Click here to go to the NEW College Discussion Forum

I think this might be the worst part of all AA. Besides being unfair, it leads to more racism.

Just look at these boards.

AA makes it easier for Hispanic, Black, and Native Americans to get in.

Whites and Asians will become angry. Some of them will get righteously angry at the system, but some of them will, unfortunately, become angry against minorities in general. The whole thing just perpetuates racism.

Blacks and Hispanics got discriminated against in the past, so now the idea with AA is to discriminate against Whites and Asians to somehow try and make up for what was done to Blacks and Hispanics. But it won't work. Out of revenge and anger, we'll eventually see a backlash to AA and MORE discrimination against the underrepresented minority.

Think about it.

Tim

By CharlesM on Wednesday, December 18, 2002 - 12:21 am: Edit

Tim,

You're right about the backlash part. I am currently a Harvard graduate student and I can tell you that there is backlash here in many departments. Although the law school and the medical school is diversified due to affirmative action, the rest is not. Just take a look at the websites for many of the research labs and look at the researchers/staff. They are all Asian or Causasian. The labs with an African American professor, all their students are African American...no one else. It must be noted that not many labs have African American professors in the first place, so this is rare.

My point is that I have overheard many principle lab researchers say that they hire and accept grad students on basis of MERIT and academic achievement alone. This is how it should be. If an African American wants to join the lab, s/he better be BETTER than her peers because it will be assumed that she got breaks in college due to affirmative action.

It is evident to me as well that URMs get preferential treatment in the college process. Thus, it makes sense that I demand GREATER stats from URMs when applying to graduate departments. They had a leg up in the process, and so, I expect them to keep that leg up and apply with better numbers than other applicants. When I am asked about my opinions about prospectives...and if presented with three identical applicants (except race: 1 Asian, 1 White, 1 Black) for two spaces...I will always choose the Asian and White applicants because I know that the Black applicant had advantages (getting to undergrad with lower averages, access to Black-only scholarships, lower credentials for national recognition for many grants, intern placements for Black-only applicants, etc). Thus the Black applicant must be far superior to get into the best labs at Harvard...atleast for the past 5 years I've been here.

By coolguy on Wednesday, December 18, 2002 - 01:07 am: Edit

That's great to hear. This would show other students at the graduate schools that the african-american students deserve to be there.

By Mikewhite on Wednesday, December 18, 2002 - 02:33 am: Edit

AA: It fosters bitterness

By anonymous on Wednesday, December 18, 2002 - 06:12 pm: Edit

Umm...asians and whites foster racism to blacks and the other minorities regardless of affirmative action. Racism has and will always be around for what America is. That's just how it goes.

By meritocracy on Wednesday, December 18, 2002 - 06:27 pm: Edit

CharlesM, i agree with you 100%. I would do the same if i had the choice of choosing an Asian, Caucasian, and an AA/Hispanic, I would choose the Asian/Caucasian unless the AA/Hispanic had amazing credentials. This is how it should be!

By Tim on Wednesday, December 18, 2002 - 07:29 pm: Edit

Ahoy anonymous:

Outside of college and Affirmative Action, how often do you hear any Asian racism against Blacks and Hispanics? There is there is an Asian/White vs Black/Hispanic split BECAUSE OF Affirmative Action.

Look at some quotes collected from this board. I remember a lot more, but they seem to have been deleted:

"if i got into an ivy and saw a black kid, i wouldn't want to be friends with him cause for the most part he probably got in just cause he was black."

"F_ck Hispanics. They sit on their asses, snort cocaine, and get stoned."

"Black kids want to be gangstas and not work hard."

And perhaps the best one of all:

"Do you think that every hispanic and african american is like that?

Do you really think that those kids who are screwing aroung and not taking school seriously are really going to apply to the top notch schools? "

Response:

"yes and yes"

This "reverse discrimination" is causing increased division between Asian/White and URM, to the point that URMs who without a doubt deserve to go to a school (look up the stats for "Shannon") are going to suffer because of the belief that they had an AA advantage.

Tim

By Mike (Mike) on Wednesday, December 18, 2002 - 08:04 pm: Edit

For hundreds of years African Americans were not permitted to go to many colleges in the USA. Now poor European Americans feel picked on because a few do. I am embarressed by people who share my European heritage. Getting in to selective colleges is a crap shoot and lots of things play a part. Sad that some you you can't see any of them because all you see is color. Trent Lott isn't the past he is applying to college under another name in 2003

By Tim on Thursday, December 19, 2002 - 12:12 am: Edit

Myself, and indeed every sensible person against AA, do not want to see African Americans "not permitted" to go to college. There should simply be a true equality in the admissions decision. That means that if two applicants, one black, one white, applied with the same SAT scores, the same grades and rank in the same High School, the same ECs, and essays of the same quality, the college WOULD NOT KNOW which was black or white and, if there was only enough space to admit one person with those stats, they'd basically have a coin toss to get in.

"Getting in to selective colleges is a crap shoot and lots of things play a part. Sad that some you you can't see any of them because all you see is color."

The majority of these "things" are fair and useful determinators of an individuals worthiness to attend the school. Things that are chances of birth, such as race or legacy status, are not fair.

I am not at all for segregation, and it actually quite offends me to be compared to Mr. Lott (who quite recently came out in support of AA). The fact is that AA is a racist policy in two ways, first the discrimination against Asians and Whites, and secondly in the assumption that URMs are, as a rule, incapable of achievement to the same level as Asians and Whites.

Tim

By ... on Thursday, December 19, 2002 - 04:04 pm: Edit

Just because African Americans were not allowed to go to college in much of the history of the US does not mean that they should be given a distinct advantage now. Let history be history. Everyone should be given equal chances. And to the URM who had the stats I can say nothing more than good work and congratulations--and their are many URM's like this in top colleges. However, the point that really priks me is when an URM with less that spectacular stats gets in while a non-minority student with better stats does not. This is wrong and this is what needs to be changed.

By anonymous on Thursday, December 19, 2002 - 07:41 pm: Edit

Racism has existed before affirmative action between asians/whites and blacks/hispanics Tim. Asians and whites look on black and hispanic people as "gangstas and people that dominate jail" so they think of themselves as superior compared to other the other minorities. When they see minorities getting in elite colleges, its only natural they protest against affirmative action on College Confidential and Princeton Review. I know this because I'm an African American who previously used to attend Winston Churchill high school, located in the wealthiest suburb in Montgomery County with a large Asian and white population. For example take a look at the low amount of asian and black couples.

By ewww on Thursday, December 19, 2002 - 10:19 pm: Edit

Blacks and hispanics look at white and asians as victims to rob, rape and murder. URMs try to get away with everything and try to blame whites and asians for their own faults. Its the stealing, raping and murdering of people that leads people to jail...thats why the jails are full of URMs.

You never hear of asians raping black women...rather, you hear black men raping white/asians all the time. Look at the LA Riots...asians had nothing to do with the Rodney King verdict but blacks went out of their way to pillage and loot the Korean-owned stores.

By rosebud on Thursday, December 19, 2002 - 10:30 pm: Edit

See my posts on the "MINORITIES GETTING INTO ELITE UNIVERSITIES" for detail on my views on why race is not irrelevant to college admissions.

