<p>I’m not really here to carry on about what’s “fair”. ( I don’t think it’s “fair” that some kids are born brighter, “cuter”, taller, with “good hair”, “better” teath, or are more athletic than others, but oh well). I just object to the noting that perspective is based solely on economic advantage or adversity.</p>
<p>I’m not following the last three or four paragraphs, but I, will say while my D might be in the one percent, my son is not. I spend most of my time working with kids like him, and most of them are lucky to graduate HS, let alone go to a highly ranked four year college that thinks about racial preferences.</p>
<p>I just figured out what W-A-H-B was! I was thinking you had gotten you genes mapped or something!</p>
<p>What do you propose it be based off of then?
Looks?</p>
<p>Then we must be moving in the direction where pulchritude will become (if it has not already become) a factor?</p>
<p>Or people who wear glasses? Surely they too deserve boosts–after all, they do look different. They also appear to be in the minority. All the more reason why they should be subjected to affirmative action! (I wear glasses so don’t bash me glasses-wearers)</p>
<p>What about bald people?</p>
<p>If not economic hardship and adversity, then what?</p>
<p>You still have not commented on whether you oppose abolishing AA because it helps your kids directly.</p>
<p>the Asian population in California is abysmal compared to African Americans and Hispanics. Their representation in employment must be reflective of the general population. Would you support AA if it only aimed to improve Asian employment?</p>
<p>I have a son in his first year of college. We put his race as “Other” native american and we were told that we have to have a number. We have sent our app to the cherokee nation Registration department over a year ago and they have not yet processed our app. My mothers birth certificate states that she is 4/4 Cherokee and my father was 5/8 cherokee. There has to be another way to prove that you are native american. Any suggestions would be helpful!! My husband and I both are layed off from our employment and our daughter starts college this coming year!! So now we will have 3 parent plus loans to pay on! Please any help would be greatly appreciated!</p>
<p>The last 3-4 paragraphs basically say that your D is receiving “URM” status because people like your son indirectly make her part of the minority.</p>
<p>You must understand that I am not here to deprecate your son or suggest that he is to blame.</p>
<p>However, may I ask why your son is not in the 1%?</p>
<p>Is it because of economic hardship? Adversity? Looks?!?</p>
<p>Because unlike my D, my son does not have a 4.0. plus GPA, or 2000K plus SAT. IMHO, without those things (or similar, plus some good EC’s and money, which he DOES have), affirmative action doesn’t do you much good.</p>
<p>OK so if you do have those things, it will do you good?</p>
<p>What about a white applicant with a 4.0 and 2k+? What makes him different, given that you don’t know him at all? You can’t say he came from an economically priveleged situation or has been adversity-free for his entire life.</p>
<p>Why are you asking me? I am simply saying I believe that race offers a different perspective, separate from adversity, and that only a handful (I like to say about 2000 graduating Black seniors) are effected by affirmative action. </p>
<p>Apparently all of them are classmates of CC kids, and irritate the HELL out of them!</p>
<p>Yea because that’s 2000 too many, if the number were really 2000.</p>
<p>I know 4, and there must be more than 500 '14ers.</p>
<p>I’m not against African Americans. I have just as much respect for them as I do Whites, Hispanics, and every other races out there.</p>
<p>However, I can’t say that I condone Affirmative Action.</p>
<p>Purported insignficance isn’t strong enough of a defense. As fabrizio pointed out, why fight “tooth and nail” to preserve something so insignificant?</p>
<p>In fact, the number affected is almost never a valid excuse. If it were, then I guess it would’ve been OK to detain 2000 Japanese Americans during WWII: just 2000, right?</p>
<p>Automobile companies would be right in their decisions not to recall their vehicles. Only 2000 vehicle caused deaths, right?</p>
<p>Obviously AA is a bit less severe in nature but it follows that line of thinking.</p>
<p>I want to bring this observation back into the discussion because it is quite astute. As antonioray and I have pointed out, why fight so hard to keep a policy that benefits “only a handful”?</p>
<p>Are you asking me? I’m not “fighting hard to keep affirmative action.” As I’ve said before, I, like most people who are socially active in my community, am fighting hard to see kids stay in school, graduate, think about, and maybe even plan for college. If we are successful, some might even take the SAT.</p>
<p>And I can’t quite wrap my head around “unironic”, but I think we are agreeing that it’s the 99 percent that deserve all the discussion.</p>
