EPTSCOTUS case: Fisher v. Texas (Affirmative Action) - Page 5
| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
N.geNuity
United States5112 Posts
| ||
|
XoXiDe
United States620 Posts
On November 03 2012 01:01 PrideNeverDie wrote: 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. Do you really want to get into an unfairness pissing contest between minorities and white people? I don't think you're going to win that one. Your argument might make sense if it was based in reality where everyone is on an equal playing field and the scale tips one way or the other, but the scale is already lopsided. I understand AA might not be the best way, and certainly shouldn't be the only way in promoting equality. But, in this case her grades weren't good enough to guarantee her admission, it's not a matter of "deserving" anything. She's still competing against everyone else who applied. As far your comment towards socioeconomic status, in the Texas case Texas considers socioeconomic status as well, I agree for the most part it wouldn't make sense to give someone from a privileged background more of an advantage. From UT's website http://bealonghorn.utexas.edu/freshmen/after-you-apply/factors Special circumstances in an applicant’s life sometimes help an application reviewer to get a clearer picture of the applicant’s qualifications. The special circumstances we consider include: Socioeconomic status of family Single parent home Language spoken at home Family responsibilities Overcoming adversity Cultural background Race and ethnicity Other information in the file | ||
|
Praetorial
United States4241 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. Well don't keep us waiting. I've said it before and I've said it again. I am both Asian and white, and come from a middle class family. Why should I be penalized for the color of my skin. It is a double standard, and the bullshit about having equality and giving equal opportunity is the same. Ethnicity should never be a factor, EVER. | ||
|
XoXiDe
United States620 Posts
On November 03 2012 01:23 krndandaman wrote: I would admit the 3.7 GPA black kid mainly because of his economic situation, not his race. Perfectly reasonable answer, but his assertion was admission should be made regardless of race and socioeconomic status. | ||
|
Demonhunter04
1530 Posts
 .The real reason for certain minorities being underrepresented in education is known but is kept hidden from the public, like almost all politically incorrect scientific findings. PS: If you live in a state other than California, Washington, Michigan, Nebraska, Arizona, or Connecticut, (these states banned affirmative action) you can list your own race as African-American on college applications and they will not be able to dispute it no matter how you look. By definition, someone with just one African-American ancestor can claim to be that, but since they can't dispute it it doesn't matter. You can get the benefits of being African-American and spite affirmative action at the same time! On November 03 2012 01:43 XoXiDe wrote: Perfectly reasonable answer, but his assertion was admission should be made regardless of race and socioeconomic status. The only problem with choosing the 3.7 GPA black student is that you don't know how well the white student would have done in his situation and vice versa. It may be that the white student would have dealt with it better than the black student did, but since he didn't choose his upbringing, the white student is disadvantaged in this situation because he has not had the opportunity to demonstrate his mental and emotional fortitude. | ||
|
Innovation
United States284 Posts
I really take great personally issue with the way that common law is handled in the US, just because one case posed a precedent it have to continually affect policy of the future to uphold an illusion of fairness, when judiciary changes happen on a yearly basis and conditions surrounding the issue have since shifted to where the original judgement is no longer relevant and needs to be updated. Precedence isn't directly related to principle or correctness, if anything it prevents appropriate actions be taken with in a changing environment. If this gets overturned it becomes an example to overturn Affirmative Action across the board regardless of context, and if it doesn't it prevents changes to be made to the existing Affirmative Action programs. It's bloody stupid. I also dislike the valuation of the idea of precedent in US Law. Precedent certainly should be a contributing factor but most cases have very different mitigating circumstances. There is too much emphasis on precedent and not enough room to adjust for individual case evidence. Edit: that said I am personally against affirmative action | ||
|
Demonhunter04
1530 Posts
On November 03 2012 02:20 Innovation wrote: I also dislike the valuation of the idea of precedent in US Law. Precedent certainly should be a contributing factor but most cases have very different mitigating circumstances. There is too much emphasis on precedent and not enough room to adjust for individual case evidence. The supreme court takes something around 150 cases a year. Precedent is a convenient shortcut to save time, so that new types of cases can be given more time and attention. | ||
|
ghrur