Race can be, and unfortunately has been, used improperly in addressing the problems that people who face negative stereotypes face. Abolishing the AA system without replacing it with a better system of incorporating but not blindly acting on the ethnicity information will not help us get any closer to a truly equalized educational system.

While it may be that, because AA still needs improvements, some people receive undue advantage, I submit that AA has helped a much larger number of deserving minorities to receive educations they have worked admirably for. It is unfortunate that the mistakes made by the AA system subject those deserving individuals to the suspiscion and disdain you see on several of these discussion boards, but I maintain that it's better to be getting the good education you deserve and taking a little flak for it than it is to be denied the good education altogether. Without question, we need to refine the admissions process to ensure that fewer mistakes are made, but there are legitimate reasons to not deny information on a person's race to the admissions officers (at least while stereotypes about race continue to flourish as they do--see my posts on the board mentioned above).

It has been suggested in some posts on a few of these boards that instead of asking everyone to check off a box indicating their race, they simply eliminate the boxes and let people who feel particularly affected by their ethnic identity write essays about it, etc. While I support some of the intent behind these suggestions, I feel that it would be necessary, in that case, to explicitly ask people to consider all kinds of pressures they are subject to, indicating the possibility of discussing exposure to or influence of stereotypes, among other things. I think this would be important because often the pressures/influences of stereotypes are subtle, though not insubstantial. Those people who live in environments that are hostile to any discussion of a person's ethnic identity may hesitate to discuss the pressures they face (including the pressure to ignore those pressures, which causes their hesitation), and should see something in the essay question that lets them know it's ok to talk about it if they want to.

Of course, there's always the worry that people will lie, and make up stories about disadvantage that are untrue or exaggerated. However, these people are the same people who would have checked "Black" for purely self-serving reasons. We're no worse off in this case than we were before, with regard to those people. People who live in wealthy, socially supportive and encouraging environments who feel that they have never been exposed to damaging stereotypes or feel that they've found ways to counter the effects of those stereotypes can simply discuss non-race-related issues in their essays. Then they need not worry about being unfairly advantaged when they feel that they don't need it or deserve it. People who've had to struggle a little or a lot harder because of the anxiety or pressure that race has exposed them to should be able to elaborate on the experiences and receive consideration. Unfortunately, some of those people who have been subtly or subconsciously affected by negative stereotyping may not become aware of it consciously enough to write about it, and will lose out on receiving the consideration for that that they deserve, and that is a weakness of this proposal. So, one question becomes: "Is it better to admit a few underqualifed applicants in order to admit many qualifed underrepresented ones (more or less the current system, for those schools who still have AA policies), or is it better to more effectively deny advantage to undserving applicants at the cost of also denying it to some qualified applicants (the abolish the checkbox and alter the essay proposal)?"

FYI, I don't really endorse either one wholeheartedly. Flawed systems are flawed systems, and I'll always be disappointed on that account, but I'm hoping that concerned individuals can make improvements through considering as many of the complexities of college admissions as possible.

By you are bigots on Thursday, December 19, 2002 - 10:43 pm: Edit

You people are unbelievably bigotted.

You prove it every time that you get so bent out of shape about attempts to provide some URM accomodation but remain silent about legacy admissions even though their numbers are the same order of magnitude.

By rosebud on Thursday, December 19, 2002 - 10:45 pm: Edit

ewww, you demean the intent and integrity of this discussion board by making such totally unsubstantiated and biased remarks. I doubt that you would appreciate wholesale condemnations of your race based on reprehensible, exaggerated and inflammatory slurs. To assume that race is ever the only (or even the most significant) factor playing into the actions (good or bad) of anyone is just plain ignorant. When discussing the crimes you mentioned so recklessly, I think you should take extra care to discuss specific cases, in detail, and avoid making destructive and unfair generalizations in any dimension.

By staying on topic on Thursday, December 19, 2002 - 10:49 pm: Edit

"you are bigots," I'm pretty sure the silence on legacy admissions is due to the desire to stay on-topic. This board, after all, is about Affirmative Action, which does not concern the advantages given to legacies.

If you want opinions on the subject, start a discussion board about it.

By Gregon on Thursday, December 19, 2002 - 11:05 pm: Edit

I am against legacy status. Why? Because I recieved it myself. It makes you wonder whether the school accepted you because your own character or because your parents went there.

The reason people don't complain about legacy is because it could benefit anyone. However, with AA it singles out a RACE and gives them preferrential treatment.

I believe that as soon as AA is eliminated legacy status will be next for review. Don't call us bigots. Without ever asking us our opinions. Who do you think you are? Judging people and their opinions before asking?


This might stir up this thread...
"I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character." - Martin Luther King, Jr.

So all of those believe anti-AA people are racists (I'm looking at you specifically Mike, the Trent Lot thing was uncalled for) are missing the bigger picture. Ignore race. Color blind society.

"If we had check boxes in the 1950's everyone would've called it racist. But seeing as it's two thousand two I guess its not." - Someone I know.

By ewww on Thursday, December 19, 2002 - 11:08 pm: Edit

rosebud,

you seem to SELECTIVELY choose what to read and what to ignore. go back and read my post and the post just before that one.

how is saying, "Asians and whites look on black and hispanic people as "gangstas and people that dominate jail" so they think of themselves as superior compared to other the other minorities" not imflammatory?

you choose to ignore biased pro-AA remarks while debasing anti-AA remarks...by definition, you're a hypocrite.

as for specific cases, i gave you one...the LA Riots in which blacks raped, pillaged and murdered Korean shop owners all over LA. how do you justify raping a 62 year old grandmother working in a laundromat?

By rosebud on Thursday, December 19, 2002 - 11:37 pm: Edit

Although I know that most people that endorse a color-blind society have the best of intentions with regard to equality, merit and diversity, I don't think "ignoring" race is really an effective strategy for achieving those things. The thing is, race is part of a person's identity, to varying degrees of course, but just as much so as is gender, height, fashion sense, socioeconomic status and millions of other things. It is an identifying characteristic, and unless we all go blind, it will probably always be. This means that for some, and because of our nation's history and concerns, probably for many, race has shaped our experience. Thankfully, it no longer shapes it in the sense that minorities eat and drink in separate areas than do majority group members, but it still shapes experience in the sense that many people are subjected to extra pressure, suspiscion, and (we've all seen this on the boards) those remarkably persistent derogatory remarks. Although our society has made strides in acceptance and appreciation of other backgrounds, it's still notable that some of us grow up without ever hearing people say "Whites and asians look at blacks and hispanics as victims to rob, rape and murder." as one earlier poster said. We probably won't also hear "I just think it's totally unfair that whites get in just because of their race." The relative absence of negative moral or academic evaluations of white people does mean that their experience is different from the experience of minorities that have to hear, and try to dismiss or somehow cope with, such negative evaluations of the ethnic groups they belong to. No matter what we'd prefer, evaluations about groups we belong to subject us to some anxiety about being trapped by those evaluations, and prevented from achieving. Those with encouraging social networks and upbringings that provide them with exceptional strength and resilience, may be well able to overcome this problem. The many without these advantages would have a much more difficult (perhaps nearly impossible) time doing so. That, I believe, is part of the reason for AA and similar policies. I agree with many on these boards who think that the primary school educational systems should be addressed so that accomodation need not be made in colleges, and would add that widespread societal change that made slurs and negative evaluations of ethnic groups as rare as blond jokes (actually, I'd prefer that they all disappear completely, but for the sake of practicality, I'll as for parity first) would also negate the need for programs like AA. But, since I doubt that any of us have any immediate plans for either widespread primary school education reform or widespread societal change, AA seems to be the only (albeit struggling) program around that addresses the very real (though occasionally nonobvious) difficulties that ethnic identity can pose.

