<p>Tyler you came onto this thread claiming not to flame like many of your Pro-AA counterparts, but that's what you ultimately resorted to!</p>
<p>I think goodusername was trying to be funny. Race as in racing, running, you get the idea...</p>
<p>
[QUOTE]
haha i get it proletariat, you simply arent bright.
[/QUOTE]
</p>
<p>Nice argument. I am so insulted. And you were the one who forgot to capitalize the word "I".</p>
<p>
[QUOTE]
I said at the top 10 schools the majority are privileged...but AA IS practiced outside the top 10 schools, you know that right?
[/QUOTE]
</p>
<p>Yes, but in the top 25 or so, the majority is privileged, and past a certain point, it's practiced to a much lesser extent.</p>
<p>
[QUOTE]
Your argument about poor whites doesn't work both ways. A larger portion of african americans are poor, but the majority of the poor are whites. So if you help the poor, the majority of people you will be helping are poor whites. Which does not resolve the issue of under-represented minorities.
[/QUOTE]
</p>
<p>Yes, but it does benefit all poor URMs as individuals as much as racially-based AA does. You also must remember that poor whites are also extremely underrepresented.</p>
<p>
[QUOTE]
Whether or not you find the under-representation of minorities to be a problem simply depends on how self-centered you are.
[/QUOTE]
</p>
<p>Or how much you want to eliminate government interference and bureaucracy. Yes, I find it a problem. But no, I don't think the rest of us should bear the entire burden.</p>
<p>
[QUOTE]
Whether or not asians benefit anymore doesn't matter, what matters is that they DID.
[/QUOTE]
</p>
<p>Hardly.</p>
<p>
[QUOTE]
I've got to say that i'm so glad that we don't have any of those ignorant people that argue that "AA makes blacks lazy."
[/QUOTE]
</p>
<p>Yes, we're not all Bill O'Reillys. :P</p>
<p>
[QUOTE]
^^^Yes we do need help for underprivileged kids of all races. But that is a completely different issue than the crisis of minority under-representation. BOTH issues need to be resolved, not just one.
[/QUOTE]
</p>
<p>The latter fits under the umbrella of the former and will be solved if the former is solved.</p>
<p>proletariat, how do you know the houshold incomes of some of these Black students anyway? Where are you getting your stats from? I was wondering. Also, even if these kids are privilege why shouldn't they deserve to go to a top 20 school? What makes a white person with the same income more deserving? Because I haven't heard you bash any privileged white people. Do you assume that these Black kids have lower SAT or GPAs than other people? Also, who are you to determine who gets into a school or not, you're not an admissions officer? You said that schools should have the freedom to choose who goes to their schools so leave them alone and let them choose.</p>
<p>Wow, a nice debate is going on. I remember an AA LD topic a few years back...</p>
<p>I think it's quite easy to declare: Affirmative action is simply another cover for racism. Either way you look at it, if you decide to support one race over another, it is racism. Some members of this topic are confusing underprivileged populations and different races (assuming that some races are more underprivileged than others). </p>
<p>PROLETARIAT, sadly, solving the problem of underprivileged kids DOES NOT solve minority under-representation. What you are assuming is that 1) government help to underprivileged kids will unconditionally get them better higher education (college etc.) and 2) Minority under-rep is solely due to the minorities being under-privileged. ALTHOUGH, THE TWO SEEM VERY SIMILAR they are still not the same. For example, let's say there's suddenly a solution that allows ALL under-privileged kids the chance to have better higher education. However there is one particular race (I'm giving the definition of race as "of a particular culture") of individuals whose culture is to skip higher education and immediately get a better job. Even if all the poorer individuals have the chance at higher education, they still wouldn't if race interferes (assuming culture and race coincide like already mentioned). What you are proposing is solely helping the under-privileged, not "minority under-rep". "Curing" minority under-rep is more than simply providing otherwise unobtainable privileges to minorities. It's forcing them to abandon outside factors (for ex. supporting families for whatsoever reasons, for ex. culture), too. Please members of this thread, do NOT CONFUSE minority under-rep with underprivileged rep.</p>
<p>Why don't we do AA for sports too. There is a lack of Asians (and to a lesser extent whites) in the big-time leauges. Never going to happen. Is intellegence that much different from athleticism? They are both characteristics of humans and different races have generally varied amounts of each. And there are numerous other traits that gravitate towards each race. It's like Starcraft, you can't do EVERYTHING but protoss is good in its own ways, terran its own, and zerg also has its. Just accept it and live with it. Don't try to balance it out. Make do with what you have regardless of the color of your skin.</p>
<p>I live in Seattle and am influenced by the Supreme Court decision. The right decision was made. John Roberts wrote that ""The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race." This sums up my view entirely. Affirmative action makes race a critical factor that will dictate your life options and future; this is racism. I want to live in a country where people have opportunities because of hard work and ability, not a preferable skin color.
