"Race" in College Admission FAQ & Discussion 11

Applying to College
1661

There are much brighter people than me that can explain AA many of them Asian Americans so I will be quoting extensively from their analysis

"Nearly twenty years ago, California voters passed Proposition 209, a ballot measure that effectively outlawed affirmative action in state-run institutions. Among other effects of Prop 209 was the loss of affirmative action policies — the ability for college admissions officers from being able to consider race among other application criteria — in the state-wide UC college system.

Prop 209 has had a devastating effect on UC schools: Black, Latino, Native American, Southeast Asian American and Pacific Islander admission rates have dropped precipitously relative to the pace of their population growth over the last twenty years, resulting in a public, taxpayer-funded university system that has effectively excluded many of the state’s underrepresented minority community — roughly 45% of the state’s total population — from access to quality secondary education.

Currently, the California House and Senate are considering Senate Constitutional Amendment 5 (SCA5), a bill that would create an exemption for public education from Prop 209, re-empowering the UC system to once again employ reasonable affirmative action policies in their admissions process. Should SCA5 pass the California Senate later this year, it will be put on the November ballot for public consideration. Passage of SCA5 is a necessary first step to restore access and equality for California’s underrepresented minorities to a college education.

Unfortunately, although 61% of Asian American voters in California voted against Proposition 209 in 1996 to protect affirmative action, recent efforts by conservative Asian Americans — predominantly Chinese American non-profits and news outlets — have resulted in a widespread campaign of misinformation and outright fear over SCA5 in many Asian American voters.

To set the record straight, here are the top 5 myths — and facts — about SCA5, and why you should support it.

Myth #1: SCA5 violates the Equal Protection Clause and is unconstitutional (from SiliconIndia).

Fact: SCA5 will not empower UC colleges to legally violate the Equal Protection Clause of the U.S. Constitution for a few reasons: 1) state law does not supercede federal law or the U.S. Constitution, and 2) affirmative action programs are currently practiced in many public universities throughout the country without violation of the Equal Protection Clause. Specifically, in the landmark Grutter v. Bollinger U.S. Supreme Court case of 2003, use of racial information as one of many criteria considered in college admissions was found to not violate the Equal Protection Clause.

Wrote Supereme Court Justice Sandra Day O’Connor in the majority decision:

[The U.S. Constitution] does not prohibit the law school’s narrowly tailored use of race in admissions decisions to further a compelling interest in obtaining the educational benefits that flow from a diverse student body.

Myth #2: SCA5 will prevent an Asian American applicant from college admission “because they are Asian” (letter imaged below).

This letter, which is one of the tackiest exploitation of a child in a political campaign I’ve ever seen, has gone viral in the last day.
This letter, which is one of the tackiest exploitation of a child in a political campaign I’ve ever seen, has gone viral in the last day.

Fact: There is zero evidence that any college admission officer has ever rejected an applicant just because they are Asian. Zero.

Many anti-affirmative action Asian Americans cite a decade old study by Thomas Espenshade that purportedly presents evidence of an anti-Asian bias in college admissions. However, there are several flaws with this study: first, Espenshade generalizes findings from seven private Ivy League elite institutions to all colleges, including public and state universities that have broader and more inclusive admissions criteria. In addition, supporters of Espenshade’s data have failed to consider the impact of the far larger number of Asian American college applicant pool on the calculation of Asian American admission rates. Finally, Espenshade failed to consider the state of origin of Asian American applicants studied; international students often have, by virtue of their nationality, separate challenges to college admission in the United States. I have written a two-part post documenting the problems with using the Espenshade study as evidence of widespread anti-Asian bias that I strongly encourage you to read.

Either way, even if you believe Espenshade’s data, they do not point to any explicit or implicit college admissions process wherein an Asian American applicant is ever rejected based solely on his or her race."

1662

Let me continue on with the myth analysis to help you understand

"Myth #3: SCA5 will legalize racial quotas that will cap Asian American admissions to the UC system to the size of their state-wide population (email reproduced at 8Asians).

Fact: This form of affirmative action, which sets an a priori cap on accepted students of a certain race, is called a racial quota system, and it has been ruled unconstitutional by the U.S. Supreme Court. This form of affirmative action was not practiced in the UC school system prior to Prop 209, and is not practiced in any non-California college that currently employs affirmative action in their admissions.

