Affirmative Action, i had to Options

[onenonly101]

Should Affirmative Action be outlawed?

I want to hear what others say before I comment

[ComradeRed]

Should Affirmative Action be outlawed?

I want to hear what others say before I comment

Here's my opinion in a nutshell:

If a private, non-tax-funded school wants to do it, it's none of my business.

If a public, tax-funded school (they shouldn't exist in the first place, but that's another issue) wants to do it, they shouldn't be allowed to.

I've already dealt with the issue in depth on my personal website. I'm not going to bother copying the article over: http://www.zendebater.easy.dk3.com/affaction

If you want a summary, basically: The rationale for having affirmative action is having a diversity of opinions. It's ludicrous to tie "opinion" in with "race".

Search for Eugene Volokh's article "Diversity, Race as Proxy, Religion as Proxy" or something like that. It is very good.

[*kryogenix*]

bah, affirmative action isn't fair. people should be accepted for their qualification, not because they are a minority.

[Spirited Away]

bah, affirmative action isn't fair. people should be accepted for their qualification, not because they are a minority.

*nods* and it's reverse discrimination.

I don't necessarily agree completely with it... maybe instead of banning it, it should be restricted or maybe lower requirements and standards?

[dasturbd]

getting hired/accepted because of the color of your skin is no better than being denied because of the color of your skin. It's still discriminates against others

It's not right to take away from those who worked their asses off to get the credentials they need to get a good job just to hand it over to someone else because you have a quota of skin color to maintain.

[*Kathleen*]

Yeah, as others have said before me - it's reverse discrimination. It really isn't fair, as dasturbd said, to take away jobs to those that did work for it simply because they aren't the right skin color.

[onenonly101]

But what if they were denied the job because they were black or a woman? Affirmative Action was created to give an oppertunity to people who would not usually get that oppertunity.

This is something i relate to

Myth 7: You can't cure discrimination with discrimination.
The problem with this myth is that it uses the same word -- discrimination -- to describe two very different things. Job discrimination is grounded in prejudice and exclusion, whereas affirmative action is an effort to overcome prejudicial treatment through inclusion. The most effective way to cure society of exclusionary practices is to make special efforts at inclusion, which is exactly what affirmative action does. The logic of affirmative action is no different than the logic of treating a nutritional deficiency with vitamin supplements. For a healthy person, high doses of vitamin supplements may be unnecessary or even harmful, but for a person whose system is out of balance, supplements are an efficient way to restore the body's balance.

Affirmative Action is good and bad at the same time. Good that it gives people a chance who wouldn't get a chance if the person hiring is pejudice and racist. Bad in the fact that it gives some people chanes that they do not deserve because they are a minority

[ComradeRed]

*Ahem*

First, if your goal was to make sure that blacks had an equal footing in the job market, then you would pass EQUAL OPPORTUNITY LAWS, NOT AFFIRMATIVE ACTION LAWS.

Second, my right to free association trumps your right to my money. If a PRIVATE (meaning: not recieving public money) employer wants to refuse to hire people based on race, he has that right. Of course, this only applies to organizations that are not recieving public money, as they have a First Amendment right to free association (they use the word assembly, both of which are the same thing). If I buy a house, I don't HAVE to let you in. If I want to let only white people into my house, or if I want to let only black people into my house, it's MY house. I can let whoever I want in. Similarly, if I own a store, and I only want to let people of a certain race in, it's MY store. Not yours.

[onenonly101]

Second, my right to free association trumps your right to my money. If a PRIVATE (meaning: not recieving public money) employer wants to refuse to hire people based on race, he has that right. Of course, this only applies to organizations that are not recieving public money, as they have a First Amendment right to free association (they use the word assembly, both of which are the same thing). If I buy a house, I don't HAVE to let you in. If I want to let only white people into my house, or if I want to let only black people into my house, it's MY house. I can let whoever I want in. Similarly, if I own a store, and I only want to let people of a certain race in, it's MY store. Not yours.

That has nothing to do with Affirmative Action, that is you don't want black people buying stuff in your store in your house. Affirmative Action is to help minorities to get in the work force,get into university that wouldn't let thme because they are black

[ComradeRed]

But it applies to unviersities as well. If I run a PRIVATE university that recieves no public funding, I have teh right to let whomever I want in... and that includes only letting in people of a certain right. Don't believe me? www.bju.edu --> just one of many universities that acutally do this. A private school has the RIGHT to discriminate for the same reason I have teh right to discriminate in not letting people of a certain race into my house or store.

[ryfitaDF]

my reasons i won't be able to get in agood college.

1. my grades
2. no money
3. i'm a white, straight, male.

there should only be 2, don'cha think?

[IIO__oII]

my reasons i won't be able to get in agood college.

1. my grades
2. no money
3. i'm a white, straight, male.

there should only be 2, don'cha think?

HAHAHAH
thats cute.

[queen]

so then we all agree that:
- a person should be hired based on qualifications and not skin color.

and

we all don't approve of:
affirmative action aka reverse discrimination:preference for minorities
discrimination: preference for non minorities

k 'nough said.

[sadolakced acid]

affirmitave action is discrimination for certain minorities.

when i regester for college, i'm registering as hispanic.


a protest that was done:

college kids, hold a 'bake sale'

cookies 50 cents if you're black, hispanic, native american, or another minority besides asian. it's a dollar for asians and whites.

drinks 50cents unless you're sibling or parent alreday bought one, then it's 25cents

brownies are 15 cents for everyone, but asians and whites can't buy them.


just thier luck, there was a black music festival or something there. people went to buy baked goods... decided it was a F'ing racist place and started a riot.


if what the colleges do is legal, then is seating a black person first in a restraunt legal cus you "want a divierity in you diners" ????????

yea. i'm asian. it gets to me.

oh yea, and it doesn't matter how private your buisiness is. if you deny service or jobs based soley on race, you are in for a billion dollar lawsuit.

[onenonly101]

it is not discrimination. Job discrimination is grounded in prejudice and exclusion, whereas affirmative action is an effort to overcome prejudicial treatment through inclusion.

[sadolakced acid]

oh , so treating on race better isn't racism.

so the KKK is wrong for treating the non white races inferiorly

and the colleges are right for treating the whites and azns inferiorly?

[JlIaTMK]

oh , so treating on race better isn't racism.

so the KKK is wrong for treating the non white races inferiorly

and the colleges are right for treating the whites and azns inferiorly?

Affirmitive action should be outlawed I agree with sadolakced acid

my moms works at a job where affirmitive action takes place all the time and she has to work harder than a lot of people from a colored race

[onenonly101]

oh , so treating on race better isn't racism.

so the KKK is wrong for treating the non white races inferiorly

and the colleges are right for treating the whites and azns inferiorly?

affirmative action doesn't say that whites are below anyone

[sadolakced acid]

they don't say it. they treat asians and whites worst

people with worse qualifications are acepted to jobs anc colleges because a little thing called affirmative action lets them.

affirmative action is legalized racism.

any race except for shites and asains gets extra points.

in michigan, a perfect SAT score gets you +1 point on the formula to see if you make the basic requirements.

being black, hispanic, native american, or anything besides whites and asain give s you one point.


so the the white guy who does everything the same as the hispanic guy, but the white guy gets perfect on his SATs, and the hispanic guy gets a 800 total. the hispanic guy is the guy they pick. because he's hispanic.

you're right. affirmative action doesn't treat asians or whites like thier inferior. it treats the blacks, hispanics, and native americans as they are.

what they are saying is that you ( the minoritys minus asians) are not smart enough to get into college by yourself. that you are dumb, that you race makes you dumb. and they compensate for it. that is what affirmative action says.

and you know what? if you put it that way, i think i'm fine with affirmative action.

you're only dissing yourself (if you support it and are a minority, except asians).

[onenonly101]

it is not legalized racism affirmative action. The situation you presented is false, because an 800 for example is not accepted in most colleges. Plus SATS scores ARE NOT major in some colleges. Plus in no real situation has both people done the exact same thing.

Affirmative action is not saying that a minority is too dumb to get in by themselves, it is saying that there are too many ignortant racist who are deans of colleges who wouldn't dare alet a person of color or a woman get in without being forced to let them in. And also if you didn't know affirmative action not only helps people with color but also females, veterans and disabled persons. You say affirmative action makes whites and asians and men work harder, that is a lie. There are a number of slots for the minorities and say in it they made it that 16 out of 100 reserved for minorities. That not fair?? that is less than a 1/4 reserved for minorites. That mean that we as minorities have to work HARDER to be one of those very few that make it into the slot.

Lets define racism:
The belief that race accounts for differences in human character or ability and that a particular race is superior to others.

Let define affirmative action:
Affirmative action programs seek to remedy past discrimination against women, minorities, and others by increasing the recruitment, promotion, retention, and on-the-job training opportunities in employment and by removing barriers to admission to educational institutions. Because of the long history of discrimination based on sex and race, most affirmative action programs have been directed towards improving employment and education opportunities for women and minorities.

Completely different

[onenonly101]

You also presented many MYTHS about Affirmative Action here are some, btw affirmative action does NOT hurt Asian-Americans

MYTH: Affirmative action hurts Whites and Asians.

FACT: Though affirmative action is believed to have harmed white men, this contradicts the reality that white men hold structural power in society today. For example, a Washington Post study shows that 95% of top corporate executives are white males. Asians benefit in many ways from affirmative action by making use of services provided by programs such as the Educational Opportunity Program, Upward Bound, and so on. It is another myth to believe that all Asians are a success story. A UCLA School of Urban Planning study shows that Pacific Islanders and South East Asians have poverty rates which are three times greater than white Americans. Other studies indicate enrollment of Pilipinos in higher education is much closer to African-Americans and Latinos that other Asians. Asians, revered as the "model minority" includes Pacific Islanders, South East Asians and Philipinos, yet there are distinct disparities between say a third generation Chinese student and a first generation Cambodian refugee. Thus affirmative action can only help not hinder the Asian community.

MYTH: Affirmative action is reverse discrimination, it gives preferential treatment to people of color and women.
FACT: Racism is power plus discrimination. The parameters of discrimination based on race are distinguished by the power dynamics. Reverse racism is not, therefore a reality if people of color are not in positions of power and perpetrating the discrimination. An Urban Institute study shows that less that 100 of 3000 cases could be considered reverse discrimination. Less that six of those cases were deemed by the court to be substantiated.
Affirmative action has been mislabeled "preferential treatment" for certain members of society. In reality it is a kind of social restitution and an attempt to create a more democratic society. President Johnson, in describing affirmative action, stated, "You do not take a person who for years has been hobbled by chains, liberate him and bring him to the starting line of a race and say, 'You are free to compete with others,' and still justly believe that you have been completely fair." Thus, it is not enough just to open the gates of opportunity: all must have the ability to walk through those gates. Affirmative action is an attempt to facilitate a more level playing field.
Affirmative action recognizes the interconnectedness of race, class, gender. Many of the symbolic gates are beyond reach due to economic disparity which in turn is one of the effects of racism. We cannot divorce these interconnected issues from one another. Beginning with the consideration of race as permissible in university admissions, in the Regents of the University of California vs. Bakke, the court rejected the notion that the constitution prohibits considerations of race. In the UC system, race and ethnicity are not solely considered for admissions. Thus, there is no such thing as preferential treatment. Other criteria such as socio-economic level, state residency, special abilities, disabilities, familial ties and athletic ability are used in determining admissions. These supplemental criteria benefit everyone, not only people of color.

