The Affirmative Action Thread

College Confidential Community
1

<p>Although AA is an interesting topic and all you smart CCers know a lot about it and post very intelligent arguments, it seems like a lot of threads that aren't meant to become AA debates do just that. So I was thinking we could have one <em>curtious</em> thread dedicated to debating AA as to avoid hijacking topics all over the board.</p>

<p>I'll start with my opinion.</p>

<p>AA in theory has good intentions but is gone about in all the wrong ways. One could argue thar [blank] % of blacks are under the poverty line while only [much lower number] % of whites are, and therefore blacks should have an advantage come admissions time. But if we think about it on an individual level, there will always be poor blacks and poor whites and rich blacks and rich whites. So, IMO, AA should be geared towards poor applicants--the ones who haven't been given any great opportunities since day one. AA shouldn't apply to those who have been born with a silver spoon AND minority status.</p>

2

<p>We have a million threads on this. Go Search! or post on the Cafe section.</p>

3

<p>Oh. Nevermind then, I guess. But I do see that happen a lot.</p>

4

<p>First of all, let's define Affirmative Action:</p>

<p>** "The purpose of affirmative action is to give our nation a way to finally address the systemic exclusion of individuals of talent on the basis of their gender, or race from opportunities to develop, perform, achieve and contribute. Affirmative action is an effort to develop systematic approach to open the doors of education, employment, and business development opportunities to qualified individuals who happen to be members of groups that have experienced long-standing and persistent discrimination."-<a href="http://www.affirmativeaction.org/about.html"&gt;http://www.affirmativeaction.org/about.html&lt;/a> **</p>

<p>I propose that for the purposes of this debate, this is the definition of affirmative action. If anyone has a better definition from a credible source, please set it forth.</p>

5

<p>Now. I will restate my arguments from a previous thread:</p>

<p>"there are only 1092 thousand black households with an income over 100K, as opposed to 17,126 thousand white households within that same bracket, a ratio of roughly 54:856. Therefore, for every upper bracket black, there are FAR more upper income whites."</p>

<p>You think that a 54/856 doesn't make upper income blacks "rare"? Just because you MAY know upper income blacks doesn't mean that they are especially prevalent. </p>

<p>You said: "or that if a high enough percentage of blacks are poor, we should just assume that ALL blacks are needy and give them all admissions preference?""</p>

<p>The premise of Affirmative Action is to, (I'm putting this in caps for easy viewing) “[GIVE] OPPORTUNITIES TO QUALIFIED INDIVIDUALS WHO HAPPEN TO BE MEMBERS OF GROUPS THAT HAVE EXPERIENCED LONG-STANDING AND PERSISTENT DISCRIMINATION."
Again, note the lack of mention of ANY SOCIOECONOMIC FACTORS. It's not about percentages of poor blacks, it's about remedying the skewed demographics inherent in college populations as a RESULT OF slavery, racial injustice, and other factors that have deterred blacks and other minorities of ANY socioeconomic standing from applying or getting into these top colleges. </p>

<p>In addition, you completely and utterly ignore the fact that the Achievement Gap is more than just the result of socioeconomic differences, but differences in mentality. Whereas black culture is one that has been constantly exposed to oppression and bleak prospect, white culture is relatively speaking not the same.</p>

<p>I myself go to a predominantly black school, and I see first hand the differences between black attitudes towards education in my school and white attitude toward education. Many of the blacks in my school (yes I am black as well) adopt the "Why Bother Attitude" and it is that same mentality that exerts peer pressure on those who do want to succeed.</p>

<p>For example, when I was a freshman, a black girl confronted me about the fact that I was in Honors classes and going onto AP classes. She said "Why you gonna do that for? Why you gonna act like one of THEM?"</p>

<p>When it is not even encouraged for fellow blacks to be overachievers in schools by their PEERS (meaning this bars adults and organizations like NAACP), the overall "Why Bother?" mentality takes effect. </p>

<p>I'm not saying that because of AA, there are no inherent flaws in the system, what I AM saying is that it’s focus on RACE AND NOT SOCIOECONOMIC STATUS is extremely important, and necessary in the status quo. </p>

<p>P.S. The $35,000-$50,000 bracket is the Average income bracket, and some Ivy Leagues offer free tuition for those below 40K. Note that I included both whites and blacks of that bracket in my post.</p>

6

<p>Another one of my posts:</p>

<p>""The purpose of affirmative action is to give our nation a way to finally address the systemic exclusion of individuals of talent on the basis of their gender, or race from opportunities to develop, perform, achieve and contribute. Affirmative action is an effort to develop systematic approach to open the doors of education, employment, and business development opportunities to qualified individuals who happen to be members of groups that have experienced long-standing and persistent discrimination."-<a href="http://www.affirmativeaction.org/about.html"&gt;http://www.affirmativeaction.org/about.html&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>That is essentially the definition of AA, note the conspicuous lack of any mention about socioeconomic status. Indeed, there is an exception to every rule, there are most definitely black applicants who are well off than many white applicants. But how much of the 12.8% of blacks is better off than the general 80.2%? Not much. Therefore how prudent would it be to evaluate people based on their socioeconomic standing? I contend, not very. </p>