Prior to the passage of Proposition 209, the size of the Asian American population on UC campuses was roughly 20%, roughly double the size of the state’s overall Asian American population — 9% of the state’s total population — at the time. Currently, most schools also have a similarly large Asian American population relative to our population size, strongly arguing against any school’s use of a supposed “racial quota” system relative to national or state-wide demographics.

I graphed these data as they were reported in CollegeBoard.com. Clearly, there are no racial quotas linked to population size being used in Ivy League schools: at the time of these data, the Asian American student body at the Ivies was 3x to 4x of the national population.

In short, there is no reason to think that a racial quota will be implemented in California UC schools following passage of SCA5.

Myth #4: Affirmative action lets in “unqualified” or “less qualified” Black and Latino students over more qualified Asian Americans, and a college admissions system that only considers grades and SATs is more fair and objective (from 80-20).

Fact: Again, because racial quotas are unconstitutional, there is no evidence of Black and Latino students being admitted to college based solely on their race. Instead, most colleges use race as only one of several factors they consider in making admission decisions. Further, the assumption that Black and Latino students who are admitted in part as beneficiaries of affirmative action assumes — in a highly racist manner — that these students are, by default, not intelligent enough or prepared enough for college, a racial stereotype that no one should engage in. Yet, many make the assumption that underrepresented minorities who benefit from affirmative action are less qualified, and they base those assumptions on SAT test scores.

The SATs has its origins as an Army-implemented IQ test, and was adapted to widespread use under the assumption that it was a fair aptitude test that objectively measured intelligence. However, numerous groups including parents, students, teachers, and colleges have pointed out the glaring problems in the SATs, and the myth of its objectivity.

First of all, the SATs are easily “hacked” by students who pay thousands of dollars to SAT prep courses to improve their scores. This New York Times article reveals how students are taught exam prep tricks — not knowledge — to improve their score, and how certain aspects of the SATs can even reward you for wrong information, particularly in the exam’s essay section that were specifically introduced to improve the SATs’ ability to measure a student’s aptitude (emphasis mine).

[Les] Perelman had been conducting research that highlighted what he believed were the inherent absurdities in how the [SAT] essay questions were formulated and scored. His earliest findings showed that length, more than any other factor, correlated with a high score on the essay. More recently, Perelman coached 16 students who were retaking the test after having received mediocre scores on the essay section. He told them that details mattered but factual accuracy didn’t. “You can tell them the War of 1812 began in 1945,” he said. He encouraged them to sprinkle in little-used but fancy words like “plethora” or “myriad” and to use two or three preselected quotes from prominent figures like Franklin Delano Roosevelt, regardless of whether they were relevant to the question asked. Fifteen of his pupils scored higher than the 90th percentile on the essay when they retook the exam, he said.

With the Kaplan prep course producing significant improvement in student scores in a billion dollar industry, the SATs are no longer an objective measure of student aptitude (if indeed they ever were). Instead, the SATs most closely predict the economic privilege of the student taking the test; those who can afford exam prep courses do better. In addition, the SATs have been widely criticized for the cultural and racial bias in their questions, and it goes without saying that the SATs, being available only in English, puts ESL students — many of whom are AAPI — at a serious disadvantage. Furthermore, the SATs and high school grades have been found to be an extremely poor predictor of college success: a recent study shows that colleges that have chosen not to consider SAT scores have “virtually no difference” in college dropout rates as those that do.

Thus, using grades and SAT test scores as the sole basis for college admissions isn’t more objective. Instead, it limits admissions officers to subjective and unfair criteria that disproportionately advantages wealthy applicants, and that studies have shown fail to produce meaningful predictions of aptitude.

Myth #5: Affirmative action only helps Blacks and Latinos, and hurts all Asian American/Pacific Islanders.