Myth: Nobody else gets special consideration when applying to a college or for a job. Why should all women and people of color?
Fact: Lots of people get "special" consideration when applying for jobs or to schools.
Veterans often get preferences in workplaces and on campuses — which usually benefit men more than women. The children of alumni get preferential treatment over others in admission to college. Friends help friends and acquaintances get jobs. Affirmative Action helps open doors for women and people of color who often don't have those connections.

Myth: Affirmative Action lowers standards in education and the workplace by letting unqualified people get ahead.
Fact: Affirmative Action helps qualified candidates overcome racism and sexism.
Affirmative Action is an investment in the future. By the time today's college students are at the height of their careers, one-third of the population will be comprised of African Americans and Latinos/Latinas.

[Mini]

they don't say it.  they treat asians and whites worst

people with worse qualifications are acepted to jobs anc colleges because a little thing called affirmative action lets them. 

affirmative action is legalized racism. 

any race except for shites and asains gets extra points. 

in michigan, a perfect SAT score gets you +1 point on the formula to see if you make the basic requirements. 

being black, hispanic, native american, or anything besides whites and asain give s you one point. 


so the the white guy who does everything the same as the hispanic guy, but the white guy gets perfect on his SATs, and the hispanic guy gets a 800 total.  the hispanic guy is the guy they pick.  because he's hispanic. 

you're right.  affirmative action doesn't treat asians or whites like thier inferior.  it treats the blacks, hispanics, and native americans as they are.

what they are saying is that you ( the minoritys minus asians)  are not smart enough to get into college by yourself.  that you are dumb, that you race makes you dumb.  and they compensate for it.  that is what affirmative action says. 

and you know what?  if you put it that way, i think i'm fine with affirmative action. 

you're only dissing yourself (if you support it and are a minority, except asians).

i totally agree. i don't think its fair at all. i mean if you are choosing someone because they are a minority is totally racism to me. wouldn't it make more sense to pick the smartest out of the rest because there is more to compare with? i just don't understand colleges.

[juliar]

i totally agree. i don't think its fair at all. i mean if you are choosing someone because they are a minority is totally racism to me. wouldn't it make more sense to pick the smartest out of the rest because there is more to compare with? i just don't understand colleges.

Just to point something out, he/she is saying that it IS okay.

[sadolakced acid]

no, he is being sarcastic and pointing out a few facts.

and i'm sorry onenonly101, but you are wrong. affirmative action does not aid asians. the asian continent is gigantic. anyone from there, in addition to pacific islanders, are considered asian/PA islander. which means, the success of some groups of asians leads to the whole group being treated differently

and just becausesome of the asians are smarter, and that even with affirmative action limiting our access to selective colleges, this minority has still mangagesd to earn up to 40% population at selective colleges, like berkley.

but you see, this is only a few of the asians.

you seen asian ghettos? there's in california. you've never heard of the asian prostitution rings? you are hurting all asians. because affirmative action gives NO SUPPORT TO ASIANS. ASIANS ARE CONSIDERED SMART ENOUGH ALREADY, BASED ON THE OBSERVATION THAT THERE ARE ASIANS IN UNIVERSITIES.

so , if i get what you're saying...
you're saying that

the blacks, hispanics, and other minoritys are too dumb to get into college and get jobs on thier own?

is that what you're saying?

and, asians have been treated as those. chinese exclusion acts, japanesse internments, lynchings of chinese. they were given the wortst jobs, just 80 years agos, and persecuted just 50. when did slavery end? over 150 years ago.

this is preffered treatment.

two wrongs do not make a right. sure, it was wrong the way minorities were treated. but using racism to reach racial quotas is not the way to make it better.


here is one that would. use some money to improve the schools in the slum areas and areas of poverty. then you'd actually be helping the people who need it, with out using racism.

[sadolakced acid]

i like your definition of racism. very political. there are 2 definitions of racism. don't leave off one.

here are all the definitions

Main Entry: rac·ism
Pronunciation: 'rA-"si-z&m also -"shi-
Function: noun
1 : a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race
2 : racial prejudice or discrimination
- rac·ist /-sist also -shist/ noun or adjective

from merriam-webster.com check it out if you doubt.

look at number 2. that's affirmative action.

[onenonly101]

Affirmative Action helps Asians.Asians benefit in many ways from affirmative action by making use of services provided by programs such as the Educational Opportunity Program, Upward Bound, and so on.

Affirmative action is not discrimination, so therefore it is not racism

the blacks, hispanics, and other minoritys are too dumb to get into college and get jobs on thier own?

is that what you're saying?

Ok I am going to repeat myself.Affirmative action is not saying that a minority is too dumb to get in by themselves, it is saying that there are too many ignortant racist who are deans of colleges who wouldn't dare alet a person of color or a woman get in without being forced to let them in.

Also why is it that you only say minorities, don't you understand that it is also for disabled people, veterans, and women. Address that. How is affirmative action racist against women,veteran, and disabled people?

[sadolakced acid]

DO I HAVE TO SCREAM IT?!?! AFFIRMATIVE ACTION DOES NOTHING FOR ASIANS AND WHITES.

[onenonly101]

do i have to scream AFFIRMATIVE ACTION IS NOT DISCRIMINATION OR RACISM, WHY? BECAUSE IT DOES NOT ONLY DEAL WITH RACE. You cannot speak those words for the entire program. ALSO Affirmative Action programs like Educational Opportunity Program, Upward Bound HELP Asians Americans so...............

[Spirited Away]

<-- Agree that Affirmative Action is helpful to minorities in general (though it is more beneficial to some groups than other groups), however, how long will it take for equality in the job market? Will we always need Affirmative Action to get hired?

To me, Affirmative Action is almost something like a leverage, having a handicap over the majority. When I play games, I don't want to have a handicap, I want to win the game fair and square; no cheating, no helping out, no handicap.

Affirmative Action is a double edged sword. It's telling minorities that they're no good without Affirmative Action, and that minorities do not have to try as hard as the caucasians to get the same job that a caucasian would have to work their butt off. (Though I'm sure the reverse is true without such handicap as racism and discrimination runs rampant in the hearts of people).

It's true that Affirmative Action does somewhat 'equalize' the races in society, but too much of it imbalances this 'equation'.

[ComradeRed]

Affirmative Action helps Asians.Asians benefit in many ways from affirmative action by making use of services provided by programs such as the Educational Opportunity Program, Upward Bound, and so on.

Statistics prove otherwise. At U-Cal Berkeley before the end of affiramtivve action, the average entering Asian had to score a 1254 on the SATs, compared to 956 for blacks and 1232 for whites. Asians are hurt THE MOST.

Affirmative action is not discrimination, so therefore it is not racism

The one thing I can't stand is misusing the english language. Let's see:

The American Heritage Dictionary defines discrimination as: "1. The act of discriminating. 2. The ability or power to see or make fine distinctions; discernment. 3. Treatment or consideration based on class or category rather than individual merit; partiality or prejudice: racial discrimination; discrimination against foreigners."

Said dictionary says discriminate means: "1a. To make a clear distinction; distinguish: discriminate among the options available. b. To make sensible decisions; judge wisely."

College admissions process are inherently discriminatory-- they discriminate qualified and unqualified people. Even if you argue that affirmative action is good discrimination, it is nonetheless undeniable that it involves judging on race, and is therefore discrimination.

Ok I am going to repeat myself.Affirmative action is not saying that a minority is too dumb to get in by themselves, it is saying that there are too many ignortant racist who are deans of colleges who wouldn't dare alet a person of color or a woman get in without being forced to let them in.

This is true for some private universities like Bob Jones University (www.bju.edu). But if you're black, would you really WANT to go to BJU?

Your argument is soundly disproven by solid facts. In colleges with affirmative action, the average entering white or Asian freshman has an SAT score 300 to 400 points higher than the average black entering freshman. In otherwords, they are held to a significantly higher standard. In colleges without affirmative action, namely the California Public Universities, the average SATs are about the same.

Also why is it that you only say minorities, don't you understand that it is also for disabled people, veterans, and women. Address that. How is affirmative action racist against women,veteran, and disabled people?

It's not. It's non-racially discriminatory.

[sadolakced acid]

we don't need affirmative action. we need something called equal opportunity. not affirmative action.

if i am not confused, affirmative action hold certain minorities to lower standards, claiming they need it.

equal opportunity is making the decision to hire someone or accept someone to a university blind to race.

[ComradeRed]

We need to follow the Constitution... The Fourteenth Amendment forces all state governments and the federal government to NOT look at race at all when making decisions... The First Amendment (Right to Assembly/Association) guarantees that PRIVATE ORGANIZATIONS have the right to decide their own racial policies... be it equal opportunity, affirmative action, quotas, or white supremacy.

[onenonly101]

....

[ComradeRed]

The Constitution is a lot like wearing your seat belt in Pennsylvania: It's not just a good idea, it's the law.

The point is, as much as you hate bigots, it is fundamentally WRONG to force people to associate with people they don't want to associate with. If I don't want to be your friend because you're black, I might be a misguided racist, but I am perfectly within my rights.

Similarly, if I OWN a property -- say a house -- I have an Associative Right to let who I want on my property -- and to not let those I don't want on my property -- for whatever reason I choose -- after all it is MY property...

The first amendment guarantees the right to assembly (which is synonmous to the right of association). For this reason, private organizations have the Constitutional right to discriminate based on whatever criteria they so choose -- and in whatever way they so choose. They are called property RIGHTS for a reason, after all.

I don't care if Harvard or Yale or Penn use affirmative action, and in fact I defend their right to do so. To my knowledge, they do. This hurts me, but they are within their rights. It is when something like PSU uses affirmative action -- thus using my tax dollars to fund illegal racism -- that the government has outstepped its rights.

[xquizit]

Ok I am going to repeat myself.Affirmative action is not saying that a minority is too dumb to get in by themselves, it is saying that there are too many ignortant racist who are deans of colleges who wouldn't dare alet a person of color or a woman get in without being forced to let them in.

Precisely. Unfortunately, I think this country needs to resort to affirmative action because as she said, there are many racists who are not willing to hire or accept someone of minority to college unless they are forced.

I understand everyone's arguments and how it should be "fair" or equal opportunity for everyone. But discrimination does exist in the college admissions process and employment hiring practices. This is the only way they can think of thus far to promote diversity in college institutions and workplaces.

Also, keep in mind that society has been unfair to minorities for centuries. Affirmative action can help repay the wrongs that have been done to minorities in the past.

-edit-
I revised the following sentence.

But racism does exist in the college admissions process and employment hiring practices.

I meant to say discrimination. My bad.

[ComradeRed]

Do you have any PROOF that racism exists in public employment? No.

As in, can you prove that, with all else being equal (SAT scores, grades, etc.) and no affirmative action, a black person is more likely to be rejected than a white person at the same public institution? No.

There is nohting more tragic than seeing a beautiful young theory massacred by a gang of brutal facts. Take for example, before ending affirmative action:

Average SAT score for an Asian studnet at UC Berkeley (in 1993): 1254
Average SAT score for a white Student at UC Berkeley in 1993: 1232
Average SAT score for a black student at UC Berkeley in 1993: 952

My statistics come from the Hoover Institution's Scholar Thomas Sowell. The fact is affirmative action held black students to a standard THREE HUNDRED SAT points lower (let's put this into perspective: a black student with a good but not excellent score of 1300 is more competitive than a white student with a perfect score), proving that the only racial discrimination here is against white and Asian students.

California abolished affirmative action in Proposition 209. Following its passage, the average SAT scores among all races were within twenty points of each other -- something easily attributed to statistical variation. This proves that there was in fact NO MEASURABLE RACISM in the University of California admissions process without affirmative action. The only colleges in the country that are racist without affirmative action are places like Bob Jones University, which are private institutions recieving no public money, that have a LEGAL RIGHT to discriminate (upheld by the South Carolina, and later United States Supreme Court), and where no black person would EVER WANT TO GO.

