|By Davidrune (Davidrune) on Tuesday, September 28, 2004 - 08:55 pm: Edit|
For those of you who support affirmative action? Why do you do it?
|By Dottys (Dottys) on Wednesday, September 29, 2004 - 03:15 am: Edit|
it's obvious....to correct the injustices of 400 years of oppression, and state-sanctioned violence. If everyone started at the same starting line, i would be totally opposed to AA. But that's not the case. If you are a minority or woman, you are starting way way behind the starting line (BTW, women are the LARGEST benefactors of affirmative action...not blacks or any other group....don't be fooled by the media).
AA helps level the playing field. 50 years ago (almost exactly...1954), people couldn't attend certain schools because of their race. the oppression is still very fresh. AA is the very least we can do....it's not really enough and it only really affects a small portion of the general population. I'm totally for it.
btw, I'm white.......
|By Dottys (Dottys) on Wednesday, September 29, 2004 - 03:30 am: Edit|
a better question is:
should colleges admit roughly half boys and half girls? if you think that each incoming class should be about 50/50, then this is also a form of AA.
|By Mexbruin (Mexbruin) on Wednesday, September 29, 2004 - 01:41 pm: Edit|
Really 1954? Seems too recent which schools denied admission based on race? I am for affirmative action only because the status quo is distinctly skewed to one race and is not representative of the population. You can't tell me that there aren't enough competitive blacks and latinos to be admitted. For example USC doesn't admit enough blacks. I think their student population is around 4% when the population of blacks in the neighborhoods around the campus total to well above 75%. There is too much of a gap for it not to be anything else but racist. I hate to throw the race card but it is the sad truth it has not gone away and will probably not for a long time.
|By Toblin (Toblin) on Wednesday, September 29, 2004 - 03:05 pm: Edit|
Please explain to me how giving preference to the children of wealthy/middle class black parents or for that matter black international/recent immigrant students will "correct the injustices of 400 years of oppression"?
Pls. see Drivers posts in the Café under ďThe Difficulty in Supporting Affirmative ActionĒ.
|By Mexbruin (Mexbruin) on Wednesday, September 29, 2004 - 03:29 pm: Edit|
Yes it is difficult and I agree that it should not be based solely on race but rather on the area in which you live and your Adjusted gross income. Whites are also denied admission into higher education and are also discriminated against but all I'm saying is that the numbers show that there is a large gap as far as college going individuals when whites and minorities are compared. You have to understand that well off people have an advantage because they have a college going culture. THey already have a built in network of people they can talk to about admissions or get help instantly. I know that latinos and blacks in my neighborhood lack that college going culture. Obviously I can't speak for all blacks and latinos or for that matter all whites and neither can you but I am describing the population in my immediate area (Northeast Los Angeles). There are very few if any "Rich" minorities here which many of whom never attended college. You know its sad too see the schools around here all mostly white and then see the cafeteria workers, the janitors, and facility workers all people of color. The schools are not representative of my community and I believe they should be since we also pay the taxes that go into the upkeep of these schools. By the way I would encourage you to visit Eagle Rock for yourself and see how many "poor whites" you can find. I'm not saying you won't find any but I can say that I will find ten times that number of Filipino, LAtino and Blacks who fall into that category. Again all Im saying is look at the numbers... whites almost always outnumber the number of undergrads at 4 year institutions... and don't go showing me the numbers of Howard or other historically black schools to prove me wrong we all know those schools were made for a reason and at a specific time in history to combat bigotry and segregation.
|By Davidrune (Davidrune) on Wednesday, September 29, 2004 - 03:42 pm: Edit|
Your arguments still haven't convinced.
Dotty... you use oppression. But realistically many other minority groups have been oppressed. Why should white-americans today have to pay for the crimes of their predecessors. I mean, they didn't enslave africans after all. You can't solve racism with more racism...
