<p>You know, in reading an article someone posted on another thread some time ago, some top schools probably do cater to underprivileged well. I know Harvard, and I think Princeton and Stanford, give full fin aid to kids with an income of less than $30,000 and fin aid is need-based. Maybe you all should look into things like that if you feel like something should change.</p>
<p>whatisinaname,
I totally agree with everything in your post. Many (but not all) CC members do not understand the necessity for AA in American society because they live in sheltered environments. They do not see or choose to acknowledge the abject poverty in most black communities and how AA educates blacks to overcome the situation. They only see how AA "disadvantages" them. To them AA takes their dream college away because a less qualified URM takes their spot. In reality, this scenario is rare because the amount of URM's that apply to top colleges are significantly less thsn the amount and white applicants; so the odds of a URM taking your spot are slim.</p>
<p>This is what having a diverse community is all about: sharing various experiences to educate others.</p>
<p>What a debate! I have been following this entire thread, and have read every post. Now that I am finally at the end of it I feel as if it would be a good time for me to chime in.</p>
<p>Far too often people get caught up in their own reality and start to believe that their reality is everyone elses reality. Last year, I attended a program here at my University (Washington University in St. Louis) which introduced WashU students to community service opportunities and attempted to instill a sense moral responsibility within the students in that they are responsible for giving back to the community. Because of the demographics of St. Louis inevitably this came to be essentially the white students at Washington University's responsibility to help the black people in St. Louis. What I found from my participation in this program is that in fact a large majority of students at the school had been so sheltered in their lives that they did not understand a fraction of the problems the disadvantaged in St. Louis encountered on a daily basis.</p>
<p>I think much debate in this forum stems from this fundamental disconnect that many CC posters have with those same people that they are so adamantly debating against who benefit from AA. I have said this many times, and I will repeat it here. There is not one world which we all live in here in America. For those who are not privileged it is very difficult to understand how much privilege, and for the sake of this debate I will go ahead and say white privilege, benefits those who have it. To tell you the truth I didnt fully understand this until I enrolled into a top University and actually met and lived with this other group of people. The same is true for the privileged. They just do not understand the troubles of the unprivileged... but I will attempt to lay out a few basic reasons as to why AA is necessary.</p>
<p>First of all I feel like many people dont understand the true reasons for and logic behind AA. AA seeks to level the playing field between races in order to allow all races an equal opportunity to compete in the academic world, professional world, and socioeconomic world. This summer I have an internship in a corporate office, and you know what when I look to my left, and I look to my right, it is very hard for me to find people who look like me. The absence of people of color in corporate America, as doctors, as lawyers, as politicians, in itself places whites at an advantage over blacks. At my school through our career center studies have shown that over 70% of graduates receive their jobs through networking. As you can imagine a large part of these networks are social networks, but of course others exist. Because of their connections to these networks, white people naturally benefit scientifically more from networking and consequently are able to get better jobs. Like it or not, the fact is black people do not have access to these same networks. AA however levels this playing field by giving an advantage to blacks so that they can catch up to the natural benefits whites receive.</p>
<p>Secondly, diversity is important, whether you want to believe it or not. Previous posters have tried to appeal to the moral justification for diversity but for those who still hold strong to their beliefs that diversity isn't as strong as some people make it out to be I present you with another sort of proof of its importance. Economic principles show that diversity in a company is essential for profit maximization. In an a country where whites are slowly but surely loosing their percentages as the majority race companies must now seek ways to appeal to the growing percentages of minorities. This requires implementing marketing schemes which appeal to minorities, having minorities on board in their organizations, and recognizing that continuing to ignore the importance of minorities will not in the long run, be best for the business. This provides another strong justification for AA in the workplace. The same holds true for AA in colleges. College is a preparation for the workplace, and it would be in a college's best interest to follow the trends which the industry is setting.</p>