Some of the posts here are deeply disconcerting. I hope people realize racial issues will not be quelled by racial discrimination.
Runpunk suggested that affirmative action be used for sports as well as schools and jobs. I want him to seriously evaluate that statement. Should a professional athlete play because of their race or their athletic abilities? Should people be accepted to Universities based on their race or their knowledge and intelligence? Should job candidates be selected on the basis of their race or their ability to do a job?
I have seen a whole host of backward comments on this thread with people who try to convince themselves that racial discrimination leads to equality when really it is just racism, pure and simple.</p>
<p>Seattle I believe runpunk was being satirical</p>
<p>But what makes you believe that these minorities are not qualified?</p>
<p>^^^ answer: statements such as "YOU ARE RACIST" or "YOU ARE IGNORANT" or "YOU ARE BLACK BUT YOU HATE BLACKS" or "YOU ARE JEALOUS THAT I GO TO CORNELL" used as arguments in an intellectual debate.</p>
<p>wow ur still here firefox. Are you still crying 'cause you thought I couldn't get into a good school and I did...please get over it. :P</p>
<p>I'd have to say firefox is right on most parts. When you spew personal interjections and emotional filled "OMG RACISM" you just show there is little reason behind your arguments.</p>
<p>^why don't you read all my posts before you start judging me, TheMK99. The fact that you side with firefox is sad</p>
<p>I'm not judging you, just your side of the argument. If you take any online debate too personally, I'm sorry about that. I've only read one of firefox's posts, so I'm not giving him much props here just what I noticed on this page. I honestly don't care enough to read all 17 pages.</p>
<p>
[QUOTE]
proletariat, how do you know the houshold incomes of some of these Black students anyway?
[/QUOTE]
</p>
<p>I posted some links earlier.
[QUOTE]
Also, even if these kids are privilege why shouldn't they deserve to go to a top 20 school? What makes a white person with the same income more deserving?
[/QUOTE]
</p>
<p>They are equally deserving.</p>
<p>
[QUOTE]
Do you assume that these Black kids have lower SAT or GPAs than other people?
[/QUOTE]
</p>
<p>Are you assuming that I'm assuming that? </p>
<p>
[QUOTE]
Also, who are you to determine who gets into a school or not, you're not an admissions officer? You said that schools should have the freedom to choose who goes to their schools so leave them alone and let them choose.
[/QUOTE]
</p>
<p>Have you honestly read any of my posts? I'm not making a practical argument that racially based AA should be banned. I'm arguing that it's wrong. There's a very defined difference.</p>
<p>
[QUOTE]
PROLETARIAT, sadly, solving the problem of underprivileged kids DOES NOT solve minority under-representation. What you are assuming is that 1) government help to underprivileged kids will unconditionally get them better higher education (college etc.)
[/QUOTE]
</p>
<p>It will help as much or more than AA is helping right now. It targets kids before college during the formative years.</p>
<p>
[QUOTE]
and 2) Minority under-rep is solely due to the minorities being under-privileged.
[/QUOTE]
</p>
<p>I never said this, but being underprivileged is a major factor. I'm sorry, but someone who is not underprivileged has very few excuses to make when it comes to college admissions.</p>
<p>
[QUOTE]
For example, let's say there's suddenly a solution that allows ALL under-privileged kids the chance to have better higher education. However there is one particular race (I'm giving the definition of race as "of a particular culture") of individuals whose culture is to skip higher education and immediately get a better job. Even if all the poorer individuals have the chance at higher education, they still wouldn't if race interferes (assuming culture and race coincide like already mentioned).
[/QUOTE]
</p>
<p>We can't change culture with affirmative action, which is a very weak plan to target those who have already, in your plan, defied their culture. Affirmative action doesn't persuade them to do that.</p>
<p>
[QUOTE]
What you are proposing is solely helping the under-privileged, not "minority under-rep". "Curing" minority under-rep is more than simply providing otherwise unobtainable privileges to minorities.