Mexbruin... you just want to see black people in schools, to the detriment of those who are more qualified. Maybe that's a good thing, but doesn't that just foster resentment by those who feel their places were "taken". Maybe you're right, but I get the feeling that you aren't. I remember someone saying that colleges aren't zoos, with black students brought in to be observed by white.
|By Shyboy13 (Shyboy13) on Wednesday, September 29, 2004 - 05:29 pm: Edit|
Is oppression/discrimination against minorities a thing of the past? Explain police brutality. Is it a coincidence that every time someone happens to have a video recorder they catch a police beating a minority? Why are police never punished? Do you think that we just lie when we say that police brutality is common in minority neighborhoods? Are we lying when we say that it is difficult for us to get jobs even if we are educated? What about so many of us being in jail for stuff we didnít do? We are not making that up either. Donít you think that many of the things we must endure through life affects us psychologically? Do we have equal resources available to us at our schools? Do we get quality educations at our schools? Can many of us afford to pay for SAT classes? Do our parents even know or care about SAT classes? After all, who did they have to look up to? They looked up to the uneducated. Thatís right, they looked up to their parents and other adults who were seldom let into schools 50 years ago. If a family is poor and uneducated, it is that much harder for them to break the perpetual cycle. I could go on and on but it wont do any good. Some people just donít care. After all, they have it made.
I never said I was for AA. Iím not sure if I am or not. I just want to say that oppression/discrimination is not over. Further, we are still suffering from the past. It is extremely difficult for us to succeed with the uneven playing field. Does anyone have any better ideas for what we can do about it?
|By Davidrune (Davidrune) on Wednesday, September 29, 2004 - 06:25 pm: Edit|
Shyboy... I am black and I know about discrimination. And discrimination is all around, be it psychological, through the media's protrayal of beauty, or even physical, through police brutality.
However, are you saying that affirmative action is a sort of retribution for that. So, the government and universities say... "We know that you are getting discriminated against, but rather than end discrimination we're going to make it easier for you to get into university." If the goal is to end discrimination, than affirmative action is doing a crappy job of that.
Even if you take a step backwards, blacks are not the only people who suffer from discrimination. Chinese and Middle-eastern people are subjected to the same treatment. However, their suffering seem to take second place to those of blacks. In fact, "Harold and Kumar Go to White Castle" is a representation of the oft-ignored minorities who don't necessarily make the news everytime they suffer from discrimination.
If inner-city areas do not have good education systems, then the government should fund them better, rather than focus on specific groups in those areas. While the majority of inner-city kids might be black/hispanic, what happens to the white/asian kid who grew up in the same area. Was he not subjected to the same treatment?
Then you talk about SAT Classes. Nobody needs SAT classes to improve their SAT score. I have never taken an SAT class, because frankly my parents can not afford it. I spent about 20 dollars, and I bought SAT books. In fact, I bought them used and I had to cover the answers. In fact... many people in those board with high scores have never tkane an SAT class. So... SAT classes really don't justify affirmative action.
Like I said, creating good role-models would be the only use of affirmative action. Which you sort of state as well, in your last few sentences. But... when do we stop?
|By Shyboy13 (Shyboy13) on Wednesday, September 29, 2004 - 06:45 pm: Edit|
davidrune, Keep in mind I never said I was for or against AA. I dont know if I am or not because of things like those that you mentioned. You did say something I found interesting and have pondered quite a bit:
"If inner-city areas do not have good education systems, then the government should fund them better, rather than focus on specific groups in those areas. While the majority of inner-city kids might be black/hispanic, what happens to the white/asian kid who grew up in the same area. Was he not subjected to the same treatment?"
Have you ever noticed that when white people grow up in our neighborhoods they tend to not "succed" either. Have you ever noticed that when, for example, latinos grow up in affluent neighborhoods they tend to succeed at rates that are similar to those around them also? In fact, a professor at UCLA recently published findings similar to what I just said but with respect to school funding. What I want to know is why our schools must be underfunded. Are our children worth less? There are so many significant variables that go into the equation. I really dont like "quotas" per se but I definately believe that life circumstances should be considered in admission decisions.
|By Efs424 (Efs424) on Wednesday, September 29, 2004 - 07:51 pm: Edit|
"What I want to know is why our schools must be under funded. Are our children worth less?"
