EPTSCOTUS case: Fisher v. Texas (Affirmative Action) - Page 4
| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
Ghost-z
United States1291 Posts
| ||
|
Zato-1
Chile4253 Posts
In the US, that doesn't seem to be the case yet. I think a little Affirmative Action can be warranted, but to choose 25% of a University's alumni based almost exclusivly on race seems excessive to me. I wouldn't have a problem if the figure were 10-15% instead, and to ideally dial that down to zero once AA stops being necessary. | ||
|
Xenocryst
United States521 Posts
| ||
|
whatwhat
United States5 Posts
Diversity, including racial diversity, is a valuable part of a college education, and a rather unique feature of it in the U.S.. The truth is that the U.S. is more of an ethnic "salad" than a "melting pot," and there are important differences between a poor white kid from an Appalachian town and a poor black child from the ghetto, though both deserve special consideration in college admissions. In other words, there are still distinct and valuable cultures in the U.S. centered partly around race, and we all gain when we can learn from these cultures. If you don't know what I'm talking about, go make some friends from a different race, though I suspect that most people on progressive TL already know what I'm talking about. This goes to the core of why I disagree with the plaintiff in this lawsuit. She's claiming that the reason she wasn't admitted was because of racial preferences. OP correctly notes that almost all of the "other 25%" were African American or Hispanic. But a) that's just UT's approach to AA, not THE approach to AA. If you accept that race still matters in America and the world, then I can't understand why it should be <i>illegal</i> to <i>consider</i> race as a factor, and b) Even in the UT situation, it's just factually inaccurate to claim that the plaintiff was denied admission because and only because of race. She lost not only the race to be in the top 10% of her class in order to be guaranteed a spot at UT; she also lost out to other white students in the "other 25%". UT, like virtually every college and university in the U.S., likes to be able to say that it has students from all 50 states. It's on the main page of their web site. This means that a white student from, say, Alaska or Wyoming also had a distinct competitive advantage in the admissions struggle, probably a greater competitive advantage than a black student. It's deceptive and mathematically inaccurate to claim that because more black students were admitted in the other 25% than students from Alaska that race was a more important factor than state origin. On the contrary, it means that state origin is the more important factor, since UT had fewer Alaskan students to choose from than black students, and therefore being Alaskan conferred greater advantage than being black. In essence, the "We have students from all 50 states" form of diversity functions as a very weak quota system, guaranteeing that any given college has at least one spot reserved for a student from every state; but even a weak quota benefit is still in many ways more influential than a strong "holistic" approach. So why isn't the plaintiff suing to outlaw consideration of state origin, legacy (i.e., having relatives who have preiviously attended the same school), good looks, or any other arbitrary factor in the admissions process? Just to mess with your head, and drive home the way the AA has changed since the 60s: I'm a minority student, but I chose not to indicate my race in my applications - not out of some noble ideal, but purely out of self-interest. My family is relatively wealthy, and if I had indicated my race, then I might have put myself into a race only with others of my own race, and lost out because I wasn't really a participant in the distinct racial cultures I talked about above. All the same, I feel that I benefited from making friends with people who were participants in those cultures, and that people outside of my race benefited from meeting both kinds of people. In a way my argument about diversity seems contradictory: I'm both saying that having people of different races is valuable because it reveals differences and because it reveals similarities. But, I don't really think that that's a paradox. Learning about racial similarity and racial difference are both about learning more about how the world works, involves many such apparent contradictions. Sometimes race matters, and we gain a lot by having distinct ethnic cultures in the world, but sometimes it doesn't and we also gain a lot by learning to recognize humanity's deep similarities. We can't learn either of these things if we are in ethnically homogeneous environments. | ||
|
Chriscras
Korea (South)2812 Posts
| ||
|
Complete
United States1864 Posts
After taking an African Americans Class last semester and discussing affirmative action in depth, I can without a doubt say some of the opinions expressed in this thread are without a doubt uninformed, close-minded, and frankly borderline offensive. | ||
|
Shiragaku
Hong Kong4308 Posts
On November 03 2012 00:13 Complete wrote: Wow. After taking an African Americans Class last semester and discussing affirmative action in depth, I can without a doubt say some of the opinions expressed in this thread are without a doubt uninformed, close-minded, and frankly borderline offensive. Can you please explain in this thread or PM me? I am desperately looking for a good opinion on affirmative action that is not on cable TV or filled with bigotry on Internet forums. | ||
|
dannystarcraft
United States179 Posts
On November 03 2012 00:13 Complete wrote: Wow. After taking an African Americans Class last semester and discussing affirmative action in depth, I can without a doubt say some of the opinions expressed in this thread are without a doubt uninformed, close-minded, and frankly borderline offensive. I have taken the classes too (we were required). It doesn't matter how "offensive" you think the posts are in this thread. A lot of people have made good and legitimate points. People need to realize that the purpose of college is to learn and excel. The most qualified people need to be accepted regardless of race, socioeconomic status, and any other factors other than academic achievement and work ethic. | ||
|
hmmm...
