<p>
Notice the a lot of posters, and by that I mean most proponents of AA I have seen on this thread.</p>
<p>
And those same people, who are definitely not only represented on this board, believe many URMs are accepted only because of AA. So this leads me back to my original statement, isn’t AA just further entrenching the idea of inherent inferiority of racial minorities?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>No. People who don’t think, people who only want to see minorities as inferior, and people who never look at the facts are further entrenching the idea of inherent inferiority of racial minorities. Affirmative Action is a program that encourages employers and institutions to look at subjects without negative respect to race. Perceived and real racial preferences in college admissions are a different issue. That said, AA isn’t the problem - bigots are. Do you think that if AA was abolished, those people would magically not think that racial minorities were inferior? There is always something. Think about right now. There are no proven racial preferences in top tier college admissions, but we still have plenty of people who would swear upside down that the minorities who are accepted are “unqualified” and/or given an unfair advantage.</p>
<p>^ Statistics/data prove that there are racial preferences at top tier colleges whether explicit or not…</p>
<p>Whoa, whoa, whoa, applicannot–it doesn’t work that way. You can’t blame me for misunderstanding what you write if you contradict yourself. In #812, you wrote, and I quote, “If Harvard likes it’s African American representation at 11%, it will stay that way whether Affirmative Action stays in effect or not.” Two posts later, in response to my request for clarification, you wrote, and I quote, “If it changes its practice, obviously, the make up of students could change,” where “it” referred to Harvard in context.</p>
<p>Your argument seems to be, “Harvard decides, not The Government ™. Therefore, it doesn’t matter if The Government outlaws affirmative action. It only matters if Harvard changes its policies because Harvard decides, not The Government.”</p>
<p>But, the whole point is that if affirmative action is deemed un-Constitutional, Harvard would be forced to “change its practice”! President of Columbia University Lee Bollinger has admitted in a panel discussion with Julian Bond, Dalton Conley, and John McWhorter that had SCOTUS ruled against him in Grutter, private universities would likely have had to severely curtail their racial preference regimes, if not outright eliminate them. If you Google “Miller Center McWhorter Bollinger” without the quotation marks, you can find a legal and free video of the entire discussion, which I warn you is quite long.</p>
<p>Harvard is private, but that doesn’t mean that it’s above the law. Thus, you cannot say that Harvard will change iff it wants to change; that’s giving Harvard far more power than it rightfully has. Harvard can be forced to change if it is found to be in violation of the law.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Just to clarify, the people I referred to were the supporters of racial preferences, not the opponents. In each state that has passed a civil rights initiative, the supporters have always protested and have always donated significant amounts in failed attempts to keep affirmative action in the public sector.</p>
<p>Would you like to change your statement now that you know I was referring to supporters instead of opponents?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Really?</p>
<p>The civil rights initiatives that passed in California, Washington, Michigan, and Nebraska did not amend the respective states’ Constitutions to ban “affirmative action.” That is, you won’t find the phrase “affirmative action” in the wording of any untampered civil rights initiative. They amended the Constitutions to ban “preferential treatment” on the basis of racial classification (ie. racial preferences).</p>
<p>Yet, what did the supporters of racial preferences warn would happen if the civil rights initiatives were passed? You guessed it: affirmative action will be gone! What we have here is yet another case of status quo defenders verbally arguing that “affirmative action” and “racial preferences” are distinct concepts but failing to recall that “actions speak louder than words.” It doesn’t matter if supporters of affirmative action argue that racial preferences aren’t the same thing. It just matters that when push comes to shove, they oppose bans on racial preferences because bans on racial preferences ban “affirmative action.”</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Not me specifically or exclusively, but instead a group of applicants who share the same demographics as me–group that happens to include me.</p>
<p>A practice that gives benefits to select groups and not to others is in itself unequitable. There’s just no way around it.</p>
<p>I don’t think I have ever heard an “ORM” argue that AA should instead benefit them instead of being eliminated altogether.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>It seems like a program that plays race up, so that employers and institutions now look upon subjects with postive respects to race, and by not looking upon other subjects who do not fall under the targeted group with the same due respect, these same employers and institutions are designating “ORM’s” as inferior.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Well AA is around for the time being, and we still have bigots. Some might argue that AA only fans the fumes of bigotry.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Laws did not stop Berkeley’s admission committee members’ eyes from glancing at race, but they prove to be effective nonetheless.</p>