As always, I'm all for AA improvement, and for the establishment of any programs that will effect the widespread changes to which I have referred, but simple abolition will not solve the problems of racism or discrimination. I strongly encourage anyone out there to read Prof. Claude Steele's article, "Thin Ice." Link: http://www.theatlantic.com/issues/99aug/9908stereotype.htm
The effects of minority group membership can be insidious, and are often damaging. Some people are helpless to even recognize the causes of the pressures they are exposed to, and therefore cannot combat them. While we have improved our nation's record of letting those people fall through the cracks, we're still not getting to everybody. Let's streamline and refine the system, but let's not give up on it entirely, lest we give up on the people it rightfully intends to serve.

By rosebud on Thursday, December 19, 2002 - 11:55 pm: Edit

ewww, I'm not sure how, but I missed the comments made by "anonymous" when I first read the board. The comments he made are absolutely, indeed, offensive and reprehensible. For similar reasons to the ones I mentioned in my earlier post to you, those generalizations about whites and Asians are unfounded and demean the more serious contributors to this board. I realize that in my frustration over your comments, I addressed my reply specifically to you, when in reality, my comments on the inappropriateness of such slurs apply to all people that submit them, and I ought not to have singled you out. For that, I apologize.

As for the specific case of LA Riots, to generalize from the truly horrifying rape of a 62-year-old woman and the completely undeserved crimes perpetrated against Korean businessowners to characterize an entire race of people is illogical, to euphemize heavily. If we were to generalize from the rapes and murders of the KKK to characterize all whites in this way, would that seem logical to you? Such criminals are specific, and high-profile cases, and are too often misused to degrade members of ethnic groups or people of certain socioeconomic backgrounds. The grand majority of members of any race are not criminals, and should not be subjected to suspiscion as such.

By Shannon on Friday, December 20, 2002 - 12:00 am: Edit

thx again, rosebud.

By ewww on Friday, December 20, 2002 - 12:31 am: Edit

rosebud,

first, my initial inflammatory remark was addressed to the "anonymous" poster...giving him a taste of his own medicine. if you look at context and tone...and even the structure of my paragraph, you will see that i mimic the initial racist remarks by "anonymous" to help him see the error of his ways. often times, for racists, you have to simply give them a mirror to realize what they are.

i understand where you are coming form concerning the understated shadow of a suspicion that many minorities face. but those difficulties alone are not justifiable to prolong AA policies. asians are discriminated against daily (to similar degrees as all other minorities)...from whites, from black, from hispanics. why do you think there is a chinatown in virtually every major city? do you think its a coincidence or do you think that the chinese had to band together initially because no one wanted them to "immerse" with the general population? there are prejudices that cross all boundaries, including gender, socio-economic and even sexual orientation. my point is that you cant fight racism with racist policies that put nothing more than a rotten bandaid on a festering wound. and yes, i consider AA a form of reverse discrimination. just as this thread's topic says, it fosters racism.

i also understand your point about not generalizing the LA riots to the proclivities of all blacks. but i think you miss the point somewhat. first you say that i cant generalize and want a SPECIFIC example. then, when i give you one, you say that specific examples cannot account for the general population! so which is it? what do you want? a general example or a speciifc one?

but my point is not even the discrepancy in which the topics are often covered. imagine that you are a Korean shop owner who was robbed and raped by blacks. do you think that woman is going to sit there and say, "well, not all black people are like this...i cant blame them at all." no way! i think that raped woman would be angry and hurt and lash out! it would be one thing if other minorities raped and pillaged her store but the fact is: only blacks raped and pillaged her. so, i ask you to see the cause for racist remarks from the VICTIM! can you blame her for hating blacks? at that moment in time, and in that scenario, i would not want to try justifying anything to her.

similarly, lets look at something more benign. when AA helps a URM with lesser stats/essays/ecs gain admission while a more talented white student is rejected...there should be no surprise as to the reactionary backlash from the VICTIM. of course that white victim will be anti-AA!

now...taking a step back from specific, individual cases...i can see how AA tries to help the general good. but it is failing at the personal level. theories that look good on paper do not necessarily find themselves working flawlessly on application. so...inevitably, generalizations fail, as do specifics.

and btw, i never said, "Whites and asians look at blacks and hispanics as victims to rob, rape and murder." the negative moral evaluations you seek from the majority is an different animal than from another minority like asians. if anything, asians have it the worst. they are alienated by every other race...with no malcolm, no martin, no jackie, no NAACP to defend their cause.

By burberry on Friday, December 20, 2002 - 01:08 am: Edit

as an asian myself, i can venture to take a guess at why we have no "malcom" or "naacp". the asian race is generally submissive... the only way we have learned how to succeed is to be 3x better than everyone else, just to be "equal." in addition, many asians are more concerned with the welfare of their own family/self than the fate of the entire race as a whole. perhaps if more of us had the guts to speak out and came together, like every other URM has that now falls under the "URM" category, we'll have a decade of our own movement of equal rights and opportunity. hell, we built that railroad in 3 months, we lived in ghetto neighborhoods, environmental racism has historically been directed towards us... i say we deserve our fair share of rights.

By rosebud on Friday, December 20, 2002 - 01:17 am: Edit

eww,

When I asked for negative evaluations to be limited to specific examples, I did not meant that those examples can be justifiably used to generalize. I want people to evaluate and judge specific cases, and realize that those evaluations and judgments cannot be fairly extended to apply to other cases that they have little or no information about.

Blacks in LA do not tell you much, if anything at all, about blacks anywhere else. In fact, the blacks in LA who loot, rape and murder don't even tell you anything about the black in LA who never did, and never would commit such crimes. They don't deserve to suffer because of the high-profile, horrendous acts of the LA rioters anymore than white people in America should be suspected of violent racist tendencies because of the similarly revolting acts of KKK members.

I cannot imagine trying to "justify" rape for any reason, and I can see why hatred for a race can be an unfortunate result of being so devastatingly violated in that way. However, sympathy for a victim's pain and understanding for the extremes that such pain can encourage does not constitute approval or agreement with such extremes. However sympathetic to rape victims we are, it is grossly inaccurate and damaging to use a personal experience to negatively characterize the actions or intentions of the billions of people we have never met, who will never hurt us, and might very well be very nice to know. By doing so, we would divide ourselves from potentially healing and beneficial relationships, and spread misinformation that perpetuates fear and distrust among all of us. There are a great many black people who work actively to help comfort and take care of rape victims of all ethnicities. Wouldn't it be sad if the Korean rape victim in your example was unable to form a relationship with such a well-intentioned individual because of the extreme and inaccurate fears she had developed about black people? Rape is a destructive and terrifying experience, and I'm absolutely not saying that fears are not an understandable reaction. I'm simply saying that if we can learn to channel energy and fear into an active participation in rape counseling, or advocacy for better education (which indirectly but effectively works against the rise of crimes like rape), then we can help victims to do more than be paralyzed by their experience. We can help them to use the experience to intensify the effort to better our neighborhoods and ourselves. And, if we try to not be driven to unreasonable extremes by our fears, we can help destroy stereotypes, build strong relationships, and strengthen ourselves and others against any further difficulties we face in life.