United States3786 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. You say that African Americans and Hispanics are still working on digging themselves out of a deep economic, historic hole. Have Asians not been doing that too? Did the Chinese, the Japanese, the Koreans not have to dig themselves out of a deep economic hole? When they came here and were forced into hard labor, discriminated against in the late 1800-early 1900s, and when the Japanese were forced into labor camps, they suffered no historical damage to their economic mobility? I highly doubt that. What I find the most unfair about AA is that other ethnic groups HAVE been discriminated against, yet do not get the same benefits of AA. If you argue for economic opportunities, then perhaps you should be arguing for AA based on socioeconomic status. Race, however, is not the same as economic status. In fact, there are many poor whites and Asians as well who do not get the benefits of AA, but still get discriminated against because of race. They, too, lack those opportunities to attend private schools or college, do they not? | ||
|
XoXiDe
United States620 Posts
On November 03 2012 02:07 Demonhunter04 wrote: I'm against affirmative action as well, because it's a practice that is only fair on the assumption that people of black or hispanic communities are inherently disadvantaged due to anti-intellectual culture or low socioeconomic status (or any other thing that can be overcome by education). It's also harmful to me because I'm not one of these minorities, so obviously I'd be against it .The real reason for certain minorities being underrepresented in education is known but is kept hidden from the public, like almost all politically incorrect scientific findings. PS: If you live in a state other than California, Washington, Michigan, Nebraska, Arizona, or Connecticut, (these states banned affirmative action) you can list your own race as African-American on college applications and they will not be able to dispute it no matter how you look. By definition, someone with just one African-American ancestor can claim to be that, but since they can't dispute it it doesn't matter. You can get the benefits of being African-American and spite affirmative action at the same time! The only problem with choosing the 3.7 GPA black student is that you don't know how well the white student would have done in his situation and vice versa. It may be that the white student would have dealt with it better than the black student did, but since he didn't choose his upbringing, the white student is disadvantaged in this situation because he has not had the opportunity to demonstrate his mental and emotional fortitude. 'I'm against affirmative action as well, because it's a practice that is only fair on the assumption that people of black or hispanic communities are inherently disadvantaged due to anti-intellectual culture or low socioeconomic status (or any other thing that can be overcome by education)." I'm not sure I'm clear what you are trying to say, I tried to understand it but I don't get what you mean. I think you're saying we shouldn't assume, and its belittling to assume, that black and hispanic communities have an anti-intellectual culture or are disadvantaged because they're poor? I would agree that assumption is belittling. However, it is not an assumption but a reality that many minority communities are in fact facing larger obstacles because of socioeconomic status, (of course there are white families too), whatever culture has developed that seems anti-intellectual has been produced by historical events and government policies not simply because people are minorities (slavery, drug war, white flight, segregation). "The real reason for certain minorities being underrepresented in education is known but is kept hidden from the public, like almost all politically incorrect scientific findings." What/Where are these findings? and I'm still not sure what you're trying to say because the previous statement is contradictory to this one if I'm reading between the lines correctly. In regards to your GPA answer, it is still missing the point. The point is how you measure work ethic and achievement if you want to remove socioeconomic status and race as a consideration for admission, which was the post I was responding to. Do you just look at the numbers cut and dry and decide to take the 4.0 because its better than 3.7? Or is there something to the effort the 3.7 student had to put in to get by? It's fine if you don't think that's fair, but it is a real situation, especially if you do away with other factors and only include academic achievement and "work ethic" as the other poster suggested ( I know this isn't your suggestion), however you want to define and measure it. Kids are applying with whatever they have and being evaluated for that, not what should have or could have been a different United States. Would you want to replace AA with anything? I appreciate your input, actually something you said gave me a clearer view of the opposite perspective. | ||
|
AnachronisticAnarchy
United States2957 Posts
Of course, I believe that those merits include not only results, but also what lies behind those results. Getting straight A's is not as impressive as getting entirely A's and B's while working a job to help out your impoverished family. | ||
|
deth2munkies
United States4051 Posts
