<p>Thanks for the support, it's heartening to see that not everyone is jaded toward the whole process. radronOmega, your point is definitely valid.</p>
<p>AA was originally for the purpose of compensating victims of previous discrimination. Supremes ruled that unconstitutional in '78, said only okay to promote "diversity". And look at the size of the diversity racket that has grown since that ridiculous decision!!!</p>
<p>AA to "undo the past" has been ruled unconstitutional (at least at public schools). Sorry!!</p>
<p>" And look at the size of the diversity racket that has grown since that ridiculous decision!!!"
"AA to "undo the past" has been ruled unconstitutional (at least at public schools). Sorry" </p>
<p>I'm a little confused. The fact that AA was outlawed in the courts is not necessarily germane, seeing as we all pretty much agree that it goes on anyway.</p>
<p>The problem with affirmative action is that it doesn't directly address the most pressing minority education problem: the fact that blacks are underrepresented in colleges. Helping some black student from an upper class background get into Yale with a 1300 SAT score isn't going to change anything. That black student is going to go to college whether he gets into an Ivy League school or not.</p>
<p>Instead, what we should be doing is helping those blacks who were on the cusp of going to college get into college, ANY college (even those that accept 100% of its applicants). We shouldn't be helping the black kid who took the SAT's 4 times and only scored a 1300. We should be helping the black kid who wants to go to college but doesn't have the time or money to take the SAT's. This would involve more support programs, perhaps free SAT prep, and an improvement of elementary/intermediate education in order to prepare these kids for college. The cultural attitude towards education that DerrickA refers to becomes engrained at an early age (for example when a black student is discouraged by his counselor from taking AP courses in HS or when an elemantary school teacher neglects her minority students in favor of her white students). Therefore, it makes sense to address the problem not at the college level but at the secondary and pre-secondary level. Affirmative action actually deters progress from being made in those areas because politicians (and even the URM's themselves) become complacent with quoting the high African American graduation rates at Harvard. For every kid that gets into Harvard, there are many more who want to go to college but can't. They don't care about the Ivy Leagues. They just want to go to college and get the education their parents never had. Those are the kids we should be helping. Sadly, affirmative action does nothing for them.</p>
<p>
[quote]
AA to "undo the past" has been ruled unconstitutional (at least at public schools). Sorry!!
[/quote]
</p>
<p>
[quote]
Supremes ruled that unconstitutional in '78, said only okay to promote "diversity".
[/quote]
</p>
<p>It's only been banned in public schools in California in 1995 and, more recently, in Michigan. AA is still very much alive at other public schools and colleges in general or else we wouldn't have so many threads devoted to them.</p>
<p>AA is legal as long as its "narrowly tailored" and achieves "a compelling governmental interest".</p>
<p>jissell, AA is banned in Texas as well.</p>
<p>Once again, the purpose of AA says nothing about taking economic status into account. Its not about helping poor members of a race, then you might as well just help all poor people (which is a type of affirmative action that promotes diversity of class) which is already practiced; It's about helping a discriminated against race, all members.</p>
<p>reverse racism?</p>
<p>sure...if you want to be ignorant like that.</p>
<p>And technically*, nobody in america can be racist against white people because white people control the power in american society. So WHITE adcoms choosing students of different races over WHITE students isn't racism, its just white people getting what they want and other white people being mad about it. Its not racism, it's just a practice.</p>
<p>If you feel so strongly against AA, then choose not to go to a school that practices AA. (i highly doubt any of you will refuse to go to Harvard because they practice AA)</p>
<p>The top private colleges, all of which practice AA, are known for having both the best academics and the most diverse campuses, so obviously somethings going right and is attracting you all to apply there. </p>
<p>Note how when the number of african americans and hispanics fell at UCLA and UCB, the two schools panicked because they knew they were losing diversity. I have a feeling that because those two schools want to remain on top they'll resume practicing some form of affirmative action, and they're already starting to.</p>