I understand the frustration of white applicants who feel they have been denied admission because of their race, and I agree that they will feel victimized and may react as such. I simply submit that they, like the victim I described above, need not let their fears drive them to what are simply ridiculous generalizations about entire races of people. It would be far better for the individual and society, I think, if they were to redirect their anger and frustration and excelling in the schools they did get accepted to, finding successful careers (which, since they are high achievers, I truly believe they will find despite disappointing admissions decisions), and hopefully giving constructive feedback to our education administrators about ways to improve their system. Intelligent people who see flaws in the system (especially through experience) are the most responsible for correcting them, not unproductively exacerbating the problems that inspired the system to begin with (i.e., racism).

I think most intelligent people would be loathe to think that if they hadn't gone to the college they went to, they'd have become failures. It makes it seem like the school, not the individual, determines success. While I acknowledge that denial to one or another school can be a disadvantage, it need never truly halt the progress of an accomplished, capable individual. Anyone that achieves highly throughout the trials and tribulations of teenagehood can certainly handle four years at a less-preferred college and still kick some serious...you know. That said, I'm all for reducing and eliminating disadvantages of all kinds, but please, to all of you frustrated students out there, don't give up on yourselves. Even when it seems like admissions committees, administrators, teachers, racists, or whoever are working against your achievement, remember that some people are really trying to support you and your goals. The intense desire to pursue higher education is, in itself, admirable, and you should never let a thin letter in the mail prevent you from patting yourself on the back for that, and motivating you to make the absolute best of the situation you're in. Be the first Nobel Laureate from that small, lesser-known school. Be one of tthe first Fortune 500 businesspeople to start their career at a CC. And help people who've also been unfairly disadvantaged in one way or another to realize that they can be a "first" from their backgrounds, too.

By rosebud on Friday, December 20, 2002 - 01:31 am: Edit

A note on the Asian discrimination issue:
I do think that Asian people are discriminated against, even if their admissions numbers are higher. Lots of Asian people are highly pressured to focus exclusively on math, science and engineering in order to meet cultural and parental expectations, as well as to compete with their peers. Unfortunately, this means that in a way, they are prevented from going into fields like English, Art, History, etc. Not only do cultural norms not encourage them to pursue these fields as vehemently as the other math, etc. fields, often the scholarships, etc. they receive to fund their educations are dependent on their adherence to these fields, limiting their ability to explore other fields even after they get into college. The other major cultural groups in the United States have nowhere near this narrow a view of acceptable fields of study. Sure, there's the time-honored doctor, lawyer, businessperson trilogy that seems to hang over just about everyone, but in general, non-Asian people are under a lot less pressure to follow a particularly math/science/engineering path to success. This negatively affects all of the great potential artists, writers, politicians, psychologists, etc. that are encouraged to repress or reject their interests and desires for these fields, and thereby, also causes society to lose out. I'm all for giving more consideration to Asian kids who really want to pursue all the fields in which Asians are underrepresented, so that we can move away from having the most common image of the Asian student be the nerd with glasses and 1600s on their SATs. Asian people, like all ethnicities, have more depth and diversity than that within their own cultures, and deserve to be as free to pursue different lifestyles as any of us.

By ewww on Friday, December 20, 2002 - 01:45 am: Edit

rosebud,

do you not see that you are indirectly dismissing the rape victim? the victim need not channel her energies to educate others about the right and wrong of rape! rape is wrong, period. lets put the spotlight back on the victim and feel her pain. lets not dismiss her experience by advocating a larger picture in which she could somehow cope and make society better in general. deal with the PERSON first, then tackle society.

i am not advocating separation. i am coming up with logical, reasonable by-products of how one case of racism may get started. in this case, as a victim of rape, i can understand the roots to where she may have hatred. call it wrong all you'd like, but i can sympathize for the victim and choose not to ignore her for good of the bigger cause.

your example of the blacks who did not loot and riot...those model citizens that you claim are more of the norm...how they should not suffer because of the atrocities of those blacks who did rape, pillage and plunder. i see that argument, and i have to agree. similarly, i say that those whites/asians today should not suffer due to AA's discriminatory by-products for the acts of slave owners over a hundred years ago.

it is logical that the majority not suffer because of the indiscretions of the few. if you want people to stop the handicapping stereotypes of URMs, then stop handicapping the victims of AA, namely asians and whites. telling non-URMs that they can suceed without entrance into elite colleges is not the point. a qualified white applicant should get to goto harvard if he chooses to. he can just as well go for that nobel prize out of harvard than out of state university.

By ahhh on Friday, December 20, 2002 - 01:54 am: Edit

regardless, URM's are discriminated against when applying for grad school. they seem to recognize these URM's had more opportunities etc. than the avg. white folk that had to compete for the same spot... so it all comes back to them. no worries.

how many CEO's are black/mexican?
presidents?
lab directors?

yea, that's what happens to them. AA just sux altogether. make it go away!!!

By rosebud on Friday, December 20, 2002 - 02:51 am: Edit

ewww, I never meant to dismiss rape victims, so let me try to clarify. Rape is, as you said, wrong, period. I fully agree that we need to recognize their pain, and address their needs first. I suggested channeling energy into community projects as a way of doing just that. It's not the only way, certainly, but I really believe that helping victims of rape to make important contributions to the community, especially to other rape victims (through counseling programs or whathaveyou), can give them the sense that they're wondrfully valuable individuals, and hopefully help them to fend off any feelings of self-criticism or low self-esteem, etc. that can arise from having been victims of rape. I don't want to ignore the needs of the victim for the good of a better cause, I want to see if we can find a way to help victims not have to live in pain for the rest of their lives. Even when pain is justified or understandable, shouldn't we look for ways to bring joy and fulfillment into their experience? Are they just lost because they've been too hurt by their experience? I don't think so. I can't really believe that holding extremist, prejudiced opinions about members of other races brings joy and fulfillment into their lives. I've only suggested that some actions they can take to better their communities or reach out to others in their situations might have a better chance at doing so. There are probably lots of other potentially healing things that they can do, but I don't think any of them start with encouraging or intensifying feelings of hatred towards other races.

I don't mean to get too off-topic with the rape discussion, so I'll end here. I've gotta get offline soon anyway. I just want it to be clear that I don't dismiss the difficult experiences that any of us have had.

I sincerely hope that applications are changed to more easily allow all students to communicate the depth and effect of the experiences they've had, positive and negative. Actively working to find effective ways of achieving this change might solve many of the problems we've seen discussed on these boards, so thanks to all who contribute to healthy discussion, and I hope that we might be able to (as every good generation should do) improve on the considerable efforts of our predecessors in moving towards excellent education and fair treatment for everyone.

