<p>Tropicaltriceps:
"AA fixes nothing, and this is coming from someone who supports it as a necessary evil."</p>
<p>If it doesn't fix anything, why is it "necessary"?</p>
<p>Because it still helps. Sun cream doesn't prevent skin cancer, but you should still use it.</p>
<p>It should be socioeconomic status that matters. A large number of the hispanics and blacks who benefit from AA are wealthy or at least middle class. Many asians are also poor, and MANY are not academically motivated.
All AA does now is promote stereotypes, and until it benefits blacks from the ghetto and not from beverly hills or wherever, it's unfair.</p>
<p>"no, but its a start. a black man who grew up in a slum but ended up going to harvard would make academic achievment a priority for his children and immediate family. it wont fix the problem, but it would help."</p>
<p>But why does a black man who grew up in a slum deserve it more than a white or asian who grew up in equally poor conditions? </p>
<p>And not enough blacks/hispanics going to Harvard isn't the problem, it's not enough blacks/hispanics going to college in general, or even finishing high school for that matter. If you're good enough to get into Harvard with AA, even without AA, you'll still get in somewhere (and somewhere pretty good, too). Although the mindset of this website might make it seem otherwise, it's going to college that's important, not going to a top tier school (and, as TropicalTriceps wrote, if you're out of your league academically, you're actually less likely to make it through).</p>
<p>The people who are benefiting from AA would still be going to college. They just wouldn't be going to the top few colleges in such high numbers. So, if your argument is that AA helps a few people who otherwise wouldn't make it, that's wrong.</p>
<p>You're also ignoring the fact that the vast majority of kids at these colleges, as diverse as they like to make themselves seem, did not grow up in "slums." This is true for hispanics/african-americans as well as whites and asians. I suspect that most of the black kids at harvard did grow up in a situation where academic achievement is valued, just like most of the other kids there did too. So, if your argument is also that AA instills the value of making academic achievement a priority in families who didn't have that value previously or wouldn't have had it otherwise, that's wrong as well.</p>
<p>"is it fair to keep out a black who grows up in compton and can only study an hour a day due to gangs etc and instead take in an asian who's only priority in life is to study 10 hours a day?"</p>
<p>this example is simply ridiculous and devoid of any reason. How about this:</p>
<p>"is it fair to keep out a ASIAN who grows up in compton and can only study an hour a day due to gangs etc and instead take in an BLACK who's only priority in life is to study 10 hours a day?"</p>
<p>Not all blacks grow up poor. Not all asians grow up in rich households. Not all asians choose to make studying a priority. What is with all nonsensical generalizations? Why must we grant black/latinos AA benefits? Why not keep it solely economic? At my school, blacks perform significantly lower than whites/asians on standardized tests. Hispanics perform, on average, worse than the low-income category. And yes, there IS that category-- it is one made up exclusively of low-income individuals.</p>
<p>When AA was overturned in CA, it was by initiative I believe. I pose a quesiton: if black and Hispanic voters formed a coalition to reinstate AA, wouldn't they stand a rather good chance of passing it in CA?</p>
<p>"When AA was overturned in CA, it was by initiative I believe. I pose a quesiton: if black and Hispanic voters formed a coalition to reinstate AA, wouldn't they stand a rather good chance of passing it in CA?"</p>
<p>Not all blacks believe in affirmative action. See above article by black columnist for example. Many Hispanics are socially conservative and they don't subscribe as much to the slavery and victimization theory as blacks do.</p>
<p>"is it fair to keep out a black who grows up in compton and can only study an hour a day due to gangs etc and instead take in an asian who's only priority in life is to study 10 hours a day?"</p>
<p>Ironically, blacks who get into the top schools by affirmative action are not from the lower class, but from the middle and upper classes. Harvard attracts the creme de la creme of black students in the country, the ones who are sought after by every other top school, and they are overwhelmingly the sons and daughters of black executives and professionals, not the ghetto dwellers. But they still lag behind their white counterparts. While blacks make up 8-10 % of the student body at Harvard, they make up less than 2% of the top academic quartile and it's uncommon to see one graduate with summa cum laude honors. </p>
<p>One inescapable conclusion is that even when socioeconomic factors are removed, blacks still lag behind. This is one major reason why affirmative action backers don't agree to race-blind measures that only look at socioeconomic disadvantage. It simply won't increase the black enrollment numbers that much. One could speculate on why, but I would submit that by far the most important reason has to do with culture and attitudes, just as I suggested for the notable absence of Asian American professional athletes. Blacks in fact predominate in major league sports. It's a tradeoff. If every black kid who's out there playing basketball or football were staying home doing homework, I would say the magnitude of the academic gap would be reduced significantly. </p>