[/QUOTE]
</p>
<p>But that's all it would be ethical to do.</p>
<p>
[QUOTE]
It's forcing them to abandon outside factors (for ex. supporting families for whatsoever reasons, for ex. culture), too. Please members of this thread, do NOT CONFUSE minority under-rep with underprivileged rep.
[/QUOTE]
</p>
<p>So how would racial AA force or persuade them to abandon these outside factors? Explain.</p>
<p>
[QUOTE]
But what makes you believe that these minorities are not qualified?
[/QUOTE]
</p>
<p>Nothing. If they are qualified (and chances are most are), affirmative action wouldn't be necessary. Therefore, if you are arguing that most are qualified (a true statement), affirmative action is not necessary to succeed or to get an advantage over everybody else. Because that's what affirmative action is, whether you like it or not.</p>
<p>
[QUOTE]
wow ur still here firefox. Are you still crying 'cause you thought I couldn't get into a good school and I did...please get over it. :P
[/QUOTE]
</p>
<p>Can firefox and you drop this whole Cornell thing? I know it's unfair to attack you for something firefox keeps bringing up, but you could just not respond. That's the best thing to do if someone is making blatantly imflammatory remarks.</p>
<p>Plus, Cornell and the rest of the top 25 aren't the only good schools.</p>
<p>
[QUOTE]
They are both characteristics of humans and different races have generally varied amounts of each. And there are numerous other traits that gravitate towards each race.
[/QUOTE]
</p>
<p>This seems to me a subtle implication that white people are smarter and black people are stronger. I don't think that was what was intended, but it still seems a bit...awkward?</p>
<p>"I'm not judging you, just your side of the argument. If you take any online debate too personally, I'm sorry about that. I've only read one of firefox's posts, so I'm not giving him much props here just what I noticed on this page. I honestly don't care enough to read all 17 pages."</p>
<p>Then if you haven't read the last 17 pages then don't comment on "my side" whatever you think that is.</p>
<p>proletariat, I understand where you're coming from, and i know someone has already said this too you, but have you ever thought of the fact that schools would like to diversify their student bodies.
At Cornell, where I attend(oh and hey trackbabi, fellow Cornellian) out of the almost 14000 undergraduate student population, only 5% of it is Black, about 6% Hispanic, 24% Asian, and 65% white(I may be a little off on these stats, but you can them up). For a universally renowned school that's not good. It looks bad that out school is not diverse, at least in numbers, because it is pretty diverse if you go there and see. As welcoming as Cornell is to it's minority populations, it is still stigmatized as the Ivy that fails to catch up other Ivies in it's enrollment of URMs. </p>
<p>Some schools need to present a good image, and catering to just simply underprivileged kids, most of whom would be white, would not help that image. </p>
<p>Face it, ethnicity/race plays a big factor in America, and it should because it is who we are. To say that things need to be colorblind is to say that who a person is does not matter. It's up to all of us to figure out if race will play a negative role or a positive one.</p>
<p>In response to the main issue of the thread. Yes the Supreme Court did do a good job in it's ruling, but my problem is that, I don't think they know why it was a good ruling. The plan, or what I perceived of it, was not poorly thought out and would and would have the same effect as NCLB. </p>
<p>In America race plays a factor in education because the worst schools are most always in areas where Black people live. So the plan was thought out one-sidely thinking that these children could be bused into whiter, or more affluent, neighborhoods. The problem is that the kids left out would be the affluent kids being forced to go to these "bad" school with the poorer children who were left behind. The affluent kids would most definitely be put into private school by their parents, like NCLB forces people to do, and the poorer children will be left in their urban schools. This does not help at all. That's my issue with the plan. </p>
<p>But I do believe that "race" should play a role in education. The main reason Black people (and there are other minorities, but I don't want to call out any 'cause I don't know enough about their histories) are in the situation they are in is, undoubtedly, because of this country's terrible racial history. There is no argument in that, if you listen in class you know that. So it is the duty of the government to take care of the problem Black people have with education. You heard the Democratic candidates talk about it last Thursday and you'll hear the Republicans in September at Morgan U. Uplifting minorities in America is a main issue and can even sway the vote in elections. So race is a big deal. That is why there is racial AA, and not simply income AA. Problems is the US are not even that simple to use income AA.</p>
<p>"As welcoming as Cornell is to it's minority populations, it is still stigmatized as the Ivy that fails to catch up other Ivies in it's enrollment of URMs.</p>
<p>Some schools need to present a good image, and catering to just simply underprivileged kids, most of whom would be white, would not help that image."</p>
