Click here to go to the NEW College Discussion Forum

In a recent New York Time article, it states:
"The president of Amherst College, Anthony W. Marx, says that colleges should care about the ethnicity of black students because in overlooking those with predominantly American roots, colleges are missing an "opportunity to correct a past injustice" and depriving their campuses "of voices that are particular to being African-American, with all the historical disadvantages that that entails."

The US Supreme Court has held that admitting blacks for the purpose of diversity is permissible but admitting them for a remedial purpose like correcting past injustices is impermissible racial discrimination. See, Grutter v. Bollinger. What does President Marx's statement reveal about him and his school?

By Annakat (Annakat) on Monday, June 28, 2004 - 12:31 am: Edit

it reveals that he is an enlightened individual trying to make his school more inclusive and accessible to those other than socioeconomically advantaged whites.

why do you ask the question, since you already seem to have an opinion? just state your opinion rather than trying to imply it and pass it off as a question. it doesn't make you seem any more reasonable or smarter. it just makes you sound like bill o'reilly, rush limbaugh, or ann coulter . . . in other words, simplistic.

if you have a problem with president marx and amherst, don't go there, don't send your kids there, don't send your grandkids there or encourage anyone you know to go there.

By Undecided086 (Undecided086) on Monday, June 28, 2004 - 12:56 am: Edit

haha couldn't agree more with Annakat!

By Kk19131 (Kk19131) on Monday, June 28, 2004 - 12:56 am: Edit

Yay! Go Anthony W. Marx!

By Tropicanabanana (Tropicanabanana) on Monday, June 28, 2004 - 01:45 am: Edit

i agree with everything she said.

By Jlq3d3 (Jlq3d3) on Monday, June 28, 2004 - 02:14 am: Edit

ironic that his name is marx.

"socioeconomically advantaged whites"
He was refering to skin color no matter how wealthy, not blacks who are socioeconomicly disadvantaged.

By Foreignboy (Foreignboy) on Monday, June 28, 2004 - 02:46 am: Edit

With reference to George Orwell's 1984, the past does not exist but in our minds and in records. Past injustices are meaningless. The only things that should matter are present prejudices.

By Tropicanabanana (Tropicanabanana) on Monday, June 28, 2004 - 02:56 am: Edit

Past injustices aren't "meaningless" if their effects are still very obvious today.

By Congresssenator (Congresssenator) on Monday, June 28, 2004 - 03:22 am: Edit

I'd just like to point out that the cited SCOTUS decision can be applied to public universities only.

Amherst, as a private institution, is not bound by the federal ruling.

By Chriswh (Chriswh) on Monday, June 28, 2004 - 03:38 am: Edit

Pretty sure any family sending someone to Amherst College isn't too bad off financially.

By Annakat (Annakat) on Monday, June 28, 2004 - 03:46 am: Edit

the present prejudices are the same as the past ones that led and still lead to injustices. let's not kid ourselves--we haven't evolved that much.

oh, and jlq3d3, sorry if i'm misreading your post, but if you think that there is no connection between skin color and socioeconomic status in this country, then your naivete or ignorance is staggering.

By Tropicanabanana (Tropicanabanana) on Monday, June 28, 2004 - 03:48 am: Edit

>>>Pretty sure any family sending someone to Amherst College isn't too bad off financially.

Because there's no such thing as financial aid... Right?

By Goodchocolate (Goodchocolate) on Monday, June 28, 2004 - 06:31 am: Edit

colleges are missing an "opportunity to correct a past injustice"

(sighs)

By Ariesathena (Ariesathena) on Monday, June 28, 2004 - 01:47 pm: Edit

Congress: True that it only applies to public universities, but, a few things. The acronym is SJC. Secondly, all private institutions receive financial help from the government in the form of not taxing property, income, student's tuition, and in the form of federal grants to students who attend those institutions. It may only be time before, on those grounds, similar suits are brought up.