By bump on Tuesday, December 24, 2002 - 12:59 am: Edit

bump

By bump on Tuesday, December 24, 2002 - 01:23 pm: Edit

bump bump

By stoptalkinga/bit! on Wednesday, December 25, 2002 - 12:08 am: Edit

you guys are actually ridiculous debating this issue. don't you realize that even if AA is done away with, admissions officers aren't stupid and will realize from NAMES what ethnic background a student is from?!??! Think about it-isn't it easy to tell a Hispanic's name from an Asian's or Indian's? It would be very obvious to tell, so regardless of whether AA ends, schools will still want to show they have diversity, and the problem will not be solved.

By Fedupwithyourwhining on Monday, December 30, 2002 - 02:32 pm: Edit

I am amazed at the bigotry that passes as intelligent commentary in this thread. The idea that affirmative action "fosters" racism is ahistorical and idiotic. And, for the sake argument, if it were so, let's just say that it doesn't take much to "foster" racism in some people. If it weren't affirmative action it would be some other excuse.

The blatant bigotry of CharlesM (cheered on by coolguy and meritocracy) is instructive. On the one hand, he affirms that hiring and admissions decisions should be based on "merit and academic achievement alone." To the unsuspecting, this might seem reasonable. But in the very next sentence he adds "if an African American wants to join the lab, s/he better be BETTER than her peers..." So much for merit, academic achievement alone, colorblindness or, even, legality.

Because CharlesM labors under the assumption of black intellectual inferiority (a fiction that pre-dates the affirmative action era), he feels no reticience in penalizing an African American candidate, even if s/he is equally well qualified. But he would no doubt protest loudly if his views were denounced as the rank bigotry they are or his hiring/selection decisions pronounced certifiably racist. Ditto for coolguy (who thinks African Americans need to show other students that they "deserve to be there") and meritocracy (who says given a choice between an Asian, Caucasian and an AA/Hispanic, he'd choose the Asian/Caucasian unless the AA/Hispanic had "amazing" credentials).

It's because of folks like you three that affirmative action exists. And you are poster children for its continuation.

Thanks for your contributions.

By Tim on Monday, December 30, 2002 - 02:55 pm: Edit

"don't you realize that even if AA is done away with, admissions officers aren't stupid and will realize from NAMES what ethnic background a student is from?!??!"

Admissions can be separated from names.

Fedup:

If you look around on this board you will see people using the abbreviation "AA" to refer to the group of all people receiving assistance from affirmative action. This obviouslly shows that affirmative action is creating a division in many people's minds, the "AAs" vs. everyone else.

"But in the very next sentence he adds "if an African American wants to join the lab, s/he better be BETTER than her peers..." So much for merit, academic achievement alone, colorblindness or, even, legality."

With affirmative action, however, a system has been created where "if a White person wants to get into college, s/he better be BETTER than her [Black/Hispanic] peers..."

"It's because of folks like you three that affirmative action exists. And you are poster children for its continuation."

I'd say it is because of affirmative action that folks like those three exist, and they are poster children for the harm caused by affirmative action.

Tim

By fedupwithyourwhining on Monday, December 30, 2002 - 03:41 pm: Edit

Tim, I've served as an alummi interviewer for an ivy league college for a few years. I can tell you from personal knowledge that for every URM admitted with low stats there are at least two whites admitted with even lower stats (whether athletes, legacies, musical prodigies, West Virginians, or whatever). While it is true that, on average, URM stats are somewhat lower, it would be foolish not to recognize that there are many whites at the lower end of curve and quite a few URMs at the upper end.

Every white or Asian who fails to get into the college of his or her choice is not a victim of affirmative action, although you'd hardly know that from reading some of these postings.

It seems URMs are often convenient scapegoats for the disappointments or unrealistic expectations of some whites (and Asians) in today's college rat race. And that, Tim, sadly is as American as apple pie.

By Tim on Monday, December 30, 2002 - 04:49 pm: Edit

I don't think that you can go solely by the numbers, especially for the Ivies, as they still have many more White and Asian applicants compared to URMs, and they can't admit someone who doesn't apply. A better way to compare would be percentages. For example, a college might be admitting 2% of whites with a 1200 SAT and 10% of blacks with a 1200 SAT but be admitting equal numbers of blacks and whites with that SAT grade.

The problem I see is that while the low stat White person may get an advantage from something fair (a personal accomplishment - musical talent) or something unfair (something they were born into - legacy, money), the low stat URM will ALWAYS get a race advantage in addition to any personal accomplishments or other positive factors.

"Every white or Asian who fails to get into the college of his or her choice is not a victim of affirmative action, although you'd hardly know that from reading some of these postings."

Whether or not that is true, it is certainly the perception. When I was deferred from MIT (1550 SAT, etc...), and I told people, one of the many responses I got affirming this perception was, "It's too bad you weren't black - they'd be giving you acceptance, a free ride, and blowjobs."

As a side note, I was reading around and I found this scattergram: http://www.sandiego.edu/~e_cook/vault/medical/losangeles/ucla-med-99.html

It is more evidence that URMs accepted will have lower objective merit scores. It also disturbs me though, to see NO URM students in the upper portion of the scattergram. I just find it hard to believe that there wasn't a single Black or Hispanic who could score over 11 on the MCAT. To me this indicates either a huge racial bias on the MCAT or the application of more extreme and far-out theories I've heard about Affirmative Action - that it's used to admit less-qualified URMs OVER better-qualified URMs, as some sort of way to keep minorities down by ensuring that the most promising minorities do not receive the best education. It also ties in about reports I've read of URMs admitted to med school with Affirmative Action often failing to graduate and failing to pass their Medical License exams.

Tim

By hms on Monday, December 30, 2002 - 04:52 pm: Edit

fedupqithyourwhining,

everything you write is loaded with discrimination. obviously, you think AA is a good thing...and to quote yourself, to think this is "ahistorical and idiotic." i've read through CharlesM's original message and you seem to like to twist what he was saying. he wasn't being racist, you are trying to twist things so it may seem to you that he is...and in doing so, make indirect justification for a racist policy such as AA.

CharlesM was indeed calling for admissions based on merit...but due to AA, he wisely knows that URMs have a leg up in the application process. you admit this yourself: "...it is true that, on average, URM stats are somewhat lower..." thus to judge upon sheer merit, CharlesM calls for a process in which the racist policies of AA be corrected by demanding greater things from URMs that have been given greater advantages to start with (he points out several in his post..but i dare say you seem to be spotty in your reading and have neglected to read them).

i, too, have been an alumni interviewer at an ivy league institution and i can personally say that your assessment that "for every URM admitted with low stats there are at least two whites admitted with even lower stats" is absolutely WRONG. URMs dominate the applicant pool of admitted students with averages lower than the school mean. stats like this arent available for the public in many undergraduate institutions, but if you care to look at the stats for medical and law schools, you will see that they mirror what non-URMs have long suspected...that they get rejected in lieu of less qualified URMs.

with these facts in mind, your statements are nothing but a skewed anecdotal perspective that tries desperately to defend a racist policy by calling all that disagree as being idiotic or racists themselves. what you fail to do is look yourself in the mirror and see the tail and horns of your own bigotry.

By no one on Monday, December 30, 2002 - 06:18 pm: Edit

Look at the chart, fedupwithyourwhining.

Doesn't it suck when you're caught in a lie?

AA doesn't stop at undergrad admissions. It goes into post-graduate work (Patrick Chavis). If you're pre-med, it goes into residency (Chavis sued the hospital because they said he botched a delivery), and it extends into your professional life (Dr. Chavis's license was finally taken away after he killed several people).


