<p>I know, I haven't.</p>
<p>There's just as good a chance than an undeserving white legacy/obscure sport-playing athlete is going to take your spot, so stop ragging on the minorities until you're willing to fight the WASPs as well.</p>
<p>
[quote]
It is just like the fact that being asian will not hurt your chances at entering a top university. It's just that not being asian will help.
[/quote]
But it could help, depending on your experience. Were you Hmong, or Pacific Islander for example, you would probably get extra attention because from what I have read, those students suffer difficulties that make them rarer among exemplary students than the Chinese. If a group is plentiful, sending in thousands of qualified students, no help is needed to find qualified students among them. AA does not make students into qualified students. It finds students who are already qualified. This isn’t the robotic Chinese “Question Ocean” system, where the highest scorer wins. It is a comprehensive system where people are expected to make the most of the opportunities available to them. Race is just one of many factors influencing opportunity.</p>
<p>
[quote]
<em>warning: sarcasm begins HERE</em> Wow, Drosselmeier, I guess you're right. Maybe I should become a Neo-Nazi. After all, you'll be voting right along with Malcolm X and his violent ideas.
[/quote]
LOL. Well, Malcolm X may actually have been against AA, since it is part of the American system he despised. But if not, then this would be a great point were it addressing my actual meaning here. I didn’t mean to imply that a vote against AA is a vote for neo-nazism. I am saying that there is a reason, a much bigger picture here than I think many Anti-AA folks can see, one that I think the neo-nazis do see. They know that AA is helping to increase the strength of blacks and Hispanics, and that is the last thing they wish to see. These folks are working hard to cause a race war wherein whites use weapons to exterminate blacks, Hispanics, Jews, and yes – Asians. There is a reason why they vote with Asians against AA, and it ain’t because they love equality. They know that minority groups that increasingly share the same values, competitive spirit and cultural sensibilities as all other established groups, means that America will become even more a melting pot than it is. It means a certain defeat of neo-nazism. It is in their interest to keep minorities as marginalized as they can keep them.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Fallacies? Check out post 24. Wow, I didn't expect a modified form of reductio ad hitlerum that quickly. I mean, there are plenty of Americans who are neither KKK nor Aryan Nation who are against racial preferences. They choose to uphold our nation's egalitarian principles, not racist dogma.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Excuse me?</p>
<p>How does post 24 mention Hitler at all?</p>
<p>
[quote]
Affirmative Action is much more complex. In general colleges take personal experiences into account, and part of that is race.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>What? Hitler?</p>
<p>
[quote]
They come here with less than zero as well, they have NO grasp of the language, and only the clothes on their back.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>"Me poor Asian. My country too sucky. America save me!"</p>
<p>Well, most Asian immigrants probably will not have a great (although maybe adequate) grasp of the English language, but many are very well-off and well-educated which is why the Model Minority image came into being. Often, they emigrate from their home countries because of cutthroat competition at the professional and educational levels. Moving to America gives them a better life because they get to enjoy it more, not because all Asian immigrants are poor rice farmers or ex-hookers that you saw in a Vietnam War film.</p>
<p>
[quote]
After all, you'll be voting right along with Malcolm X and his violent ideas.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Just a comment here, Malcolm X wasn't actually violent. He never killed anyone for his ideals.... or anything violent at all really (after he became a political radical that is).</p>
<p>Is it possible that the violence label is just thrown at him because white people aren't willing to accept some of the realities that Malcolm X was talking about?</p>
<p>
[quote]
If Mexican-Americans lived in Canada, they wouldn't be Mexican-Americans anymore, eh?
[/quote]
No. They would be Mexicanadians. LOL</p>
<p>(LOL! oh! I just couldn't resist)...</p>
<p>What's ironic and tragic about Malcolm X is that once he started to reconsider some of his angry rhetoric, he was assassinated. At least that's what I garnered from Spike Lee's movie.</p>
<p>No doubt that many people are scared of Malcolm X's image, regardless of his actions. He's the dangerously angry black male that society fears so much, whereas MLK is the good old Southern minister. But MLK himself despised people who thought it was okay to put a timetable on another man's freedom, just because white society was too stupid to consider black people as human beings who deserved to be equals.</p>
<p>Actually, Tarhunt did bring up a good point. Legacies are quite obviously more unfair than AA, so why is the problem ignored by so many people who care so much about AA?</p>
<p>Drosselmeier: I guess I addressed the wrong part of your statement, but I still can't really see what you're getting at.</p>
<p>Mexicanadians...ha ha...I never though I would stoop to the level of using "lol" but here goes...LOL! (I do realize that it wasn't supposed to be extremely funny or something, but I have recently discovered the joys of typing "LOL" into a computer). LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL</p>
<p>IsleBoy,</p>
<p>Yes, I often use both normative and positive statements. I'll use some as follows:</p>
<p>Affirmative action in its current form should be abolished because it is both ineffectual and discriminatory.</p>
<p>Affirmative action in its current form gives preference to certain groups.</p>
<p>The first statement is normative. The second statement is positive.</p>