632 Posts
asian americans need to perform better than caucasians, and much better than blacks or latinos just to attain those same spots | ||
|
XoXiDe
United States620 Posts
On November 02 2012 23:28 whatwhat wrote: Let's back up and talk about what AA even means. AA all started because JFK issued an executive order that government contractors "take affirmative action to ensure that applicants are employed and that employees are treated during employment without regard to their race, creed, color, or national origin," which most people today would agree is pretty reasonable. Later it evolved into quota systems, which most people today, including the Supreme Court, would agree are pretty unreasonable. In this case, we're talking about a very limited question: Are colleges and universities <i>allowed</i> to consider race as a factor. No college or university <i>must</i> consider race as a factor, but some choose to, and the case is about whether colleges and universities should have this freedom to <i>consider</i> race as a factor. Diversity, including racial diversity, is a valuable part of a college education, and a rather unique feature of it in the U.S.. The truth is that the U.S. is more of an ethnic "salad" than a "melting pot," and there are important differences between a poor white kid from an Appalachian town and a poor black child from the ghetto, though both deserve special consideration in college admissions. In other words, there are still distinct and valuable cultures in the U.S. centered partly around race, and we all gain when we can learn from these cultures. If you don't know what I'm talking about, go make some friends from a different race, though I suspect that most people on progressive TL already know what I'm talking about. This goes to the core of why I disagree with the plaintiff in this lawsuit. She's claiming that the reason she wasn't admitted was because of racial preferences. OP correctly notes that almost all of the "other 25%" were African American or Hispanic. But a) that's just UT's approach to AA, not THE approach to AA. If you accept that race still matters in America and the world, then I can't understand why it should be <i>illegal</i> to <i>consider</i> race as a factor, and b) Even in the UT situation, it's just factually inaccurate to claim that the plaintiff was denied admission because and only because of race. She lost not only the race to be in the top 10% of her class in order to be guaranteed a spot at UT; she also lost out to other white students in the "other 25%". UT, like virtually every college and university in the U.S., likes to be able to say that it has students from all 50 states. It's on the main page of their web site. This means that a white student from, say, Alaska or Wyoming also had a distinct competitive advantage in the admissions struggle, probably a greater competitive advantage than a black student. It's deceptive and mathematically inaccurate to claim that because more black students were admitted in the other 25% than students from Alaska that race was a more important factor than state origin. On the contrary, it means that state origin is the more important factor, since UT had fewer Alaskan students to choose from than black students, and therefore being Alaskan conferred greater advantage than being black. In essence, the "We have students from all 50 states" form of diversity functions as a very weak quota system, guaranteeing that any given college has at least one spot reserved for a student from every state; but even a weak quota benefit is still in many ways more influential than a strong "holistic" approach. So why isn't the plaintiff suing to outlaw consideration of state origin, legacy (i.e., having relatives who have preiviously attended the same school), good looks, or any other arbitrary factor in the admissions process? Just to mess with your head, and drive home the way the AA has changed since the 60s: I'm a minority student, but I chose not to indicate my race in my applications - not out of some noble ideal, but purely out of self-interest. My family is relatively wealthy, and if I had indicated my race, then I might have put myself into a race only with others of my own race, and lost out because I wasn't really a participant in the distinct racial cultures I talked about above. All the same, I feel that I benefited from making friends with people who were participants in those cultures, and that people outside of my race benefited from meeting both kinds of people. In a way my argument about diversity seems contradictory: I'm both saying that having people of different races is valuable because it reveals differences and because it reveals similarities. But, I don't really think that that's a paradox. Learning about racial similarity and racial difference are both about learning more about how the world works, involves many such apparent contradictions. Sometimes race matters, and we gain a lot by having distinct ethnic cultures in the world, but sometimes it doesn't and we also gain a lot by learning to recognize humanity's deep similarities. We can't learn either of these things if we are in ethnically homogeneous environments. Glad