If I'm not mistaken, didn't the decision state that race, economics, etc could be factors, but not numerically? The problem with UMich was that it added a numerical boost to candidates solely because of race, which is different from qualitatively taking race into account (which is what the Amherst pres. is doing).

By Mini (Mini) on Monday, June 28, 2004 - 01:53 pm: Edit

College commitments to economic diversity are relatively easily measured in two ways (and probably require both numbers):

-- Percentage of student body receiving financial aid from the college. This number is a good start, though it can mask the true commitment -- large numbers of students receiving smallish grants and loans does little to ensure diversity.
-- Percentage of students receiving Pell grants. This is an excellent measure. Some elite colleges claim to be need-blind, but in the way they use measures of high school quality, SAT scores, and ECs, actually screen out very large numbers of low-income students who might, in fact, be highly qualified to attend. There is a recent study by Mortenson on this issue.

By Interesteddad (Interesteddad) on Monday, June 28, 2004 - 02:01 pm: Edit

>> I'd just like to point out that the cited SCOTUS decision can be applied to public universities only. Amherst, as a private institution, is not bound by the federal ruling.

That is not necessarily true. Virtually every college, including Amherst, receives federal funding -- for science research, for student financial aid, etc.

I suspect that Amhersts legal council is pulling his hair out over the President's remarks. What the Pres. said about affirmative action and correcting past injustices has been held to be totally unconsitutional in the recent Court ruling.

Racial preference admissions policies are only legal to the extent that there is a valid reason for an exception to the Equal Protection Clause. To grant an exception for "correcting injustices" requires a specific and current injustice that can be corrected with a specific action. The court has ruled that correcting unspecified past injustices with affirmative action is not constitutional.

Despite being viewed as a "victory" for affirmative action, the recent Court decisions in the Michigan cases actually have colleges scrambling to get in compliance. For example, most are rewriting the descriptions of scholarships and "diversity" recruiting so that they are not specifically race based. For example, many scholarships previously earmarked for "black" students are now earmarked for students with "a demonstrated interest in advancing diversity".

The Amherst president unwittingly exposed the dance the colleges have been doing with the Supreme Court -- rationales and "facts" in their legal briefs that do not honestly represent the real actions (specific racial quotas) and real motivations. The Michigan rulings make that dance more difficult and the Amherst pres will surely get a tongue-lashing from the Amherst legal council. Those statements make Amherst an ideal target for a lawsuit and opponents of affirmative action are very much on the prowl for the next lawsuit.

By Mini (Mini) on Monday, June 28, 2004 - 02:24 pm: Edit

You know it is SO easy for the most prestigious colleges to attract and choose the students they really want -- I think it is fair to assume they attract those they wish to attract and not others because of policies they pursue.

For almost 20 years, my NYC high school sent 15-20 students to Harvard, and 8-15 to Yale, and ZERO to Princeton (and this only ended in 1999) -- this was a result of specific race/ethnicity/geographical bias on the part of the admissions director. Amherst (just to use them as an example) has relationships with the guidance counselors at Exeter, Andover, etc. -- they talk to them on a regular basis, figuring out together who should apply and, of those who apply, whom they should admit. The admissions director could just as easily have the same yearly conversation with the counselor at Jersey City High School, or half a dozen high schools in LA or Oakland, California, or dozens of other such places, but chooses not to -- it is too "difficult" or students are not "prepared" or their ECs are not competitive, or the "yield is low" or some such. Well, the colleges wouldn't have to look at effects of "past discrimination", just "current inequalities" -- and if the best students at these places are not "well-prepared", they could fund summer programs, and tutors, and even programs on the high school campuses themselves, and whatever is necessary to deal with it.

The result is that you get places like (just to use an example) Colby where only 6.5% of students are on Pell Grants (Williams is not much higher -- I don't want to be seen as picking on anyone in particular.)

What if each admissions director had a "quota" of contacts -- he/she could not have any more conversations or e-mails with the counselor at Chaote than he does with Jersey City?