Fact: Despite the race-baiting of groups like 80-20, which took great pains to point out that SCA5’s sponsor is Hispanic, affirmative action is not a policy that only helps Black and Latino students. Affirmative action policies help all underrepresented identities from a diversity of backgrounds, and (under Title IX) has most notably helped achieve admissions parity for female students in higher education. Currently, students of many racial identities are underrepresented in UC colleges, including many ethnicities that identify with the larger Asian American and Pacific Islander racial identities, and restoring affirmative action to the UC college system will help many of these AAPI students.

More importantly, homogeneous student bodies breed homogeneity in thought. Encouraging diversity in the UC student body will foster a broader representation of divergent viewpoints in UC classrooms, critical for high-quality education. A college education is not just about earning grades and degrees: it is about expanding a student’s horizons through academic debate and dialogue. Asian American students, even East Asians who are not beneficiaries of conventional affirmative action programs, will have access to a far improved college education when campus diversity is improved. Writes the National Commission on Asian American Pacific Islander Research in Education:

[R]esearchers found that informal interactional diversity – attending a cultural awareness workshop, discussing issues related to race, and socializing with people of different races – was a positive predictor of higher levels of intellectual engagement, academic skills, civic engagement, and racial/cultural engagement for Asian American college students.

Despite the fear-mongering of extremist anti-affirmative action Asian American groups in recent weeks, I am optimistic that most of California’s AAPI voters will see through the hate and vote to restore affirmative action to the UC. Indeed, in a recent comprehensive study of Asian Americans, the National Asian American Survey found that roughly 70% of Asian Americans support affirmative action programs.

Please don’t let the lies and misinformation surrounding SCA5 continue to position Asian Americans against other minority communities. "

1663

GAmom Why do you continue to call hard working students DRONES? And what does that have to do with Blacks getting a 400+ point advantage in the SAT just because of the color of their skin. Are you saying that Blacks are incapable of hard work and study?

florida26 Really you just copied some blogger’s Myth/Fact piece to represent your understanding and position on AA? You could have just linked the website. How utterly disappointing that you are not able to articulate your own arguments on this matter.

BTW I have read her blog and she is wrong on every account that she claims is a myth. I could explain but I don’t think you would believe it or perhaps even understand it give your insistence that racial preferences is the sames as SES.

1664

There are equally good myth analysis on what affirmative action is all about. VOR and Fabrizio you do not argue facts but unsupported myths and FEAR. That is NOT acceptable

"In recentyears, affirmative action has been debated more intensely than at any other time in its 50-year history. Many supporters view affirmative action as a milestone, many opponents see it as a millstone, and many others regard it as both or neither – as a necessary, but imperfect, remedy for an intractable social disease. My own view is that the case against affirmative action is weak, resting, as it does so heavily, on myth and misunderstanding. Here are some of the most popular myths about affirmative action, along with a brief commentary on each one.

Myth 1: The only way to create a color-blind society is to adopt color-blind policies.

Although this statement sounds intuitively plausible, the reality is that color-blind policies often put racial minorities at a disadvantage. For instance, all else being equal, color-blind seniority systems tend to protect White workers against job layoffs, because senior employees are usually White (Ezorsky, 1991). Likewise, color-blind college admissions favor White students because of their earlier educational advantages. Unless preexisting inequities are corrected or otherwise taken into account, color-blind policies do not correct racial injustice – they reinforce it.

Myth 2: Affirmative action has not succeeded in increasing female and minority representation.

Several studies have documented important gains in racial and gender equality as a direct result of affirmative action (Bowen & Bok, 1998; Murrell & Jones, 1996). For example, according to a report from the U.S. Labor Department, affirmative action has helped 5 million minority members and 6 million White and minority women move up in the workforce (“Reverse Discrimination,” 1995). Likewise, a study sponsored by the Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs showed that between 1974 and 1980 federal contractors (who were required to adopt affirmative action goals) added Black and female officials and managers at twice the rate of noncontractors (Citizens’ Commission, 1984). There have also been a number of well-publicized cases in which large companies (e.g., AT&T, IBM, Sears Roebuck) increased minority employment as a result of adopting affirmative action policies.

Myth 3: Affirmative action may have been necessary 30 years ago, but the playing field is fairly level today.