<p>Also colleges, especially more liberal ones, see the importance in having their demographics as closely as possible represent those of the real world. Notice I say the REAL world, and not the worlds in which many of their students come from which inevitably at the countries top universities is the privileged world. Also for those who try to use the argument that the majority of students who benefit from AA at top Universities are already privileged, I would have to tell you that thats not true. Get to really know more of the minority students at your school and don't assume that they are all privileged. Just because they don't fit the stereotype you have in your head of a black person doesn't mean they are privileged. Many of these people went to elite private schools, on scholarship, or were bused into better schools through city programs, or had strong influences at church, or at home, and finally even those who do come from privileged backgrounds did not have the same experience as you. Whether you want to believe it or not, racism still exists; only today it has become covert racism. It is hard to see until you are personally affected by it. Blow that last statement off if you wish, but trust me, I know.</p>
<p>whatsinaname,</p>
<p>Skin color should be a neutral factor. It should neither be extolled nor censured.</p>
<p>I do not understand why helping the underprivileged “mak[es] school[s] less diverse.” What kind of diversity are we talking about here, anyway? Diversity is simply difference. It is not a synonym for “of a certain race.” Diversity can never be decreased unless segregation is reinstated.</p>
<p>I must assume that your bag of fifty balls represents all disadvantaged, forty of whom are white and ten of whom are non-white. It is true that there will be a higher chance of picking disadvantaged white students. Yet, the possibility that a disadvantaged non-white student could be helped makes this system more inclusive than a system based purely on race. It seems that you’re asking for a policy that can guarantee your group is helped. That is, you’re looking for a policy that results in equality of result as opposed to equality of opportunity. Each of those fifty balls is equally likely to be selected. Each has the same opportunity to be selected. You should not infer inequality of opportunity if the results are not the same. </p>
<p>Race does matter. I have never denied this. I have, however, consistently rejected the notion that since it does matter, we should strive to always take a look at what color a man is instead of what drives him internally, which is far more important.</p>
<p>Since we are both Americans, “your” history is a part of our history. I respect all parts of our history. I am not saying to the black population, “You are not making yourself look ‘good and innocent.’” I do not understand where you got this from. I acknowledge that there are differences (e.g. stereotypes) that result from being black in our country. </p>
<p>
[quote]
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.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>There is a concept in admissions known as “fit.” You use the phrase ‘settle for’ as if it is bad that some students choose to enroll at state universities or community colleges. What if they went to, say, Ohio State and thought they liked it better than Cornell? Are you saying that they made a mistake?</p>
<p>koolmaria139,</p>
<p>I do not live in a “sheltered” environment. As you can see, we live in the same state. I do not reside in a suburb of Atlanta. I live several hours south of our state’s capital.</p>
<p>My town very much has a balanced ratio between black and white residents. I have taken classes with black classmates, and I have heard them describe an exceedingly poor area in a majority black community. I’ve never seen this area, but I acknowledge its existence.</p>
<p>The current system of affirmative action did not “take away” my dream college. I was accepted to all the universities I applied to.</p>
<p>Omg, you still don't get it. read liltrig's post and maybe you'll understand that way. And in my last post I was referring to the other person CollectivSynergy who wanted to be colorblind.</p>
<p>Being Black and coming from a school that is not so known, puts a person at a disadvantage. So why, when they are qualified to go to a top school, shouldn't they have the chance to do so.</p>
<p>And for the last time, RACE IS A FACTOR BECASUE SCHOOLS NEED MORE MINORITIES IN THEIR STUDENT BODIES! There are enough white people in schools. Most of the impoverished population is white, so if they were to just look at a person's income then they would be just enrolling more and more white people which they do not need. What don't you understand about that?!!</p>
<p>and you know very well that koolmaria did not specifically direct her statement to you</p>
<p>liltrig06,</p>
<p>You say that “AA seeks to level the playing field between races in order to allow all races an equal opportunity to compete in the academic world, professional world, and socioeconomic world.”</p>