<p>The entirety of your argument is based on the idea that Affirmative Action was created with the intention of extending a hand to the poor and lower income brackets. This is not necessarily true. The idea of Affirmative Action has been misconstrued over time so that many believe that it, like financial aid, aims to aid lower income families. Of course, according to the definition above, this is most certainly not the case. </p>

<p>Affirmative Action is the product of Civil Rights for victims of "persistent discrimination", not the poor. However, due to the obvious background of slavery in the U.S, many African Americans in this day are worse off than they would be if it were not for slavery. Thus AA is meant as an EQUALIZER based on RACE, not INCOME. What you are referring to is financial aid.</p>

<p>I adamantly contend that if Affirmative Action was abolished, diversity levels would drop in top tier schools. Why? Consider:</p>

<p>According to data from the Census bureau
( <a href="http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0104552.html%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0104552.html&lt;/a> )</p>

<p>As of 2005, rough 2,114 thousand black households are within the 35K to 50K bracket as opposed to 13,944 thousand white households within that same bracket. That is roughly a 15:100 ratio. Assuming one child from each of these households, you have 15 blacks competing with 100 whites for x amount of spots. If we adjust for the “Achievement Gap” in terms of Academics, which places those 15 blacks academically lower than the 100 whites in terms of SATs, GPA, etc, the blacks have even less of a chance of competing with 100 whites. The immensity of such a problem is evident, the blacks would no longer have the advantage of being considered based on race; </p>

<p>IF considered based on INCOME, there is absolutely NO ADVANTAGE and with lower average academic scores, there is VERY LITTLE advantage. </p>

<p>Of course, there are blacks who are in the higher income brackets. But the median income for blacks is 17696 less than the median for whites. In addition, there are only 1092 thousand black households with an income over 100K, as opposed to 17,126 thousand white households within that same bracket, a ratio of roughly 54:856. Therefore, for every upper bracket black, there are FAR more upper income whites.</p>

<p>Thus it is clear that for every black of higher socioeconomic status, there are far more whites competing for the same spot of the same status. And for every black of low income there are many more whites competing for the same spot. Adjusted for the Achievement Gap, according to which on average blacks perform worse than whites, without AA and with a system based purely on socioeconomic status, blacks would be present in extremely small amounts."</p>

7

<p>And my last set of arguments from a previous thread:</p>

<p>mj93, one of the flaws in your argument is that you assume that if the upper 9% of blacks was compared to the upper 35% of whites, then the amounts of whites and blacks get in would be reflective of the populations. This is just not true. Again, if you took the time to read what I said before (I know it's long, but in order to refute my points, you have to know them) you MUST ADJUST FOR THE ACHIEVEMENT GAP. According to the achievement gap, no matter what, when comparing a white of a certain bracket and a black of the same bracket, ON AVERAGE, the black will do slightly worse. This is because of more than socioeconomic status, it is also psychological. As long as the "underachiever" mentality exists, the need for AA will exist. But as AA puts more and more blacks in the higher levels of academia and makes black achievement more visible, then the mentality will over time diminish.</p>

<p>Affirmative Action is about correcting problems of the past and eliminating the stigma burned onto blacks by slavery. The argument is about more than just money.</p>

8

<p>Nice, note the definition. It doesn't mention the poor anywhere.</p>

9

<p>Exactly, affirmative action seeks to remedy problems associated with racial discrimination.</p>

<p>Discrimination is not limited by income.</p>

10

<p>This topic has been killed. Over and over again.</p>

11

<p>aa is dumb</p>

12

<p>It's nice to see that you were able to synthesize such a cogent argument under pressure, Delta Royale.</p>

13

<p>They can justify all they want... affirmative action is discrimination. You are granting someone a position BASED on the color of his/her skin, even when someone else is more qualified - THAT is discrimination. Our skin color should not come into this.</p>

<p>Justify it all you want... you know it is. Anything can be justified.</p>

<p>P.S. didn't MLK say that we should be judged by the content of our character, rather than the COLOR OF OUR SKIN?</p>

14

<p>thats actually not discrimination. discrimination is taking away somebody's right. So if the purpose of AA was to say white people couldn't go to college, or white people couldn't graduate with honors, that would be discrimination.</p>

<p>Also AA doesn't admit people BASED on the color of his/her skin. it just promotes race to be a tip factor for already qualified students insuring that the disproportionate amount of highly motivated and successful urms get a chance at the best education so they can in turn add to their currently hurting racial status.</p>

15

<p>He also went on to discuss why movement on the part of individuals is required to right wrongs.</p>