Despite the progress that has been made, the playing field is far from level. Women continue to earn 77 cents for every male dollar (U.S. Bureau of the Census, 2010). Black people continue to have twice the unemployment rate of White people, twice the rate of infant mortality, and just over half the proportion of people who attend four years or more of college (see Figure 1). In fact, without affirmative action the percentage of Black students at many selective schools would drop to only 2% of the student body (Bowen & Bok, 1998). This would effectively choke off Black access to top universities and severely restrict progress toward racial equality.

Common Standard of Living Indices Graph

Myth 4: The public doesn’t support affirmative action anymore.

Public opinion polls suggest that most Americans support affirmative action, especially when the polls avoid an all-or-none choice between affirmative action as it currently exists and no affirmative action whatsoever (see Table 1). For example, according to the Pew Research Center (2007, p. 40), 70% of Americans are in favor of “affirmative action programs to help blacks, women and other minorities get better jobs and education.” What the public opposes are quotas, set-asides, and “reverse discrimination.” For instance, when a poll asked people whether they favored programs “requiring businesses to hire a specific number or quota of minorities and women,” 63% opposed such a plan (Roper Center for Public Opinion, 1995a). As these results indicate, most members of the public oppose racial preferences that violate notions of procedural justice – they do not oppose affirmative action. "

1665

Let me continue on with the analysis of your myths. And yes the quotes attached are my views. You cant make this analysis simple to control the discussion

"Survey Results Suggesting Majority Support for Affirmative Action

Item Sourcea Responses in %
Do you favor or oppose affirmative action programs for minorities and women for job hiring in the workplace? Gallupb
Date: 8/01
Size: 1,523
Favor: 58
Oppose: 36
Don’t know/Refused: 5

Do you favor or oppose affirmative action programs for minorities and women for admission to colleges and universities? Gallupc
Date: 8/01
Size: 1,523
Favor: 56
Oppose: 39
Don’t know/Refused: 6

In general, do you think we need to increase, keep the same, or decrease affirmative action programs in this country? Gallupd
Date: 4/03
Size: 1,044
Increase: 28
Keep the same: 37
Decrease: 26
Don’t know/Refused: 10

Do you generally favor or oppose affirmative action programs for women and minorities? CNN/USA Todaye
Date: 1/00
Size: 1,027
Favor: 58
Oppose: 33
Not sure: 9

What’s the best thing to do with affirmative action programs giving preference to some minorities – leave the programs as they are, change the programs, or do away with the programs entirely? CBS/NY Timesf
Date: 12/97
Size: 1,258
Leave as are: 24
Keep but change: 43
Do away with: 25
Not sure: 8

What about affirmative action programs that set quotas … Do you favor affirmative action programs with quotas, or do you favor affirmative action programs only without quotas, or do you oppose all affirmative action programs? Associated Pressg
Date:7/95
Size:1,006
Favor with quotas: 16
Favor without quotas: 47
Oppose all: 28
Don’t know: 9

aAll polls are from the Roper Center for Public Opinion [RCPO] or Gallup. bRCPO (2001a). cRCPO (2001b). dLudwig (2003). eRCPO (2000). fRCPO (1997). gRCPO (1995b).

Myth 5: A large percentage of White workers will lose out if affirmative action is continued.

Government statistics do not support this myth. According to the U.S. Commerce Department, there are 2.6 million unemployed Black civilians and 114 million employed White civilians (U.S. Bureau of the Census, 2011). Thus, even if every unemployed Black worker in the United States were to displace a White worker, only 2% of Whites would be affected. Furthermore, affirmative action pertains only to job-qualified applicants, so the actual percentage of affected Whites would be even smaller. The main sources of job loss among White workers have to do with factory relocations and labor contracting outside the United States, computerization and automation, and corporate downsizing (Ivins, 1995).

Myth 6: If Jewish people and Asian Americans can rapidly advance economically, African Americans should be able to do the same.

This comparison ignores the unique history of discrimination against Black people in America. Over the past four centuries, Black history has included nearly 250 years of slavery, 100 years of legalized discrimination, and only 50 years of anything else. Jews and Asians, on the other hand, are populations that immigrated to North America and included doctors, lawyers, professors, and entrepreneurs among their ranks. Moreover, European Jews are able to function as part of the White majority. To expect Blacks to show the same upward mobility as Jews and Asians is to deny the historical and social reality that Black people face.

