When does diversity shopping become racism?

<p>I'd like to make some comments on the link provided by notredame brother.</p>

<p>The 4th Myth: I agree with this. However, I have seen pro-AA people use this to their advantage very frequently. I remember a time when I was working at the local Democratic phone booth for community service and a lady told my mom, "If they get rid of AA, us women won't be able to get a job!" (which, naturally, is false, as they did just get rid of it here).</p>

<p>The 3rd myth: The article said, "It is another myth to believe that all Asians are a success story. A UCLA School of Urban Planning study shows that Pacific Islanders and South East Asians have poverty rates which are three times greater than white Americans. Other studies indicate enrollment of Pilipinos in higher education is much closer to African-Americans and Latinos that other Asians. Asians, revered as the "model minority" includes Pacific Islanders, South East Asians and Philipinos, yet there are distinct disparities between say a third generation Chinese student and a first generation Cambodian refugee." Why, then, are all Asians hurt by this (yes, I used the word hurt - a heresy, I know - will be explained later)? If certain Asians are at a disadvantage (besides certain groups such as the Hmong, I'm pretty sure, do get AA benefits), why aren't they given a leg up?</p>

<p>My second point about the 3rd myth: If affirmative action helps URMs, it automatically hurts everybody else, because a college will be less likely to accept them. Any advantage to one group is a disadvantage to all others, considering that for every person accepted at most top college, one or more people are rejected.</p>

<p>Another point: The last three are the first three restated.</p>

<p>I realize that this is my fourth post in a row, but the article canuckguy posted brought up many good points no matter from where it was cited.</p>

<p>Another point about myth 3 from the other article: 95% of top corporate executives are white. So what? It takes quite a while for factors such as this to change, and the Civil Rights Movement didn't peak that long ago. This a horrible measuring stick for the progress of under-represented minorities (almost as bad as using 100% of corporate executives are rich as an argument for affirmative action based on socioeconomic status, though for a different reason). Not to mention that an even more disproportionate amount are male. They don't give an exact statistic of how many white people vs. URMs major in business, or the various other factors that could affect this.</p>