<p>Wow, hasn't this been discussed many times in the past few months.</p>
<p>it always gets the most coverage here months after cllege decisions when outraged students read the acceptance threads and come to their own conclusions.</p>
<p>Asians weren't hated as much as Black people. You have no idea what you're talking about. No one enslaved Asians. They came for opportunities. different mindset.</p>
<p>Anyway, I don't belive whites make up 80% of the pop. That's ridiculous.</p>
<p>Your posts are just so confusing nobody knows what you're trying to say. Liberalism is a disease. Lemme perscribe you some medicine known as common sense.</p>
<p>Lemme just sum something up - Liberal beliefs are inherently unfair. All of em. Economical, Social - just think about the BASIS of liberal beliefs and tell me that, to some degree, they are unfair.</p>
<p>75.1 White
12.3 Black
3.6 Asian</p>
<p>BTW - Liberalism is not a legit opinion. It's the belief that it's okay to impose on the wealth and fortune of some to overcompensate people who have less (usually a result of their own doing).</p>
<p>If it's private charity, fine - but you have no right to IMPOSE on a person.</p>
<p>BTW - in most cases of communism, it is the result of a large quantity of poor people using their power as a large mod to overwhelm and take advantage of the few rich people. It is no different than if all white people voted (overwhelmingly, because whites represent 75% of the population) that any non white must pay 90% of their income to the government. It's a majority taking advantage of a minority. Totally unfair. Liberalism is just this to a smaller degree.</p>
<p>Just to finish off spartan's original arguement that "diversity is totally absurd and is not needed in college, it is unneccesary"...I will post some stuff that others have said on the other board (College Admissions)...</p>
<p>sarorah: "It's a known fact that colleges want to increase their diversity ranking. They pay attention to numbers, particularly percantages, of the last year because they want to increase their ranking. They want to make sure at least the same number of minority students admitted the year before stays the same. That's a fact. </p>
<p>And colleges DO want diversity. And come on, all of these years, these people were rejected just because of their race. They could've been just as qualified but once the admissions officer found out they weren't white, they weren't accepted. This went on for so long. You have to give them a chance, most of these kids have been taunted all their lives cuz of their race, they've had no money, their parents didn't go to college..you know..for a lot of those minority kids, if they don't get into college, they have to go to their troubled home and face a hard life because they simply don't have as many resources those white kids had and have today."</p>
<p>sweetsaz79 : "Yeah, as much as I'd like to say AA isn't needed anymore, I agree with xindianx. </p>
<p>It doesn't matter if the girl was Native American, she might have been perfectly qualified without with URM status. And let's say she wasn't as qualified: so what? Do you know how many schools have less than 10% minorities in them? I know this may not startle as many people as I'd like, but AA, for the least part, is "necessary" for a short while. </p>
<p>I don't want to get flamed or anything, so I'm going to stop."</p>
<p>So, after you have lost the basis of your "diversity is dumb and false" arguement, can we please get back to my original question, did you find an alternative to AA yet sir? A reasonable and matching alternative that keeps the reason AA was established in the first place (o by the way, that's diversity, the thing you hate...)</p>
<p>EDIT: LIBERALISM = COMMUNISM !!?!?!?!?!?! WHATTTT!?!?!?!!?!? Excuse but if you are referring to communism as the totalitarians of Russia, who went into the privacy of their citizens and tried to put fear, and make sure the country was safe at all times, and impose propoganda, uhhhh, does anyone recall the PATRIOT ACT of our great nation???? (by the way, I see Mr. Bush has on agenda to make sure that Act is full running for his term, how sweet, I think that is more "TOTALITARIANISTIC" than what you have wrongfull flamed of liberals.</p>
<p>Yah. We don't need to force it. That's unconstitutional.</p>
<p>Uh - Buddy. Russia was a TERRIBLY example of communism. All real world examples are.</p>
<p>wow.. this heated. Or was that an unnecessary thing to say? </p>
<p>Anyway, I don't think being white gives you an advantage at all.</p>
<p>"Anyway, I don't think being white gives you an advantage at all."</p>
<p>Key Words: I, and think.</p>
<p>Keep it at that.</p>
<p>exactly. it's just MY opinion after all.</p>
<p>I think AA is inherently justified. Why shouldn't a black person who was born in a ghetto and who worked two jobs while taking care of his parents and yet at the same time excelled academically get an admissions advantage over a NE prep student, whose parents hired him a private SaT since 9th grader tutor and enrolled him in Exeter for high school, and give him the most encouraging environment possible for developing his mind and preparing him from college that is available in this country??? I thought the founding ideals, that our country was based on, promised to provide equal opportunities for everyone under every race. Why should we jeopardize that and let only a bunch of rich, preppy Asians and Whites be given admission to America's tp colleges. Life's unfair people, get over it...</p>