<p>I fail to see why colleges are obligated to enroll a certain percentage of URMs. Your idea that it is necessary is both belittling to URMs by saying they're not capable of getting into Cornell on their own and betrays the sense of entitlement that permeates your arguments.</p>
<p>"Face it, ethnicity/race plays a big factor in America, and it should because it is who we are. To say that things need to be colorblind is to say that who a person is does not matter. It's up to all of us to figure out if race will play a negative role or a positive one."</p>
<p>Wrong. Colorblindness means that who is a person is is ALL that matters. Haven't you read To Kill a Mockingbird? What race someone is shouldn't be taken into account by ANYONE. It shouldn't "play" a role at all, because it's a zero-sum game and positive for one is negative for another. Are you saying that one race is deserving a positive boost at the expense of another? Sounds like racism to me.</p>
<p>whatisinaname,</p>
<p>Though I have never been to Cornell, I have no doubt that it is “pretty diverse.” It is the largest of the Ivy Leagues and thus has the most students; it’s “pretty diverse” by default. I have frequently stated that each individual is inherently unique and therefore different. Different is the very definition of diverse.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Some schools need to present a good image, and catering to just simply underprivileged kids, most of whom would be white, would not help that image.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I strongly disagree. Helping the underprivileged, regardless of their race, reinforces an occasionally forgotten beauty of America, that is, our lack of a caste system. Social mobility is difficult, but it is not impossible. Higher education is one of the ways to reach new heights in our country, and I believe that universities should target all underprivileged students. A student having a darker skin color is not underprivileged if his family is wealthy.</p>
<p>You say that race and ethnicity should play big factors in America because they “[are] who we are.” It is a historical irony that this type of thinking is now used to justify racial preferences in the name of “diversity” when it was previously used to justify the continued existence of segregation as well as waiting forever for things to change.</p>
<p>I praise the heroes of the first Civil Rights Movement who stood up and fought for their rights. Unfortunately, their struggle was incomplete, and it’s up to our generation to continue moving forward. Luckily, we have individuals like Ward Connerly, Chief Justice John Roberts, and Associate Justice Clarence Thomas to help us.</p>
<p>neither of you actually read my post. The color of someone's skin does matter, it will always matter. It is who someone is, and as I said before, it is up to us to figure out if skin color will be a positive or negative factor in our world.</p>
<p>Fabrizio, people have said this and said this too you sooo many times. Helping just underprivileged kids would just increase white enrollment rather than URM enrollment, thus making the school less diverse. Think of it this way, if I had a bag of 50 balls, 40 of them blue and 10 of them green, and I had to pull them out randomly one by one. Is there not an 80% chance that the first one I pick would be blue as opposed to the 20% chance of it being green. Because there are more blue balls there will always be higher chance of me picking out the blue balls. Do you get it now. </p>
<p>There are more WHITE underprivileged kids in America. And there are A LOT of WHITE kids in America's colleges. The problem in America is that minorities such as Blacks, Latinos, and Native Americans are very underrepresented in higher education. They cannot and are not advancing in their respective societies because of this lack of education. So college find it their duty to recruit these minorities order to help their causes and to increase their diversity. Just helping underprivileged kids would, in the end, mostly help white people in America. White people in America, have been and still are helped the most with slavery, Jim Crow, segregation, the slaughter of the Native Americans, police brutality, racial profiling, KKK, institutionalized racism, must I go on because there is a lot more. I don't know if you have forgotten or if you are too sheltered to realize that race does matter. And all those are just in America there's many more around the world.</p>
<p>To say that you are colorblind, to me, a Black girl, is to say that you do not respect my history. That is what you are saying to the Black population, you are not making yourself look "good and innocent". You should acknowledge the fact that I am Black because there are differences that come with this skin color, our situations are not the same. I am not saying that my situation is exactly the same as the next Black person, but there are some similarities. And I said to respect skin color, just as I would respect yours, not hate it. That is when a problem occurs. </p>
<p>And no I am not insulting minorities. Schools like Cornell look for minority students who would contribute greatly to the university. They literally seek them out because, for some of these kids, like me, they are not in the situation or atmosphere that they would have the opportunity to know that there are schools out there that would accept and help fund their education. Some have thought about going to college, but were only going to settle for small state schools or community college, not knowing that there abilities were greater than that.</p>