Affirmative Action, i had to Options

[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.