Moreover, it is not enough to show that blacks are "underrepresented". That does NOT prove that the college admissions process itself is racist. If blacks overall have lower achievement rankings, it is logical to assume that they will be underrepresented. This proves that there are UNDERLYING CAUSES, such as socioeconomic differences, fradulent primary education, etc. This does NOT prove that there is racism. I agree that we should deal with root causes of racial inequality, but the fact remains that the root causes do NOT LIE IN RACE ITSELF. Affirmative action will NOT solve them. Affirmative action will just piss more reasonable moderates off, violate civil liberties, and achieve NOTHING.

In fact, affirmative action HURTS blacks as well. By moving underprepared black students into colleges that are academic mismatches, they are harmed. Before California ended affirmative action, black students had a 70% dropout rate at Berkeley and a 75% dropout rate at San Jose University. The black students that should have went to San Jose University and went on to lead successful lives, were recruited to Berkeley by affirmative action where they were turned into artificial failures. It's certainly better to graduate from one's second choice than to flunk out at one's first choice. Affirmative action clearly disregards the needs of over two-thirds of black students so that colleges can create a facade of classroom asthetic. The only people who benefit from affirmative action are a small minority of minority students, but mostly the government and public school system itself, which can use affirmative action as an excuse to continue to expand its powers, most of which are already of dubious legality.

Walter E. Williams, a distinguished black professor from George Mason University: http://www.cato.org/pubs/journal/cj17n1-1.html

Excluding affirmative action, there is no racism in public collegiate admissions.

[bigpoppaproppy]

affirmitive action is bullshit

how can you cure racism WITH reverse racism

PERFECT EXAMPLE:

I am a firefighter. Say we're bringing new people on. 2 people apply for a spot on MY crew. A white and a minority. The white scores HIGHER on all tests, yet the minority is hired b/c of AA

so now I have a guy on MY line, who I have to trust with my LIFE, backing me up in a burning house, who i KNOW is LESS qualified then someone else, but got the job b/c of the color of their skin

^^^ PLEASE explain how that is fair

[sadolakced acid]

nice.

[rnrn897]

hm.. i read the replies but im still a bit unsure wut affirmitive action is..
explain, som1? :]

[onenonly101]

affirmitive action is bullshit

how can you cure racism WITH reverse racism

PERFECT EXAMPLE:

I am a firefighter. Say we're bringing new people on. 2 people apply for a spot on MY crew. A white and a minority. The white scores HIGHER on all tests, yet the minority is hired b/c of AA

so now I have a guy on MY line, who I have to trust with my LIFE, backing me up in a burning house, who i KNOW is LESS qualified then someone else, but got the job b/c of the color of their skin

^^^ PLEASE explain how that is fair

and yeah that5 wouldn't be considered racism

[ComradeRed]

Why not?

Racism, by definition, is valuing race as a quality... it never specifies how. Affirmative action is definitionally racist... you can't argue that it's not without changing the English language. The only thing you can argue is whether it is GOOD racism or BAD racism.

[bigpoppaproppy]

and yeah that5 wouldn't be considered racism

and how not
they passed on a white guy bc of the color of his skin

1) its racism. people dont like to say it is, but it is. What would happen if they had passed on a black man who scored better to pick a white guy? gee, jesse jackson and his brainwashed army would be all over it
2) its wrong

[sadolakced acid]

AA if quite racist. it uses to race to determine if people get jobs, or get into college.

i belive onenonly101 is either in denial or ignoring all the evidence.

all i know is i'm applying for college as a mexican.
or going to a california university.

[EmeraldKnight]

AA if quite racist. it uses to race to determine if people get jobs, or get into college.

i belive onenonly101 is either in denial or ignoring all the evidence.

all i know is i'm applying for college as a mexican.
or going to a california university.

You say its racist yet you still utilize it to your advantage.. so you have no problem with its racist aspects?

[sadolakced acid]

they're not going to get rid of it, even after all the media and stuff.

so why not use it to my advantage?

[ComradeRed]

Because it's totally sleazy. You can, if you want. Just know that you are contributing to the system. What if white people said: "We aren't going to end racism no matter what we do, so why not take advantage of it?" Affirmative action would be the least of the worries that minorities have today.

I know I complain a lot about how we aren't living up to American ideals... but in the end, you can't blame hte government, or big business, or anything... you have to blame the people: let's face it, we just don't have integrity any more.

[sadolakced acid]

and so it shows.

everyone agrees it would be wrong for me to register as a different race to get AA points.

but then why is it right for people to get AA points for race anyways?

[onenonly101]

^ you are a big hypocrite, if you are against it don't use it.
I'm not against it so there fore i will use it. i am going to fill out those college applications saying that i am a Nigerian American female, and won't have any shame doing it because shoot it is helping me.

Affirmative action isn't racist because it isn't saying that one race is superior to any other. Also like i said before it is not just about race so therefore you cannot say affirmative action is racist

I'm not in denial because have read up on what i am saying. I haven't cared for what you have said because you have incorperated your own opinion into it without knowing what it is fully. I have read the basis of Affirmative Action and concluded what i have from that

[bigpoppaproppy]

rac·ism ( P ) Pronunciation Key (rszm)
n.

1. The belief that race accounts for differences in human character or ability and that a particular race is superior to others.
2. Discrimination or prejudice based on race.


unless you are re-writing the dictionary anytime soon , see #2. Thats exactly what AA does, it prejudices a favoritisim towards minorities. The first half of number one is true also. If AA didnt believe race accounted for difference in ability, there would be no need for it in the first place.

Also, please answer my FF example above. Id love to hear your thoughts into the fairness of that.

[onenonly101]

No not if i do not beleive it is discriminatory. and ya'll keep forgeting the enitre program of Affirmative Action cannot be racist seeing as it does not only pertain to race

[sadolakced acid]

if i were to deny you a job because of your race, even though you were better qualified, that would be racism, no?

[bigpoppaproppy]

No not if i do not beleive it is discriminatory. and ya'll keep forgeting the enitre program of Affirmative Action cannot be racist seeing as it does not only pertain to race

so bc its not COMPLETELY based on race its not racist

so if I said I hate you partly bc your black and partly for something else, then im not racist, bc its not completely based on race right

[onenonly101]

since you are using the word based. Afirmative Action is not based on race. You could say race being a factor is racist or sex being a facotr is sexiest or being disabled and so on.

[ComradeRed]

Then it's also sexist, etc. Your argument is likre saying Nazism was not anti-semitic cause it didnt deal only with jews

[Sumiaki]

Humans naturally like to classify things. Whether it be sex or race. SAT's for example ask for ethnicity. I don't know exactly why, but they do. I mean when you walk into a store and see all of one kind of person working there, do you get mad that there's no diversity? If you do, then why do you think that without any prior knowledge? The amount of males/females or the amount of caucasians/asians/etc. who apply and the qualifications. The store could have all caucasians working there, but what if only caucasians applied or one asian applied but didnt have qualifications. The job sometimes calls for a certain kind of person with certain kind of traits. I mean would you like a male working in a all female store? Or a very old man working on construction? Sometimes what we see can cloud our judgement.

[ComradeRed]

Thanks to protests and some civil disobedience in refusing to answer the ethnicity question by large groups of students (originating in my home town by the way), the ETS has removed the Ethnicity question from the SAT II Tests. Though ethnicity remains on the SAT I for statistical purposes.

[bigpoppaproppy]

Then it's also sexist, etc. Your argument is likre saying Nazism was not anti-semitic cause it didnt deal only with jews

bump

[onenonly101]

Then it's also sexist, etc. Your argument is likre saying Nazism was not anti-semitic cause it didnt deal only with jews

Ok you are right. What i am saying is that everyone is like get rid of Affirmative Action because it is racist,but they don't realize it affects others also. That it doesn't just help people overcome racial circumstances, it helps people overcome seixst, and handicap circumstances.

[ComradeRed]

1) It doesn't help people overcome racist circumstances, it is racist in and of itself. I have done a lot of research into college admissions processes -- and the ONLY evidence of racism is affirmative action, demonstrated by the fact that, on average, a black student matriculating at a top-tier school has an SAT score of 300 to 400 points lower than white counterparts being accepted, in addition to lower grades and overall lower standards. I don't know about you, but adding 400 points to my SAT score would put me at a 1990 -- enough to get me anywhere. But unfortunately, I'm not black or Hispanic. In my Ivy League Insider Guide that I got here, it admits that race is a VERY IMPORTANT factor in the admissions process -- acceptance rates for black students at Dartmouth is 50% and for Hispanics it is about 35%, whereas it is only 15% for whites and Asians. Add to that the fact that the average black student applying is less qualified than the average white student, and it is a clear implication that the admissions process is heavily skewed in favor of black students (THREE times a greater percentage admitted) -- due to affirmative action. The ONLY racist admissions councils are in places like Bob Jones University (www.bju.edu) that no black person would ever want to go to anyway, considering that they teach you to hate black people.

2) Women now make up 60% of all new college graduates. There are no longer any reputable all-male schools, but reputable all-female schools like Wellesley continue to thrive, in large part due to government support that would never exist at an all-male school. If there's any sexism in the process, it's against males.

3) When you are handicapped, it lowers your merit. As harsh as this may sound, if you're handicapped it does, in fact, harm your merit and thus giving the handicapped affirmative action is directly destroying the concept of meritocracy. If someone is handicapped, for example, by being mentally retarded, he should not be going to an Ivy League school -- affirmaive action or not. Similarly, if someone is blind, he should probably not be a firefighter. Et cetera. It might not be fair, but people are fundamentally different. The world isn't fair. It is ludicrous to expect handicapped people, on average, to achieve the same results that fit people would. I know it's not their fault, but people with low IQs -- it's not their fault either. No one is suggesting we give low-IQ affirmative action. "Handicap" affirmative action would involve transforming us into a communist society with an overbearing government that allows no room for the individual to thrive.

[bigpoppaproppy]

go red

[Sumiaki]

1) It doesn't help people overcome racist circumstances, it is racist in and of itself. I have done a lot of research into college admissions processes -- and the ONLY evidence of racism is affirmative action, demonstrated by the fact that, on average, a black student matriculating at a top-tier school has an SAT score of 300 to 400 points lower than white counterparts being accepted, in addition to lower grades and overall lower standards. I don't know about you, but adding 400 points to my SAT score would put me at a 1990 -- enough to get me anywhere. But unfortunately, I'm not black or Hispanic. In my Ivy League Insider Guide that I got here, it admits that race is a VERY IMPORTANT factor in the admissions process -- acceptance rates for black students at Dartmouth is 50% and for Hispanics it is about 35%, whereas it is only 15% for whites and Asians. Add to that the fact that the average black student applying is less qualified than the average white student, and it is a clear implication that the admissions process is heavily skewed in favor of black students (THREE times a greater percentage admitted) -- due to affirmative action. The ONLY racist admissions councils are in places like Bob Jones University (www.bju.edu) that no black person would ever want to go to anyway, considering that they teach you to hate black people.

2) Women now make up 60% of all new college graduates. There are no longer any reputable all-male schools, but reputable all-female schools like Wellesley continue to thrive, in large part due to government support that would never exist at an all-male school. If there's any sexism in the process, it's against males.

