<p>Also trying to wedge in a reply ;) to epiphany (and others),
I wasn't really trying to hint at anything with my question as to whether anybody here has declined financial aid or an admission advantage (or returned the company car or voluntarily contributed more to their health care). It was more to try to emphasize my point that most people tend to agree with (or at least tolerate) systems that work to their advantage. Although there are a few exceptions, I bet most people will have to admit that neither they nor any of their friends passed on beneficial options. It lends a little perspective to this (and other) discussions, at least for me. Some people tenaciously defend that which benefits them and other just thrive on debate! :)</p>
<p>I had a thought while following this discussion. In a way, affirmative action is like labor unions. At one point in time, they both were very necessary and an excellent way to assist the downtrodden. Times have changed and the need for both has diminished, but people who are either entrenched in the system or who benefit by it continue to defend it enthusiastically.</p>
<p>(I can say this because we occasionally have heated union discussions in our family, and there are truly similarities. :D)</p>
<p>Well I can't speak for others, lkf (regarding whether their own positions on AA -- not on labor unions -- spring from allegiances and interests, or from 'disinterested' principles). I'll just say two things: </p>
<p>(1) Not only have I no personal gain in AA, I was once against it, because I was relying on the faulty pro- and anti- rhetoric, prior to investigating it and understanding it. The only thing that turned me pro-AA was the doing of that investigation. This is not unlike what happens in political campaigns. It never ceases to amaze me the large proportion of voters who make decisions based on sound-bites, superficial summaries by pundits, and unverified rumors. Not pointing fingers at particular posters here; I just notice both on CC and in the general public, a lot of people operating under misinformation.
It was not any change in personal benefit status that changed my viewpoint.</p>
<p>(2) I cannot verify the racial identities of those on CC who post about AA, except when they do reveal those identities. However, as for those who approve of AA, I do not believe that a majority of them are URM's (because I think that non-URM"s outnumber URM's on CC.) Again, this is just based on self-identification on all the forums which I read, & which include debates/ discussions on AA.</p>
<p>Agree with (1) - To be honest with you, I have not done extensive research on AA, nor have I pondered it at length. Personally, I think it's time to begin to let it go and to move on (the same with labor unions). I don't really know what effect it has had on my family, but I can't really do anything about it so I put my energy elsewhere. We can't be authorities on all subjects. (And even when I try, I can't believe a few of the people I actually voted for!)</p>
<p>Re: (2), I can also only guess, unless people identify themselves. Athough URM's are likely outnumbered on CC, I believe that AA threads probably have more URM's commenting on them. </p>
<p>Without anything more than my casual observations on human nature, I still believe that generally people either consciously or unconscously approve of systems that benefit them. (For example, there are most certainly more white people approving of AA than there are black people opposed to it. More laboring families believe in unions than do white collar families.)</p>
<p>Undoubtedly there are many here who enjoy a good intellectual debate (who else would follow 33 pages?!), but it is often apparent whether posters are playing devil's advocate or whether they have an emotional investment in the discussion.</p>
<p>This is not my reason for defending AA. My kids are homeschooled, and the colleges are quite a bit tougher on us when it comes to tests than on others students, due to our lack of credentials such as an accredited GPA (we often are required to turn in portfolios, etc., grades from other sources, etc., to make up for this). This applies even to black homeschoolers. When I look at many of my kids’ non-black friends (those they have met visiting schools and in summer programs and the like), I see those kids have just as many acceptances as my kids. In fact, several of them had more. One Asian girl, for example, was accepted to every single school to which she applied including Harvard, Yale, Cornell, and several others. My son was rejected Cornell, though his SAT scores were higher than her’s by a 100 points (amongst the highest in the country, in fact), his SAT II’s higher also by at least 50-100 points each, and though his accomplishments were much better. I do not think AA helped him, though perhaps it helped his Asian friend.</p>
<p>I defend AA because there are other kids who don’t have the benefits my kids have, but who are still doing quite well, about as well as the Asian girl mentioned above, though they come from single-parent homes, unlike her, and though they do not know much about applications, unlike her, and though they have no real guidance counselor to help them negotiate the admissions cycle—unlike her. There are also wealthier blacks who are pushing black culture in new and better directions who are quite needed in the schools. These are students who are setting their eyes on commerce and trade, and who are not afraid to try new things. Other black students are learning great things that in my day would have been forbidden by the community. These kids are leaving the past behind and I want to see it happen rapidly. AA, I think, can optimize the speed with which this transition takes place – if it is implemented both at the college and community levels. That is why I defend it. I defend it for Native Americans too, as well as for groups like the Hmong. I defend it mostly for blacks because I sense the unfair past as blacks do, being black myself.</p>
<p>I am willing to eliminate AA when it comes to jobs, set-asides, or anything like that. These are not my interests because I do not think they have the power to shape and transmit culture in the way education can. Though I could certainly benefit from job-related AA (Lord knows), I don’t.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I wasn't really trying to hint at anything with my question as to whether anybody here has declined financial aid or an admission advantage (or returned the company car or voluntarily contributed more to their health care).