<p>I had also hoped that the white moderate would reject the myth concerning time in relation to the struggle for freedom. I have just received a letter from a white brother in Texas. He writes: "An Christians know that the colored people will receive equal rights eventually, but it is possible that you are in too great a religious hurry. It has taken Christianity almost two thousand years to accomplish what it has. The teachings of Christ take time to come to earth." Such an attitude stems from a tragic misconception of time, from the strangely rational notion that there is something in the very flow of time that will inevitably cure all ills. Actually, time itself is neutral; it can be used either destructively or constructively. More and more I feel that the people of ill will have used time much more effectively than have the people of good will. We will have to repent in this generation not merely for the hateful words and actions of the bad people but for the appalling silence of the good people. Human progress never rolls in on wheels of inevitability; it comes through the tireless efforts of men willing to be co-workers with God, and without this 'hard work, time itself becomes an ally of the forces of social stagnation."- MLK, Letters from a Birmingham Jail</p>

<p>That you would have the gall to attempt to use the name of a Black Equalizer to condemn a process that clearly seeks to Equalize is not only offensive to the heart, it is offensive to the mind. </p>

<p>Discrimination- treatment or consideration of, or making a distinction in favor of or against, a person or thing based on the group, class, or category to which that person or thing belongs rather than on individual merit: racial and religious intolerance and discrimination. -Dictionary.com</p>

<p>I'd appreciate if you would turn your discerning eye to that definition of discrimination, and notice it's similarities and, more importantly, it's dissimilarities to the "discrimination" that black activists spoke of. </p>

<p>Indeed, by such a definition there is discrimination inherent in Affirmative Action. Indeed, it provides favor to a certain racial group. But this endeavor is not the result of hatred, bigotry, or ignorance. It is compensation. It is compensation for 244 years of oppression, slavery, and a stifling enmity from those who deny human beings basic human rights. One such right is education.</p>

<p>Would you begrudge the oppressed their compensation?</p>

<p>But of course, I am sure the way that you say it, these students are taking away spots from those who "are entitled to them". If you had deigned to read my above posts, an adroit person like myself would have come to the same conclusion that I have.</p>

<p>This is simply not true. </p>

<p>There is a 1/15.8 ratio (extrapolated from above data) of black households to white households. This does not even account for asian households. Based on this ratio, the amount of whites getting into college versus blacks, EVEN if blacks got in 100% of the time and whites got in 50% of the time, the ratio would still be 1/7.9. Still, this does not account for asian households.</p>

<p>But where your argument is most flawed is in that it implicitly states that there is some sort of quota of students to be admitted into colleges. That if there are two students that a school like Harvard thinks both BELONG in their university, one must be sacrificed in the interest of quota. Clearly, this is not true. Qualification and Belonging are two different concepts. There are many who qualify to be in a university, but there are far fewer who belong at a university. No school abridges the amount of people who belong at a university in favor of Affirmative Action. They pick students because they feel they belong at their schools, not because they have some prerequisite SAT or GPA.</p>

16

<p>I am against affirmative action for one reason: it doesn't solve the true problem. We're not going to better the education of a kid by placing him/her in prestigious college with the excuse that his/her race has been denied rights and we must make up for it by this. We need to start changing education down to the level of elementary, middle, and high schools in the inner cities. It's so obvious that there's a disparaging difference between the quality of education in a upper-middle class suburb and an inner city school. Once we somehow standardized public schools throughout the U.S. so all kids are offered equal education can we eradicate the roots of this issue.</p>

17

<p>This is a problem far bigger than "equal education".
Equal access to education does not solve the problem if the culture is not conducive to overachieving.</p>

<p>I do not know if you read my posts, I would not expect you to read them. But I will not restate those arguments.</p>

<p>I will simply state that this is a societal problem, a stigma emblazoned onto African American culture my years of oppression which has:
1) created a culture in which education is not a staple
2) created a culture in which overachieving is not a staple
3) created a culture in which faith is not put in education. Education is not what released blacks from chains, however it is what will undo the cultural problems caused by slavery.</p>

<p>AA needs to undo the past before it creates a better future.</p>

18

<p>DerrickA, keep on keepin on! </p>

<p>It makes me chuckle a little bit how many of those opposed to affirmative action like to quote MLK with his let me judged by the character vs color of skin quote. MLK also stated and i'm paraphrasing, that you can't settle for just equality after one party has had 300 years of advantages and say now, let's have equality. I will have the exact quote later. A true academic meritocracy wouldn't present with the results that the status quo would be satisfied with for long.</p>

19

<p>Trying to solve the tre problem behind the goal of affirmative action is just too pressing...to analyze the surroundings and environment of al the student candidates (especially in schools like UCLA with 50,000+ applicants) is simply unrealistic. The number of adcoms would have to shoot up, thus making the subjectivity of admissions even worse with the different viewpoints each adcom has.</p>

<p>Affirmative action is here to stay.</p>

20

<p>DerrickA has many wise things to say, I'd urge everyone here to read what he has said very carefully.</p>