<p>I just want to make sure I understand your position. You would prefer to have affirmative action than to not have it, but it wouldn’t be <em>that</em> big of an issue if it didn’t exist anymore?</p>
<p>I am saying aside from when I come here, I spend very little time thinking about affirmative action, and put no energy into maintaining or dismantling it. I spend my energy on other things, and figure those who are most interested will effect it as they see fit. I know some think its a “big issue” at the UC’s, and I would say at UCSD especially, but it’s certainly not in the top 10 as far as most people I know are concerned.</p>
<p>On further thought, I think if all “top schools” looked like UCSD, it would have a profound affect on the “handful” and their families, and I think that “handful” is important to understand and cultivate. I know I would like to understand, and it played a role in my D’s college options, for which we pay dearly. Perhaps the schools agree, are the most “interested”, and THEY are the ones supporting it.</p>
<p>Because in the eyes of the college it doesn’t just benefit a handful. A diverse class supposed to benefit the entire class. The argument that it effects only a few is the wrong argument. Studies have shown that diversity in of and by itself is a good thing and the benefits that it provides will be experienced by the entire population. (or at least thats the position)</p>
<p>I am not sure if the benefit to all is very apparent, but until the debate is thought of in these terms the real pro vs cons of Affirmative Admissions will never be understood</p>
<p>The key phrase here is SUPPOSED TO. Intentions are great, but they alone don’t guarantee that what was intended will actually happen. Rent control, for example, was intended to provide affordable housing for the middle-class. All it did was make housing more scarce and therefore ironically more expensive.</p>
<p>Name your studies that corroborate your statements. Rothman, Lipset, and Nevitte found that the “predicted positive associations of educational benefits and inter-racial understanding failed to appear” ([Source](<a href=“http://www.unc.edu/home/rlstev/Text/8.pdf]Source[/url]”>http://www.unc.edu/home/rlstev/Text/8.pdf)</a>). They also challenged previous studies that had found such benefits by noting that the surveys were poorly worded.</p>
<p>^You were WAITING for that, weren’t you? Do you ever get tired of this? Do you really think this forum makes a difference. Not rhetorical…and in retrospect getting even a few of those who come here to talk might be worthwhile.</p>
<p>I probably should know this, but where else have you lived? I note you are in Georgia, but think of you as well versed in California sociology as well. I have lived in NYC, DC, LA, and a military influenced suburb of Nor Cal.I have spent time with relatives in ATL and Durham. Just back from New Orleans. No two are alike.</p>
<p>To suggest that I was waiting for jfl2010’s question implies that I set a trap several posts in advance. I guess that’s a compliment, but I assure you that I am absolutely atrocious at playing Go, and as a result my skill in setting such traps is nonexistent.</p>
<p>You can repeat the mantra of “‘diversity’ is good” a thousand times, but if you don’t have empirical evidence to back it up, repetition does not create truth.</p>
<p>I have lived in three states in two geographic regions (the Midwest and the South), and three of my formative years were spent in another English-speaking country. I have never lived in California, so I cannot claim to be well versed in your state’s sociology at all. I’m merely familiar with Proposition 209 and its subsequent effects in terms of visible “diversity” at certain UC campuses. </p>
<p>My upbringing has thoroughly convinced me of the value and importance of real diversity as opposed to fake “diversity.” I know that no two individuals are alike, which is why I believe that absent institutionalised racism, you will get real diversity without any additional effort.</p>
<p>“To suggest that I was waiting for jfl2010’s question implies that I set a trap several posts in advance.”</p>
<p>Hmm. No, I was thinking you’ve heard it all, and are ready to respond to the usual.</p>
<p>“You can repeat the mantra of “‘diversity’ is good” a thousand times, but if you don’t have empirical evidence to back it up, repetition does not create truth.”</p>
<p>For now, I’m saying “diversity” is good TO ME, and I’m putting my money where my mouth is. As “we” used to say; “Money talks, ******** walks.”</p>
<p>Oh, in that case, while I’ve heard a lot, I don’t think I’ve heard it all. There could still be someone out there with a brilliantly reasoned argument for why supporting racial preferences is a good thing, though I’m not holding my breath in excitement for it. Suffice to say that I’ve encountered all the major arguments.</p>
<p>If “diversity” is good to you and you are willing to pay for it, hey–this is America, go for it! I place much less value on “diversity,” and so I didn’t actively seek universities that had lots of “diversity.”</p>