<p>I think economic status should be used for AA rather than race; it more accurately reflects the challenges people are faced with when growing up (not that race doesn't present any).</p>
<p>I agree with you evilsaltine, I have always felt that would be a better form of Affirmative action</p>
<p>My last name is Yang. I am second-generation Han Chinese.</p>
<p>I am seriously contemplating changing my last name to Young.</p>
<p>Gary Locke is the Governor of Washington. Hmm...Locke, reminds me of John Locke, perhaps this dude is Anglo-Saxon, right? Wrong. He's Chinese. He changed his name to hide his ethnicity. Nothing wrong with that.</p>
<p>John Fugh is a retired Major General of the United States Army. General of the U.S. Army, huh? Fugh? He must be white, right? Wrong. His real last name is Fu, but he changed it to hide his ethnicity once again.</p>
<p>Andre Agassi is one of America's best tennis players in the Open Era. But, most people don't know that both his parents are Iranian immigrants. They don't know that Agassi's dad boxed Olympically for Iran during the Shah days. They don't know that he changed his name from Agassian.</p>
<p>If you want to withhold race, go for it. But, as people have said, be careful - Chinese names, especially names from the Mainland, are easy to spot unless hidden.</p>
<p>First I'd like to point out that AA only helps those minorities that have trouble getting into colleges without the help. Asians, Indians, Jews, and Middle Easterners get no advantage. If racism against blacks caused such big problems that AA is needed for blacks, I guess the holocaust was a picnic? Some schools limit the numbers of Asians and Jews, which I think is totally rediculous. I don't think diversity is something that should have to be achieved through unfair advantages to some. I think true diversity comes when those who have been oppressed (Asians, Indians, Jews, and Middle Eastern people all have and continue to be oppressed), but they rise up to overcome the difficulties. I think the URMs as they are called can do the same, but with AA they have much less motivation. They can get by doing less. </p>
<p>Now here is a scenario. You can tell me if AA is fair, because this is a perfectly legit scenario. 2 boys grow up together. They live right next to eachother in an upper middle class neighborhood. They attend the same public high school, and have been best friends since they were young. Their fathers are also good friends, and have worked together in the same office, making the same salary. One of the boys is a URM, the other isn't. The URM does well in school, but also spends some time partying. He gets a B+ average. His non URM friend works extra hard, and sacrafices some of his play time to achieve an A+ average. They both do a good number of ECs, but the non URM spends some extra time to get leadership roles in some clubs. Both boys take SAT classes to help them improve their scores. The URM scores a 1300, while his friend scores a 1420. Now it is time to apply to college. Both apply to some top schools. The URM gets in, the other doesn't. Clearly the non URM had higher stats, but he was rejected. Is this fair? His hard work went to waste, while his friend who had the same opportunities, but decided to party more instead gets in. This is not fair in my opinion. This was an example where both were equal. Often times the URM even has a better opportunity. Are all white people rich and blessed with financial security and an easy childhood? Are all URMs poor and have been badly harrassed? I think not. In some cases yes, but in most cases no, that is a complete stereotype. By implementing AA, stereotypes are just confirmed, which defeats the purpose of making a school "diverse."</p>
<p>lunknot..."Colleges aren't artificially diverse. The URMs are still very qualified. This issue needs to stop. Civil Rights Movement was 30 years ago. 30 years isn't a long time people. Def not long enough to get over hundreds of years of deep racism. Untill you live the life of a URM or Black person or Native American shut your mouth because you aren't qualified to say anything."</p>
<p>i couldnt agree more</p>
<p>
[quote]
I think AA is inherently justified. Why shouldn't a black person who was born in a ghetto and who worked two jobs while taking care of his parents and yet at the same time excelled academically get an admissions advantage over a NE prep student, whose parents hired him a private SaT since 9th grader tutor and enrolled him in Exeter for high school, and give him the most encouraging environment possible for developing his mind and preparing him from college that is available in this country??? I thought the founding ideals, that our country was based on, promised to provide equal opportunities for everyone under every race. Why should we jeopardize that and let only a bunch of rich, preppy Asians and Whites be given admission to America's tp colleges. Life's unfair people, get over it...