3) When you are handicapped, it lowers your merit. As harsh as this may sound, if you're handicapped it does, in fact, harm your merit and thus giving the handicapped affirmative action is directly destroying the concept of meritocracy. If someone is handicapped, for example, by being mentally retarded, he should not be going to an Ivy League school -- affirmaive action or not. Similarly, if someone is blind, he should probably not be a firefighter. Et cetera. It might not be fair, but people are fundamentally different. The world isn't fair. It is ludicrous to expect handicapped people, on average, to achieve the same results that fit people would. I know it's not their fault, but people with low IQs -- it's not their fault either. No one is suggesting we give low-IQ affirmative action. "Handicap" affirmative action would involve transforming us into a communist society with an overbearing government that allows no room for the individual to thrive.

Yea what he said, especially the last paragraph.

[EmeraldKnight]

Minda.. you're too good, you shouldnt be allowed in some of these debates..

[ComradeRed]

Haha, thanks :).

[sadolakced acid]

our society has become so fearful of being accused of sexism agains females and racism agains blacks and mexicans, that we can gone the other way.

we are sexist agains males and racist agains whites, most evident in the SAT and affirmative action

"...32 real people were mentioned. The list included 22 women, 8 african americans, 5 hispanics, 3 asian americans. The 10 mails included 7 minorities and 2 from over seas. the lone american white male was tomas jefferson, referenced in a question about his decision not to condemn lotteries. "
- the new SAT guide.

it is evident. you say that affirmative action is ok because uses physical attributes, things that cannot be changed, that for years caused people to be discriminated agaist, you use these attributes to give them a 'leg up' and put them in jobs and colleges where they are not qualified for but do after AA adds in race, sex, disabilities, and other stuff?

why the double standard? might it be because it 'helps' you? or becuase you feel sorry for the people it 'helps'?

[onenonly101]

^I'm tired of hearing that I am not qualified for something. You want to complain how much AA is racist and you are being racist yoruself, so what does it matter.

It does help me overcome racial circumstances. You cannot say it doesn't because you are not black you have not faced what black people have faced. I actually hate when people say stuff like what i said but it is so true. Growing up black you have to face so many obstacles because people hate yo ufor being black and even worse they try to hide their racism which is to me worse than being blunt and saying that they hate black people. Nobody can truly no the black mans struggle. Seriously. Ya'll are Asian and white you have stereotypes but ya'll stereotypes are positive. All asians are smart,white people have money. Then what do I get faced with? Black people are stupid,poor, and will never amount to anything. All we do is live off of welfare and do drugs and have kids. I don't know but there was nothing positive about what people think of me. AA is a means of help to me. I have to work HARDER than the "average" white person just to be known. AA will help me get into places where they probably wouldn't allow me in even though i am a very smart and ambitous person. People can say what they want to say about AA but in reality it does help. How can somebody who is not black who is not in the program tell me that it is hurting me and my kind. How would they know they didn't interview black students. I would go to an all black school but i don't want to limit myself there are good black schools such as Spellmen, Xavier(in new orleans),Morehouse(a male college),Dillard, Howard and so on. But without AA blacks would decline in apply to those white colleges because they already know that the dean of admissions would by pass them because they are black thinking that blacks can't do anything. I'm tired of that. People who are not involved in the AA program can say what they want and can say it is hurting me, when all actuality they don't even know what it is about.

[redsoxbaby87]

it is wrong. they should just accept you because of your qualifications, not because they have to fill some qouta.

[Spirited Away]

Seriously. Ya'll are Asian and white you have stereotypes but ya'll stereotypes are positive. All asians are smart,white people have money.

I understand what you're saying, but I just wanted to clear something up.

Not all stereotypes are positive. In fact, we get made fun of a lot of times, especially for our language if we happen to be "fob".

My Mom had the darnest time trying to enroll me to school when I was younger. There were no Vietnamese translators on site (but there were plenty of Hispanic translators), and the person who helped her was soooo rude that I remember her face til this day. Now days, if someone was rude to my Mother, I let them have a piece of my mind.

Most Asians don't get respect for their size and accents, they usually have to work for it.

[ComradeRed]

^I'm tired of hearing that I am not qualified for something. You want to complain how much AA is racist and you are being racist yoruself, so what does it matter.

Unsubstantiated claim. I'm not being racist at all. The fact is that many people--regardless of race--are not qualified for positions they want.

Nowhere do you prove I am being racist, nor have you presented any facts to even refute my argument that blacks are being held to a consistently lower standard by affirmative action.

It does help me overcome racial circumstances. You cannot say it doesn't because you are not black you have not faced what black people have faced. I actually hate when people say stuff like what i said but it is so true. Growing up black you have to face so many obstacles because people hate yo ufor being black and even worse they try to hide their racism which is to me worse than being blunt and saying that they hate black people.

Then I can make an equally valid argument that you don't know what it's like to be Asian, to be stereotyped as someone who always is a nerd, etc. Of course I have not faced what black people have faced, but you have not faced what white, Asian, Hispanic, Native American, etc. people have faced. And what is this with people "hiding their racism"? HOW are they hiding their racism? How have you found it? Is it possible that you are just being venegeful and/or paranoid?

Nobody can truly no the black mans struggle. Seriously. Ya'll are Asian and white you have stereotypes but ya'll stereotypes are positive. All asians are smart,white people have money. Then what do I get faced with? Black people are stupid,poor, and will  never amount to anything. All we do is live off of welfare and do drugs and have kids. I don't know but there was nothing positive about what people think of me.

Stereotypes are just that--stereotypes. It's ludicrous and just as stereotypical to says that "all people believe blacks are stupid" as it is to just come out and say "blacks are stupid". There are positive stereotypes about blacks as well, as really good athletes, etc. But those stereotypes are rarely held by people in positiosn to determine college admissions. Moreover, if college admissions officers believe those stereotypes, then WHITE people should get affirmative action. The reason is simple-- colleges are trying to break away from the "Ivy mold" of rich and privileged. If someone comes off as rich then colleges will reject them more often. You argue that whites are stereotyped as rich. Using your argument, I could therefore argue that whites face discrimination in admissions and should get affirmative action. But certainly, that isn't a reasonable proposition is it?

AA is a means of help to me. I have to work HARDER than the "average" white person just to be known. AA will help me get into places where they probably wouldn't allow me in even though i am a very smart and ambitous person.

A lot of "very smart and ambitious" people are rejected at top colleges. The definition of a selective college is that they select. Maybe there's a white person who is all-around a better student? Why is it FAIR that AA should help you at his expense. Moreover, most black students are harmed by AA. AA encourages black students to apply to schools where they will be academically isolated. This results in MASSIVE black dropout rates. In California before they ended AA, the black dropout rates at Berkeley and San Jose were both over 70%. After California ended AA, the dropout rates returned down to a healthy 10-15%. The reason? Black students who should have gone to San Jose were recruited to Berkeley, where they were put in classes that they were not academically prepared for. It is better to graduate from your second choice than to flunk out of your first choice.

People can say what they want to say about AA but in reality it does help. How can somebody who is not black who is not in the program tell me that it is hurting me and my kind. How would they know they didn't interview black students.

"me and my kind" is EXACTLY the kind of racist thinking that got us into this mess. Why can't you treat people as INDIVIDUALS and not as blacks or whites or Asians or Hispanics? High black dropout rates and racial polarization may not harm all blacks, but it certainly harms a significant number.

I would go to an all black school but i don't want to limit myself there are good black schools such as Spellmen, Xavier(in new orleans),Morehouse(a male college),Dillard, Howard and so on

Yet if a "good school" declared itself all-white, everyone would instantly complain of racism.

But without AA blacks would decline in apply to those white colleges because they already know that the dean of admissions would by pass them because they are black thinking that blacks can't do anything.

Unsubstantiated claim! You have presented NOTHING to refute my observations that blacks are NOT discriminated against by the deans of admission at top colleges, and in fact, are held to a much lower standard than whites. The fact that the average black student applies with an SAT score several hundred points lower than an average white student at Ivy League Universities and are accepted at three times higher the rates proves beyond all reasonable doubt that whites, not blacks, suffer from the most intense forms of discrimination in college admissions.

I'm tired of that. People who are not involved in the AA program can say what they want and can say it is hurting me, when all actuality they don't even know what it is about.

One-sided emotive plea. Comparable to Bin Laden saying "People who are not involed in terrorism can say what they want and can say it is hurting me, when all actuality they don't know what it is about." Even if it IS helping you the fact remains that it is hurting US unfairly. It is absolutely ridiculous to say that a rejection letter would hurt black kids, but not white kids. It is absolutely racist to say that black kids deserve special help--or even to group kids into "black" and "white" or other artificial race groups instead of treating them like the unique individuals that they deserved to be treated as.

[Sumiaki]

You're too good at debating. lol. Never in my life will i ever debate against you lol

[onenonly101]

Unsubstantiated claim. I'm not being racist at all. The fact is that many people--regardless of race--are not qualified for positions they want.

Nowhere do you prove I am being racist, nor have you presented any facts to even refute my argument that blacks are being held to a consistently lower standard by affirmative action.

I wasn't talking to you, i pointed ^ to the person above me.

Now let me read the rest of what you said

[onenonly101]

And what is this with people "hiding their racism"? HOW are they hiding their racism? How have you found it? Is it possible that you are just being venegeful and/or paranoid?

Trust me i am not being paranoid, you know when someone doens't like you because of your color. People hide their racism by saying they aren't racist but then they act differently towards because you are a different color, they talk down to you and do things as that. You know when someone doesn't liek you because of your race.

There are positive stereotypes about blacks as well, as really good athletes, etc. But those stereotypes are rarely held by people in positiosn to determine college admissions.

That is what i was saying the good things about black people are not going to be put in perspective like all the negative stereotypes.

Why is it FAIR that AA should help you at his expense. Moreover, most black students are harmed by AA. AA encourages black students to apply to schools where they will be academically isolated.This results in MASSIVE black dropout rates. In California before they ended AA, the black dropout rates at Berkeley and San Jose were both over 70%. After California ended AA, the dropout rates returned down to a healthy 10-15%. The reason? Black students who should have gone to San Jose were recruited to Berkeley, where they were put in classes that they were not academically prepared for. It is better to graduate from your second choice than to flunk out of your first choice.

You are saying that blacks aren't up to par with academics.

Berkeley has been able to diversify its freshman class and, at the same time, greatly strengthen the class academically. If we compare by quintile the freshman class of fall 1994 with that of fall 1984 on any academic measure, we find the fall 1994 freshman class stronger from top to bottom. Ninety-five percent of the students admitted to Berkeley meet or exceed minimum UC requirements, placing them among the top 12.5% of California's high school graduates. Following UC Regent guidelines, Berkeley has historically chosen from among the full range of the top 12.5%, which includes the overwhelming majority of all admitted minority students. The other 5% are admitted by exception because they are recruited athletes or because they have overcome remarkable hardship and have demonstrated the potential to succeed at Berkeley. This 5% includes students of every ethnicity and racial group.
It is important to note that Berkeley admits a number of white and Asian American applicants with lower grades and test scores than many African American and Hispanic students

Most minorities DO NOT fail because of it.
Berkeley's overall graduation rates have climbed steadily over the past 15 years and are the highest they have ever been. The campus' current overall six-year graduation rate of 80% is much higher than the six-year rate of 48% for the fresman class of 1955, at a time when the undergraduate student body was overwhelmingly white. Not only are the graduation rates for all students going up, but the rates for African American and Chicano students are going up faster than the rates for Asian and white students, so that the gap between different ethnicities continues to narrow.
In addition, Berkeley's one-year persistence rate is the highest it has ever been: 94% of the freshmen who entered in the fall 1992 returned for a second year.

"me and my kind" is EXACTLY the kind of racist thinking that got us into this mess. Why can't you treat people as INDIVIDUALS and not as blacks or whites or Asians or Hispanics? High black dropout rates and racial polarization may not harm all blacks, but it certainly harms a significant number.

