<p>re: #377 - The outcome I am referring to is representation by all races in every facet (school, work, community, politics) of American life. I’m not following how you would imagine that America would become more race-conscious as a result of this.</p>
<p>Okay, what’s a race that is currently not represented in some facet of American life? What is that facet of life? (What does “represented” mean here?)</p>
<p>^I wasn’t suggesting that there are not currently people of every race engaged in all levels of education, work, community and politics in America. What I am saying is, that if a society believes this to be an important and beneficial goal for the welfare of its citizens, then what difference does it make whether they are given special consideration to ensure that they make it? There are doctors, lawyers, engineers, presidents, politicians of every color in the world - there are entire continents of them. It is not as though certain races are incapable of achieving certain things. So if America, with all of is racial diversity, is unable to make it possible for people of every race to reach their goals without special consideration, then something is wrong with our system of opportunity. Special consideration (“AA” to some people) is what helps make it right.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Thanks for your kind response to my request for information. </p>
<p>What I see in this thread are two possible responses to the fact (which I agree with) that you mention in the part of your reply that I’ve quoted. One response is to say, “There was a time [as tokenadult agree was so] when many persons of various minority ethnic groups had little or no participation in various aspects of American life. Therefore let’s continue to have programs under the general name of ‘affirmative action’ to make sure that there are lots of entry points into all those aspects of life for quite a few more years.” Another possible response is, “It was a moral outrage that many persons of various minority ethnic groups had little or no participation in various aspects of American life, because they were excluded by segregationist laws from following their desires and the expression of their personal abilities into those aspects of American life that interested them. Now that those formal legal barriers are gone, let’s continue to diminish the role of ‘race’ in classifying people and defining their opportunities.” </p>
<p>I think a lot of the people posting in this thread agree on a goal of having an American society in which every which kind of people can participate in every which kind of educational program or occupation. I also think a lot of people posting in this thread agree that no one one should be limited or restricted just because of that person’s “race,” whatever that race is. So insofar as some participants here are still disagreeing with some others, perhaps what we are mostly disagreeing about are mostly means and the timing of using those various means to accomplish the agreed-upon goal.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I agree with this. I also don’t believe that a 200-point difference on an aptitude test should be the defining event that racially stratifies America.</p>
<p>On the government level, I think Affirmative Action is simply forcing institutions of employment and education to report their racial/ethnic breakdowns so that the public may hold them accountable for it. </p>
<p>From that, various institutions take “affirmative action” to correct the underrepresentation that they see. So technically, schools that target minorities for recruitment and information sessions are practicing affirmative action. Considering racial diversity in admissions is the most controversial form of affirmative action. </p>
<p>So, to fabrizio, yes, Kennedy may have coined the term. But he did not forge the initial practice of accountability. What happened was at first we assumed that if employers or institutions were not discriminating on race, the racial balance would happen naturally. It was soon revealed that differences in recruitment and preparation indirectly caused underrepresentation of certain groups. </p>
<p>In addition, racial diversity came to be recognize as a vital aspect in education (I haven’t done much research in the realm of employment), over time those institutions took their own affirmative action, and found taking race into account as an effective means.</p>
<p>Tyler,</p>
<p>First, thank you for defining affirmative action. I think it serves as a very clear example of just how much the meaning of “affirmative action” has changed since President Kennedy’s administration. We’ve gone from treating all without regard to race to forcing institutions to report racial/ethnic breakdowns. I can understand why the idea of without regard was considered extreme and radical in the 1960s, but it absolutely befuddles me why it is still considered too extreme and too radical today.</p>
<p>This is the very reason why I try to avoid using the term affirmative action. It is simply too unclear. Are you talking about the real (i.e. Kennedy) affirmative action? Or, are you talking about the perversion we have today where “without regard” is vilified as racist and “with regard” is socially just? </p>
<p>“Racial balance” doesn’t appear even once throughout the entire Executive Order. It was never assumed to happen as a result of the original affirmative action.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>That’s mostly because you actually believe in equality of result, not equality of opportunity. You care about outcomes way too much to be a true supporter of equality of opportunity.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I’ve pretty much concluded that it’s impossible for some supporters of racial preferences to acknowledge that practically no one in this country believes that the SAT should be the only factor in admissions. For some strange, strange reason, it’s very hard for some highly educated people to understand that supporting race-blind admissions doesn’t mean supporting number-only admissions.</p>
<p>i will be applying to CMU for ED, do u think i should fill out my race??will it increase/decrease/stay same my chances of getting admitted?im concerned because if there are too many asians applying, they might have higher standards for us asians??</p>