Myth 7: You can’t cure discrimination with discrimination.

The problem with this myth is that it uses the same word – discrimination – to describe two very different things. Job discrimination is grounded in prejudice and exclusion, whereas affirmative action is an effort to overcome prejudicial treatment through inclusion. The most effective way to cure society of exclusionary practices is to make special efforts at inclusion, which is exactly what affirmative action does. The logic of affirmative action is no different than the logic of treating a nutritional deficiency with vitamin supplements. For a healthy person, high doses of vitamin supplements may be unnecessary or even harmful, but for a person whose system is out of balance, supplements are an efficient way to restore the body’s balance. "

1666

@GA2012MOM Not this garbage AGAIN. I have NEVER said that standardized tests scores are everything or should be everything. You lack either the intellectual honesty or the intellectual capability to realize this.

Oh I agree. But you know what the problem is? There really aren’t that many 2280 “one and dones,” period. And there certainly aren’t that many 2280 “one and dones” who are black.

And do you know why there aren’t that many 2280 “one and dones” who are black? Last year, 212,524 students who self-identified as “African American or black” took the SAT. Across all three sections, 700 was the 99th percentile. Less than 2,125 black students scored at least 700 on one section, and almost surely, much less than 2,125 scored 2280 or higher.

Just think about that for half a second. How many schools would LOVE to have these high scoring black students? I’d conservatively say the “top 50” universities and LACs. Divide 2,125 (which itself is already an upper bound) by 100 and you get 21.25. Would any of these universities or LACs be satisfied with “just” 21 black students in their incoming classes? Hell no. So they have no choice but to admit lower scoring blacks.

That’s totally fine. Regardless of your inability to understand or acknowledge this, it remains that I have never advocated that the SAT be everything. But I find it amusing that lower scoring whites and Asians are not admitted to the same extent that lower scoring blacks are. Amazing how lower scoring blacks have qualities that exceed those of higher scoring whites and Asians, but lower scoring whites and Asians just suck, end of story.

tl;dr If there were actually enough 2280 “one and done” black students in this country, we wouldn’t need racial preferences.

1667

Here is a list of references for you. I suggest that you start reading and stop with the myths