It's not that students from failing schools are worth less, it's that their parents pay less. Schools are primarily funded by taxes from the local community. The dilemma is that in order to better fund the failing schools, you must take money away from the better funded schools, who parents pay a lot more. I'm not saying this is a good or bad thing, it's just the reality of the situation.
"should colleges admit roughly half boys and half girls? if you think that each incoming class should be about 50/50, then this is also a form of AA"
This statement somewhat confused me. Are you saying that it is only because of affirmative action that women were able to be admitted at an equal percentage to men? Because that would be incorrect. In the majority of universities (minus the heavily tech/science/engineering ones) enrollment of women is higher than that of men. This is because statistics show that girls consistently perform better in high school than boys: they have a higher rate of graduation, higher rate of membership in honor societies, significantly higher reading and writing scores in standardized tests (about equal to boys in math), and a higher rate of college attendance. As a hard working and driven young woman, I highly resent the insinuation that my acceptance into a prestigious university would be because I got a boost in the admissions process, not my own accomplishments. BTW it was actually later, more like the 60s and even 70s that blacks were admitted to top universities (the 1954 Brown case only applied to public schools)
I personally have a mixed view on affirmative action. I think those students that have great disadvantages due to poverty and failing schools should not be judged on the same level as privileged kid who's attending a prestigious private school (so the college prep kid has 200 SAT points on the poor kid, it doesn't necessarily mean he's any better of a student, after all the poor kid probably had to work to support his family in his spare time, rather than practicing for the SAT). However when candidates are judged at different levels simply because one has a different colored skin, it is only undermining the achievement of the minority student, and perpetuating discrimination.
|By Celebrian23 (Celebrian23) on Wednesday, September 29, 2004 - 08:58 pm: Edit|
aa is not racism, and i think this for one reason, i was visiting a college website and guess what the percentage of blacks students was?
latinos were barely better with 2.1%
Am I the only one who sees something very wrong with this trend?
|By Davidrune (Davidrune) on Wednesday, September 29, 2004 - 09:06 pm: Edit|
Nobody is denying that african americans and latinos are under-represented in education.
But it would be foolish to claims that affirmative action is not racism. Dictionary.com defines racism as "discrimination based upon race." In this case, any race that isn't black/latino are not subjected to the same treatment as the aforementioned races. This is racism.
|By John_Updike (John_Updike) on Wednesday, September 29, 2004 - 09:15 pm: Edit|
I am confused. Earlier, I saw a board on the Harvard forum in which a student was arguing against AA. You called him a "douche" and a racist.
I'm curious: are you for or against affirmative action?
|By Petey04 (Petey04) on Wednesday, September 29, 2004 - 10:43 pm: Edit|
Not saying either way, but just a quick point:
Isn't affirmative action slightly insulting to minorites who work hard to be successful? It's almost as if saying "we know you probably couldn't handle it on your own, so where going to give you a step up"
|By Davidrune (Davidrune) on Wednesday, September 29, 2004 - 11:17 pm: Edit|
John_Updike: I was vehemently supportive of affirmative action before. But, now I'm not so sure.
|By Davidrune (Davidrune) on Wednesday, September 29, 2004 - 11:25 pm: Edit|
Btw... that post had a lot of racial elements that could provoke anybody. If you read the post carefully, you'll see that I was not the only person that argued for AA.
The OP said...
Harvard admits A LOT of minorities based on affirmative action....
A really dumb girl at my school, with no major extracurriculars, low grades (not in top ten percent), and low SATs (in twelve hundreds)....was admitted.