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Why are only black people born in ghettos? Why are only Asian and White people rich? I could easily replace the above with:</p>
<p>
[quote]
</p>
<p>I think AA is inherently justified. Why shouldn't a Asian person who was born in a ghetto and who worked two jobs while taking care of his parents and yet at the same time excelled academically get an admissions advantage over a NE prep student, whose parents hired him a private SaT since 9th grader tutor and enrolled him in Exeter for high school, and give him the most encouraging environment possible for developing his mind and preparing him from college that is available in this country??? I thought the founding ideals, that our country was based on, promised to provide equal opportunities for everyone under every race. Why should we jeopardize that and let only a bunch of rich, preppy Asians and Whites be given admission to America's tp colleges. Life's unfair people, get over it...
[/quote]
</p>
<p>And I still make sense?</p>
<p>That is what is wrong with AA, it categorizes by race NOT social status. I have nothing wrong with AA by social status, but AA by race is just wrong. There ARE poor white/Asian people you know? And there are Rich/Preppy African Americans and Hispanics you know? </p>
<p>Using your logic, being black inherently makes you poor, and being Asian/White inherently makes you "rich and preppy." Thus AA for a certain race (blacks in this case) is inherently right.</p>
<p>That's some messed up logic. </p>
<p>And I find your last sentence, "Life's unfair people, get over it...," to be rather ironic. Considering YOU are the one advocating AA, and YOU are the one who is trying to correct the unfairness - albeit with incorrect methods.</p>
<p>this race stuff is inherenly true and yet at the same time it discourages people who are of a race that is overrepresented at top universities (aka indians and chinese people ... asians) to try and not show who they are.</p>
<p>But then when you think about it, that indirectly shows something about you, because if you are "patel" or "ming" or "shah" or "lau" and you have an amazing application to a college and great essay etc. but you don't put your race on the "optional" part then it shows that you aren't proud of who you are.</p>
<p>So what i'm trying to say is, who care if you are white, asian, black...be proud of who you are and your accomplishments. That kind of postive attitude will get you far in life instead of trying to indrectily mask yourself in society.</p>
<p>:] You go Merudh123! ^_^ I'm Asian-American. :P And I'm proud of it. >P!</p>
<p>Why are so many people bashing diversity?</p>
<p>Diversity is important. Colleges are supposed to prepare you for the real world, a world full of a diverse group of people. By interacting with people with different skin colors, people will be better prepared to look past the certain nature of somebody's skin. While at colleges with hispanics and blacks and asians and whites, you would hopefully become more comfortable around people who are different than you.</p>
<p>Phoenix, do you seriously believe liberals are sick individuals?
You keep saying IMPOSE, but aren't a lot of conservatives trying to impose their own religious and social beliefs on the rest of the nation?
If you are not a republican, are you a libertarian?</p>