(Just musing -- this is all a pipedream, of course. But it goes far to explain why Occidental and Mount Holyoke -- again, just to use an example -- have four times the number of students on Pell Grants than Colby does. They have them because they have decided consistently to make the reach, even if it means admitted students will have lower SAT scores.)

By Jlq3d3 (Jlq3d3) on Monday, June 28, 2004 - 04:09 pm: Edit

"oh, and jlq3d3, sorry if i'm misreading your post, but if you think that there is no connection between skin color and socioeconomic status in this country, then your naivete or ignorance is staggering."

So one's economic status is determined by one's skin color? I always thought that ones economic status is determined by the amount of money they have/make. So all blacks are poor by virtue of being black? That is not only false but it is insulting. To label an entire race as poor and needing a different lower set of standards is biggoted and damaging to that race you label as "not good enough" to have the same standards.

By Annakat (Annakat) on Monday, June 28, 2004 - 04:20 pm: Edit

take a look at the disparity in socioeconomic status by racial groups. whites are doing a lot better than most. of course there are people of every race that are successful, but do you really want us to believe that people of color have the same advantages as whites in this country? that's insulting, and, frankly, plain stupid. don't give me your conservative simplistic arguments, claiming that affirmative action somehow makes whites powerless and that it is a bigoted policy. look beyond your silly argument that's based on facile conclusions and look at the past, the history of race in this country, and then post an argument in that context. now you've confirmed that your ignorance is truly staggering. educate yourself.

By Mini (Mini) on Monday, June 28, 2004 - 04:32 pm: Edit

"needing a different lower set of standards"

Now, you see, this is the part that is highly problematic. Colleges determine that taking AP courses is better than not taking AP courses, but have more difficulty in taking account that there may be NO AP courses at certain high schools for the taking.

They may count larger SAT scores as better, but have difficulty accounting for test-prep, or simply higher levels (or different kinds) of vocabulary used in different schools and neighborhoods. (or simply, the association between SAT scores and family incomes of the peer groups attending the schools.)

They may count certain ECs as better, or have spaces to fill for lacrosse players, field hockey players, fencers, etc. that are less available to some folks. Or they generally may prefer large sets of academically oriented ECs to the fact that a student has NO ECs because she works 30 hours a week in addition to school to help support her family.

I am NOT suggesting they can't account for these differences, just that they have difficulty with them because of the standards they themselves set as "higher" or "lower". In short, they reap what they sow.

And, mind you, they made a CHOICE to do so. I would be willing to bet that if you'd take, say the top 30 liberals arts colleges and the top 30 private universities, you wouldn't find more than 1% of the students at the school at the "bottom" (sic) of the 30 liberal arts colleges (say, just for sake of argument, Mount Holyoke) who wouldn't do just fine at the top university (say, Harvard). (Conversely, you might find 1% of students at Harvard who wouldn't perform well at Mount Holyoke.)

Schools either make a heavy commitment to take talented students from lower economic backgrounds (like Mt. Holyoke or Occidental) or they don't (i.e. Colby - my whipping boy for the day -- could just as well be Williams or Swarthmore, though as I remember, their Pell Grant recipients, while less than half Occidentals, are twice that of Colby's).

By Interesteddad (Interesteddad) on Monday, June 28, 2004 - 05:53 pm: Edit

>> And, mind you, they made a CHOICE to do so.

This is at the heart of Justice Thomas' opinion of affirmative action at elite colleges. His point is that nobody is holding a gun to these colleges' heads and forcing them to have elite admissions standards. If they feel the need to have lower standards for students of one particular race, then they should be intellectually honest and lower their standards across the board. After all, if they believe that high SATs are not a useful predictor, then the SATs should not be more important for one group than another.

The problem, as Thomas has aptly recognized, is that these schools want to have their cake (racial diversity) and eat it, too (high average "stats"). Taking it one step further to include Williams Prez Morty Shapiro's airline-pricing analogy, these schools want icing on their cake as well (high demand from full-fare passengers that comes with "presitigious" average stats).