Our valedictorian with the highest GPA ive ever seen, great extracurriculars (continual involvement in all for four or more years), great leadership, and great SATs (like 1560) was not even wait listed...neither was our second, third, nor fourth person at our high school.
What has the admission process come to. Being politically correct is hindering the goals of the white man's future.
I mean come on...
|By Bakk (Bakk) on Wednesday, September 29, 2004 - 11:26 pm: Edit|
"I'm curious: are you for or against affirmative action?"
The answer may have to do with the fact that not all blacks are URM. Could Davidrune have had a change of heart when realizing the status of Africans who immigrated to Canada when it comes to AA and financial aid in the United States?
|By Socalnick (Socalnick) on Thursday, September 30, 2004 - 02:36 am: Edit|
There is no way you can use AA to correct oppression. Personally i am jewish, probably up untill 400 years ago the most oppressed people on earth, and even after that we are still oppressed. If affermitive action was supposed to correct injustices in the past, how come im not getting into harvard or mit because my great grandparents died in the holacaust. Also dont tell me that jewish people arnt discriminates slightly aginst even today. Althouh it dosnt hurt in getting a job or initial impressions, you have no idea how many times i have heard the word Jew be used in a negitive sense with a person being next to me knowing that i am jewish. I have even heard stories of people asking jews to get into the oven. When it comes to colleges though jews dont usually get any advantages. This is because most people see jews as successful people. Many, wile definitally, not all are Doctors lawyers business men, people who work hard to earn a living. While i kno this is not true in all jews i kno that is how some people feel about us. You cant say AA is fair beased on what happened in the past. It seems to me that colleges are sterotypeing people.
When it comes to giving poor minorities im for andvantages given to the socioeconomically disadvantaged. If you worked harder through tougher conditions i think extra credit should be given. I probably dont deserve any but i kno people who do. Put the color of the skin and the things of the past behind, but still rember them so it wont be repeated in the future.
|By Mexbruin (Mexbruin) on Thursday, September 30, 2004 - 01:06 pm: Edit|
NO AA is not an insult to minorities. I'm not suggesting that we lower the standards for minorities because believe me there are more qualified minority applicants that are admitted. All I'm saying is that they should be given a comprehensive and insightful review just the way major universities do to enroll athletes. Why are athletes more likely to get in to a good school even though they have less than admirable stats? One reason is becuase they look at qualities outside of academics the same should be done with minorities who participate in activities that are not necessarily sports related.
|By Fresca (Fresca) on Thursday, September 30, 2004 - 03:49 pm: Edit|
Mexbruin, that is why selective schools take a hard look at ECs. They do admit based on things other than academic performance. It's simplistic to think schools accept, URMs, athletes or any other special group based on one thing alone. Comprising a good class means having diversity of all kinds. Colleges would be pretty boring places if all sorts of things were not valued.
|By Davidrune (Davidrune) on Thursday, September 30, 2004 - 06:43 pm: Edit|
Bakk: Does it really mind why I had a change of heart? I'm pretty confident that I can get into any school without affirmative action. So... stop trying to undermine my achievements.
|By Justplayin104 (Justplayin104) on Friday, October 01, 2004 - 05:08 pm: Edit|
Why raise an argument against other people receiving a better education than they would otherwise receive? Are we *that self-oriented?
|By John_Updike (John_Updike) on Friday, October 01, 2004 - 05:19 pm: Edit|
Well, I guess we are when we think that it affects us. The space in most colleges is limited, so therefore, most people scrutinize the merit of those accepted. That sounds fair to me. In doing so, they might stumble across some African Americans who would have been admitted regardless of their race. When they categorize those African Americans as "affirmative action admits," then logically, many would be against the system itself.
|By Justice (Justice) on Friday, October 01, 2004 - 10:25 pm: Edit|
Explain to me how lowering standards at the product end of the k-12 education cycle will do anything.