someone finally said what I was thinking. She's assuming she didn't get in because of some black or hispanic kid, when in reality she is also competing against other white students, the majority of her competitors, not to mention her grades weren't good enough in the first place to get in, should have got better grades if she wanted guaranteed admission. I tend to favor affirmative action but I am i in no way sure its the best way to go, I think more focus needs to be diverted towards improving under performing schools, poverty, and getting at the root of the problem not the top of the tree. But in this case particular, I don't buy her argument. I enjoy reading some of the cases against AA in this thread and it get me thinking, but a lot of it is "it's just not fair", well, the majority of life in the U.S. hasn't been fair for minorities since its inception. I think there is some legitimacy to the criticism I've heard that some of the kids with lower scores aren't performing well because they're simply not prepared for some of the curriculum at the schools they attend, this is a disservice and the opposite of what AA intended to do, and it goes back to my point about getting at the root of the problem. | ||
|
Fuyihken
United States19 Posts
Here is the problem though: I think racism/bigotry/whatever is hardwired into us as humans. We are naturally cautious of outsiders and this caution often leads to a fear reaction. Once fear has taken hold it would seem that rationality goes out the window. I mean, how long have humans been evolving? Thousands of years, longer? My point is in all those years there has always been racism/bigotry. I don't know if we could eliminate these things if we evolved for another thousand years. This brings me to my point, is AA a necassary social construct to artificially eliminate discrimination? I would like to think that in modern America the answer is no, but I can't be sure. Perhaps the best course of action here is to get rid of such laws and see what happens. If the outcome is possitive, great! If not, reinact the laws. | ||
|
PrideNeverDie
United States319 Posts
On November 03 2012 00:43 XoXiDe wrote: Glad someone finally said what I was thinking. She's assuming she didn't get in because of some black or hispanic kid, when in reality she is also competing against other white students, the majority of her competitors, not to mention her grades weren't good enough in the first place to get in, should have got better grades if she wanted guaranteed admission. I tend to favor affirmative action but I am i in no way sure its the best way to go, I think more focus needs to be diverted towards improving under performing schools, poverty, and getting at the root of the problem not the top of the tree. But in this case particular, I don't buy her argument. I enjoy reading some of the cases against AA in this thread and it get me thinking, but a lot of it is "it's just not fair", well, the majority of life in the U.S. hasn't been fair for minorities since its inception. I think there is some legitimacy to the criticism I've heard that some of the kids with lower scores aren't performing well because they're simply not prepared for some of the curriculum at the schools they attend, this is a disservice and the opposite of what AA intended to do, and it goes back to my point about getting at the root of the problem. that is the double standard in society when something is unfair toward black people, we will make laws and bend over backwards to make it right when something is unfair toward asians or whites, we tell them to suck it up and deal with it if a black applicant's grades weren't good enough to get in, we'd talk about how how disadvantaged they are even if they came from middle class households and try to get them into the top schools. if a white applicant's grades weren't good enough to get in, we'd talk about how they didn't deserve it in the first place. affirmative action was created by politicians to improve racial diversity and get votes, but it is not a fair system. the truth is that the people benefitting from affirmative action are middle to upper class black females. the ben carsons of this world are the exception and not the rule. a better system would be to make a hard cutoff and then consider race and socioeconomic status after. that allows the schools to keep a racially diverse population and give disadvantaged applicants a chance at admission without compromising academic standards. | ||
|
ddrddrddrddr
1344 Posts
| ||
|
Alpino
Brazil4390 Posts
Governments have to care only about things in practice, to use my country as example: if the poor kids aren't getting in a good university (the good universities here are free but you have to pass a test and the rich kids study in private schools and pass the test, the kids who study in public schools have almost no chance) and the rich kids are, we have a problem. It is not only pretending they have the same chance to get in a good university that is gonna grant both groups the same rights, from the pov that governments must take, the poor kids are having LESS rights than the rich kids in this example, so affirmative action may lessen this unconstitutionality. | ||