<p>The second conclusion is that backers of affirmative action are being intellectually dishonest. They point to the plight of the inner city blacks to arouse sympathy, which is natural in any decent human being, and promote a policy that rewards middle and upper class blacks. It's a classic "bait and switch" strategy. In the process they choose to ignore the fact that many Asian-Americans are first-generation immigrants themselves or the children of first-generation immigrants who are in the working class or the low middle class and who grew up in households where English is not spoken as the first language. Isn't that a clear disadvantage?</p>
<p>"500,000+ Africans forced on boats as slaves to North America; </p>
<p>63,000: the number of Chinese who immigrated in the 19th century, barred from citizenship and taxed as "foreign" miners: generating almost all tax revenue from the mining industry at that time. Not to mention, the number of those immigrants forces to work as virtual slaves in the rail roads. </p>
<p>Or maybe some fractions? 1/5-> children in California born in poverty
A few percentages maybe dobby? as percentages seem to be you're favorite:</p>
<p>19.1%, foreign born residents in poverty;
American Indians, African Americans, and Latinos in poverty ranges from 21.9-24%, that's almost 1/4 if you have trouble counting that, math wiz."</p>
<p>There are currently close to 25 million blacks in this country - not all of them are descendants of slaves. Many came from the Carribean, and many others came from Africa AFTER the slavery was abolished. Could these people also claim being victimized by slavery, something that happened hundreds of years ago? Are the blacks the only slaves in history? The entire Jewish population was enslaved in ancient Egypt - remember it's the Jewish laborers who built the pyramids. Think how hard that must've been. Jews endured persecution in Europe for centuries. Millions of Jews were slaughtered like pigs during World War 2. Isn't that worse than 500,000 being enslaved? Do we all owe a debt to Jews and have to make sure that they benefit from affirmative action (so that there can be even more rich and powerful than they are today?) -- since the argument is that those who had nothing to do with enslaving Africans have to pay up to atone for the past injustices done. </p>
<p>You also mention the past injustices done to the Chinese and the present poverty of foreign born residents. Doesn't that kind of argue for affirmative action for Asians?</p>
<p>How do you decide when someone is "black enough" to qualify for affirmative action? More than 25% black? 10% black? What if they don't really look black at all? Some darker-skinned Indians or Arabs might have physical features that make people sometimes mistake them for a biracial person - maybe even some Filipinos might - what about those? The issue is even more confusing for Hispanics, because the definition can vary widely. There are the European Hispanics, ie. Spanish and Portuguese, the Latin American Hispanics, some of whom may have predominantly European features and come from relatively wealthy countries like Argentina, and others who have more of the native Latin American features. Do they all qualify or only some? How do you draw the line? Someone I knew was half-native American, and he looked totally white, but of course on school and job applications he always wrote that he was Native American. Does this make any sense?</p>
<p>You're black enough if you look black in a picture and are black enough for the pie chart of racial distribution of the school's guidebook.</p>
<p>That "pie chart" is based on self-designation, which I am saying is not always accurate. Whether you look "black enough" in a picture is again something that two observers might differ on. Read again what I wrote above.</p>
<p>If you are trying to defend affirmative action, why don't you answer my other points raised above, instead of just simple ones?</p>
<p>I find it profoundly disturbing that you think "looking black" is enough of a reason to demand special treatment. What about people who are born ugly? Surely they are at a severe disadvantage throughout their whole life through no fault of their own. People who are good looking get better dates and spouses, have more success at job interviews, and are likely to have even strangers treat them kindly. People who are ugly are constantly reminded of that - they grow up being teased by other kids, get rejected on dates and job interviews, and are probably treated less well by everyone from sales clerks to doctors. Sometimes being beautiful vs. ugly is a life and death matter. During WWII, good looking Jewish women were spared by the Nazis so that they could serve as sex slaves while the plain ones went straight to the gas chambers. The same kind of "disadvantage" argument probably goes for people who are extremely fat, very short, or disfigured, etc. Should Harvard or Berkeley reserve a certain proportion of their class for the ugly, the fat, the midgets, and perhaps even the mentally retarded? The notion that Berkeley students have to reflect the face of the California population as a whole is absurd. By their intelligence, the Berkeley students are already NOT representative of the California population. They also think, dress, eat, and behave differently, too.</p>