"I'm not suggesting that we lower the standards for minorities because believe me there are more qualified minority applicants that are admitted. "
If you consider that the minority pool is substantially weaker than the entire applicant pool, you will see that minorities do not have the same credentials and would not get in at the same rates without lowering standards--your argument is impossible because if we didn't have to lower standards, then AA wouldn't exist in the first place! This is so obvious from the What are my chances? forum. A black with a 3.7 1350 medicore ECs is urged to apply to elite schools while if that same person had been white, they would've been told to look for more safeties and matches since Ivy's were slightly unrealistic. Let me give you another instance of how society lower expectations for minorities through AA: it's likely that 10% of my state (MA) would be National Acheivement if they were black. Don't you think it's absolutely absurd that NMSF is a good 30pts higher National Acheivement? That's like saying, "if blacks can get within 200pts of the best testers," that's good enough to reward them. That's sick, in my opinion.
|By Davidrune (Davidrune) on Friday, October 01, 2004 - 11:33 pm: Edit|
All I'm saying is that they should be given a comprehensive and insightful review just the way major universities do to enroll athletes. Why are athletes more likely to get in to a good school even though they have less than admirable stats?
If you insist on comparing affirmative action to athletes then let's do that. Well, let's assume that athletes train so hard that sometimes their mark slips. And this makes perfect sense. A division I hockey player, often spends at least 2 hours training during the off-season and about 5 hours during the on-season. And that doesn't count tournaments and transportation etc. So, let's just assume that universities therefore realize the big commitment that athletes have, and lower their admission standards. It would sort of make sense. They have slightly weaker academics, but they are more involved in sports.
Now, let's try to parallel that mentality to AAs. In this case, africans americans are too busy being black to study. Clearly, because AAs are black 24 hours of the day and there is no off-season...
Clearly, applying the "athlete" argument to Affirmative Action really doesnt' cut it either.
Btw... I'm not against Affirmative Action. I just want a concrete argument that it is right.
|By John_Updike (John_Updike) on Sunday, October 03, 2004 - 12:01 am: Edit|
Well, this is honestly the dumbest topic...what will we get out of arguing about it? I mean, if we do or do not offer valid reasons, it will make no difference...the decision is up to the lawmakers, and is up to us when we grow up. Frankly, we do not have close to enough information to make a judgement. Imagine how idiotic we sound:
"Affirmative action should be banned on moral grounds...some blacks at my school are rich and get a free ride."
"Affirmative action is necessary because...we were all subjugated, and we deserve a break."
All the arguments are either ridiculously anecdotal or are too broad or too hooked on common stereotypes, the effects of which we know very little about.
I should not be a hypocrite. I have started many threads like this...but it will do nothing but incite our anger and deter our attention from the admissions process...Davidrune, I understand your concern, but the bitching is not very effective. I think it would be best for everyone just to end this right here.
By the way, I expect to make this my last post, so just so the moderators remove me (I do not know how to remove my own screen name), someone please report an offensive message on this page. Moderator...if you read this, please change my password.
|By Socalnick (Socalnick) on Sunday, October 03, 2004 - 02:59 am: Edit|
My point is, is that the color of ur skin shouldnt get u extra points, it should be the difficulty of your socio economic background. I see few drawbacks to haveing this type of approach. The first advantage is that all the people AA should have helped get helped, the second is that the people who shouldnt have gotten helped dont get help, third people do get helped, and finially it will be 1 less thing to argue about.
|By Shyboy13 (Shyboy13) on Sunday, October 03, 2004 - 06:42 pm: Edit|
That makes sense Socalnick. A poor white person for example arguably faces many of the same obstacles as a poor mexican for example. That is one reason why I dont like "quotas" based on race. A quota system would hurt the relatively mediocre middle class and above white kids and also the relatively bright poor white kids. Of course there are other groups that such a system would help (e.g. middle class blacks) or harm (e.g. above average Asians) but what I am saying is that qualitative factors such as those suggested by Socalink suggested should be a factor. Just my opinion htat I am entitled to.
|By Undiluted (Undiluted) on Thursday, October 07, 2004 - 04:30 pm: Edit|
What is AA? Alcoholics Anonymous?