<p>Depending on this playing field is leveled, I have no problems with this definition. I stress this condition because to some parents, one of whom I have had the pleasure of discussing with here, leveling the playing field means punishing whites and Asians for doing well. That does not constitute a good way of leveling a playing field to me. I have in mind outreach, support, and tutoring. These are ways to help without hurting.</p>
<p>What’s more, you emphasize “equal opportunity.” I am a strong believer in equality of opportunity. I have almost no interest, however, in equality of result. For example, in the bag analogy whatsinaname used, she assumed that because there are more underprivileged whites than underprivileged non-whites, opportunities are not equal for these non-whites. Yet, she forgot that each “ball” (i.e. student) is equally likely to be chosen. Lack of equal results does not imply lack of equal opportunities.</p>
<p>You use the term “whites” too generally. It seems to me that you are forgetting the discrimination Irish immigrants once faced not too long ago. Irish immigrants were, by and large, white, yet they were the victims of terrible discrimination. The same is true for Catholic and Jewish immigrants. In fact, in the eighteenth century, one of our founding fathers, Benjamin Franklin, spoke disparagingly of German immigrants, who are also white. Whites have not “naturally” received any benefits.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Economic principles show that diversity in a company is essential for profit maximization.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Which economic principles? I do not recall diversity being one of the ten principles of economics Dr. N. Gregory Mankiw mentioned in his textbooks.</p>
<p>whatsinaname,</p>
<p>You say “when they are qualified to go to a top school.” I agree with you. When have I ever suggested that a qualified person should not have a chance to attend a top school?</p>
<p>In your bag analogy, all of those balls have a chance to be selected. What’s more, it is equally likely for all of those balls to be selected.</p>
<p>Why do schools “need” more minorities in their student bodies? Also, what kinds of minorities are we talking about? The “over-represented” kind or the “under-represented” kind?</p>
<p>There is no such thing as “enough white people in schools.” I repeat, there is NO such thing as “enough white people in schools.” There is no right magical number for any group.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Most of the impoverished population is white, so if they were to just look at a person's income then they would be just enrolling more and more white people which they do not need. What don't you understand about that?!!
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Is it not possible that these white students are less qualified than their disadvantaged black peers?</p>
<p>There are many people who, even though they are qualified, are rejected from a school. Being a CC member you know that very well. But a school, whose goal is to diversify, will choose the URM(I'm talking about the underrepresented ones) over the overrepresented applicant. And they do have the freedom to do that.</p>
<p>"You use the term “whites” too generally. It seems to me that you are forgetting the discrimination Irish immigrants once faced not too long ago. Irish immigrants were, by and large, white, yet they were the victims of terrible discrimination'
fabrizio,
I don't think you understand what we are trying to say. Those "white" eventually overcame this discrimination through hard work, however if you are trying to say that the discrimination of black and white immigrants, you are wrong. Did white immigrants have their men lynched, women raped, and entire race subjugated by slavery and Jim Crow? No. I think that you made this statement to say that whites have been discriminated against. But whites (immigrants) overcame this and are part of middle-class and upper-class America. Obviously, not all whites are rich and not all blacks are poor, but the majority of them are rich and poor, respectively. Though it has its faults, AA levels the playing field and attempts to quell the injustices of Jim Crow; it does not "harm" Asians or whites. Both races are overrepresented in higher education and the workforce, and if you google the average income of all the races in the US. Guess who come first? Asians, then whites, Hispanics, then blacks.</p>
<p>Do it with socioeconomic status, not race. That'll make much more sense.</p>
<p>I think what fabrizio is trying to point out is that looking at underprivileged kids (rather than URMs) will not automatically guarantee that a flood of white kids will be enrolled into college. Just like the pool of URM applicants, a pool of underprivileged applicants will be treated by colleges in the same vein - where they choose the most qualified out of that pool. Even if the pool consists of 80% white/20% non-white, if all 20% of the non-white happen to be more qualified than the white applicants, then they theoretically will be accepted.</p>
<p>I personally would advocate socioeconomic status as well. The underprivileged whites probably have it the worst in the current system, mainly because they don't have the benefits that URM-status brings, but still experience the exact same conditions that underprivileged URMs do.</p>
<p>Being white whether you are poor or not is a permanent privilege in it's self. Ask why and I'll give you many reasons.