<p>What about HIV-positive individuals? Surely, there are no other groups more disenfranchised and many HIV positive people got infected through maternal transmission or blood transfusion. Should we reserve a certain fraction of the class for them, too, since we have to compensate them for their disadvantage and also we will become more compassionate if we are forced to room with HIV positive people? I'm sure there are many other groups that can claim to be "disadvantaged" in one way or another - how do we split up the slots to address all their grievances? I'm not sure if being black would be much of a "disadvantage" when placed next to some of these other categories.</p>
<p>By the way, I find it ironic that the author of the NYT article is a Jew judging from his last name. Jews are 3% of the population but probably make up half of the white population at top schools, which translates into 30-40%. In comparison, Asians are 5% of the population and make up maybe 10-30%. Of course, today, Jews are considered "whites" and are no longer officially counted. I wonder how the author would feel if we proposed to count the Jews again and bring back the quotas to increase "diversity" among the whites.</p>
<p>I do support affirmative action at the workplace, at least partially. This is because at many companies, you are evaluated solely based on the judgment of a single person, your direct boss. Even if your boss is not a bigot, the chances are he will be more favorably disposed, even if subconsciously, to those that are similar to him. A white male, who is statistically the most likely to be your boss, will probably talk more to white males (even if not intentionally), share more information (in the process give a significant advantage to white males) and more likely to promote white males. Minorities may be left out of the loop and get stuck at one level while whites of similar qualifications and experience are promoted much faster. For this reason, I think it is possible to justify keeping an eye on the representation of minorities in the upper and middle management and to attempt to hire and promote minorities whenever possible. It's also important to have an official organ that handles grievances and complaints of possible racial bias so that those can be taken seriously and promptly acted upon.</p>
<p>Affirmative action in school admissions is a totally different beast. There the concern of discrimination against underrepresented minorities is virtually nil. The most desirable schools bend over backwards to enroll such minorities, and to hire them as faculty if they are at all qualified. The evaluation is by objective criteria, ie. exams and grades, not based on what a single individual thinks. All you have to do well at school is to be reasonablly intelligent, sufficiently motivated and put in enough work. It doesn't help to keep blaming others for your own lack of a initiative. The university is the closest we can get to the ideal society, sparing us from some of the harsh realities of what is really out there. The university is where affirmative action is LEAST necessary.</p>
<p>
[quote]
There are the European Hispanics, ie. Spanish and Portuguese
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I believe that the term Hispanic, by definition, excludes the Portuguese, as it connotes a Spanish cultural background.</p>
<p>But at one point in history, Portugal and its empire became part of Spain and ITS empire. So maybe the Portuguese can legitimately claim Hispanic status due to the fact that they have at least some "Spanish cultural background."?</p>
<p>
[quote]
But at one point in history, Portugal and its empire became part of Spain and ITS empire. So maybe the Portuguese can legitimately claim Hispanic status due to the fact that they have at least some "Spanish cultural background."?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Well, to follow that logic, then you could say that the present-day Low Countries (Netherlands, Belgium, and Luxembourg) are "Hispanic" too, as they also used to be part of the Spanish Habsburg Empire. After all, the area of the Low Countries actually used to be called the "Spanish Netherlands". So does that mean that anybody who has Dutch or Belgian ancestry can claim to be a "Hispanic"? </p>
<p>Heck, to continue this logic further, the Spanish Habsburg King was also recognized for a time as the Holy Roman Emperor, controlling large swaths of land within Europe. Charles V controlled vast lands in modern-day Austria, Germany, Czech Republic, Hungary, Slovakia, southern Italy, Poland, the "Spanish Netherlands", as well as the 'traditional' Spanish Empire. Yet I think you would be hard-pressed to justify somebody of German or Austrian descent claiming to be 'Hispanic' because he came from lands ruled by Charles V. </p>
<p>I find it ironic that the white conservatives that fought so hard to eliminate race as a factor in admissions, unwittingly shot themselves in the foot, and are now backpedalling away from Prop 209.</p>
<p>
[quote]
And not enough blacks/hispanics going to Harvard isn't the problem, it's not enough blacks/hispanics going to college in general, or even finishing high school for that matter.