<p>Supporters of affirmative action object to my usage of the phrase "racial preferences" because it is not 'feel-good' (c.f. "balance" and "diversity"). I have stated that there currently are not enough qualified "under-represented" minority candidates. This is a problem, and I'm interested in solutions that can actually address it. It is not my assertion that racial preferences are the "primary reason for minorities getting into selective colleges." It is a conclusion from Drs. Bowen and Bok. I can't claim what is not mine.</p>
<p>Now, let's see here.</p>
<p>Good ECs. I think a college has every right to actively recruit for its special interest programs (e.g. athletics, fine arts, debate, etc.). In this sense, I do not agree with Li Jian. I think a university can recruit athletes as much as they please. They're picking students based on their performance, not their race.</p>
<p>Geographical residence / home state / high school attended is, in my opinion, an excellent way of achieving diversity without resorting to race.</p>
<p>Essays. Yeah, universities have a "preference" for people who can express their thoughts in clean, crisp English. The day universities have a "preference" for people who phonetically write in Ebonics is the day I move back to Australia.</p>
<p>Test scores. Universities have a "preference" for people who show that they can perform well on standardized tests. Should be a no-brainer.</p>
<p>Developmental status / legacy standing. In this sense, I again do not agree with Li Jian. Legacies *might<a href="key%20word">/i</a> have to pay more for admission. Hey, that can contribute to the construction of a library, an athletic complex, an endowed professorship - good stuff. So if I am rejected in favor of a legacy admit, it's possible that because of that student, other students enjoy real, physical benefits (like a new library). Compare that to "diversity."</p>
<p>Just_Browing,</p>
<p>Hence, "modified form" of reductio ad hitlerum.</p>
<p>Drosselmeier did not compare people against affirmative action to Hitler. Instead, he lumped them with neo-Nazis.</p>
<p>Modified form.</p>
<p>I have no problem with the word "racial preference."</p>
<p>That's what affirmative action is... Hell, you could even call it racial discrimination if you'd like, but that doesn't mean its a bad thing.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Drosselmeier: I guess I addressed the wrong part of your statement, but I still can't really see what you're getting at.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I am talking about something like this:</p>
<p>And this is not just the limit of it. Their leaders are in academia, and even in the press. Charles Murray uses their hideous “scholarship” to advocate further marginalization of minorities. Eugenics is tied to it. Ultimately, we have thousands of Americans, perhaps millions of them, seeking to deny the American Dream to millions of other Americans. They are awaiting the day when they can “cleanse” us from the earth. The last thing they wish to see is a country that reaches out and tries to elevate those it has harmed. Indeed, they even deny the harm has taken place, just as many of them deny Jews were slaughtered in Germany.</p>
<p>When you consider that blacks and Hispanics comprise about 60-80 million people, it becomes very obvious that the neo-nazi agenda dies the very instant that 60-80 million people wake up and take hold of the same values that promote all other groups. I think AA is already helping wake them up. One study I read shows that it almost single-handedly created the black middle class. With modification, I think it can help increase the power and intellectualism in the culture so that it can be ultimately mainstreamed in a positive way. So much of black culture is now influenced by anger (anger influenced directly by history), and when it is mainstreamed, I think it harms everyone. I would like to see this reversed. I think AA can and is helping to do this.</p>
<p>Fab:</p>
<p>
[quote]
Affirmative action in its current form should be abolished because it is both ineffectual and discriminatory.</p>
<p>Affirmative action in its current form gives preference to certain groups.</p>
<p>The first statement is normative. The second statement is positive.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>The first is a normative opinion. The second is true to an extent since it assists minorities and women, just as UC's current admissions practices gives preferences to in-state and some Asian applicants.</p>
<p>Fab:</p>
<p>
[quote]
Supporters of affirmative action object to my usage of the phrase "racial preferences" because it is not 'feel-good' (c.f. "balance" and "diversity"). I have stated that there currently are not enough qualified "under-represented" minority candidates. This is a problem, and I'm interested in solutions that can actually address it. It is not my assertion that racial preferences are the "primary reason for minorities getting into selective colleges." It is a conclusion from Drs. Bowen and Bok. I can't claim what is not mine.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I would not go so far as to characterize supporters of AA as being any more emotional that anti-AA advocates.</p>
<p>As for qualified under-represented minorities, it depends on what kind of admissions process a college uses. Thus, the assertion may or may not be true depending on how you or a college defines qualified.</p>
<p>Dr. Bowen and Bok...did not argue that it was the primary reason, either.</p>
<p>Just_Browsing,</p>
<p>In that case, I applaud you for your honesty.</p>
<p>IsleBoy,</p>
<p>Your phrase "normative opinion" is somewhat contradictory.</p>
<p>An opinion could be tested. A normative statement, however, cannot be tested. It is based on values.</p>
<p>Fab:</p>
<p>
[quote]
Good ECs. I think a college has every right to actively recruit for its special interest programs (e.g. athletics, fine arts, debate, etc.). In this sense, I do not agree with Li Jian. I think a university can recruit athletes as much as they please. They're picking students based on their performance, not their race.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>As well as access to facilities, coaches, summer trainning camps, competitions, high school boosters, etc...not all talented athletes will have that chance, since some high schools have cut back on sports funding, etc...</p>