<p>One possible problem I see with AA that is rarely mentioned is that it encourages a subtle sort of discrimination. For example, imagine you are a student at a top university (with AA) working on some sort of group science project. You have to decide who to work with between two classmates you do not know: one who is an URM and another who is asian. Now, assume you are not a racist (i.e. you do not believe any one race is naturally more intelligent than any other) but you are logical. You know the realities of elite college admissions--you are aware that the asian student probably overcame a definite disadvantage in the admissions process, yet still managed to get in. Meanwhile, you know that it is quite possible, perhaps even likely, that the URM student scored 300 points lower than the asian student on the SAT. Not because URM's are naturally "dumber" than asians, but because it is much more competitive for an asian student to gain acceptance. Now, if you wanted to get a good grade on your project, which student would you choose to work with?</p>
<p>Note that if admissions were race-blind, your decision would be much simpler: you might as well flip a coin.</p>
<p>John Glass, name the time at ANY point in American history in which college admissions was "race blind"? And do you REALLY want it to only become a numbers game? How confident are you in your numbers?</p>
<p>One thing that is frequently left out of these AA discussions is that there is another aim to AA. </p>
<p>Most people here (and in the public realm) focus on it as a way to help/benefit disadvantaged minorities. Then they complain that some of the people helped by AA aren't "disadvantaged" enough. You know, they aren't poor enough, didn't live in crappy neighborhoods, don't have dark enough skin.</p>
<p>This completely ignores the fact that some educators believe that AA helps ALL students. They do it because they believe a more diverse class will mean a better campus learning environment for every person on the campus. From that perspective, students of color may get special consideration simply because they are DESIRABLE and in relatively short supply, not because they had a hard life before college. It is very similar to why a student from an unusual location or family background may get special consideration. It's not just about how hard life has kicked a candidate around.</p>
<p>Exactly hoedown.</p>
<p>I'd just ask that everyone read the definition of Affirmative Action as posted on the first page in the second post. It's a move to correct the wrongs of the past, not necessarily an economic move. It just so happens that one of the wrongs of persecution is diminished socioeconomic status, but the stigma of racism affects ALL blacks.</p>
<p>"John Glass, name the time at ANY point in American history in which college admissions was "race blind"?"</p>
<p>poetsheart: Your attitude (we cannot do this in future because it has not been done in the past) would force us to create a future in which we are perpetually repeating the errors of the past. It is like saying we can't have freedom because we have only known slavery, or we can't have democracy in "Country X" because we have only known dictatorships.</p>
<p>Also, I am no expert (correct me if I am wrong) but didn't Prop. 209 ban affirmative action in California. Wouldn't this mean that since 1998 the UC's have been "race-blind"? (Of course admissions officers could guess ethnicity from a name, but I don't believe there are any quotas to fill).</p>
<p>"And do you REALLY want it to only become a numbers game?"</p>
<p>No--I want it to become an essays, EC's, recommendations, classes, and numbers game--in short, a merit game.</p>
<p>"How confident are you in your numbers?"
Actually, pretty confident: they got me into Harvard and Princeton.</p>
<p>Derrick:
You say "I'd just ask that everyone read the definition of Affirmative Action as posted on the first page in the second post. It's a move to correct the wrongs of the past, not necessarily an economic move."</p>
<p>How can you hold that people today should be held accountable for anything that happened more than 100 years ago? Do you automatically blame anyone you know of German descent for the holocaust? Of course not. Everyone has ancestors who did good things and ancestors who did bad things--but each person has a right to be judged on their own merits, not on the merits of their ancestors. </p>
<p>You say you want to "correct the wrongs of the past." Can anyone change the past? No. But we can change the future without creating new wrongs. </p>
<p>What mistakes did humanity make in the past? Humanity has been for the most part simply racist. People were given advantages based on their gender or race. This led to "the systemic exclusion of individuals of talent on the basis of their gender, or race from opportunities.</p>
<p>What does AA do? It enforces the same racist policies of the past, yet not quite as harshly, and with different races on the benefitting end. An asian or white kid may find himself/herself excluded from University X because of their race. Whether the person being discriminated against is brown or green or purple, it doesn't matter: it is still discrimination. </p>
<p>To be honest, I don't understand how one can be against racism yet for affirmative action without feeling like a hypocrite. Perhpas this is why African American Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas is against AA. It is like saying "All animals are equal, but some are more equal than others" (Orwell).</p>