"You're disadvantaged because you're a white male. Unless you have an amazing LSAT or are a minority, you're not getting in, which is a ridiculous policy because our statistics showed direct correlation between those with high LSAT scores and success. Almost none of the people accepted due to affirmative action that have low LSAT scores do well in the program." Just sayin'. AA doesn't work from a stats standpoint and is completely retarded from a common sense standpoint, but I'm biased because I'm judging discrimination against me, so take it with a grain of salt. | ||
|
sevencck
Canada704 Posts
Has anyone considered that grades aren't equivalent to merit? Sorry, but some poor bastard Asian kid whose parents force him to study 8 hours per day so he can be #1 (I'm honestly not trying to be offensive or racist, I have many Asian friends, had a Chinese girlfriend for 3 years, and have TA'd a number of these misfits for years, and it's astonishing how much cultural truth there is to this "Asian parent" meme) isn't necessarily the best candidate. Frankly, if this is a cultural aspect among a huge number of Asians, then I'm absolutely in favor of an AA bias against that culture. It's not normal or conducive to human growth to behave that way in your childhood and teenage years. This is an unhealthy cultural element, and I don't think a culture like that should be rewarded with disproportionately large admission to our universities. You guys pretend that race doesn't matter. Culture and socioeconomic condition is intertwined with race to a sufficient degree to justify 10-15% of admissions involving an AA bias. A university should value having many different races, cultures, religions, socioeconomic conditions represented. I don't know why we're talking about whether AA is completely right or completely wrong. Wouldn't it be more sensible to argue to what extent it's justified? | ||
Whitewing
United States7483 Posts
On November 03 2012 02:41 ghrur wrote: You say that African Americans and Hispanics are still working on digging themselves out of a deep economic, historic hole. Have Asians not been doing that too? Did the Chinese, the Japanese, the Koreans not have to dig themselves out of a deep economic hole? When they came here and were forced into hard labor, discriminated against in the late 1800-early 1900s, and when the Japanese were forced into labor camps, they suffered no historical damage to their economic mobility? I highly doubt that. What I find the most unfair about AA is that other ethnic groups HAVE been discriminated against, yet do not get the same benefits of AA. If you argue for economic opportunities, then perhaps you should be arguing for AA based on socioeconomic status. Race, however, is not the same as economic status. In fact, there are many poor whites and Asians as well who do not get the benefits of AA, but still get discriminated against because of race. They, too, lack those opportunities to attend private schools or college, do they not? Asian Americans don't suffer the same disadvantages that African Americans and Hispanics do. Now, I agree that they've been poorly treated historically, REALLY unfairly, but economically they're doing quite well, and have no trouble getting an education. Part of it is that culturally, education is something that's very important to them, so that alone is often enough to counteract the damages. Asian Americans don't usually suffer the same disadvantages with regards to equality of opportunity. And yes, people who are hurt the most by affirmative action are Asians and Jews, and yes, I am well aware of that fact. | ||
|
oneofthem
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
there is a high premium for the very top top places, but eh, cry me a river for not getting into harvard with a 3.9 gpa (or 95 in the case of stuy lol) | ||
|
Demonhunter04
1530 Posts
On November 03 2012 04:32 XoXiDe wrote: I'm not sure I'm clear what you are trying to say, I tried to understand it but I don't get what you mean. I think you're saying we shouldn't assume, and its belittling to assume, that black and hispanic communities have an anti-intellectual culture or are disadvantaged because they're poor? I would agree that assumption is belittling. However, it is not an assumption but a reality that many minority communities are in fact facing larger obstacles because of socioeconomic status, (of course there are white families too), whatever culture has developed that seems anti-intellectual has been produced by historical events and government policies not simply because people are minorities (slavery, drug war, white flight, segregation). Being black or hispanic does not automatically mean you are poor or were raised in an environment that regards intellectual pursuits disfavorably, but it does automatically mean that, ceteris paribus, you are given an advantage over other students. There is obviously a correlation, and I'm not disputing that. Anti-intellectualistic culture is a whole different topic I'll avoid for now. What/Where are these findings? and I'm still not sure what you're trying to say because the previous statement is contradictory to this one if I'm reading between the lines correctly. It's not contradictory. Here's a paper I recommend you read: Thirty Years of Research on Race Differences in Cognitive Ability In regards to your GPA answer, it is still missing the