As I look at the admissions policies of elite colleges and see how they achieve their "diversity" almost exclusively with URM applicants from elite educational tracks, I believe more than ever that Thomas is correct in surmising that what the colleges call "diversity" is really just a desire for "racial aesthetics". If this were not the case, there would be outreach programs to inner city schools, something that doesn't happen much with the exception of a few traditional NYC feeder schools.

By Ansiarach (Ansiarach) on Monday, June 28, 2004 - 06:00 pm: Edit

Selection should be purely reliant upon ability.

By Mini (Mini) on Monday, June 28, 2004 - 06:01 pm: Edit

Fellow Ephman speaks my mind!

(though I would quibble with the idea that they are, in reality, "lower standards" -- a school could, for example, make a conscious choice that working 30 hours a week to help support one's family is a HIGHER standard than attending a Harvard summer school, or being on the fencing team.) Or for that matter, achieving an 1150 SAT score in a school where there are no books (no less high-priced tutoring or prep courses.) They could conclude that this is a sign of HIGHER ability (rather than a lower one.) They make the choice.

But I think it would be unfair to conclude that the commitment of each of these elite schools to diversity (beyond "racial aesthetics") is the same. Both the "preppy index", and the percentage of students on Pell Grants are very telling. And very different, even among the so-called elite schools (and, in my limited experience, you can actually feel it on the campus.)

By Mahras (Mahras) on Monday, June 28, 2004 - 06:40 pm: Edit

No one mess with Marx. He is a graduate from my hs. As wekk as the pulitzer winning proffesor at Amherst (Taubman....i think). Back off!!`

By Jlq3d3 (Jlq3d3) on Monday, June 28, 2004 - 10:01 pm: Edit

Whether or not blacks overall are poorer than whites is irrelevent to my arguement. My point is that not EVERY person whose skin color is black is poor, so why should that person be subjected to lower standards. Not EVERY white person is rich, so why should they be subjected to harder standards. If there should be any preferences, it should be done on income, not on color of skin.

By Thinkingoutloud (Thinkingoutloud) on Monday, June 28, 2004 - 10:43 pm: Edit

Annakat said:

"why do you ask the question, since you already seem to have an opinion? just state your opinion rather than trying to imply it and pass it off as a question. it doesn't make you seem any more reasonable or smarter."

I have an opinion, but maybe it is wrong. Asking a question invites others comment and what a splendid number of thoughtful comments followed. I had not thought of the public vs. private angle, and thus learned something. Maybe I should have framed the question as a moral one rather than a legal one.

Annakat said:

"if you have a problem with president marx and amherst, don't go there, don't send your kids there, don't send your grandkids there or encourage anyone you know to go there."

In other words, you are saying I should stay with my own kind rather than addressing what appears to be racial discrimination by a college president. Weren't African Americans once told to stay with their own kind?

By Annakat (Annakat) on Monday, June 28, 2004 - 10:52 pm: Edit

give me a break, thinkingoutloud. don't try to put ridiculous words in my mouth (or keyboard) to justify your viewpoints. make your arguments and opinions clear and take responsibility for them. think out your arguments before thinkingthemoutloud.

the last half of your last post just illustrates, again, the simplistic and dumb approaches some conservatives take to sound like they're making thoughtful arguments. the conclusion you draw is absurd.

you're not persuasive in your first post or in your last one. keep trying.

By Annakat (Annakat) on Monday, June 28, 2004 - 10:55 pm: Edit

jlq3d3, stop trying to convince us that you're an advocate for equality and fairness. the subtext of your comments is plain as day.

By Jlq3d3 (Jlq3d3) on Monday, June 28, 2004 - 11:25 pm: Edit

answer my question. Affirmative action is based on skin color, while you said it is meant to address economic problems of applicants. So since all blacks get affirmative action, all blacks are poor and disadvantaged? And if affirmative action is meant to address economic problems like you said, why isnt it applied to those of economic deficits of all races, religions, and ethnicities?