<p>I'm going to see if someone else has a suitable answer before I bring the hammer of truth crashing down on your skull. The recycled arguments are getting exasperating, and frankly I'm tired of typing several page arguments if know one will read them.</p>
<p>Derrick,</p>
<p>
[quote]
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.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>The only problem with this definition is its vagueness. What is the "systematic approach?" If it is a system where race and gender play no role in the evaluation of the competency of an individual, then I have no problems with this approach and definition. It is fine. If, however, this method involves the grant of preferential treatment for individuals who belong to certain groups, then I do not approve of this method whatsoever.</p>
<p>You previously mention that the premise of affirmative action is to give opportunities to qualified individuals who are members of certain groups. Once again, the problem with this premise is its vagueness. What are these "opportunities?" If they are mentoring, tutoring, and support, to name only a few, then I have no problems. These services are great, and this type of help is appropriate. If, however, these opportunities involve preferential treatment for students of said groups on the basis of their group membership, then I do not approve of this idea in any way, shape, or form.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I adamantly contend that if Affirmative Action was abolished, diversity levels would drop in top tier schools.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>By "diversity levels," do you mean Black students?</p>
<p>Derrick, I have one question for you. You seem to emphasize the importance of race in determining who gets preference under affirmative action. Should Asians also receive affirmative action benefits?</p>
<p>I've always found it curious as to why supporters of race-neutral admissions are instantly assumed to be for "numbers only" admissions.</p>
<p>Non sequitor.</p>
<p>The complement of race-based admissions is NOT a numbers-only admissions. The complement is race-neutral admissions. Everything else can be held constant (e.g. essays, extracurriculars, recommendations, volunteer work, passion, etc.)</p>
<p>Affirmative action is a values issue. Yet, unlike abortion, logic can and should still be used. Supporters of racial preferences frequently dump logic in favor of emotion.</p>
<p>If you're not with them, you're a "racist" or "pro-segregation" or a "white supremacist."</p>
<p>If you think that diversity is beyond skin color, you're an "idiot" or a "stupid jerk" or a "troll."</p>
<p>Dr. Thomas Sowell once said, and I paraphrase, "If you believe that everyone should play by the same rules, that would have gotten you labeled a radical seventy years ago, a liberal thirty years ago, and a racist today."</p>
<p>Why is that?</p>
<p>I will refute or concede on other points, but since you insist, I will answer you as honestly as I can. </p>
<p>"Derrick, I have one question for you. You seem to emphasize the importance of race in determining who gets preference under affirmative action. Should Asians also receive affirmative action benefits?"</p>
<p>No, I do not. I believe that they should have the door opened to them through financial aid same as any race, but I do not believe that the idea of Affirmative Action is practical with the current levels of Asians in top tier schools. But more important is why there are so many Asians in top schools, and why they do not need Affirmative action in general. </p>
<p>There is one fundamental difference between how blacks entered this country and how Asians entered this country. Blacks were dragged here in chains, Asians came here of their own free will.</p>
<p>Indeed, Asians and Asian communities have been persecuted, one notable incident being the Japanese detention during World War II. However, note the definition of Affirmative Action as posted in the second post. It cites persistent discrimination that is thus debilitating over time. Indeed, most every minority of any kind in America has suffered discrimination for religion or race at some point. However, no race has suffered most consistently and with as little protection (for example, retreating into self sufficient communities as some Judaic communities may do) as African Americans. For nearly 250 years, blacks were in chains. But what about post-slavery? Blacks still suffered from discrimination, something that affected all groups, but in the 50s and 60s, they also suffered race riots and outright violence at the hands of bigots. In Compton, blacks were hunted like animals by cops from Missouri hired to keep them down. In the slums of New York, they were beaten down and attacked by mobs of racist persons. Thus even after freedom from slavery, there was still ** persistent ** discrimination. Countless other incidents of large scale oppression of blacks can be cited, but for the purpose of brevity, I'll refrain from listing them. I'm sure that you can find numerous incidents of Asians being oppressed, but if you do, first ask yourself a fundamental question- has it inhibited them academically, and did they suffer in America on the scale that blacks did?</p>