[/quote]
</p>
<p>When people turn down schools, they turn down the financial aid packages that school offers as well so it happens all the time. It is not unusal to read here about someone turning down a "free ride" to pay full freight some where else or attend the school that doesnot necessarily give them the best FA package.</p>
<p>People also voluntarily pay/contribute more to their benefit plan especially since many companies have cafeteria plans where people print and choose what they want or need (in addition people also voluntary contribute to the flexible benefit plans).</p>
<p>People also voluntarily contribute more to their health care especially if they are looking for increased benefits or are contributing to a flexible benefit account.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I had a thought while following this discussion. In a way, affirmative action is like labor unions. At one point in time, they both were very necessary and an excellent way to assist the downtrodden. Times have changed and the need for both has diminished, but people who are either entrenched in the system or who benefit by it continue to defend it enthusiastically.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Sounds like you either work as an independent contributor where you don't provide input or feed back to the process or don't work in corporate life of you have never been involved in succession/replacement planning at the managerial level or have been responsible for turning in a balanced workforce survey where the company always wants to knowwhat are we doing to ensure that women and minorities (including asians) are represented at all levels of the corporation. In additions most companies are required to have this information on hand as part of their audit process. As the world shrinks and we are parts of global economies and multinational corporations, business will continue make every effort to reflect the world in which we live. No matter how educated you become, if you cannot work effectively with and though people (which includes understanding and valuing other cultures), you will just be very educated and stuck and never moving forward professionally or personally.</p>
<p>Drosselmeier, you seem to have really well thought out reasons for supporting AA and you are more socially conscious than most people I know. Like you, I also think that strength and change begins in the home and the community, no matter what the race.</p>
<p>Sybbie, when I said that I thought nobody declined financial aid, I did not mean students who chose a different school with a different fa package. I meant students who declined fa to the school they ultimately attended. Likewise, when I mentioned legacies, I did not mean students who wanted MIT and thus declined legacy at Harvard, I meant students who attended their parents' school but did not mention the association.</p>
<p>Clearly, I am not a debater nor a wordsmith. If you are making assumptions about my educational, professional or personal position, let me just say that I am a practical person. I am a healthcare professional, I participate in regular continuing education in technical and legal areas as well as in workplace dynamics. I am not a high level manager (we can't all be chiefs), but we all have a lot of input into making improvements to our work. While it is not my job, nor my goal, to assure that we have some desired racial and gender balance, I do work with all kinds of people (various races, nationalities, immigration status, ages and sexual orientation). We all work toward the common goal of providing the best healthcare we can, and nobody ever considers the personal specifics of their coworkers. It just really doesn't matter. </p>
<p>IMHO, more meaningful change takes place in the realm of the individual, home and neighborhood, as opposed to occurring via scholarly papers and government legislation. I see my most important job as raising my children and managing my home. My husband and I are both active volunteers and affect change in our schools and communities where we can. See? Practical! I'm not even sure how you can comment on my personal life, unless you were just making a general comment. Maybe I'm not global enough, but I'm working hard to improve the parts of the world I contact (sort of like Drosselmeier ;)). Please don't assume that people whose opinions differ or who don't contribute lengthy posts worthy of publication are "stuck" either professionally or personally. Thanks.</p>
<p>yes lkf,</p>
<p>I am making a general comment. While you may not see or think about affirmative action initiatives(which are not only based on race) as part of your day to day day to day work they still take place (especially if you work in a large company). Example: if your employer passed you over for a job because they believe that they can give to some one younger and cheaper that would be age discrimination as being over 40 (again unless I am presuming too much) puts you in a protected class and yes, corporations track all of this.</p>
<p>Drosselmeier,</p>
<p>Though you proffered a “better definition” of affirmative action, you didn’t even have that in mind when you chose not to read my elaboration of an admittedly strange position (i.e. Under your “better definition,” Mr. Connerly is actually seeking to use affirmative action.) You simply took two sentences out of context, ignored the subsequent explanation, and laughed. While you were doing this, you maintained that you did not take any sentences of out of context and claimed that you were both “aboveboard” and “sincere.” In reality, such behavior is neither. Rather, it is grossly unfair and indicative of a person unwilling to discuss in good faith while demanding it from the opposing party.</p>