By Masterchris (Masterchris) on Monday, June 28, 2004 - 11:33 pm: Edit

I think jlg3d3 has you annakat.

By Annakat (Annakat) on Monday, June 28, 2004 - 11:40 pm: Edit

affirmative action is far more broad and more complex than you think it is. it is applied to women and to poor individuals, depending on the situation. it is not always or just the black/white policy, or black/white issue, you present in your posts.

read my first post again:

"it reveals that he is an enlightened individual trying to make his school more inclusive and accessible to those other than socioeconomically advantaged whites."

that includes poor people of all sorts of backgrounds. if you'd stop focusing on arguing against affirmative action for blacks, you'd realize this. you mistakenly think that affirmative action is a free ride for people who don't deserve it, and that is at the heart of your arguments. stop trying to hide behind them.

sorry, masterchris.

By Jlq3d3 (Jlq3d3) on Tuesday, June 29, 2004 - 12:21 am: Edit

I think you are deluding yourself. Affirmative action is based on race, not on income. It was created this way and continues this way. Applications dont ask your income, but they do ask your race. Schools like Michigan would give you extra points based on your race, not based on your income.

By Jlq3d3 (Jlq3d3) on Tuesday, June 29, 2004 - 12:22 am: Edit

And the original post was talking about blacks.

By Annakat (Annakat) on Tuesday, June 29, 2004 - 12:23 am: Edit

oh, and regarding your question,

"So since all blacks get affirmative action, all blacks are poor and disadvantaged?"

you ask the same questions in variations. thank god for copy and paste. here's my third post in this thread (maybe i should have been more clear regarding "whites" vs. "rich whites"):

"take a look at the disparity in socioeconomic status by racial groups. whites are doing a lot better than most. of course there are people of every race that are successful, but do you really want us to believe that people of color have the same advantages as whites in this country? that's insulting, and, frankly, plain stupid. don't give me your conservative simplistic arguments, claiming that affirmative action somehow makes whites powerless and that it is a bigoted policy. look beyond your silly argument that's based on facile conclusions and look at the past, the history of race in this country, and then post an argument in that context. now you've confirmed that your ignorance is truly staggering. educate yourself."

By Annakat (Annakat) on Tuesday, June 29, 2004 - 12:29 am: Edit

i'm not deluding myself. i think you're misinformed. in my dorm alone, i have a hallmate who is of vietnamese origin, very poor, who had SAT scores below my school's range, but very smart. there is also a white guy on my hall from a poor rural area, very poor, but very bright. he also had SAT scores and grades perhaps below par for my school.

By Jlq3d3 (Jlq3d3) on Tuesday, June 29, 2004 - 01:45 am: Edit

You never answered my question. It is a fact that not all blacks are poor. In fact many are rich. Why should their skin color give them preference?

By Tropicanabanana (Tropicanabanana) on Tuesday, June 29, 2004 - 02:46 am: Edit

Because their skin color gave them disadvantages. The same ones Marx said he is trying to correct. Did you not read his quote?

By Interesteddad (Interesteddad) on Tuesday, June 29, 2004 - 03:39 am: Edit

>> Because their skin color gave them disadvantages. The same ones Marx said he is trying to correct. Did you not read his quote?

That is explicitly unconstitutional. Did you not read the Supreme Court opinions in the two Michigan cases?

By Tropicanabanana (Tropicanabanana) on Tuesday, June 29, 2004 - 04:03 am: Edit

>>>>That is explicitly unconstitutional.

So what? Do his views have to agree with the Constitution or the Supreme Court?

He asked of those who agree with Marx, "Why should their skin color give them preference?"

I gave my opinion, which coincides with Marx's who, like the Supreme Court, explicity states his position. He feels their skin color should give them preference because it has also given them disadvantages. You can easily tell that from the quote. He obviously does not align himself with the flawed document on every issue.

I don't know why you think pointing out that it is unconstitutional is enlightening. He knows it's unconstitutional.