<p>Carnegie-Mellon is familiar with applicants who don’t self-identify an ethnic group and admits them at a fairly high rate. See [post</a> #4](<a href=“http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/1060810896-post4.html]post”>http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/1060810896-post4.html) earlier in this thread to confirm this fact.</p>
<p>thanks tokenadult, but does putting it down somewhat affect their decision? or it doesnt matter?</p>
<p>There is no information to show that the race/ethnicity question matters at all, one way or the other, to that college.</p>
<p><a href=“%5Burl=http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/1060908349-post383.html]#383[/url]”>quote</a> …What I am saying is, that if a society believes this to be an important and beneficial goal for the welfare of its citizens, then what difference does it make whether they are given special consideration to ensure that they make it? There are doctors, lawyers, engineers, presidents, politicians of every color in the world - there are entire continents of them. It is not as though certain races are incapable of achieving certain things. So if America, with all of is racial diversity, is unable to make it possible for people of every race to reach their goals without special consideration, then something is wrong with our system of opportunity. Special consideration (“AA” to some people) is what helps make it right…
[/quote]
</p>
<p>‘Race’-based “special consideration” creates a perception of unfairness (Eg: [Gratz</a> v. Bollinger](<a href=“http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gratz_v._Bollinger]Gratz”>Gratz v. Bollinger - Wikipedia), [Regents</a> of the University of California v. Bakke](<a href=“http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regents_of_the_University_of_California_v._Bakke]Regents”>Regents of the University of California v. Bakke - Wikipedia), [Jian</a> Li’s complaint against Princeton](<a href=“http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2006/11/14/princeton]Jian”>http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2006/11/14/princeton)). And yes…slavery and Jim Crow were unfairnesses/injustices as well. </p>
<p>As a social-psychological mechanism [‘Fairness’[/url</a>] is hard wired and we discount it at our peril. Addressing an unfair system with another unfair system leaves us with…an unfair system and the many social consequences (like [url=<a href=“http://www.discriminations.us/2003/01/the_unintended_consequences_of.html]“The”>http://www.discriminations.us/2003/01/the_unintended_consequences_of.html]"The</a> Unintended Consequences Of Affirmative Action”](<a href=“http://www.newschool.edu/centers/socres/vol73/issue732.htm]‘Fairness’[/url”>http://www.newschool.edu/centers/socres/vol73/issue732.htm)) from its perpetuation.</p>
<p>A [social-cohesiveness</a> argument](<a href=“http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/1060834173-post103.html]social-cohesiveness”>http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/1060834173-post103.html) can be made for policies that reduce [social</a> stratification](<a href=“http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_stratification]social”>Social stratification - Wikipedia) without using ‘race’ as a proxy. Our challenge is to channel the good intentions of ‘race’-based “special consideration”, structure a system that’s fair for all and move beyond the misnotion of ‘race’.</p>
<p>Social cohesion is indeed one of my concerns, based on what I have learned from living overseas, about policies that institutionalize racial categorization of fellow citizens of the same country.</p>
<p>A report on the situation in California regarding college readiness as of a few years ago: </p>
<p><a href=“http://www.csus.edu/ihe/PDFs/R_Variations_Theme_06-05.pdf[/url]”>http://www.csus.edu/ihe/PDFs/R_Variations_Theme_06-05.pdf</a></p>
<p>A few of my friends got “Martin Luther King” scholarships at very decent schools. If they didn’t know their race these scholarships, directly dealing with race, wouldn’t be taken. If a school has a scholarship for any URM, it would be silly not to put down you were that race if you needed the money. Colleges have money if you are a certain religion, first generation, etc. Should you not tell them that too? An Admission officer that worked at Wesleyan years ago said they love having a diverse student body in all areas, race, background, religion, political views. Someone there told me she is not the “usual Wes student” stereotype because she is Republican, pro-life, doesn’t drink, is multi-racial (3) If that along with her good stats and solid application made them take her over another, that’s their call.</p>
<p>What are examples of colleges today that have named scholarships that are presumably restricted to URM students? What are the published criteria for awarding those scholarships?</p>
<p><a href=“%5Burl=http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/1060916646-post397.html]#397[/url]”>quote</a> A few of my friends got “Martin Luther King” scholarships at very decent schools. If they didn’t know their race these scholarships, directly dealing with race, wouldn’t be taken…
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Is this the same Martin Luther King [that</a> said](<a href=“http://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/mlkihaveadream.htm]that”>Martin Luther King I Have a Dream Speech - American Rhetoric):</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Yes it is.
The very same one who also said:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Which “Martin” are you advocating Stitch? </p>
<p>I prefer the whole Martin. How about you, fellow Buckeye?</p>
<p>You see, Martin wasn’t a contrarian nor a hypocrite. He realized I believed that while justice and equality are the eventual goals to be attained, there was and is much ground that needs to be made up. Ground that could be made up by “doing special things” for those that have been disinfranchised for centuries. The solution doesn’t lie in extreme right nor extreme left ideologies, but within a “hybrid” of propositions and policies that bring about a “desired result”. The process, principles as well as the desired result is what brings about much consternation among us. The process of course isn’t without pain and difficulty, but then again, what worth having is?</p>