Because it certainly seems like it!
Actually, alcoholics would probably have more sense than the proponents of Affirmative Action. At least they don't see things so black and white.+*
Consider: Any judgment that requires consideration of skin color or ethnic background is inherently iconoclastic, insofar as it directly regresses society to a time when skin color was justification for abuse.
Or, more simply: Why the hell do we still care about skin color? The problem is NOT genetic; it is cultural.
Eugenics vs Euthenics: The neighborhoods that many minorities come from are slummy and underdeveloped. Their educational opportunities are significantly reduced because of their socioeconomic statuses. So, SES is the problem! Not that I know exactly how to accomplish this, but if we funneled more money into underpriveleged neighborhoods and primary education, that would better prepare minorities for secondary and higher education.
See, the dropout rate among African-Americans from Ivy League schools is higher than the rate for other ethnicities. Various statistics about how MUCH higher it is have bounced around this board, but they all give different numbers. Three times as high? 50% higher? Whatever the case, the fact that it is higher at all demonstrates the inability of minorities to adapt to a fast-paced academic environment that they were accepted into partly because of their race.
I come from a Jewish family. My grandparents escaped the Pogroms and later the Holocaust, came to this country and lived on the streets; only my grandma out of her 9 sisters and brothers even got a high school education. Those were the slums. Yet, like thousands of other Jewish people, unlimited motivation led them to financial and academic success and despite Anti-Jewish Quotas imposed by some colleges, they still overcame the hardships. I've never understood why they were able to do this and not other minorities.
But that's not the point. That's comparing apples and oranges. Black people and Hispanic people are environmentally disadvantaged, euthenics, not genetically inferior, eugenics. Right?
Then prove it: give them some money and a better cultural status and see if they do better that way. Waiting until the minority students are college-age to "help," and delineating skin colors then only perpetuates racism and only makes people see skin color more deeply.
Need proof? Check out the controversy that AA has stirred on this board alone. Something so touchy should not exist, at least not when it's predicated on race. Sure, someone could argue that it's not entirely based on race, but the fact that it is partially-based proves my point. That's encouraging people to consider different races differently, indirectly perpetuating racism, as I said already as did so many other people.
I invite your responses to this post, but realize that the second you respond and mention the race issue, you are proving my point. AA is causing you to consider race more than you would otherwise. Such controversy can only lead to more problems.
+Even colorblind alcoholics can see the pink elephant.
+Double-entendre; clever rhetoric strengthens argument.
|By Shyboy13 (Shyboy13) on Thursday, October 07, 2004 - 05:18 pm: Edit|
ďSee, the dropout rate among African-Americans from Ivy League schools is higher than the rate for other ethnicities. Various statistics about how MUCH higher it is have bounced around this board, but they all give different numbers. Three times as high? 50% higher? Whatever the case, the fact that it is higher at all demonstrates the inability of minorities to adapt to a fast-paced academic environment that they were accepted into partly because of their race.Ē
Do you really think you can come to such a strong conclusion by such a small statistic from such a small sample? Aside from that, you come off a bit racist yourself in the tone of your post. However, Iíve read your post and think fundamentally, no matter how you may feel personally about minorities, you make good points. Therefore, I wont attack your post piece by piece. In other words, underneath it all, I think you make sense.