Whitewing
United States7483 Posts
Most minorities are significantly disadvantaged from the get-go in life in this country. They lack out on many economic opportunities, and suffer from accidental discrimination many steps of the way. They have less opportunity to attend private schools or to even go to college. It's not at all unusual for a black or hispanic student to be told by a school guidance counselor not to even bother applying to college, despite decent grades. Affirmative action is intended to make up somewhat for the disadvantage these people suffer from birth. It is not intended as a make up measure for over racism, nor is it intended to give and advantage to minorities. It's purpose is purely to lower the bar slightly for minorities to account for the economic and social disadvantages they suffer to make the consideration more fair. It was not created to 'create social diversity'. African Americans and Hispanics in particular are still working on digging themselves out of a ridiculously deep economic hole they've been in historically. Now, if you want to argue that they're doing that poorly, that there are better ways to do it, etc., then those would be fair arguments. | ||
|
XoXiDe
United States620 Posts
On November 03 2012 00:20 dannystarcraft wrote: I have taken the classes too (we were required). It doesn't matter how "offensive" you think the posts are in this thread. A lot of people have made good and legitimate points. People need to realize that the purpose of college is to learn and excel. The most qualified people need to be accepted regardless of race, socioeconomic status, and any other factors other than academic achievement and work ethic. I agree, learn and excel, but learning about what? There are more, I think many would argue, things to learn outside of the classroom in college. Diversity is a part of it. I go to school up here in New Hampshire, I moved from Texas and I am hispanic, it's pretty much 99% white over here, myself, I think I benefit greatly from meeting people from other backgrounds, and in general New England is vastly different from Texas. That said, let me ask you. Do you think diversity is important to the university experience? Would you be ok if AA was done with, and universities became more homogeneous, would you want to go to a school that was overwhelming culturally homogeneous? Do you feel there is any value, for example, for future lawyers, interacting and learning with students from different backgrounds that makes them better professionals? How would you choose between a student who has a 3.7 gpa and a student who has a 4.0 gpa, the 3.7 student is black, grew up in public housing, and had to overcome many obstacles to get where he is, the 4.0 student is white and is upper middle class, and has lead a relatively comfortable life. Did the 4.0 student work harder because simply because he has a 4.0? Does it show he has a better work ethic? Some excerpts from the Michigan Law School AA Case majority opinion. + Show Spoiler + As the District Court emphasized, the Law School’s admissions policy promotes “cross-racial understanding,” helps to break down racial stereotypes, and “enables [students] to better understand persons of different races.” App. to Pet. for Cert. 246a. These benefits are “important and laudable,” because “classroom discussion is livelier, more spirited, and simply more enlightening and interesting” when the students have “the greatest possible variety of backgrounds.” The Law School’s claim of a compelling interest is further bolstered by its amici, who point to the educational benefits that flow from student body diversity. In addition to the expert studies and reports entered into evidence at trial, numerous studies show that student body diversity promotes learning outcomes, and “better prepares students for an increasingly diverse workforce and society, and better prepares them as professionals.” Moreover, universities, and in particular, law schools, represent the training ground for a large number of our Nation’s leaders. Sweatt v. Painter, 339 U. S. 629, 634 (1950) (describing law school as a “proving ground for legal learning and practice”). Individuals with law degrees occupy roughly half the state governorships, more than half the seats in the United States Senate, and more than a third of the seats in the United States House of Representatives. See Brief for Association of American Law Schools as Amicus Curiae 5–6. The pattern is even more striking when it comes to highly selective law schools. A handful of these schools accounts for 25 of the 100 United States Senators, 74 United States Courts of Appeals judges, and nearly 200 of the more than 600 United States District Court judges. Id., at 6. In order to cultivate a set of leaders with legitimacy in the eyes of the citizenry, it is necessary that the path to leadership be visibly open to talented and qualified individuals of every race and ethnicity. All members of our heterogeneous society must have confidence in the openness and integrity of the educational institutions that provide this training. As we have recognized, law schools “cannot be effective in isolation from the individuals and institutions with which the law interacts.” See Sweatt v. Painter, supra, at 634. Access to legal education (and thus the legal profession) must be inclusive of talented and qualified individuals of every race and ethnicity, so that all members of our heterogeneous society may participate in the educational institutions that provide the training and education necessary to succeed in America. | ||