Of course, I can't wait until you pre-BAMNies discover how pathetic URM admissions are right now (Upper middle class black family with $70K a year is scoring lower then poverty level white/asian family with $20K on their SATs).
I suspect you guys will then start believing that the SAT and all other standarized tests are racist.

By zhouj on Monday, December 30, 2002 - 06:30 pm: Edit

How the hell is the SAT racist? Unless IQ is racist. Read the Bell Curve, it's a rather interesting book on how the racial gaps between IQ scores of asians, african-americans, whites, etc. might actually be genetic and real.

By Tim on Monday, December 30, 2002 - 06:33 pm: Edit

Sweet zombie Jesus, but you just opened the size large can of worms, zhouj.

Tim

By The_Sagacious_Owl on Monday, December 30, 2002 - 07:28 pm: Edit

Yes, it does foster racism. My main problem with it is that it denigrates minorities. For example, I have a friend who's black and is very intelligent. However, people automatically assume that he got into good schools because of his race. If AA were to be abrogated, then such occurrences would cease to take place. Just step into his shoes. You are as smart as any asian/white, but people automatically assume that you got in with lower credentials. Many people don't like to go to URM doctors. Why, because they can get in with MUCH lower credentials than whites/asians. There is an accrueing animosity between blacks and asians/whites. The funniest thing about my friend, is that he didn't even mark his race on his application. He left it blank. His name is a common name so the adcoms wouldn't have been able to differentiate. His stats were amazing: 1600 SAt achieved his sophomore year, 800 on four SATIIs, 5's on AP tests, etc. However, people with INFERIOR stats cite AA as his sole reason for acceptance. How does this make him feel. If AA ceased to exist, such occurrences would be a thing of the past. I'm asian and it just isn't fair. My friend is praying that the supreme court will rescind AA. I hope so for his case, if this occurs, then qualified URMs at top school will get the esteem they deserve. Here's the most important question. If AA is to be rescinded, and in a couple years you see a urm freshman on campus; will the first thing that pop in your mind be is he qualified? I think the answer to this would be no, and just for that it is worth that it be abrogated. The greatest evil of AA, is that the astute URM's get looked at in a condescending manner.

By Daryl Sams on Monday, December 30, 2002 - 10:00 pm: Edit

Fedup...you start out from a base of reasoned rationality, taking apart some of the posts above as thinly veiled racist diatribes. I'm with you through those. Shortly thereafter, though, you say something brief, and ultimately self-defeating, about "merit, academic achievement alone, colorblindness or, even, legality." I think these are reasoned things upon which to base giving a job. Your post seems to imply the same, but concludes with a statement to the effect of being in favor of AA. This is something I've been thinking a lot about lately; as soon as I realized how it worked, I realized that AA was a deeply flawed tool. I think that perhaps the solution is socio-economic AA, doled out fairly, holistically, not in the faux-holistic but largely quota-based systems that contemporary AA is administered under (and please, don't dispute that point: colleges are under this vaguely and idiotically liberal pressure to maintain minority enrollment percentages, and it shows from year to year as well as in their press releases).

Charles M largely labors under a silly, racist, and false impression; worth noting, however, are two actually contradicting pieces of evidence I've heard anecdotally recently: 1) that people of color do worse on standardized tests due to a kind of achievement fear, so that if given the same SAT under the condition of it being a worthless test, meaningless, they'd do better (this is study-proven; 2) the fact that the SAT over-predicts freshmen year grades for Blacks and Hispanics. Both interesting, no?

In response to your second post...you make three points. I'll deal with them individually:

"Every white or Asian who fails to get into the college of his or her choice is not a victim of affirmative action, although you'd hardly know that from reading some of these postings."

This is true, but it is telling in what it omits: many are not victims of AA, but some ARE, and I don't think propagating anger is beneficial to society. The fact that this "equalizing system" has victims that fall force to the negative effect of their born-with skin color bothers me.

"It seems URMs are often convenient scapegoats for the disappointments or unrealistic expectations of some whites (and Asians) in today's college rat race. And that, Tim, sadly is as American as apple pie. "

For some of the posters above, I'd agree with you. But again, you fail to paint the full picture: in the absence of AA white and asian enrollments would increase.

"Tim, I've served as an alummi interviewer for an ivy league college for a few years. I can tell you from personal knowledge that for every URM admitted with low stats there are at least two whites admitted with even lower stats (whether athletes, legacies, musical prodigies, West Virginians, or whatever). While it is true that, on average, URM stats are somewhat lower, it would be foolish not to recognize that there are many whites at the lower end of curve and quite a few URMs at the upper end. "

Here you rely on a flawed premise: that those "whites" admitted with lower stats don't have a countervailing influence. Perhaps that is weakly phrased; what you imply is that those influences are of equal legitimacy as AA. That's where I disagree. Athletes have a talent and a passion for something (their sport) and while outright recruitment bothers me, an admissions boost seems reasonable. In any event, they go on to make more money on average than their classmates, and while money is not the be-all and end-all, it serves to indicate something. The musicians? I'd like to think a amazingly gifted musician has some kind of ability, an "EC" as it were, that contributes to the colleges, as well as the world. The last time I checked, skin color doesn't make you a more valuable member of society. In any event, minorities make less money than the average graduate of nearly all schools. There is a quick refutation to that argument, but it is specious: yes, minorities might well go on to careers (lower-paying) in academia, but so do whites, probably at equal per capita rates. Anyway. Legacies? Donations to colleges? That argument needs no elaboration. Geographical diversity? Ridiculous? Yes. I agree on that one.

At the end, I see we agree that URM stats are on averge lower and on a percentage basis cluster in the bottom objective half of college entrants.

Socioeconomic AA? It could work. Upper-middle class URMs stealing spots? Bad news.

By ryo on Monday, December 30, 2002 - 11:56 pm: Edit

There's a reason why adamant proponents of AA like Bollinger and BAMN does not support social-economic AA.

Welcome to the first step in realizing the dirty little secret of Affirmative Action.

By Willie on Tuesday, December 31, 2002 - 12:39 am: Edit

Pondering about the ethics of AA is useless, and those bitching about it on this board need to get a life. I believe America should strive toward racial equality, but this is a bunch of ••••••••. Nothing you say here will change anything. If you really want to do something then get your ass out of your computer seat and do something. Alot of people who have the time and the large vocabulary to make them appear intelligent may discuss this taboo yet controversial topic, but in the end this answer needs no Harvard-educated analysis. It is clear as water.
Life is VERY unfair. Minorities have dealt with it, we'll deal with it too. Life will always be unfair to some extent, and I believe that those wanting to attend a great university should strive to be the best THEY can, instead of bitch and moan about other people. Holding a very large majority of college seats and then accusing the system for cutting down says more about Asians/Caucasians than anything on this forum can. My advice, although no one asked for it, needs to be declared: Deal with it.
The original purpose of AA wasn't to appease the mobs of URM's who were unhappy about their lackluster acceptances into top-notch universities - it was an attempt by colleges to diversify their student body as to attract more flair to their school's name. This is true, maybe not fully but at least partially true. Yet AA has become another in the concatenation of events that define the struggle for racial equality - an event that will require a new, wise, simple mind such as Martin Luther King, Jr. to clear the fog of racism, not a bunch of people like us complaining on internet chat boards...