<p>Tellingly, you do not even use your “better definition” to back up your claim that Mr. Connerly is not using affirmative action. Instead, you resort to creating a new definition on the spot by defining what “affirmative” and “action” mean independent of each other. By contrast, I used your “better definition” in my clarification. Strangely, you have seldom used that definition since you first linked to it.</p>
<p>I thank you for offering your opinion on the perennial “College Admissions” question – Am I a URM? I believe that high school students who read your statement, * if someone wishes to call themselves black or white it is their choice*, will feel confident that the box they have checked is how they self-identify.</p>
<p>As further evidence of your bad faith, you ignore my request to for you to “indulge me for a few minutes and use [my definition] to answer [a] question.” Instead of discussing fairly, you jump straight to the next paragraph, where in an act of good faith, I use your definition and recognize that under it, race-based admissions doesn’t exist. You claim that you have “been trying to tell [me]” that but overlook that I have never disputed this as I have always defined X-based to mean X is one of many and have never claimed that race is a “wholly dependent” factor.</p>
<p>It has been difficult for you to politely disagree with me in your recent posts. You have resorted to a flurry of name-calling, where it’s calling me a member of an “ilk,” my state a “pit,” or one of my definitions as a “twisted abomination.”</p>
<p>I am glad that you recognize yourself as being both “bogus” and “insincere.” To be sure, those are kind words for an older man who purposefully bullies a younger man through name-calling.</p>
<p>Fabrizio:</p>
<p>There is no cause to discuss anything in good faith here with you. When I gave a better definition, I gave it showing that others can define the program without bias, unlike you. </p>
<p>It is certainly a person’s choice to identify themselves anyway they please. No one has to accept their self-identification.</p>
<p>I will not indulge your definition of x-based because your definition contradicts the long held meaning of common words. There is no cause to entertain such total hogwash.</p>
<p>I have not called you names. Your ideas are nonsense, your approach to discussion dishonest.</p>
<p>And you might give all this "poor me younger man" stuff a rest, for your own sake. If you go out of a limb talking nonsense, you had better be prepared to stand and defend it with integrity, on its merits. If you demonstrate a lack of integrity, as you have here - repeatedly - you will lose my respect. Your being a kid simply does not matter.</p>
<p>Intel withdraws ad after a blog points out it's cultural insensitivity.</p>
<p>Is this how politically correct our culture is today? We can't even use black models to represent black sprinters because of alleged "pretty sinister undertones"?</p>
<p>Sprinters are fast. It just so happens that world records in the 100 meter and 200 meter events are overwhelmingly dominated by black athletes. If Intel wants to convey that its processors are super fast, why not use black sprinters to represent that?</p>
<p>There would be no outcry from the racialists if the sprinters were white or if the employee were non-white. However, had Intel used white sprinters, its competitors and detractors would quickly seize on the advertisement and lampoon it for suggesting that its processors are second-class.</p>
<p>There's no racism here. It's worlds apart from the idiotic Lian Ji Princeton "satire" or the Bari-Ellen Roberts case.</p>
<p>Edit</p>
<p>Shouldn't this fake racism story be in another thread?</p>
<p>Blacks of West African origin have been more than overwhelming in the sprinting world. They have been completely locked it up. I believe every single 100m finalist in the last couple Olympics have been blacks with West African roots. Something like 40 athletes at the top. It's a remarkable dominance. Other sports, like hockey, have certain countries dominating because their colder climates produce more hockey stars due to the sport's popularity & access to ice. Doesn't matter where in the world these black runners have been raised, they are unbeatable.</p>
<p>If I were creating this ad campaign, the only way I'd use a white guy would be if he were representing the competitor & I wanted to convey how slow my competition's products were. The picture is too small to see if the runners looked as if they were bowing to a white guy, rather than positioned at the starting blocks for a sprint.</p>
<p>I am not offended by the ad, and I certainly do not think Intel was trying to be racist. I think the company wished to present the idea of speed and power being put to productive use; and since the black sprinter is nearly an icon, they wished to use that imagery to put forth the message. I do not think Intel in any way wished to associate its good name with racism. Unfortunately, there are still far too many of us, blacks and whites, who sense the ugliness of the past quite strongly, who are still very close to it because we remember it, that we cannot possibly escape the slavery reference in the ad, accidental though it may be.</p>