And no, I did not read the hundreds of pages of legal writing that constitutes the opinions. Did you? I don't think so. Find one person on this board who did.

By Justice (Justice) on Tuesday, June 29, 2004 - 12:08 pm: Edit

Meh, I agree with AA but not with Marx's shameful logic which is 100% unconstitutional. Adarand v Pena--remedial AA can only be applied in cases of specific historical discrimination and not for blanket civil rights. If this spreads to other fields, then you will find yourself losing a job to remedial AA. The highlight of college AA is that it promotes diversity. I think I speak for civilization when I say that I don't care what color my investment banker is as long as he is the best man for the job.
I think almost every civil lawyer read Bakke and other AA cases.
It's not about disadvantage as much as it's about culture. Every sociology/anthro/psych major knows that it is not because of money that blacks underperform. The highest echelons of black wealth perform MUCH worse than the lowest of certain Asian identities.

By Interesteddad (Interesteddad) on Tuesday, June 29, 2004 - 12:45 pm: Edit

>> And no, I did not read the hundreds of pages of legal writing that constitutes the opinions. Did you? I don't think so.

Yes, I read the Court's majority opinions and all of the dissenting opinions in both the Gratz and Grutter cases. Very thought-provoking, entertaining reading, actually. I think you would find several people on College Confidential who have read them.

I think the best way to understand an issue is to read a selection of writings from intelligent people with different views on the issue. Agree or disagree, there are some brilliant minds sitting on the Supreme Court. Taken as a whole, the majority and dissenting opinions in the Michigan case provide an excellent primer on the merits and problems with racial preference affirmative action.

It's one of those conundrums that faces our society from time to time. Of course, we would all like to see underrepresented minorities become more represented in higher education. But, unfortunately, every step to artifically attempt to make that happen runs afoul of a very basic tenet of our constitution. So affirmative action programs can only exist to the extent that the Supreme Court allows an exception to equal protection clause and the Court only allows exceptions if there is a "compelling interest".

There is not a single member of the Supreme Court who fails to see racial preference affirmative action as being fundamentally in contradiction with our constitution. The disagreement on the court centers around what is or is not a "compelling" interest sufficient to grant an exception.

BTW, purely from an entertainment standpoint, Justice Thomas' dissenting opinion in the Grutter case is terrific. He is so passionate about the issue and his writing is powerful and eloquent. Like many Americans, I had been sold the cartoon character buffoon image of Justice Thomas. Yet, you read his dissent in the Grutter case and you see that he is a brilliant man (even if you disagree with him). Good lesson in this time of "gotcha" politics where shades of gray are not allowed in media coverage.

By Justice (Justice) on Tuesday, June 29, 2004 - 12:57 pm: Edit

interesteddad=very correct on this issue

By Interesteddad (Interesteddad) on Tuesday, June 29, 2004 - 01:27 pm: Edit

>> So what? Do his views have to agree with the Constitution or the Supreme Court?

Only if he wants to avoid making Amherst a target for a lawsuit.

Compliance with Gratz/Grutter is a major issue among colleges this summer. The anti-affirmative action law firms are salivating over their new ammunition from the Michigan cases that tightens the noose on programs where race is the sole deciding factor. They are itching for a test case.

Meanwhile, I don't believe there is a college or university in the country that has not instituted a full legal review of their affirmative action policies -- from admissions, to scholarships, even to funding closed student groups for a specific race.

What the Amherst prez said was honest. He described the true motivation behind affirmative action. But, it was a very ill-considered statement since the nations' schools have represented to the Supreme Court that they are only interested in "diversity", not reparation. The only thing he could have said that would have been worse would have been to publicly acknowledge the use of racial quotas.

By Jer728 (Jer728) on Tuesday, June 29, 2004 - 02:56 pm: Edit

I really think that a couple of you just LOOK for places to preach about AA. Give it a rest.

By Tropicanabanana (Tropicanabanana) on Tuesday, June 29, 2004 - 05:42 pm: Edit

>>>>Only if he wants to avoid making Amherst a target for a lawsuit.

