-economical standing (and is willing to work for it) can only improve their position sociologically and psychologically.....again AA in some form would work.</p>
<p>It's logical to assume that AA is not as good as it could be when based on race. I'm saying "in some form" should be based on the socio-economic standing, which is the cause of the problems. It would increase opportunity for those in those conditions, and decrease crime, assuming the correlation.</p>
<p>I'm not buyin the sob story. They don't not want blacks. If you are qualified, which you say you are, then they would love to have you. Plus, have you been accepted to Duke yet? I'm guessing no since it's a little early so don't be so sure.</p>
<p>Okay aweiho, there I would have to say you are 100% correct. AA in my mind is meant to pull people up, not exclude an underprivileged white person in order to help a wealthy "minority" person. But until someone comes up with something better AA was atleast something. Was it perfect, NO, but atleast it was an effort.</p>
<p>Duke's early decision notifications are not announced until December 15. However, with that being said, I am 99% sure Jenny would be accepted.</p>
<p>Yup. AA working its magic.</p>
<p>Great thread guys. All Proposal 2 supporters/equal opportunity supporters, if you do end up going to Umich, we have to start a club or group or something.</p>
<p>While I'm an AA supporter (maybe not in the form it had taken on), I would say that I agree that some supporters give flawed arguments. </p>
<p>However, why does it seem that many opponents seem so downright nasty toward their opposition? This isn't directed toward civil opponents of AA, but why meet an anecdotal sob story with malice? I think its perfectly ok to point out inaccuracies and things of that nature but some of the dialogue is pretty mean, which is another reason diversity continues to be an issue.</p>
<p>
[quote]
There are really only three options I can think of: psychological, sociological, and genetic.
[/quote]
Your argument is based on a false trichotomy. You assume that there is a clear distinction between the effects of genes (nature) and environment/sociology (nurture). As for psychology, I don't even think it belongs in this argument because, as my understanding goes, it's merely the product of the first two. Correct me if I'm wrong.</p>
<p>
[quote]
If we assume that it's not genetic (which I'd love to see someone with the nerve to question that with some statistics to back it up.....I don't think anyone could.)
[/quote]
Statistics would be nearly impossible to come by because you'd have to control for so many variables to actually prove that genetics played a significant role. That said, I do believe a large part of it is genetic. </p>
<p>Black people and white people are very different physically. People from the African savannahs tend to be tall and lanky because this helps the body stay cool (larger surface area= more room to sweat and cool down.) They also tend to have elongated Achilles Tendons, as this helps with long distance running, which is useful in many hunting and foraging societies.</p>
<p>We can ackowledge both of these differences because they're physical; we can see them. People have a much harder time, however, coming to grips with things they can't see: intelligence, for instance.</p>
<p>Now in no way am I saying that all black people are dumber than all white people (or hispanics, asians, etc.). That would be an ABSOLUTELY RIDICULOUS and horribly incorrect statement. I've met dozens of black males and females on this campus that could kick my ass on an IQ test and it's a common rule in anthropology that there is MUCH MORE VARIATION within ethnicities than between them. I'm just saying that physical differences do exist between different ethnicities and that it's very plausible that mental differences exist too. As others have commented, poverty isn't the end-all-be-all in life. There may be something beyond the sociological here.</p>
<p>hdavid 6 The conversation that was going on had nothing to do with intelligence, it was to do with crime (although I'd be hesitant to say one nationality has more capability of intelligent thought than another either). Do you actually believe that a black person is genetically predisposed to crime? If not then we agree. And if one did believe that they would need to prove that to make it anything more than a theory and as you pointed out that would be nearly impossible to do.</p>
<p>And yes psychology is linked very strongly with sociology and genetics. My professor and I have been discussing that all semester. But while genetics may affect certain aspects (such as a persons pre-disposition to anger) and sociology might affect things (such as a poverty), but psychology is separate in the sense that each person has control over their reaction to those things.</p>
<p>"Do you actually believe that a black person is genetically predisposed to crime?"</p>
<p>If you say something like this again, you'll kindly be asked to STHU (I think the version with an F gets filtered here), because you're totally missing anything remotely resembling a point.</p>
<p>The point isn't that blacks are "genetically predisposed" to crime, it's that due to past discrimination/white flight/etc. a disproportionate amount of blacks are in poverty/the ghettos, which is a breeding ground for crime no matter what ethnicity you are. Yes, there are still some lingering discrimination issues that need to be dealt with, but the main cause of the racial divide is the poverty gap, which is linked to race mainly through past indiscretions, not some kind of inherent racism in the system.</p>
<p>hdavid6, thanks for having the balls to say it, and I'm glad that you can say it well.</p>
<p>Yeah I realize she has a good shot of getting into Duke but we don't know much about her. She is awfully presumptious to be saying she will be attending Duke instead. Just took me aback as a little cocky. And it was a rhetorical question since I am well aware that the notification date for ED is Dec. 15.</p>