By no one on Tuesday, December 31, 2002 - 12:53 am: Edit

Tell that hackneyed teenage "life is unfair" line to the people Dr. Chavis murdered.

By Fedupwithyourwhining on Tuesday, December 31, 2002 - 10:30 am: Edit

Daryl Sams: thanks for your thoughtful posting. Ultimately, this is not a topic on which we will be able to convince each other, so it is sufficient to acknowledge that there are some reasonable arguments (and people) on both sides.

Incidentally, I would not object to class-based affirmative action. However, it would not stop the howling of the aggrieved or those who just imagine themselves to be agggrieved. If it were implemented, the title of this thread would simply change to "Class-based AA fosters racism and class hatred." The whole controversy is ultimately about whose ox is gored; its about power and self-interest. Many of those against AA won't be happy until the clock is turned back to pre-civil rights America.

By no one on Tuesday, December 31, 2002 - 07:48 pm: Edit

Blacks with $70,000 household income are scoring lower then whites with $20,000 household income.

If we decided to use SES as a factor instead of race....we would see LESS blacks in our universities then if we went strictly on merit.

Hey, whiner guy, what did you say about URMs in harvard being just as qualified?

http://www.sandiego.edu/~e_cook/vault/medical/losangeles/ucla-med-99.html

By Tim on Tuesday, December 31, 2002 - 07:53 pm: Edit

Do you have a statistic on the first point, no one? I'd be interested in reading about that.

Tim

By no one on Tuesday, December 31, 2002 - 07:55 pm: Edit

Sure, happy to illuminate some truth on the AA debate.

http://www.ncpublicschools.org/Accountability/reporting/sat/2001/#race

By u probably know this already on Tuesday, December 31, 2002 - 08:29 pm: Edit

Intellectual PERFORMANCE can be affected by the environment in which one resides -- intellectual ABILITY is NOT necessarily affected by where one lives.

One aspect of affirmative action takes into consideration the fact that a black/hispanic person who lives in the ghetto, may not perform as well as someone who lives in a safe suburban neighborhood -- though they might have the same academic potential.

By no one on Tuesday, December 31, 2002 - 08:34 pm: Edit

The only thing AA cares about is RACE.

If an Adcom sees a middle class black guy with 1300 SAT and another black guy out of Compton with 1100 SAT, the adcom would choose the guy with the higher score.

Nice theory. Too bad most blacks who benefit from AA are not poor. (see above link)

By asian on Wednesday, January 01, 2003 - 06:16 pm: Edit

Whoever says asians live in Chinatown because of discrimination can kiss my a**!! My dad and grandparents immigrated here around 50 years ago, not the most tolerating time, but never once lived in Chinatown. They could live wherever they wanted. They chose to live in a different neighborhood of NY because opportunity was better there. Chinese people live in Chinatown because they like to be around people who speak their language and practice their customs. It's no different than the orthodox jewish neighborhoods around Flatbush in Brooklyn or the Russian areas a few blocks away. It's easier to work at a job where you can speak to people in your first language. They do not live there because of racism.
And why, as someone said above, do blacks and hispanics look at asians as one looks at and attacker or a rapist? What the h*** have asians ever done to anyone? Nothing stupid. We're pretty reclusive when it comes to stirring up society here.

By fedupwithyourwhining on Thursday, January 02, 2003 - 02:21 pm: Edit

No one: I said nothing about Harvard specifically. And, by the way, I find your invocation of the scattergram from a single medical school's applicant pool underwhelming, to say the least.

As for this thread, I'm signing off. It's been real. Happy New Year!

By no one on Thursday, January 02, 2003 - 06:17 pm: Edit

Of course, you present no evidence to the contrary.
You remind me of the Black Knight. No matter how many limbs I hack off, you still do not see the obvious.

Professor Cook's website has a wealth of information from California medical, law and undergrad schools not just "a single scattergram"

Of course, anyone who is educated in the AA debate, both pro and con already knows that blacks are not getting in because of merit.

http://supreme.lp.findlaw.com/supreme_court/decisions/lower_court/97cv75928.pdf

I do not find your refusal to see the truth surprising. After all, nobody likes to believe they are under qualified.
However, your refusal to see that there are innocent victims is immoral and indicative of a small, selfish mind.

Good luck to you. Cover your eyes, ears and mouth in the next few months. There will be truths that you do not want to see.
Cheers, whiner guy.

By asdf on Thursday, January 02, 2003 - 08:34 pm: Edit

no one,

excellent reference. perchance, did you closely inspect the list of defendents in that law suit? lee bollinger is now the president of columbia university and jeffrey lehman is now the president of cornell university. pro-AA presidents have been instituted at harvard (lawrence summers), upenn (rodin), yale (levin) and dartmouth (white). unfortunately for the most talented, the evil grasp of AA seems to be safe within the ivy league.

By fencer on Thursday, January 02, 2003 - 08:44 pm: Edit

many of these "ivies" are also the epitome of "political correctness..." if that makes any sense. it isn't surprising at all to hear that pro-AA presidents have been instituted at all the ivies you mentioned, asdf.
another reason why getting into an ivy isn't everything. in fact, it seems to hold less significance as time progresses.
and not surprisingly, either.
who wants to be caught in a web of political correctness, money draining, and pretentious bull$hit? it just isn't worth it anymore. but that's just my opinion.

By no one on Thursday, January 02, 2003 - 09:08 pm: Edit

Dean Summers had to proclaim his "commitment to diversity" after Prof. West decided to play the card on him. To call him "pro-AA" is misleading at best. I don't know anything about the boys at upenn, nayle or dartmouth.

I know exactly where Bollinger and the law dean went. Thanks to them, they left UM a "diversified" campus complete with BAMN hate mongers.

Safe within the ivy league? Any action by the Supreme Court will affect Ivies.

By ash on Friday, January 03, 2003 - 10:05 am: Edit

How would you make an MCAT racist? How would design a math problem so specifically an african american person would get it wrong? Saying the MCAT is racist is the stupidest thing I've ever heard.

By Tim (Tim) on Friday, January 03, 2003 - 10:10 am: Edit

People can claim that the SAT I Math (never mind the Verbal, that's a bigger argument) is racist.

Their claims seem to be founded on the idea that minorities and women are unable to work fast or use the process of elimination...

Tim

By greebz on Friday, January 03, 2003 - 12:29 pm: Edit

i completely agree with "u probably know this already".........

they may not have the same performance, but the same potential

in ghetto schools like mine only 30% of students take the SAT. all use waivers. no one can pay for it. you would think that a low income hs would focus more on education, but its not that way. they let us progress even though we do not learn the same material as other students. it is a great accomplishment when a poorly educated student in my school (all of them) scores over a 1000 on the SAT. in fact only 7 total students scored over 1000. most in the 1000-1100 range. only 2 scored higher than 1100. some of us have the potential, but we do not have the education that many others have had, and i personally regret attending my hs. if i had gone somewhere else i would think that i could have scored at least a 1400 on my SAT. i kinda went off the subject. well for now AA is the best thing to help out minorities until something better can be thought of to fix the little bugs. economic status is probably the biggest one (a black or hispanic guy whos family grosses in about $80,000 a year isnt at a disadvantage!)