How is what i said racist? Maybe i shouldn't have used the word kind, but people of different races ARE different. I don't need statistics and scientifical facts to tell me that. There are some things that just are, and that is one of them. Me saying that does not mean I don't treat people as individuals. black white asian hispanic whatever you are a person but it doesn't mwan you are different, and are more alike with people of the same race.

Unsubstantiated claim! You have presented NOTHING to refute my observations that blacks are NOT discriminated against by the deans of admission at top colleges, and in fact, are held to a much lower standard than whites.

Before AA did you see large amount of blacks being let into colleges by the dean of admissions?Until the mid-1960s legal barriers prevented blacks and other racial minorities in the United States from entering many jobs and educational institutions. Although women were rarely legally barred from jobs or education, many universities would not admit them and many employers would not hire them.

Yet if a "good school" declared itself all-white, everyone would instantly complain of racism.

IF the schools says they are in all white school, who cares. Like you said we have all black schools.

It is absolutely ridiculous to say that a rejection letter would hurt black kids, but not white kids.

and never did i say it wouldn't hurt white kids.


Somehow people think that by hiring under represented groups their jobs are being threatened, or they are giving minorities jobs are wrong.That is wrong because white men are still holding most of the position and minorities are still struggling to be hired in larger numbers

Until we truly have a color-blind society, however, people will always wonder whether women of color qualify for positions. Women of color often have to work harder just to get the respect that their white male colleagues enjoy as a birth right. The presumption favoring white males seems to be that they are qualified until they prove otherwise. With women of color, the presumption seems to be that they are unqualified until they prove otherwise.

it is wrong. they should just accept you because of your qualifications, not because they have to fill some.

Quotas, are illegal. What is permitted under current affirmative action instead are benchmarks, targets and goals.


How is it hurting the U.S.? When 95% of top corporate executives are white males?

Racism is power plus discrimination. The parameters of discrimination based on race are distinguished by the power dynamics. Reverse racism is not, therefore a reality if people of color are not in positions of power and perpetrating the discrimination

the selection of unqualified candidates is not permitted under federal affirmative action guidelines and should not be equated with legal forms of affirmative action.

[ComradeRed]

[quote]Trust me i am not being paranoid, you know when someone doens't like you because of your color. People hide their racism by saying they aren't racist but then they act differently towards because you are a different color, they talk down to you and do things as that. You know when someone doesn't liek you because of your race.[/quote]

And what makes you think this only happens to black people? Certainly, it happens to white people as well, who may be regarded as snobs, etc. Or to Asian people. This can happen to anyone. Most importantly and furthermore, what makes you think that affirmative action isn't killing a fly with a sledgehammer?

[quote]That is what i was saying the good things about black people are not going to be put in perspective like all the negative stereotypes. You are saying that blacks aren't up to par with academics.[/quote]

No, I said SOME blacks aren't up to par and got in from affirmative action, which in the end hurt them because they flunked out.

[quote]Berkeley has been able to diversify its freshman class and, at the same time, greatly strengthen the class academically. If we compare by quintile the freshman class of fall 1994 with that of fall 1984 on any academic measure, we find the fall 1994 freshman class stronger from top to bottom.[/quote]

Interesting, considering California's affirmative action was considerably WEAKENED in 1977 by the Supreme Court case of Bakke vs. U-Cal, and also the fact that affirmative action was continually weakened, until abolished by an OVERWHELMING majority of Californians in 1996.

[quote]Ninety-five percent of the students admitted to Berkeley meet or exceed minimum UC requirements, placing them among the top 12.5% of California's high school graduates. Following UC Regent guidelines, Berkeley has historically chosen from among the full range of the top 12.5%, which includes the overwhelming majority of all admitted minority students. The other 5% are admitted by exception because they are recruited athletes or because they have overcome remarkable hardship and have demonstrated the potential to succeed at Berkeley. This 5% includes students of every ethnicity and racial group.[/quote]

A professor at Princeton calculated that 80% of students who apply to Ivy League universities meet minimum Academic Requirements... the fact remains that even if you meet the minimum, you will still feel academically isolated if everyone does better than you.

[quote] It is important to note that Berkeley admits a number of white and Asian American applicants with lower grades and test scores than many African American and Hispanic students[/quote]

Perhaps for being athletes, etc., but on average, in 1993 the average African American or Hispanic student was admitted with an SAT of 300 points lower and a GPA of 1.0 lower than a white or Asian student. By 1997 (after Prop 209), there was no significant difference between the scores of different races.

[quote]Most minorities DO NOT fail because of it.
Berkeley's overall graduation rates have climbed steadily over the past 15 years and are the highest they have ever been. The campus' current overall six-year graduation rate of 80% is much higher than the six-year rate of 48% for the fresman class of 1955, at a time when the undergraduate student body was overwhelmingly white. Not only are the graduation rates for all students going up, but the rates for African American and Chicano students are going up faster than the rates for Asian and white students, so that the gap between different ethnicities continues to narrow.[/quote]

In 1955, the freshman class had a really high dropout rate because of "White Man's Affirmative Action" -- legacy, etc. In both cases we can blame the same thing--people being moved up above their qualifications. Moreover, the reason that graduation rates for African American and Chicano students has been rising so fast recently is because, in 1996, the State of California ended affirmative action in its public schools. The move, Proposition 209, passed by over a 70% margin -- including nearly half of minority voters.

[quote]In addition, Berkeley's one-year persistence rate is the highest it has ever been: 94% of the freshmen who entered in the fall 1992 returned for a second year.[/quote]

If 8% of the class is black (to be proportional to the population of the country), then black students could have a 70% dropout rate--as statistics suggest--and the overall graduation rate could be as high as 95% (of course, the overall graduation rate was considerably lower).

If affirmative action really does help black people, then I ask-- why did over 45% (along with 75% of whites) vote in FAVOR of abolishing affirmative action? Because they saw too many cases of black students failing when they should have succeeded ... and too many cases of white students using AA to hate blacks.

[quote]How is what i said racist? Maybe i shouldn't have used the word kind, but people of different races ARE different. I don't need statistics and scientifical facts to tell me that. There are some things that just are, and that is one of them. Me saying that does not mean I don't treat people as individuals. black white asian hispanic whatever you are a person but it doesn't mwan you are different, and are more alike with people of the same race.[/quote]

This only strengthens the white supremacist argument. It goes like this:

If people of different races are indeed different, then one can attribute differences in people to race. If this is true, it is clear that historically, white people have performed the best. Therefore, one could argue that the lower scorings of blacks can be attributed to race. In other words, saying that race is a handicap. Refer to my post above about why handicap affirmative action is moronic.

Of course, I don't agree with that, but it appears to be the clear implication of your argument -- that black people are handicapped on account of race.

[quote]Before AA did you see large amount of blacks being let into colleges by the dean of admissions?Until the mid-1960s legal barriers prevented blacks and other racial minorities in the United States from entering many jobs and educational institutions. Although women were rarely legally barred from jobs or education, many universities would not admit them and many employers would not hire them.[/quote]

First question, no, largely because blacks at the time were mostly not qualified due to social inequities. The solution to that is to improve education, not use affirmative action.

Second question, the First Amendment granst the Freedom of Association. Employers who do NOT recieve government funding have the Constitutional right to association. An inherent part of association is discrimination (when you associate, you also refuse to associate with others). An inherent part of FREE association is discrimination on whatever basis one so chooses, including race.

An example: I don't have to be your friend. If I hate you because you are black, I have a legal right to have nothing to do with you.

Similarly, if I own a store, it's MY store... I ought to have the legal right to only let people I want in. If I don't want to let black people in, I'm a racist, I'm a bigot, I'm not a nice guy... but I am still within my rights as a citizen of a Republic.

[quote]IF the schools says they are in all white school, who cares. Like you said we have all black schools. [/quote]

Yet you want to force affirmative action on schools, which would make it impossible for a school to declare itself all-white.

Let's be realistic. If Harvard declared itself all-white, do you really think there wouldn't be a public uproar?

[quote]and never did i say it wouldn't hurt white kids.

Somehow people think that by hiring under represented groups their jobs are being threatened, or they are giving minorities jobs are wrong.That is wrong because white men are still holding most of the position and minorities are still struggling to be hired in larger numbers[/quote]

Why is it justified if it hurts people? Furthermore, you are once again treating people as mere pawns in your race game. While it is true that whites may make up a majority of a given field, that is no consolation to an INDIVIDUAL white person who is denied a position that is rightfully his.

People are individuals. By treating them as mere parts of a "race" you are only creating more racism.

[quote]Until we truly have a color-blind society, however, people will always wonder whether women of color qualify for positions. Women of color often have to work harder just to get the respect that their white male colleagues enjoy as a birth right. The presumption favoring white males seems to be that they are qualified until they prove otherwise. With women of color, the presumption seems to be that they are unqualified until they prove otherwise.[/quote]

That simply isn't true. You have provided no evidence to support that. Presumptions are much more commonly based on things like what college you went to, etc. The underlying causes of inequality are underlying causes, not racism itself. The fact is -- in situations where a black person is IDENTICAL to a white person -- he is several times more likely to be offered a position, largely due to affirmative action.

Even if affirmative action were abolished de facto, blacks would still have a tremendous advantage in the college admissions over whites, simply because colleges want to look diverse, and break out of the "Ivy Mold". The advantage held by blacks might not be 400 points worth, but a 100-200 point advantage would undeniably exist.

[quote]Quotas, are illegal. What is permitted under current affirmative action instead are benchmarks, targets and goals.[/quote]

Which achieve the same amount of discrimination, just less honestly.

[quote]How is it hurting the U.S.? When 95% of top corporate executives are white males?[/quote]

Stop grouping people. I'm an Asian male, and I don't care how well another Asian male does. It's not a consolation to a white student who is rejected that ANOTHER white student got in... If all people of the same race were the same, the point would be moot because there would only be like 6 people in the world.

[quote]Racism is power plus discrimination. The parameters of discrimination based on race are distinguished by the power dynamics. Reverse racism is not, therefore a reality if people of color are not in positions of power and perpetrating the discrimination[/quote]

Okay, fine. If racism is POWER AND DISCRIMINATION, then affirmative action is THE main source of racism in this country. The most powerful agency in the country is the government. It is the agency perpetrating affirmative action. The government is far more powerful than the KKK. If you define racism as discrimination PLUS power, than one could make a very good argument that the KKK is not racist, because they have no real power any more. Does the KKK influence your college admissions? No. But the government does.

[quote]the selection of unqualified candidates is not permitted under federal affirmative action guidelines and should not be equated with legal forms of affirmative action. [/quote]

Who determines what unqualified is? Unqualifed means that you weren't good enough to get a position. If you needed affirmative action to get that position, then you were, by definition, unqualified. Your only qualification was a legal fiat.

You have still not refuted any of my evidence showing that, at Ivy League and other highly selective institutions -- black students (who, on average, have lower qualifications) are accepted at a rate of over THREE TIMES higher than white students. According to Michele A Hernadez, former admissions officer at Dartmouth, the average white student would need SAT I of 1300 and IIs of 650, and a rank near the top 10% of his class to even be considered, whereas a black student would need only an SAT I of 900, SAT IIs of 400, and rank in the top HALF of the class. A white student with those qualifications would have trouble getting into Penn State, much less an Ivy League university.

And finally, none of this matters because affirmative action is about to die. Recent gallup polls show that 3/4 of Americans, including almost half of minorities, support ending affirmative action. The Supreme Court ruled against it THREE TIMES and only narrowly upheld a very strict form of affirmative action in a 5-4 decision. Affirmative action might have been saved for 5 more years, but it can feel the Sword of Damocles hanging over its head. Sooner or later, taxpayers are going to be pissed off that their kids are being turned into sacrificial lambs. Sooner or later, every state is going to follow the example of California, and let the people vote -- the result of which will not be in question.