•Bowen, W. G., & Bok, D. (1998). The shape of the river: Long-term consequences of considering race in college and university admissions. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
•Citizens’ Commission on Civil Rights. (1984, June). Affirmative action to open the doors of job opportunity. Washington, DC: Author.
•Electronic Code of Federal Regulations. (2011). Uniform guidelines on employee selection procedures (§1607.17. Policy statement on affirmative action). Washington, DC: Author.
•Ezorsky, G. (1991). Racism and justice: The case for affirmative action. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
•Graves, L. M., & Powell, G. N. (1994). Effects of sex-based preferential selection and discrimination on job attitudes. Human Relations, 47, 133-157.
•Heilman, M. E., Simon, M. C., & Repper, D. P. (1987). Intentionally favored, unintentionally harmed? Impact of sex-based preferential selection on self-perceptions and self-evaluations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 72, 62-68.
•Ivins, M. (1995, February 23). Affirmative action is more than black-and-white issue. Philadelphia Daily News, p. 28.
•Kravitz, D. A., & Platania, J. (1993). Attitudes and beliefs about affirmative action: Effects of target and of respondent sex and ethnicity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78, 928-938.
•Ludwig, J. (2003, April 1). Public warming to affirmative action as Supreme Court hears Michigan case. Gallup. Available at http://www.gallup.com/poll/8092/public-warming-affirmative-action-supreme-court-hears-michigan-case.aspx
•Murell, A. J., & Jones, R. (1996). Assessing affirmative action: Past, present, and future. Journal of Social Issues, 52, 77-92.
•Nacoste, R. W. (1985). Selection procedure and responses to affirmative action: The case of favorable treatment. Law and Human Behavior, 9, 225-242.
•Newport, F., Ludwig, J., & Kearney, S. (2001, July 10). Black-White relations in the United States. Princeton, NJ: The Gallup Organization.
•Pew Research Center for the People and the Press. (2007, March 22). Trends in political values and core attitudes: 1987-2007. Washington, DC: Author. Available at http://www.people-press.org/files/legacy-pdf/312.pdf
•Reverse discrimination of whites is rare, labor study reports. (1995, March 31). New York Times, p. A23.
•Roper Center for Public Opinion. (1995a). Question ID: USYANKP.95007, Q18A [Electronic database]. Available from Lexis-Nexis Academic Universe Web site, http://web.lexis-nexis.com/universe
•Roper Center for Public Opinion. (1995b). Question ID: USAP.927K, Q4 [Electronic database]. Available from Lexis-Nexis Academic Universe Web site, http://web.lexis-nexis.com/universe
•Roper Center for Public Opinion. (1995c). Question ID: USGALLUP.950317, R31 [Electronic database]. Available from Lexis-Nexis Academic Universe Web site, http://web.lexis-nexis.com/universe
•Roper Center for Public Opinion. (1995d). Question ID: USGALLUP.950317, R32 [Electronic database]. Available from Lexis-Nexis Academic Universe Web site, http://web.lexis-nexis.com/universe
•Roper Center for Public Opinion. (1997). Question ID: USCBSNYT.121397, R47 [Electronic database]. Available from Lexis-Nexis Academic Universe Web site, http://web.lexis-nexis.com/universe
•Roper Center for Public Opinion. (2000). Question ID: USGALLUP.00JA13, R16 [Electronic database]. Available from Lexis-Nexis Academic Universe Web site, http://web.lexis-nexis.com/universe
•Roper Center for Public Opinion. (2001a). Question ID: USGALLUP.200127, Q35 [Electronic database]. Available from Lexis-Nexis Academic Universe Web site, http://web.lexis-nexis.com/universe
•Roper Center for Public Opinion. (2001b). Question ID: USGALLUP.200127, Q34 [Electronic database]. Available from Lexis-Nexis Academic Universe Web site, http://web.lexis-nexis.com/universe
•Steele, S. (1990). The content of our character: A new vision of race in America. New York: St. Martin’s Press.
•Taylor. M. C. (1994). Impact of affirmative action on beneficiary groups: Evidence from the 1990 General Social Survey. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 15, 143-178.
•Turner, M. E., & Pratkanis, A. R. (1994). Affirmative action as help: A review of recipient reactions to preferential selection and affirmative action. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 15, 43-69.
•U.S. Bureau of the Census. (1984). Statistical abstract of the United States: 1984 (104th ed.). Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
•U.S. Bureau of the Census. (1994). Statistical abstract of the United States: 2000 (114th ed.). Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
•U.S. Bureau of the Census. (2011). Statistical abstract of the United States: 2011. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. Available at http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/2011/tables/11s0586.pdf
•U.S. Bureau of the Census. (2010). Income, Poverty, and Health Insurance Coverage in the United States: 2009. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.

1668

Cut the crap. [If I wanted to read Jenn Fang’s opinions](Top 5 anti-Affirmative Action Myths About SCA5 | #NoLiesNoHate – Reappropriate), I could’ve just gone to her blog. I asked you to explain how racial preferences address socioeconomic disparities. Your lazy cut and paste plagiarism does not explain how racial preferences address socioeconomic disparities.

1669

I suggest you explain why racial preferences address socioeconomic disparities.

1670

florida26 You do know that you can just link the website that you are going to plagiarize. In addition none of the references you provide give an explanation for the mismatch/relative deprivation theory. Most of your references do not concern or address the specific issue of college admissions.

Also you have not taken the time to respond to specific issues out lined in prior posts by fabrizio or by me.

1671

Fabrizio YOU do not understand AA and probably never will. It is not just about Racial Preferences. It has many parts. You need to cut the crap not me. You are the lazy one by refusing to read about the many different aspects of AA. I have tried to educate you a little bit about it but it appears your mind is made up. I also agree with GA2012 .

I am not sure why there is such overt hostility towards blacks on this thread. We can thank AA towards blacks in helping tens of millions people receiving health insurance by giving Obama a chance in college.