ďI invite your responses to this post, but realize that the second you respond and mention the race issue, you are proving my point. AA is causing you to consider race more than you would otherwise. Such controversy can only lead to more problems.Ē
This is the real problem I have. AA may cause YOU to think about racism more than you normally would have but a black guy, for example, must think about this type of issue constantly. I really donít believe this site should include sensitive issues like this BUT these issues are very real. If we ignore them, they are not going to go away. I donít believe AA is really a cause for peopleís race problem awareness; I think racial inequalities are here and AA is/was an attempt to fix some of them. Does it work? I donít know. I see problems with quotas as I have mentioned before. I also say that I think SES is at least as much as a problem as race as pertains to this issue. I donít believe we should just not have AA simply because it causes more problems. AA is definitely controversial but it is an issue that is much less controversial than the underlying problems that cause it to exist in the first place.
|By Zephyr (Zephyr) on Sunday, October 10, 2004 - 06:23 pm: Edit|
my only comment is that it is funny when there's a black guy arguing against it while a white bleeding-heart liberal is arguing for it.
i've seen it happen.
|By Northstarmom (Northstarmom) on Sunday, October 10, 2004 - 06:33 pm: Edit|
"ďSee, the dropout rate among African-Americans from Ivy League schools is higher than the rate for other ethnicities. Various statistics about how MUCH higher it is have bounced around this board, but they all give different numbers. Three times as high? 50% higher? Whatever the case, the fact that it is higher at all demonstrates the inability of minorities to adapt to a fast-paced academic environment that they were accepted into partly because of their race.Ē
The graduation rate of African Americans from Ivies is incredibly high. In fact, the more competitive the institution, the greater the chance in general that African American students wilL graduate from it.
The below is from the Brown alumni magazine:
". That study shows that the schools with the highest graduation rates for blacks are actually some of the most selective colleges in the country. Harvard ranks at the top, with 94 percent of black students graduating, and Brown is not far behind, at 89 percent. (The national average is 39 percent.) At some schools, such as Vassar, blacks actually have higher rates of graduation than whites. At Harvard, the graduation rate for blacks is only 3 percent lower than for whites, while at Brown and Princeton, the difference is 4 percent in favor of whites. At the other Ivy League schools, the discrepancy is considerably larger, ranging from 10 to 21 percent. All but the University of Pennsylvania, however, do better than the national average of 20 percent.
The Journal study concludes that the success of blacks at Ivy League schools "discredits the assertion made by many conservatives that black students admitted to our most prestigious colleges and universities under race-conscious admissions programs are incapable of competing with their white peers." http://www.brown.edu/Administration/Brown_Alumni_Magazine/00/1-00/elms/reportcard.html
|By Shyboy13 (Shyboy13) on Sunday, October 10, 2004 - 07:40 pm: Edit|
A UCLA researcher recently concluded that minorities tend to do just as well as others when certain factors are considered (e.g. poor whites = poor blacks).
|By Undiluted (Undiluted) on Monday, October 11, 2004 - 09:56 am: Edit|
Shyboy - the racist undertone of my post is kind of the point; as a member of a constantly persecuted minority group myself, it would be amazing if I were actually capable of being racist! But though I might hold no misbegotten preconceptions about people of over ethnicities or races, I'm still forced to make a distinction between "white people" and "black people" on account of the practice of AA.
As for the UCLA research - that sounds really interesting. Do you have a link to it, or a summary of it?
NorthStarMom - thank you for the link and the statistics; clearly I can't trust everything I read on this site re: African-American dropout rates. Still, the fact that the dropout rate is significantly different between blacks and whites at five out of the eight Ivies, and that this discrepancy increases disproportionately when you examine graduation rates for less competitive schools, is certainly cause for worry about the effectiveness of AA.
But my overall point is not about the efficacy of a system but the consequences of it. I think that it subconsciously encourages racism by delineating racial lines. It forces you to consider black and white in separate categories. We've all met that person who, upon getting rejected from a competitive college, looks for a scapegoat. It might once have been "it's probably because I would've needed financial aid," but it has now progressed to, "it's because of affirmative action." And then there's the person who sees a black student on campus and assumes that he/she got in because of an AA boost and not based on pure merit.
True, those people are wrong. But it's the existence of AA that allowed them to arrive at their incorrect racist opinion.
Report an offensive message on this page E-mail this page to a friend
|Posting is currently disabled in this topic. Contact your discussion moderator for more information.|
|Administrator's Control Panel -- Board Moderators Only|