|
krndandaman
Mozambique16569 Posts
| ||
|
DarkPlasmaBall
United States45333 Posts
On November 03 2012 00:13 Complete wrote: Wow. After taking an African Americans Class last semester and discussing affirmative action in depth, I can without a doubt say some of the opinions expressed in this thread are without a doubt uninformed, close-minded, and frankly borderline offensive. Can you please elaborate on which opinions those are, what you learned in your class, and what your position is on Affirmative Action? (After all, this thread seems to be about the case and AA in general, not just about how other people are stupid.) | ||
|
ticklishmusic
United States15977 Posts
However, I have a HUGE beef with this girl. First, she's graduated from LSU which is not a bad school at all-- for example, students won the PWC case competition 2 years running. She needs to move on-- 4 years of college, and its like she hasn't gained anything. I could bitch about not getting into Stanford or Yale, but hey that's life. Instead on dwelling on something she couldn't change (for four years, I might add, she should have made the most of her years which she clearly didn't. She failed to meet requirements for auto-admission to UT Austin-- top 8% of students. Sucks, but if you miss such a clearly-drawn cutoff, it means either 1. you just weren't good enough, or 2. you didn't try hard enough and just screwed yourself over. Frankly, her stats were not impressive at all, especially given in the context of AA where she had basically all the advantages in the world to succeed. Moreover, the assumption that "her spot" went to some minority student rather than perhaps a more qualified white candidate is rather ludicrous. | ||
|
radscorpion9
Canada2252 Posts
On November 03 2012 01:14 Whitewing wrote: It seems most people lack some pretty important knowledge about what affirmative action is actually for, and why it exists. Most minorities are significantly disadvantaged from the get-go in life in this country. They lack out on many economic opportunities, and suffer from accidental discrimination many steps of the way. They have less opportunity to attend private schools or to even go to college. It's not at all unusual for a black or hispanic student to be told by a school guidance counselor not to even bother applying to college, despite decent grades. Affirmative action is intended to make up somewhat for the disadvantage these people suffer from birth. It is not intended as a make up measure for over racism, nor is it intended to give and advantage to minorities. It's purpose is purely to lower the bar slightly for minorities to account for the economic and social disadvantages they suffer to make the consideration more fair. It was not created to 'create social diversity'. African Americans and Hispanics in particular are still working on digging themselves out of a ridiculously deep economic hole they've been in historically. Now, if you want to argue that they're doing that poorly, that there are better ways to do it, etc., then those would be fair arguments. Maybe I missed something, but why make blanket race statements at all. Like why can't they just focus individually on the socioeconomic background of each applicant, rather than just assuming because they're black (or something) that they should be given advantages? Its an extreme generalization...not all black people are poor! Why not do as the OP wrote: Needs-blind admissions (widely practiced among top universities today) can already somewhat account for socio-economic issues, and the Common App essay along with supplemental essays can have an enormous impact on admissions when children from broken homes describe the challenges that they have overcome. I think that it is in fact racist to assume that simply because one is black or indian that their parents have put them at a disadvantage in their childhood. The best way to stop classifying people by race is to stop classifying people by race, after all. That way if you're poor and went to a bad school, and you're a minority, then you get help. It doesn't change any of that. It just makes the rest of the system fair by not generalizing all minorities as being equal. The system as it is just seems like a lazy cop-out so no one has to do the hard work of figuring out which students deserve to go to university and which don't. Edit: On November 03 2012 01:05 ddrddrddrddr wrote: Just base it off of social class. Poor kids, especially those with uneducated parents, have a harder time in life. This should be the basis for giving them a boost so they can have a stab at a better life that their parents can't give to them. If this benefits one race over another, so be it. This seems 100x more reasonable than affirmative action. | ||
| ||