Ok so if there is unprivileged AA, which there is with many school committing to provide full fin aid to students with household incomes 40,000 and less, what is wrong with increasing URM enrollment? What is wrong with giving an applicant a boost because they are from a group that is underprivileged because of the history that comes with their skin color?</p>
<p>And no underprivileged white do not experience the "same exact conditions" as Black or LAtinos or Native Americans. They never can unless they permanently change their skin color. Back in Jim Crow times, poor whites, in some areas, were excused by the law to terrorize black communities. iut's called white privilege.</p>
<p>koolmaria139,</p>
<p>
[quote]
Those "white" eventually overcame this discrimination through hard work, however if you are trying to say that the discrimination of black and white immigrants, you are wrong.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Can you rephrase this? I don’t quite understand.</p>
<p>Some white immigrants, particularly Ashkenazi Jews, did get lynched for being Jewish. As a Georgian, you should be aware of Mary Phagan’s place in our state’s history. Her boss was accused of raping and killing her, even though there was barely any evidence against him. A mob, the “Knights of Mary Phagan,” took him from his jail cell and hung him. He was a Jew, and anti-Semitism ran unchecked in those days.</p>
<p>You say that affirmative action does not harm Asians. I disagree. The current form of affirmative action is a system of racial preference. The UC data show that between 1996 and 1998, Asian undergraduate enrollment at Berkeley increased every year.</p>
<p>^but how does inceased enrollment harm Asians?</p>
<p>whatisinaname,</p>
<p>There’s nothing wrong with increasing “under-represented” minority enrollment. The question is how do you accomplish this?</p>
<p>I fully support outreach, support, and tutoring as examples of methods that can potentially increase “under-represented” minority enrollment.</p>
<p>I have no support for a program that “giv[es] an applicant a boost because they are from a group that is underprivileged because of the history that comes with their skin color.”</p>
<p>This is the type of program that gives preference to the children of the wealthy based on their skin color, the very children who are able to attend private schools, private tutoring classes, and private counseling sessions.</p>
<p>You should be very careful using this train of thought to persuade people. Supporters of the civil rights initiatives in California, Washington, and Michigan successfully convinced the voters of those states that giving the son of a black surgeon a “boost” makes no sense. Groups like BAMN have, surprisingly, failed to adjust after three losses in three “blue” states.</p>
<p>
[quote]
^but how does inceased enrollment harm Asians?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I thought it was common knowledge among those with an opinion on affirmative action that after 1996, UC no longer considered race in admissions.</p>
<p>fabrizio,</p>
<p>I can see where you are basing your ideas off of when you make your opinions on AA, however as stated earlier what you are failing to focus on is AA goal to increase the enrollment of Under Represented Minorities. I too agree with you that if their were a "cast system" or how to award Minorities positions at Universities if following an AA plan, then from a qualified pool of individuals, those with the lowest income should be selected first, and then work the way up the income distributions. And generally, whether you believe it or not, this for the most part is the way the system works. There comes a point however where you have then need to focus on minority representation rather than privilege only. In my opinion, and strike it if you please but I'm sure there are many others who agree with me, AA when looked at in the big picture aims to level the playing field for minorities across all of society.. rather than by individual by individual. You still not have addressed the fact that when looking at positions of power, places of influence, etc, minority representation is still lacking. I have an older brother who works for a fortune 500 company which I shall leave nameless at the moment, and he told me that in the entire company only about 5% of the population is black. In a country where the percentages of African Americans in excess of 12% this just is not right. Furthermore, I assure you.. do some research and you will find that across the board, in top institutions, companies, and organizations.. this representation is equal to if not less than that 5% I just stated.</p>
<p>Are these representations so low because black people are less intelligent? Because they are all lazy? No. Society is this way because of history, and frankly history has shaped the attitudes, socioeconomic positions, privileges, of the black society as a whole. AA aims to fix this big picture. Step back for a second and look at things from a different perspective. A thing as large and controversial as AA cannot be examined from a personal level. It is a social program/initiative... for society. Does it have its flaws. Yes... as does any other social program. But is it beneficial for society as a whole, ALL THINGS CONSIDERED, yes.</p>