[onenonly101]

[quote]And what makes you think this only happens to black people? Certainly, it happens to white people as well, who may be regarded as snobs, etc. Or to Asian people. This can happen to anyone. Most importantly and furthermore, what makes you think that affirmative action isn't killing a fly with a sledgehammer?[/quote]

I never said it only happened to blacks. All I said was people hiding their racism in general.

[quote]No, I said SOME blacks aren't up to par and got in from affirmative action, which in the end hurt them because they flunked out.[/quote]

You never said some you said most blacks.
[quote]Moreover, most black students are harmed by AA. AA encourages black students to apply to schools where they will be academically isolated.This results in MASSIVE black dropout rates.[/quote]

[quote]Interesting, considering California's affirmative action was considerably WEAKENED in 1977 by the Supreme Court case of Bakke vs. U-Cal, and also the fact that affirmative action was continually weakened, until abolished by an OVERWHELMING majority of Californians in 1996.[/quote]

That does not refute that the class was strong and affirmative action was still in place, weakened or not.

[quote]A professor at Princeton calculated that 80% of students who apply to Ivy League universities meet minimum Academic Requirements... the fact remains that even if you meet the minimum, you will still feel academically isolated if everyone does better than you.
[/quote]

No, if 80% meet it on the minimum requirents then you wouldn't be isolated if you made the minimum requirements because only 20% of the entire school made above minimum.

[quote]Perhaps for being athletes, etc., but on average, in 1993 the average African American or Hispanic student was admitted with an SAT of 300 points lower and a GPA of 1.0 lower than a white or Asian student[/quote]

It doesn't matter if they were athletes or not because the fact still remains the same.

[quote]This only strengthens the white supremacist argument. It goes like this:

If people of different races are indeed different, then one can attribute differences in people to race. If this is true, it is clear that historically, white people have performed the best. Therefore, one could argue that the lower scorings of blacks can be attributed to race. In other words, saying that race is a handicap. Refer to my post above about why handicap affirmative action is moronic.[/quote]

Honest question, where did yo uget that outof my post? All i said was that people of different races are different. I never said anything about accomplishment or that anyone was inferior. You pulled that our of the sky.

[quote]If affirmative action really does help black people, then I ask-- why did over 45% (along with 75% of whites) vote in FAVOR of abolishing affirmative action? [/quote]

45% is still not half of the black population in California. Some people vote in favor to abolish it because they feel as though the program is making them inferior. What opinion polls also reveal, however, is that, by and large, voters do not know very much about what affirmative action comprises, the scope of federal affirmative action policies, and who benefits (or is hurt) by these policies. As a result, public opinion is shaped to a greater extent by social attitudes and beliefs about recipients (e.g., minorities and women) rather than by solid information about affirmative action policies themselves.

In America surveys show that most people want to maintain some form

[quote]and too many cases of white students using AA to hate blacks.
[/quote]

No, even before AA some white hated blacks. People cannot use AA as an excuse for their hate.

[quote]That simply isn't true. You have provided no evidence to support that. Presumptions are much more commonly based on things like what college you went to, etc. The underlying causes of inequality are underlying causes, not racism itself. The fact is -- in situations where a black person is IDENTICAL to a white person -- he is several times more likely to be offered a position, largely due to affirmative action.[/quote]

Presumptions are more commonly based on race. Presumptions come from the evident stereotypes are alrwdy presented. When someone see you they don't see what college you came from they see what you look like. And they base who you are since they do not know you on your race and how they have seen someone of your race act.

[quote]Even if affirmative action were abolished de facto, blacks would still have a tremendous advantage in the college admissions over whites, simply because colleges want to look diverse, and break out of the "Ivy Mold".[/quote]

Maybe the first few years because they will think the public will think that they accpeted those people in because of affirmative action. Then after it dies off, it will be back to the same, so I think. No college is diverse.

[quote]Which achieve the same amount of discrimination, just less honestly.
[/quote]

Goals and quotas are two different things.

[quote]Stop grouping people. I'm an Asian male, and I don't care how well another Asian male does. It's not a consolation to a white student who is rejected that ANOTHER white student got in... If all people of the same race were the same, the point would be moot because there would only be like 6 people in the world.[/quote]

First, don't be a hypocrite. You have been grouping people this entire debate. So you cannot try to call me out saying i am grouping people, when all i did was present a fact. That 95% of top corprate executive are white males, and that AA obvivously is not making a dent in that. So how is it hurting?

[quote]Who determines what unqualified is? Unqualifed means that you weren't good enough to get a position. If you needed affirmative action to get that position, then you were, by definition, unqualified. Your only qualification was a legal fiat.[/quote]

The hiring company decides what unqualified is. If the qualifcations for the job is a BS in Law and 3 years of legal work. And you fit the qualifications(because nowhere does it you have to be a certain race) then you are qualified for the job. And if you do not have a BS in LAw then you are unqualified so then you cannot make it into the job with or without AA.

[quote]Okay, fine. If racism is POWER AND DISCRIMINATION, then affirmative action is THE main source of racism in this country.[/quote]

No, because the people affirmative action are helping are NOT in power.
That is why the program was implicated to help a minority in ANY situtation get the representation they deserve and need.

Affirmative action works. There are thousands of examples of situations where people of color, white women, and working class women and men of all races who were previously excluded from jobs or educational opportunities, or were denied opportunities once admitted, have gained access through affirmative action. When these policies received executive branch and judicial support, vast numbers of people of color, white women and men have gained access they would not otherwise have had. These gains have led to very real changes. Affirmative action programs have not eliminated racism, nor have they always been implemented without problems. However, there would be no struggle to roll back the gains achieved if affirmative action policies were ineffective. Affirmative action programs have been effective in many areas of public life because they opened up opportunities for people who would not otherwise have them, including white women and men.

The original concept and idea of affirmative action is good. Though alot of the programs need to be redefined and mended.


I don't think the entire program will die out. Ibelieve that it will be restructured

[ComradeRed]

[quote]I never said it only happened to blacks. All I said was people hiding their racism in general.[/quote]

Then why does that justify AA if people hide racism against everyone?

[quote]You never said some you said most blacks.[/quote]

Most blacks aren't qualified for Ivy League schools. Most whites aren't qualified for the Ivies either. There's nothing racist about it -- it's pointing out a general trend that exists regardless of race. I never said "all" blacks or blacks in general.

[quote]That does not refute that the class was strong and affirmative action was still in place, weakened or not.[/quote]

It DOES refute the point that affirmative action was the reason that the class was strong. The class was weaker with a strong affirmative action program than a weaker one.

[quote]No, if 80% meet it on the minimum requirents then you wouldn't be isolated if you made the minimum requirements because only 20% of the entire school made above minimum.[/quote]

You misunderstand. 80% OF APPLICANTS meet the minimum requirements. The top schools in the country usually only let in 20% of the appliocants -- i.e., the 20% that made above minimum.

[quote]Honest question, where did yo uget that outof my post? All i said was that people of different races are different. I never said anything about accomplishment or that anyone was inferior. You pulled that our of the sky.[/quote]

If races are different, than the entire rationale for AA is destroyed. If races are different, that means that they account for differences. I can bring up statistical evidence to show that blacks on average get lower grades and SAT scores than whites. If you say that races are different, than I can infer that you are arguing that blacks, as a general principle, perform worse because they are DIFFERENT than whites -- thus reducing 'blackness' to a handicap, and destroying the whole rationale for AA.

[quote]45% is still not half of the black population in California. Some people vote in favor to abolish it because they feel as though the program is making them inferior. What opinion polls also reveal, however, is that, by and large, voters do not know very much about what affirmative action comprises, the scope of federal affirmative action policies, and who benefits (or is hurt) by these policies. As a result, public opinion is shaped to a greater extent by social attitudes and beliefs about recipients (e.g., minorities and women) rather than by solid information about affirmative action policies themselves.[/quote]

What polls? And how can polls test your knowledge of a policy? Californian university students, who are among the most well-informed about affirmative action, were also the demographic that voted most overwhelmingly to abolish it (over 75%).

[quote]In America surveys show that most people want to maintain some form
[/quote]

Show me the surveys. Every poll I have come across from a relatively unbiased source shows that AA is unpopular. I have never seen above 40% support for it in Nationwide polls, even in liberal ones.

[quote]No, even before AA some white hated blacks. People cannot use AA as an excuse for their hate.[/quote]

So? With AA, even more people hate blacks. It's a perfectly valid excuse.

100 years ago, when white people were given special preference to get into the top colleges, etc., when there was white man's affirmative action, LOTS of black people hated white people because of that. Why are white people not allowed to hate black people FOR THE SAME REASON? That's pure hypocrisy.

[quote]Presumptions are more commonly based on race. Presumptions come from the evident stereotypes are alrwdy presented. When someone see you they don't see what college you came from they see what you look like. And they base who you are since they do not know you on your race and how they have seen someone of your race act.[/quote]

Anecdotal at best. What if someone's life was saved by a black person?

[quote]Maybe the first few years because they will think the public will think that they accpeted those people in because of affirmative action. Then after it dies off, it will be back to the same, so I think. No college is diverse.[/quote]

Of course college isn't the most diverse place in the world. In college, everyone pretty much agrees that education is important, everyone is pretty much smart, etc. If I wanted to experience true diversity, I could go on a tour of the country. College isn't the place for that.

[quote]Goals and quotas are two different things.[/quote]

So is lethal injection and firing squad.

[quote]First, don't be a hypocrite. You have been grouping people this entire debate. So you cannot try to call me out saying i am grouping people, when all i did was present a fact. That 95% of top corprate executive are white males, and that AA obvivously is not making a dent in that. So how is it hurting?[/quote]

I'm grouping people because Affirmative Action CREATES those groups. When dealing with affirmative action, the people are already grouped. But before affirmative action exists, these groups do not. Affirmative action may not be hurting most white males IN GENERAL, but it sure as hell is hurting alot fo them.

[quote]The hiring company decides what unqualified is. If the qualifcations for the job is a BS in Law and 3 years of legal work. And you fit the qualifications(because nowhere does it you have to be a certain race) then you are qualified for the job. And if you do not have a BS in LAw then you are unqualified so then you cannot make it into the job with or without AA.[/quote]

But if more people fulfill BS in Law and 3 years of legal work than positions are available, than the standards are raised.

If a college has 1000 spots, and requires an SAT of 1200, but 2000 people with SATs of 1200 apply, then the college raises its standard so that only 1000 people are qualified. The college might raise its standard to an SAT of 1300 so only 1000 people can get in. A black person with SAT of 1250 would get in under affirmative action -- even though he would be unqualified under revised conditions.l

[quote]No, because the people affirmative action are helping are NOT in power.[/quote]

But the people who are actually doing it are.

The people the KKK are helping are rednecks who have no power whatsoever. Under your definition, my argument still holds -- the KKK is not racist.

[quote]That is why the program was implicated to help a minority in ANY situtation get the representation they deserve and need. [/quote]

ANY situation -- so a black person who's parents are Harvard lawyers making $500,000 a year each is somehow "disadvantaged" while a welfare white student from Mississippi has the representation he deserves and needs?

[quote]Affirmative action works. There are thousands of examples of situations where people of color, white women, and working class women and men of all races who were previously excluded from jobs or educational opportunities, or were denied opportunities once admitted, have gained access through affirmative action.[/quote]

And, by the Zero-Sum nature of affirmative action, each of those examples means another example of a more qualified white or Asian male rejected.