point. The point is how you measure work ethic and achievement if you want to remove socioeconomic status and race as a consideration for admission, which was the post I was responding to. Do you just look at the numbers cut and dry and decide to take the 4.0 because its better than 3.7? Or is there something to the effort the 3.7 student had to put in to get by? It's fine if you don't think that's fair, but it is a real situation, especially if you do away with other factors and only include academic achievement and "work ethic" as the other poster suggested ( I know this isn't your suggestion), however you want to define and measure it. Kids are applying with whatever they have and being evaluated for that, not what should have or could have been a different United States. Would you want to replace AA with anything? The example they used omitted all the other information one would use to judge which student is a better choice, so I didn't take it into account. Looking at someone who had a tough background and guessing that it resulted in them being more prepared for dealing with college is too huge a leap. Personality and neurology shapes how you perceive and deal with experiences mentally. For some, hardship and poverty motivates them to try and escape it, so perhaps the 3.7 GPA black student would have a lower GPA were he born into a wealthy family, and maybe the white student would have done even better if he was raised in a worse environment. For others, hardship demotivates them and leads them to a life of crime, in which case it might be a bad idea to select someone from that background. Colleges also place emphasis on extracurricular activities. While it's feasible for poor students to go to school, they often cannot afford many of these activities and so the wealthy are advantaged here. I do not think that it is a reasonable assumption to say that AA evens it out. As for replacing AA with something, I feel the issue is more fundamental than that and is a problem with the education system itself, and is beyond the scope of this thread. The real flaw in college applications is the way they gauge your capability and in what they think is important. | ||
|
Sub40APM
6336 Posts
On November 03 2012 01:35 N.geNuity wrote: socioeconomic background should be the basis for AA rather than race anymore. I concur. The African American kids I met in law school and in law practice for the most part come from the narrow layer of middle and upper class African Americans that exist in the States. My experiences might not be based in hard statistics but I'd say I encountered 4-5 years worth of admitted students to my top law school and top law firm. Most of the African Americans I encountered (a) displayed a range of competence equivalent to everyone else, with some getting federal clerkships and some being unemployed due to the shitty law economy that arrived in 08 and (b) the plurality of them were paying for law school via their parents. Conversely some really poor white people I've met in law school now have the equivalent of a house mortgage, at 7.9% to slog through. | ||
|
cz
United States3249 Posts
| ||
|
Sub40APM
6336 Posts
On November 03 2012 04:44 deth2munkies wrote: I actually was talking with an admissions person at a law school I'm applying to who essentially said (paraphrased): "You're disadvantaged because you're a white male. Unless you have an amazing LSAT or are a minority, you're not getting in, which is a ridiculous policy because our statistics showed direct correlation between those with high LSAT scores and success. Almost none of the people accepted due to affirmative action that have low LSAT scores do well in the program." Just sayin'. AA doesn't work from a stats standpoint and is completely retarded from a common sense standpoint, but I'm biased because I'm judging discrimination against me, so take it with a grain of salt. My law school class had more white people than their % of the population. If the admission person was from a top 14 then they were straight up lying to you. PS. If you are applying to law school right now and are going to self finance, you should really think long and hard about it. The economy for lawyers is brutal. It will continue to be brutal. Putting up 160k into that and graduating to unemployment or working at 50k as a tort lawyer is pretty awful. | ||
|
cz
United States3249 Posts
On November 03 2012 01:42 Praetorial wrote: Well don't keep us waiting. I've said it before and I've said it again. I am both Asian and white, and come from a middle class family. Why should I be penalized for the color of my skin. It is a double standard, and the bullshit about having equality and giving equal opportunity is the same. Ethnicity should never be a factor, EVER. You won't get an answer. His message is the classic shaming / guilt-trip you see from people who want to manipulate you into acquiescing to them; no logic needed. | ||
|
FabledIntegral
United States9232 Posts
A typical argument is that black people are underrepresented because they have been continually repressed in the past, meaning they are less educated and therefore lower income wage earners. They are consequently less likely to attend college, etc. If this is true, then they should make up a larger portion of the pool of bottom class applicants, and thus should still have preference. | ||
| ||