By Your local mayor on Friday, January 03, 2003 - 02:24 pm: Edit

DOWN WITH AA!!!

By Sar (Sar) on Friday, January 03, 2003 - 03:49 pm: Edit

All problems originate from the worsening global crisis of overpopulation. And laziness, i guess. But that comes from overpopulation, too.

By your local mayor on Friday, January 03, 2003 - 07:36 pm: Edit

? just blame laziness on overpopulation and vice versa? HAHAHAHAHA!!!!!! i'm laughing at your idea, not you. ;)

By nyugirl on Monday, January 06, 2003 - 01:52 am: Edit

I remember reciting a speech on AA when I was in 10th grade. I agreed with it and stated that it was compensation for racial injustice done on to blacks by whites. I agree with AA, it helps diversify college campuses. There is such a small percentage of AA/Hispanics attending college. But do to the bias SAT and attending inner-city public schools, it has been very hard for blacks and hispanics to succeed in lily-white America. I am an Afican American female who attends Damascus High School, a middle to upper-middle class, white (85%) public high school in Maryland. I take really hard classes, (I am the only black person in my AP Lit and AP US History class) but I only got a 960 on my SAT's.(My IQ is 130 for God's sake!) I think I could handle Harvard! But I don't plan to apply, because I don't believe in what Ivy Schools represent. (Elitism and greed) AA doesn't foster racism, it helps universities and colleges create a well-rounded, diverse class of students who work and learn from each other. I am proud to say that I want AA to help me get into NYU. My grades are pretty good (about 3.45), my EC's are excellent (I'm very involved in school). Hooks: Both my parents didn't go to college, my dad only went to the seventh grade, my mother owned a restaurant in Cali, but at her new job, she only makes $21k a year, and I was hit by a car when I was in the tenth grade. (This explains why my GPA is so low.) I think many kids who write on this board are pretentious, bitter, rich white brats who are p*ssed off because they didn't get into their dream school.(One of the Ivies) Face it, AA is here to stay, and I will benfit from it because I'm black and a female.

By Tim (Tim) on Monday, January 06, 2003 - 01:58 am: Edit

"My IQ is 130 for God's sake!"

What IQ test did you take?

And, how do you, personally, feel that the SAT was biased against you?

Tim

By haha on Monday, January 06, 2003 - 01:59 am: Edit

maybe she couldn't afford the $18 study book like every other non-URM minority (asians, jewish, etc.) and spent that money on other, more valuable things... *cough*

By bltch please on Monday, January 06, 2003 - 03:17 am: Edit

how can ANYONE who knows basic algebra and middle school english fail to achieve over 1000 on the SAT I??? 130 IQ and you can't score over 500 M and 500 V on a test that tests BASIC comprehension? By the way, aren't you a little lower than the national average?

By lol on Monday, January 06, 2003 - 06:41 am: Edit

lol...yeah, getting a 1000 is easy, i could do it in my sleep. in fact, i could do it just doing the math portion...getting an 800M while you automatically get 200V just for spelling your name right. actually, i dont think you even have to spell your name right to get the 200V. lol.

getting a 1000 is a joke for a supposed honor student. if you can't, you're no honor student.

By dxiw on Monday, January 06, 2003 - 12:59 pm: Edit

I agree with ewwww also I fully agree with this post. I dont care if your black or white or mexican a 1000 does not make you an honor student, PERIOD

By no one on Monday, January 06, 2003 - 01:08 pm: Edit

If nyugirl does indeed have a 130 IQ, she is the poster child of exactly what is wrong with AA.

She has no incentive for doing better then a pathetic 960 on SAT. She knows her skin color will make up for her academic short comings.

Lowered expectations = lower results.

By tenisghs on Monday, January 06, 2003 - 02:04 pm: Edit

Since when did most high schools imput SAT/ACT scores with your GPA to determine your rank????

Test scores now prove whether you should be on the honor roll? This is a joke...

By CollConUser on Monday, January 06, 2003 - 11:29 pm: Edit

Did you even think about what you just wrote?

God, what a moron.

By dxiw on Monday, January 06, 2003 - 11:38 pm: Edit

I think everyone should have an equal educational oppurtunity from the beginning and then when it comes to college race should be irrelevant. But unfortunatly things will not change so yes life is unfair but learn to deal with it. If you think about it, its unfair to all. Whites and Asians have it harder, and black and mexicans have to deal with the fact that everyone automatically thinks they are idiots.

also, saying a test is racist is the most idiotic thing I have EVER heard. How is math racist??? Why can't a black solve for x in 3x-5=10 just like a white??? Also, if you think tests are racists, why don't we just get rid of ap exams, sat's , sat 2's, act's and finals in hs and just get into college based on how big your dick is. YOu guys are totally ludicrous and sound like complete IDIOTS!

By Orient Express on Monday, February 24, 2003 - 10:52 am: Edit

First of all, most of you people who posted on here have somehow ended up lumping all Asians under certain stereotypes and generalizations. No we are not ALL against Blacks or Hispanics or whoever. And why do you people all try to make it seem as if the Asian Race is alligned with the White race??? are you guys trying to make an even bigger divided line between the Black people and the Asian people??? well i got news for you guys, first of all Orientals and Black people got more in common than you might think. Especially with the West Indian/caribbean communities. 1 We have similar foods(plantain, okra, snapper fish, oxtail, curry, rice, spinach stews, stewed chicken, king fish, dumplins, mangoes, cassava/yam, ginger roots, spices,peanut brittle etc). 2 we have strict family values and morals that are alike. For example, it is important to respect your elders. We've both had our communities smashed by racist White mobs in the 1800's and early 1900's (Blacks in the South and New York state faced this numerous times, and Asians/Orientals faced the same lootings from White lynch mobs in the California communities and Vancouver Canada in the 1800's)fact. Researh it in the history books they don't want to show you.

Oh yeah, not all of us live in "rich" areas or the burbs or even Chinatown.. Go down to Long Beach California or Sacramento/Oakland, Minnesota, and you will see a large population of poor inner city Orientals living in the supposed "Ghetto's" of these citys. Most of these poor Asians are either Cambodian, Vietnamese, or Filipinos. WE are not ALL Chinese like a lot of you would think. Nor are we ALL Koreans. We don't make a big proportion of the rich parts of America, Whites do. Always was like that, and it will always will be like that. Just like the next president is gonna be A White male. ALways was always will be. Sure you got poor White people in America and Canada but, who still runs the government, who still doesn't get pulled over for their skin colour, who still benefits off the the oppression of millions of Ethnic Minorities who work their asses off here 9-5 6 days a week just to pay rent and get their kids breakfast???? Huh? My parents are Oriental and they are not "rich" the way you people make it seem. they are struggling to pay rent, get us meals, and the usual pay the bills ••••. Oh and the reason why you see us in "Chinatown" is cuz we just go there to shop. NOt all of us live in Funky Chinatown you know. I'm pissed. Yeah i'm pissed at how the White dominated Media tries to further divide the relationship between Black people and Asian/Oriental people. I'm also pissed at how the only Oriental male role models i ever see on tv are either jackie chan or jet li. Asian guys with accents who throw martial arts kicks and punches. great.

Oh yeah, my girlfriend/fiance is A Black female with a West Indian background(Guyana) so fucc you all.