<p>Perhaps only indirectly so, HoA v U.S. makes it clear that private entities are not exempt in any way. So as long as there are individuals like Bakke and Gratz who feel that their right to fair admission has been interfered with by AA, it will be challenged and rechallenged.</p>
<p>As fabrizio pointed out, there is a distinction between AA and preferential treatment. AA might not be unconstitutional (only in and of itself), but preferential treatment could be perceived by the most liberal judge as a blatant violation of Amend. XIV.</p>
<p>Recent federal government report on college graduation rates, among other issues: </p>
<p><a href=“http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2010/2010152rev.pdf[/url]”>http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2010/2010152rev.pdf</a></p>
<p>For those opposed to admissions based AA, are you also opposed to the notion of AA in general?</p>
<p>I have not read throught this entire thread, so if someone else has already posted this, I apologize. From a letter dated April 12 by Maria Laskaris, Dean of Admission,</p>
<p>She first writes that Dartmouth accepted 2165 students from 18,778 applications. She then states, “Students of color and international students comprise 44 percent and 7 percent, respectively, of the students admitted.” </p>
<p>I certainly support diversity on college campuses - but 44% of the admits being students of color shocks me.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Yes, in general, I oppose the notion of affirmative action because I am opposed to racial discrimination, period. That affirmative action is “positive” discrimination is irrelevant.</p>
<p>"I certainly support diversity on college campuses - but 44% of the admits being students of color shocks me. "</p>
<p>What if 24 of the 44 percent is “Asian”? At “top” colleges, is that so unusual?</p>
<p>shrinkrap - that would change things a bit - they did not provide any racial breakdown. I took “students of color” to mean African American, Hispanic and Native American, since those are considered URM. Asians are not URMs - so I did not think that the 44% included Asians. But if it does, I am no longer shocked.</p>
<p>Fabrizio, I presume you are aware of the huge discrepancies between ethnic groups. This is present not only in education but in many facets of society, like unemployment, single motherhood, etc. How would you go about closing the gap that exists between them? Surely some service would need to be provided to those who need help, right?</p>
<p>It is pointless to recruit Asians for the sake of “diversity” at many top research universities and liberal arts colleges because they are “overrepresented.” Yet, when these institutions want to market their “diversity,” they factor in Asians? Talk about absurdity.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>rockvillemom, “students of color” means those who are not Caucasian Anglo. It definitely includes Asians of all backgrounds. It includes both URM’s and ORM’s.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Empirically, we see that affirmative action did not do much to help “close the gap.” According to [Thomas</a> Sowell](<a href=“http://www.capitalismmagazine.com/culture/diversity/2637-The-Grand-Fraud-Affirmative-Action-for-Blacks.html?print]Thomas”>http://www.capitalismmagazine.com/culture/diversity/2637-The-Grand-Fraud-Affirmative-Action-for-Blacks.html?print), A far higher proportion of blacks in poverty rose out of poverty in the 20 years between 1940 and 1960 – that is, before any major federal civil rights legislation – than in the more than 40 years since then…The decade of the 1970s – the first affirmative action decade – saw virtually no change in the poverty rate among blacks.</p>
<p>Sowell has also shown that in every country that has instituted some version of affirmative action, there is always a huge discrepancy between who was supposed to be helped and who was actually helped. Of course, the intended beneficiaries are always the poor within the favored groups, but the actual beneficiaries have always been the elites within the favored groups.</p>
<p>looking up Dartmouth demographics, I happened upon this. </p>
<p>"Dartmouth had been meeting student need without loans for families earning as much as $200,000, a pledge that affects families in the comfortable middle class. New rules promise grant aid only to those earning $75,000 or less per year. There is still a cap on loans of $5,500 a year.</p>
<p>“We stopped it. We had to,” he said."</p>
<p>Might be common knowledge, but I had no “need to know.”</p>
<p>Demographics ( 22% URM. Phew!)
<a href=“http://www.dartmouth.edu/admissions/facts/class.html[/url]”>http://www.dartmouth.edu/admissions/facts/class.html</a></p>
<p>Interesting to see that Dartmouth has so many Native American applicants., especially compared to other Ivies. I think its original purpose to educated Native Americans has survived.</p>
<p>Fabrizio, you did not reply to my question directly. I do however agree with the sentiment that you and Thomas Sowell share, which is that the beneficiaries of the policy are not the ones who are intended. Lurking around CC, I see that many opponents of AA are mostly angered at that fact, and they have a right to.</p>
<p>This is not to say that AA should be abolished though; it should instead be amended.</p>
<p>To answer your question, I am not convinced that “some service” should be provided. Isn’t it possible that “no service” could produce better results than “some service”?</p>