Furthermore, don't even bring up "white women" -- women have MORE opportunities today than men. Do you want enrollement statistics?

Brown University: 53% female
Yale University: 51% female
University of Pennsylvania: 52% female
Cornell University: 51% female
Princeton University: 49% female
Harvard University: 52% female

I could not find stats from Dartmouth or Columbia, but at five of the six Ivies I did find, Women outnumber men.

The gap is even wider at public schools -- women make up 56% of the student body at Penn State University.

If anything, men need affirmative action.

Furthermore, whites make up approximately 70% of the population, whereas at Harvard, whites are only 65% of the student body. If whites really do control the country and are racist, as you suggest -- why are whites UNDERrepresented at Harvard University? In fact, the ONLY Ivy League University (except Dartmouth and Columbia, which I can't get stats for) where whites make up more than 70% of the student body is Yale -- and even then, they only make up 72%.

[quote] When these policies received executive branch and judicial support, vast numbers of people of color, white women and men have gained access they would not otherwise have had. These gains have led to very real changes. Affirmative action programs have not eliminated racism, nor have they always been implemented without problems.[/quote]

And, has, in fact, increased racism -- by giving white people who otherwise tolerated blacks a reason to hate blacks.

[quote] However, there would be no struggle to roll back the gains achieved if affirmative action policies were ineffective. Affirmative action programs have been effective in many areas of public life because they opened up opportunities for people who would not otherwise have them, including white women and men.[/quote]

How have they opened up opportunites for white women and men? It seems to me that they only took away their opportunities.

[quote]The original concept and idea of affirmative action is good. Though alot of the programs need to be redefined and mended.


I don't think the entire program will die out.  Ibelieve that it will be restructured[/quote]

A great example of permanent affirmative action is Zimbawbwe -- where a white minority is given special legal status in a black government, which makes many blacks hate both whites, and their own black government.

Or Southeast Asia -- where the economically dominant Chinese have, in many countries, been persecuted to create "opportunities" for local peoples who do not have as money -- resulting in several economic crashes, most famously in Thailand, Malaysia, and the Phillipines.

And finally, you still have not addressed the fact that affirmative action causes blacks to fail school. According to US Government Statistics: http://www.bls.census.gov/cps/pub/1997/int_race.htm, whites have a 17.2% college dropout rates, Asians have a 12.8%, while blacks have an overwhelming 19.1% dropout rate. Not surprisingly, the lowest black dropout rates come from states such as California where affirmative action is nonexistent.

[onenonly101]

First why do you only bring up Ivy league, never did i say AA is only effective in ivy league

[sadolakced acid]

no, but you did say it was effective in the ivy league.

ivy league stats are easier to obtain and show that AA is hurting students at top colleges, by allowing less qualified individuals to take places of more qualified ones. the less qualified ones go to tougher colleges, and are subjected to touger curriculum, and do badly. the higher qualified ones go instead to lower notch universities, where they occupy the top of the curve, pushing others that otherwise would have gotten Bs and Cs to get Ds and Fs.

i don't really see how this is overcoming racism. if the ethnicity blank on college applications was left off, how ccould there be racism?

in the corperate world, AA does not help that much, it puts underqualified people in positions because of AA points.

you cannot say this is compensation for mistreatment. compensation for mistreatment would be creating better schools in poorer areas. it's been proven- race is not a handicap, there is a more direct coorelation to poverty levels.

[ComradeRed]

First why do you only bring up Ivy league, never did i say AA is only effective in ivy league

Because I'm more familiar with the Ivy League Admissions Process than the process at other institutions, and also they release their statistics more readily.

[onenonly101]

acid- i never said anything about ivy league. I have just been talking about affirmative action in everything, all schools, all jobs where it is taking place.

And finally, you still have not addressed the fact that affirmative action causes blacks to fail school.

No one can prove that it is Affirmative action that causes blacks to drop out. There are MANY factors that make people drop out.

Then why does that justify AA if people hide racism against everyone?

When i was tlaking about hiding racism i wasn't talking about AA or anything. I was just stating that i don't like when anyone does that.

the 20% that made above minimum.

But that doesn't mean that they were exceptionally over the minimum requirements.

. If you say that races are different, than I can infer that you are arguing that blacks, as a general principle, perform worse because they are DIFFERENT than whites -- thus reducing 'blackness' to a handicap, and destroying the whole rationale for AA.

I did not say that or infer that, sorry if i did. I didn't say if someone was less than someone else. But of the white precentiale will be higher since there are way more whites than blacks or anyother minority. So of course white could be achieving more.

What polls? And how can polls test your knowledge of a policy?

If the question was Affirmative action is a policy that helps only blacks and for meeting quotas. And most people said yes, they don't know what the policy is about.

100 years ago, when white people were given special preference to get into the top colleges, etc., when there was white man's affirmative action, LOTS of black people hated white people because of that. Why are white people not allowed to hate black people FOR THE SAME REASON? That's pure hypocrisy.

Special preference? Blacks weren't even allowed to go to the colleges. AA doesn't keep whites or any majority for going to college. Lots of black people hated whites for just being white.

The people the KKK are helping are rednecks who have no power whatsoever. Under your definition, my argument still holds -- the KKK is not racist.

How do you know that the people the KKK are helping are rednecks that hold no power?

so a black person who's parents are Harvard lawyers making $500,000 a year each is somehow "disadvantaged" while a welfare white student from Mississippi has the representation he deserves and needs?

Seeing as not alot of blacks are Harvard lawyers making 5K a year that they do deserve representation. And aa is to help any minority in any situation so the white boy on welfare would be a minority so he would be seeking representation.

whereas at Harvard, whites are only 65% of the student body. If whites really do control the country and are racist, as you suggest -- why are whites UNDERrepresented at Harvard University?

I never said all white people were racist, i never even said most whites are racist. Whites do control the country, seeing as there are more whites in the country than any other race so then they would hold the positions of power. Whites are not underepresented if they hold 65% of the student body. Everyone else in the school is underrepresented compared to them

And, has, in fact, increased racism -- by giving white people who otherwise tolerated blacks a reason to hate blacks.

And how would you know that?

They have not taken oppertunities for white women, because still women make 60 cents to a mans one dollar.

[megumint]

what's affirmative action? yeah i know, i'm stupid... but news is boring.

well, based on what you guys say, i say yeah! it's good, right? it'll help get people hired. at least i think that's what it's about..

sorry if i'm acting like a n00b...

[JlIaTMK]

what's affirmative action? yeah i know, i'm stupid... but news is boring.

well, based on what you guys say, i say yeah! it's good, right? it'll help get people hired. at least i think that's what it's about..

sorry if i'm acting like a n00b...

tsk tsk tsk tsk....

affirmitive action is when someone from a minority race is hired to work because they r minorities.... not because of anything else.... and that also gets the rate of majorities with jobs down

[ComradeRed]

No one can prove that it is Affirmative action that causes blacks to drop out. There are MANY factors that make people drop out.

I agree completely. I can't PROVE that AA makes blacks drop out.

By the same token, you can't PROVE that AA helps blacks. You can't PROVE that Deans are racist. You can't PROVE that there is gravity. You can't PROVE anything (except in Math), because there are always multiple factors.

I can, however, prove that AA is a MAJOR factor in black dropout rates beyond a reasonable doubt, the evidence beign that when a single variable was removed in California (AA), black dropout rates fell substantially within one year.

But that doesn't mean that they were exceptionally over the minimum requirements.

Minimum requirements change based on application, as I have brought up earlier.

If the question was Affirmative action is a policy that helps only blacks and for meeting quotas. And most people said yes, they don't know what the policy is about.

Even if this holds true, it proves that most people regard affirmative action's primary result as helping blacks at the expense of other races, which they disagree. Moreover, it is undisputable that blacks are the primary beneficiaries of AA. You can argue that white women are, but that just simply isn't the case -- except at a few engineering schools, white women recieve affirmative action at almost no universities, and for good reason.

Special preference? Blacks weren't even allowed to go to the colleges. AA doesn't keep whites or any majority for going to college. Lots of black people hated whites for just being white.

Um... Brooker T Washington? WEB DuBois? George Washington Carver? Certianly, most blacks didn't go to college, but after like 1870, they were allowed to -- they were just held to a much higher standard which caused them to hate whites -- in the same way that whites are held to a much higher standard today, causing them to hate blacks even more...

How do you know that the people the KKK are helping are rednecks that hold no power?

Because most people in the KKK are rednecks. Who else are they helping?

Seeing as not alot of blacks are Harvard lawyers making 5K a year that they do deserve representation. And aa is to help any minority in any situation so the white boy on welfare would be a minority so he would be seeking representation.

No the "white boy on welfare" would not recieve help from Federal Affirmative Action. If AA is to help "any minority in any situation", then we would be back to a Feudal Society -- Barons, Earls, Dukes, and Kings are a minority too, after all. And a really small one at that. And also, according to a Cato Institute study, the two most underrepresented groups among law professors are Hispanics and Republicans -- so Republicans would get AA too under your definition.

Everyone is some sort of "minority" -- after all, the smallest minority on Earth is the individual. If AA is to help "any minority in any situation", then it would simply balance itself out, and either do nothing or just screw over the Average Joe.

I never said all white people were racist, i never even said most whites are racist. Whites do control the country, seeing as there are more whites in the country than any other race so then they would hold the positions of power. Whites are not underepresented if they hold 65% of the student body. Everyone else in the school is underrepresented compared to them

Um... no. If whites make up 70% of hte population, and make up 65% of the student body, they are definitionally underrepresented. If there were equal representation, whites would make up 70% of the student body, not 65%.

If people with purple hair make up 1% of the population, and 10% of a student body, they are overrepresented -- even though they are only a minority.

And how would you know that?

It's logical, isn't it? If we passed a law that said that black people have to score 400 points higher than white people to get into the same college, don't you think a lot of blacks would be angry at whites? The vice versa situation exists too.

They have not taken oppertunities for white women, because still women make 60 cents to a mans one dollar.

UN puts it at 73 cents, first of all, and second of all, this is mainly by choice -- many women choose not to work or to only work part time because of family, something that is traditionally ingrained in many women.

Also, you haven't addressed my attacks on your argument that the admissions process is racist. Is it fair to assume that you have dropped that argument? Remember, blacks are accepted to the most selective colleges at a rate of over three times higher than whites (50% to 15%), even though, on average, their SAT scores are 300 to 400 points lower, proving massive racism against whites.

[sadolakced acid]

First why do you only bring up Ivy league, never did i say AA is only effective in ivy league

note the 'only effective' which means, you said AA is effective in ivy league, where all stats prove you wrong.

could you state your argument with all your points in a post?

[ComradeRed]

You also presented many MYTHS about Affirmative Action here are some, btw affirmative action does NOT hurt Asian-Americans

MYTH: Affirmative action hurts Whites and Asians.

FACT: Though affirmative action is believed to have harmed white men, this contradicts the reality that white men hold structural power in society today. For example, a Washington Post study shows that 95% of top corporate executives are white males. Asians benefit in many ways from affirmative action by making use of services provided by programs such as the Educational Opportunity Program, Upward Bound, and so on. It is another myth to believe that all Asians are a success story. A UCLA School of Urban Planning study shows that Pacific Islanders and South East Asians have poverty rates which are three times greater than white Americans. Other studies indicate enrollment of Pilipinos in higher education is much closer to African-Americans and Latinos that other Asians. Asians, revered as the "model minority" includes Pacific Islanders, South East Asians and Philipinos, yet there are distinct disparities between say a third generation Chinese student and a first generation Cambodian refugee. Thus affirmative action can only help not hinder the Asian community.