<p>You have a white guy, standing at the center of the image full of personality, in charge of six featureless black clones, all bent low, poised to do his bidding. Yes the black guys are kneeling at a starting line, but the slave imagery, indeed the power structure of that time that governs us largely to this very day, is present in the ad. The blacks here, as in slavery, do not matter in themselves. They are not individuals, but are mere property, developed to work for a white guy. The idea that one of them could rise up and take his place at the center of the image does not even occur to the viewer, just as it would never have occurred to anyone pre-1865 or even pre-1965.</p>
<p>The ad would have had a lot more power and no controversy at all had its creators arranged the black guys 3X3, facing us flush on, against a black background, and eliminated the white guy altogether. The tone would have been severer, sleeker, faster, and far more powerful. And the emphasis would then have been where it should have been-- on the speed and multi-core nature of the processors, and not on the employer and his slaves.</p>
<p>LOL @ StickerShock</p>
<p>Most sprinters spend their time in the starting blocks looking outward--toward the track--presumably visualizing the run ahead of them. That's my memory anyway.</p>
<p>Those heads are preternaturally bowed in my opinion--as if in prayer or deep subservience.</p>
<p>The stocky center character is beyond white in his khaki pants.</p>
<p>Bad ad. That Intel guy lost his job for poor execution.</p>
<p>Cheers: Let me ask you a question. You have exhibited anti Asian tendencies in your writings, and past guilt as far as blacks are concerned. </p>
<p>What have YOU done personally to enhance diversity (writing on e-boards don't count)?</p>
<p>"Your being a kid simply does not matter."</p>
<p>well, but that kid in the next 10-20 years will go places. Many of us will still be writing about history.</p>
<p>Let's see...very funny that you think I am anti-Asian. You've clearly misread my intent and posts.</p>
<p>The opposite is true. I love all of Asia--have visited many ASian countries (Japan, Thailand, Malaysia, Sri Lanka, Singapore, Hong Kong, Indonesia, Polynesia, Maldives), have many many close Korean, Singaporean, Sri Lankan, Chinese, Japanese, Malaysian friends. Many--spanning three decades of international living and working. Two of my current bffs are Asian--one Korean SAHM/entreprenuer and one Sri Lankan female surgeon. The clients who love me best? One Korean, one Singaporean and one polynesian tribe. Oh yeah--and a Canadian white guy.</p>
<p>Promote diversity? Hired about every race, incl Asians, (recruit specifically for Chinese nationals actually), lived in Asia, hired mentally challenged adults, lived next door to mentally challenged adult homes and homes for the blind, worked for Polynesian, Korean, Chinese, Singaporean, Thai, Vietnamese clients. Recently started a 'restaurant club' with mentally challenged neighbors. Promoted AA as a trustee of a private school. Helped Asians and polynesians get scholarships to private schools and US universities. Helped a Chinese academic national establish political asylum in US after he was freed from prison following Tiananmen. Sought and secured two scholarships for his daughter. </p>
<p>Thanks for labelling me--someone you do not know-- as racist and 'guilty'. Et toi?</p>
<p>I am impressed. My apologies.</p>
<p>"...defended the practice of certain private schools actually artificially reducing the scores of certain applicants..."</p>
<p>Princeton did not do this. This is a defamatory statement, actually, as it is accusing an institution of engaging in deliberate fraud (i.e., altering a score). Again, you (& the so-called "researchers") jumped from "had" scores to "had to have" scores. No one "has" to have a certain score to be accepted to any U in this country, unless (1) the U states that on its admissions policy ['We accept no student with <_____ SAT score'], (2) anyone would be able to establish/document a history of a 'minimum acceptable score.'</p>
<p>Do not confuse the existence of high scores as a trend among high percentages of Asian students, with a REQUIREMENT that any institution has toward <em>Asian</em> applicants. The trend toward higher scores is the result of expectations among Asian families, which in turn is a carry-over from their own Asian countries of origin, in which a score can determine acceptance to certain universities. </p>
<p>The fact that Asian applicants to elite U's tend to have higher scores as a group than the average scores of other accepted 'groups,' still does not demonstrate a bias against Asians. What it does demonstrate is a bias of Asian applicants toward standardized testing as a means of entrance to Elite Universities, and a misunderstanding of the weight of score importance vs. the weight of other factors, singly and combined, in admissions. </p>
<p>Both whites and Asians with 2400 SAT scores are regularly rejected (by the dozen) from Princeton, Columbia, Harvard, other elite U's. No need to rely on my statement. Those institutions will be glad to confirm that information (and have, publicly, on several occasions). You can also call them about that. There was also at least one Hispanic student rejected from C this last round with a high SAT score, and another rejected from Georgetown. </p>
<p>When a "study" is conducted with faulty premises, the "results" are of no use.</p>
<p>I think you meant Pericles.</p>