[/quote]
Totally agreed but to me it seems somewhat silly that a college will accept a URM student who isn't as qualified and who isn't as prepared as his or her non-URM peers entering the same school. Usually by the time a person is college-aged, their work ethic and ability to succeed academically are already determined. It's usually in high school that a student can change or develop better work ethics, and if there's any place where a culture of learning can be fostered for URM's, it is in high school, so they can at least eb set in the right academic path.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Ironically, blacks who get into the top schools by affirmative action are not from the lower class, but from the middle and upper classes. Harvard attracts the creme de la creme of black students in the country, the ones who are sought after by every other top school, and they are overwhelmingly the sons and daughters of black executives and professionals, not the ghetto dwellers.
[/quote]
It's not even that ironic. I don't know if there is data out there to prove this, but if one thinks about it, one's economic state would probably be the best indicator of whether or not one goes to college. Of course it makes absolutely no sense for a wealthy African-American to receive affirmative action then a low-income Asian student when someone who is wealthier can afford more tutoring and test prep courses and the like. One of the three kids to go to Harvard from my school last year was Black, and was also very smart. But I highly doubt she wouldn't have gotten in if it were not for her race. In fact, she was even a double legacy to Harvard and comes from a more than financially stable background.</p>
<p>I understand the intentions and concept behind AA, but it just isn't working and has had unintended consequences in terms of hurting low-income non-URM's, like Asians. </p>
<p>To me, the main message AA conveys is more racist than what is trying to revert. It says that certain cultures are conducive to the learning while others are inherently "dumber" and do not promote learning. Whatever happened to meritocracy?</p>
<p>About "looking black": I was referring to the fact that colleges (and every other form of published media in America) want at least one black person on the cover. Do I disagree with it? No. But it's amusing nonetheless, just as when you find white people on the cover of Asian college guidebooks.</p>
<p>
[quote]
One of the three kids to go to Harvard from my school last year was Black, and was also very smart. But I highly doubt she wouldn't have gotten in if it were not for her race. In fact, she was even a double legacy to Harvard and comes from a more than financially stable background.</p>
<p>I understand the intentions and concept behind AA, but it just isn't working and has had unintended consequences in terms of hurting low-income non-URM's, like Asians.</p>
<p>To me, the main message AA conveys is more racist than what is trying to revert. It says that certain cultures are conducive to the learning while others are inherently "dumber" and do not promote learning. Whatever happened to meritocracy?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>QFT. Plus, the black people who do get in on merit alone are looked down upon because people may assume that AA got them in. This is not fair at all for them, and I think that is the reason why many URMs are against AA, and wish to not be affiliated with it. Really, the system is unfair for everyone, and it's just stupid how the color of one's skin can make a difference. In some ways, I think MLK Jr. would be disgusted; he spent his life trying to have people look beyond skin color, and now, it's been reduced to checkboxes. Wonderful.</p>
<p>Oh, and as for Berkeley's 4x% Asian figure, my HS is like 75% Asian, so I can hardly complain about Cal being too Asian... which brings me to the point that it can be considered rather ignorant to just lump Indians and Chinese and Koreans and Japanese and just say they're all the same - "they're just all Asian."</p>