Stop with the myths and the fear

1672

Indeed it does. And this is why you lose. Proposition 209 did not prohibit affirmative action. It only prohibited racial preferences. In the aftermath of Proposition 209, UC schools took significant steps to achieving improved socioeconomic diversity. [As a consequence, 38% of the undergraduates at the flagship of the UC system receive Pell Grants](http://financialaid.berkeley.edu/pell-grant).

So despite your repeated insistence that “affirmative action” is more than just racial preferences, you cannot explain why racial classification is SO IMPORTANT that without it, “affirmative action” is toothless. And neither can you explain why a “small, but vocal” minority of Asian Americans was able to hold three State legislators effectively hostage and compel them to block SCA 5. And nor can you explain why racial preferences help address socioeconomic preferences. You can’t seem to do much of anything, really, except lazily copy and paste from others without citation.

1673

But by all means, feel free to prove me wrong by actually following up on your promise to provide an “extensive answer” on why racial classification, as “only part” of “affirmative action,” helps address socioeconomic disparities.

1674

fabrizio florida26 has no answer for your questions. I agree with you about the racial preference issue cannot explain the SES, but not your position on the vocal minority holding three State legislators to change their votes. I could explain why you are wrong on this issue, but I believe florida26 should not get out of answering your questions.

1675

Have already unbookmarked this thread, but still get notifications. Anyone know how to turn that off?

1676

To clarify, I don’t believe that a “small, but vocal minority” convinced three State legislators to block SCA 5. That makes no sense, and even florida26 knows it makes no sense, but that is the implication of his “argument.”

1677

fabrizio florida26’s argument is that a majority of Asian Americans are supportive of Affirmative Action and SCA5, which I believe is true. However, as I explained in prior post, how the SCA5 is written will make a lot of difference on how Asian Americans would vote as well as Whites, Hispanics and even African Americans. In specific reference to SCA5 see my prior post.

I happen to believe, contrary to your view that a minority of voters cannot change the actions of politician to be inaccurate. I would explain but I think it is florida26’s obligation to do so as well as explain how passing racial preference laws address SES inequalities.

If florida26 explains the latter, I would be willing to explain the voting change issue.

1678

VOR and fabrizio both of you seem to be extremely naive regarding politics. Have you not heard of the concepts of lobbyists or money affecting political decisions. Yes small groups of people can affect legislation . Senator Yee on another matter offered to change his vote for 10,000 in cash. He was quite an esteemed member of the legislature. Maybe you should take the time to read about the Koch brothers and how they get their agenda across . It is the way the system works and it is politics 101. It is so basic that I am surprised that you feign ignorance.

Since you do not want to correct racial inequities in the system do you feel the same about women. In the tech industry women occupy a small percentage of tech jobs. Do you think they should keep their mouth shut and just wait for something to open up as the chairman of microsoft said or do you think programs should be put in place to increase the number of women in tech???

1679

Ah, the Koch Brothers. Notice how you can actually name them specifically but you can’t identify who these mysterious, potentially very wealthy, “small, but vocal” Asian American activists actually are by name? I won’t hold my breath waiting for you to actually have some substance to your “arguments,” but feel free to surprise me!

Oh, thank god. You’ve finally admitted - in your own special way, of course - that your “racial preferences resolves socioeconomic disparities” argument was complete bunk, so now you’re talking about “racial inequities.”

Granting preferences to the children of wealthy black professionals and the children of African and Caribbean immigrants does NOTHING, absolutely NOTHING, to “correct racial inequities.” It simply perpetuates the status quo. The blacks I went to high school with South Georgia by and large do not benefit from racial preferences. Now, the children of black doctors, lawyers, etc. who live in Menlo Park? Yeah, they definitely stand to benefit from racial preferences. Great job “correcting racial inequities”!

And for your new question, I do not support gender quotas or gender preferences.

1680

Good grief Fabrizio…my daughter is a Georgia AA, grew up with a single mom in basic poverty. I know of many others here in GA who were the same. I also knew AA kids here that went to Princeton, MIT and Yale. Not kids of Dr.s. Great how you assume the only AA kids come from wealth…NO. Not one of them had test scores that were below the 75% of any of those schools…your mismatch BS can be found in any racial group or any SES group. BTW, my daughter was in the top 25% at her school as well…your disdain for blacks and Hispanics is disgusting.