MYTH: Affirmative action is reverse discrimination, it gives preferential treatment to people of color and women.
FACT: Racism is power plus discrimination. The parameters of discrimination based on race are distinguished by the power dynamics. Reverse racism is not, therefore a reality if people of color are not in positions of power and perpetrating the discrimination. An Urban Institute study shows that less that 100 of 3000 cases could be considered reverse discrimination. Less that six of those cases were deemed by the court to be substantiated.
Affirmative action has been mislabeled "preferential treatment" for certain members of society. In reality it is a kind of social restitution and an attempt to create a more democratic society. President Johnson, in describing affirmative action, stated, "You do not take a person who for years has been hobbled by chains, liberate him and bring him to the starting line of a race and say, 'You are free to compete with others,' and still justly believe that you have been completely fair." Thus, it is not enough just to open the gates of opportunity: all must have the ability to walk through those gates. Affirmative action is an attempt to facilitate a more level playing field.
Affirmative action recognizes the interconnectedness of race, class, gender. Many of the symbolic gates are beyond reach due to economic disparity which in turn is one of the effects of racism. We cannot divorce these interconnected issues from one another. Beginning with the consideration of race as permissible in university admissions, in the Regents of the University of California vs. Bakke, the court rejected the notion that the constitution prohibits considerations of race. In the UC system, race and ethnicity are not solely considered for admissions. Thus, there is no such thing as preferential treatment. Other criteria such as socio-economic level, state residency, special abilities, disabilities, familial ties and athletic ability are used in determining admissions. These supplemental criteria benefit everyone, not only people of color.

Myth: Nobody else gets special consideration when applying to a college or for a job. Why should all women and people of color?
Fact: Lots of people get "special" consideration when applying for jobs or to schools.
Veterans often get preferences in workplaces and on campuses — which usually benefit men more than women. The children of alumni get preferential treatment over others in admission to college. Friends help friends and acquaintances get jobs. Affirmative Action helps open doors for women and people of color who often don't have those connections.

Myth: Affirmative Action lowers standards in education and the workplace by letting unqualified people get ahead.
Fact: Affirmative Action helps qualified candidates overcome racism and sexism.
Affirmative Action is an investment in the future. By the time today's college students are at the height of their careers, one-third of the population will be comprised of African Americans and Latinos/Latinas.

MYTH: The ACLU is a fair and balanced source of information.
FACT: You can't make your own arguments, so you decide to cut and paste long articles from the ACLU instead.

[ComradeRed]

As for exploiting the system, I am going to do the honorable thing and refuse to state my race.

A growing number of students are doing this. At some universities, the numbers are so skewed that it is impossible to do an accurate measure of race (At Stanford, over 25% of applicants refused to state their race. Stanford then reported the race of the 75% that did state instead. An impartial statistical survey showed that Stanford was less than 50% white, because of the refusals).

Last year, large numbers of high school students throughout the country including myself simply left the ethnicity question on the SAT II blank. ETS could not disqualify that many scores without screwing up their own statistical surveys. This happened from March to June of 2003. In October 2003, the SAT II no longer asked you for your ethnicity.

If enough people have enough integrity to do this, I'm sure that we can, in fact, purge affirmative action from at least a few private institutions, and restore some semblance of justice to the system.

[onenonly101]

MYTH: The ACLU is a fair and balanced source of information.
FACT: You can't make your own arguments, so you decide to cut and paste long articles from the ACLU instead.

First, i never said that the myths/facts things was mine. i was just presenting them

[ComradeRed]

Then you should cite the source. It's called academic honesty -- You already have corruption on your side, you don't need sleaze too. If you copy your college essay from the ACLU, and the admissions officer has already read the article (like I have), you will probably be rejected no matter what race you are.

[onenonly101]

corruption, where?

note the 'only effective' which means, you said AA is effective in ivy league, where all stats prove you wrong.

no the stats didn't say that aa wasn't working there.

[ComradeRed]

Well if you define working as "raising minority numbers", AA is definitely working. Similarly, if you define working as "killing the most Jews", the Holocaust was definitely working very well. But is the goal itself just -- and the answer is no.

A great and very important case study in affirmative action from real life:

I just got back from a college admissions seminar. During Q&A, a kid asks the speaker (who is black by the way) how affirmative action will help him, since he's half Puerto Rican. So the speaker asks the guy his name and where he's from. The guy says his name and says, "I'm from Greenwich, Connecticut." Greenwich is the second or third richest township in the United States. So the speaker spends the next several minutes explaining how it would be really sleazy and corrupt for him to take advantage of affirmative action, since affirmative action is designed to help poor minorities, like ones who are actually from Puerto Rico, or even poor whites who grew up in the inner city, but he kept arguing. After a while, I find myself compelled to lean over to the kid and say, "What he's trying to say is that you're a spoiled rich kid from Greenwich and should stop complaining." That shut him up pretty fast and moved the questioning along. The best part was when the speaker was nodding his head in agreement with me. Later, a person I was with told me that the Puerto Rican guy's dad was probably a multimillionaire drug lord. A bit racist, but we had a good laugh about it nonetheless, showing that affirmative action only creates more stereotypes, even if jokingly. A Hispanic kid from my school, also a millionaire, is abusing affirmative action in a similar way.

That is why I said you are corrupt -- you have regular Internet access, it sounds like you attend a fairly good school in Georgia, from what I gather you do not work on a plantation and you do not have to worry about whether there will be something to eat tonight. By all indications, you are not disadvantaged at all. By using affirmative action, you are being just as corrupt as the kid from Greenwich -- who is in the end only harming poor whites and Asians (many Asians are first-generation immigrants who came to the US with nothing, including myself) who probably grew up in much worse circumstances than yourself. Think about that for a while, instead of your grand ideological racial crusade of venegeance -- one comparable to and no better than the one Hitler launched against the Jews, who were taking up all the best jobs and positions of power in 1920s Germany.

[sadolakced acid]

alright, so the stats say that minorities are droping out of ivys that use AA, and thier average SAT is 300 points less than those that don't get AA benifits. in ivys that don't, the dropout rates are the same, and the SAT rates are the same.

no, the stats show me that AA is unfairly allowing minorities to go to ivys using AA, where less qualified races that don't have AA benifits are turned down.

AA is legalized racism.

[sadolakced acid]

and, in an instance i agree with bush.

however politically correct he is trying to be.

"I support college affirmatively taking action to get more minorities in their school," Bush said as the audience laughed.

[xquizit]

- whooops posted in wrong thread -

*blushes in embarassment*

[sikdragon]

shools, businesses, or any other organization should not be forced to get "a good mix" they should go for the most qualified person for the job race shouldnt matter because in the melting pot of america sooner or later we are all going to be a new race anyway.


DONT CRIPPLE THE CRIPS!!!!!!!!!!!!

[innovation]

hey kids. having read the entire thread (except for the 4th page and parts of the 3rd because it was getting tiring), i'd like to bring this thread back from the dead. also, i have some questions. but first of all:

1) because of minda's argument, i'd like to focus on affirmative action in public institutions for now.
2) i'd also like to focus on affirmative action in admission to educational institutions only.

so yeah. public, educational institutions, please.

Questions for affirmative:
A) would you be in favor of banning AA if more educational opportunities were given to minorities before college admissions to better prepare them academically, so that they gain the motivation and knowledge necessary for admissions based on qualifications instead of race, gender, etc.? (programs such as MITES, which is an intro to engineering summer program exclusively for minorities at MIT, often dissed by rickoids, but nevertheless looks quite impressive on college apps)
B) are you for affirmative action in general? or just in public institutions?
C) what is it that you want to see done about affirmative action, exactly? (please be specific.)
D) should all of this be decided at a state or national level?
E) how do you feel about basing affirmative action on socioeconomic status, going by the theory that "poverty begins poverty"?
F) "The most qualified individuals should be accepted, period." -- how would you refute this statement?

please expand upon and explain your answers.

Questions for negative:
A) do you propose any alternatives to affirmative action?
B) what is your stance on affirmative action in admission to public high schools, such as thomas jefferson and stuyvesant? (actually, firstly, are those schools funded by taxes and do they use AA in admissions?)
C) someone mentioned equal opportunity laws. could you explain what they would accomplish and why they would be a better alternative to AA?
D) what is it that you would like to see done about affirmative action, exactly? (please be specific.)
E) should all of this be decided at a state or national level?
F) how do you feel about basing affirmative action on socioeconomic status, going by the theory that "poverty begins poverty"?
G) "Discrimination is ultimately wrong." -- how would you refute this statement?

please expand upon and explain your answers.

sorry if any of these questions have been answered in the thread. also, sorry for being overly annoying, but i can't argue anything without sufficient information and consideration of both views. kay, thanks, you guys.

random note. i have been sitting here for over 3 hours with my headphones on and the sound off.

[*tweeak*]

bah, affirmative action isn't fair. people should be accepted for their qualification, not because they are a minority.

i agree. there has to be better ways than that to make sure minorities arent descriminated against

note to valid falicy: having only just noticed your post, i have no poposals for alternatives, but i do think there should be something. all of my sounding like an idiot aside, i do not want AA decreasing my chances of getting in my way of getting into a good college because im white, i think that even AA is just predjudice disguised, which still makes it predjudice, and in place of AA, while the laws someone proposed sound like a good idea, i dont think that would work

[innovation]

oh, come on you guys.
i typed up all those questions.
please answer at least one.

[*tweeak*]

i did! i answered at the very least 2...

[ComradeRed]

A) do you propose any alternatives to affirmative action?

No. The market resolves itself. Anyone working in admissions will tell you that disadvantaged students are treated more sympathetically. Even though affirmative action doesn't exist, a sort of income-based AA will still exist in practice, because it's easier to feel sorry for someone whose parents were illegals from Mexico and grew up picking garbage from the street but who has 50 points lower on the SAT, versus a kid who went to Philips Exeter.

B) what is your stance on affirmative action in admission to public high schools, such as thomas jefferson and stuyvesant? (actually, firstly, are those schools funded by taxes and do they use AA in admissions?)

All public schools are funded by taxes. That's why they're public.

I have no idea about Stuyvesant and TJ. Personally, I'm not a big fan of the Andover-wannabe public schools, but no, they shouldn't use affirmative action.

C) someone mentioned equal opportunity laws. could you explain what they would accomplish and why they would be a better alternative to AA?

Yes... I was mentioning how they were a bad idea in the private sector, because of violation of first amendment rights.

But in the public sector, there should be equal opportunity laws.

D) what is it that you would like to see done about affirmative action, exactly? (please be specific.)

Abolished in public institutions, private institutions retain their right to do it if they want, but shouldn't be forced to do it.

E) should all of this be decided at a state or national level?

The decision to abolish affirmative action should be national, since its the US Constitution at stake, not any state constitution.

However, if we're going to keep affirmative action, then each state should have the right to decide how it wants to do it.

AKA National for If, State for How.

F) how do you feel about basing affirmative action on socioeconomic status, going by the theory that "poverty begins poverty"?

Addressed earlier. Socioeconomic AA will always exist. There's no reason to write it into the law.

G) "Discrimination is ultimately wrong." -- how would you refute this statement?

By saying that affirmative action IS discriminatory.

As for my opposition to anti-discrimination laws in private sector trade, my response is that while discrimination is long, the violation of free association is infinitely worse. We discriminate every day in what people we want to be our friends, what people we want to come into our houses, etc. As sovereign individuals, we ought to have the right to decide who we want to deal with and who we don't. Remember that so-called equal opportunity laws which enforce association based on race is exactly the same thing that segregationalists advocated so long as it suited their purposes. The ends cannot justify the means, because when they do, those same means will be used for different ends later.

[innovation]

whoops. wrong quote.
mais merci beaucoup, minda.