Funny how opinions don't work that way. There could be a difference between his actions and his opinions. He could be treating minority students in the same way every other elite liberal arts college does, but his views on why it happens differ from the Supreme Courts.

By Jlq3d3 (Jlq3d3) on Tuesday, June 29, 2004 - 06:20 pm: Edit

"Because their skin color gave them disadvantages."

tropicana, Not every black in 2004 is disadvantaged, so why should every black get AA.

By Mini (Mini) on Tuesday, June 29, 2004 - 06:31 pm: Edit

Because the colleges believe that it enhances the educational quality for pinky-grey students to have other color faces on the campus. And the Supreme Court has ruled clearly in Grutter vs. Bollinger that this reason is enough justification.

Whether it is good public or educational policy is another issue entirely, but the colleges seem pretty unanimously to think so.

By Jlq3d3 (Jlq3d3) on Wednesday, June 30, 2004 - 01:27 am: Edit

so thats different than what ppl on this board have been saying, trying to claim that aa is good for correcting racial discrimination.

By Davidrune (Davidrune) on Wednesday, June 30, 2004 - 04:14 am: Edit

Hey Thinking,

I read the article and the gist of the article is that among african americans; african immigrants and west-indians usually perform better than actual African americans.

Pretty much, what Marx wants to do is to discriminate against these immigrants. This is because these "immigrants" haven't experienced "past injustices". Therefore, Affirmative Action would only appeal to African Americans whose ancestors were around to experience slavery.

In a way, I sort of agree with what Marx says. I believe that immigrants should not benefit from Affirmative action. This is hard for me to say, because I myself am a Nigerian immigrant. However, if I compare my scores and grades to that of non-immigrant African Americans... well there's no comparison.

You guys are debating the wrong issue. This isn't an argument on the merits of affirmative action. This argument is on whether affirmative action can farely apply to immigrants. Is American giving an already highly-motivated group of people a bigger advantage?

Furthermore, is this fair keeping in mind that this same mentality is reducing any advantage that immigrant asians have in the admission process. That, tropicanabanana is the real question.

By Pink17 (Pink17) on Friday, July 23, 2004 - 01:38 am: Edit

While this thread has got me going, I'd like to add that it is a terrible misconception that African immigrants are untouched by American history. I would call getting half your population (of the youngest and most fit I might add) stolen into slavery a pretty big disadvantage. Or how about the repulsive colonization laws, not to mention apartheid.

I feel as if many of the comments posted in this thread that I and others (such as torpicanabanana and anakat to name some) are horrified at stem not from malice or the desire to promote white supremacy. I feel as if the people who are so outraged in the fact the blacks might get a leg up, so to speak, are just unaware of the total scope of the picture. If one were to sit down with a clear mind, and go over the repurcussions of slavery and the like (which are obvious in our society) they would come to the rational conclution, to quote Chris Rock "that ain't right". And while I know that every person of color, no matter what their views may be, carries that sentiment in their heart each and every day of their lives, while, for the most part, white teens and children (not so much adults, they ahve an inkling as to their shameful past) go blithely on, outraged when someone who has been denied their entire life, finally gets a chance to have the advantage. Maybe I'm wrong, but it is just so clear to me why aa is a good thing. P.S (haha) No one evr seems to be outraged at the other minority groups that also benefit from aa could it be that Blacks are taking the brunt yet again? By George I think I've go it.

Please forgive my dry tone, but after living as a person of color, I know that I'm fighting a losing battle. After all, I am always a 'minority' how can you win when you're always outnumbered? Yeah yeah I know, world's smallest violin. I'll quit it.

I would also like to point out, as I did in an earlier post, that attending elite collges is a privelege, and not a right. No one on this board has ANY right to get into the college of their choice, they just have to work their butt off and hope it's what the college is looking for. I find it amusing that some people have gotten it into their heads that a seat is being stolen from them, when it hasn't even been offered in the first place. If a college wants you, they will take you. And that's the bottom line.