|
On November 03 2012 01:19 XoXiDe wrote:Show nested quote +On November 03 2012 00:20 dannystarcraft wrote: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. 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.
I think there is diversity outside of someone's race. If I were to go to a school that was all white, all black, or all asian, it is inevitable that there will be some diversity that is present. Whether there are nerds, jocks, rednecks, or hipsters, there will be differences and therefore diversity.
I think the diversity that I roughly described above is important. Racial diversity is nice, but nothing that should be acquired at the penalty of others. Again, I think diversity is very important to the learning experience (in some majors more than others), but there is diversity aside from a generalization based on race.
Your hypothetical situation about the students is interesting (that being said it would never happen). What the university would do, is probably bump off another student with a 3.7 gpa, and let the less privileged student with a 3.7 gpa in. Then also let in the 4.0 gpa student. Everyone wins... sorta, but I don't think I really answered the question you wanted me to! ^^
If gpa were truly a measure of intelligence and intellectual ability and work ethic applied to school (assumptions... assumptions), I would admit the 4.0 gpa student over the 3.7 gpa student.
|
On November 04 2012 08:41 peekn wrote:We are in a time where AA is not needed, maybe 30-40+ years ago when racism was a real thing, but at the University level, and everywhere else, racism is a thing of the past ahahaahahaha
maybe 30-40 years ago when we were racist
but now there is no racism anymore
ahhahahahaha
literally inconceivable that you are not white
User was temp banned for this post.
|
On November 02 2012 06:05 Sated wrote:Show nested quote +On November 02 2012 05:59 sevencck wrote:
I think what the University is doing is morally OK, but they may need to rearrange the numbers. For example, perhaps more than the top 10% should have guaranteed admission based on academic excellence. I think they're right when they say that creating an environment where different cultures/races are represented is valuable at a university, but guaranteed admission based on academic merit should play a larger role than 10%.
In other words, academic excellence should be far better represented at a university than culture/race should be, but I'd argue both are important. No, both are not important. Merit alone should be used to judge potential students (and potential employees if we look more broadly). If 100% of the best students/employees/whatever happen to be white or happen to be black then so be it.
Although I understand the argument for cultural and racial diversity in higher education, I have to agree with Sated, because in the most objective mindset race and culture do not matter. In fact, when you do some deep thinking, I find it odd...or rather sad, that we think in terms of race and culture. It's not realistic in our society, but in reality we are all human, all the same. So we should help everyone the same, and strive for equality for humans not for whites/blacks/asians/latinos/etc, but as a species. As such, our motivation for programs like Affirmative Action (which has the right intentions, but the wrong methodology) should be to create equal opportunities for all humans, not just minorities. But like I said, probably not realistic.
Realistically, programs should act on their target demographics below the college admissions level. We should focus efforts on creating a level playing field BY THE TIME students need to be applying for college. Simply lowering standards for the kids that were at a disadvantage is not acceptable. If their are programs like "One Laptop per Child" for children in Africa, and it's feasible, then certainly we can provide opportunities for our own. And it's my non-expert opinion that the real problem is the "attitude" in lower income communities that makes it difficult for kids who want to excel in academics but find it difficult because of the community which is violent and judgemental.
|
On November 03 2012 13:09 Manit0u wrote:Show nested quote +On November 02 2012 07:03 Caihead wrote:On November 02 2012 07:01 whatevername wrote:
Because its treating people based on peripheral and irrelevant physical characteristics? Because its discriminatory? The principle of affirmative action is to overcome an existing discriminatory / unfair disadvantage based on irrelevant characteristics, often the only way to do that is to offer advantages to the least advantaged. The degree and implementation is up to debate but the principle isn't wrong at all, people only cry about it when they feel that they themselves are being inconvenienced. No body is up in arms about charities helping those in poverty by giving them money or housing for free. This principle is wrong. Any form of admission (university, work etc.) should be based on merit alone and not being tarnished by some dumb arbitrary thing like meeting a certain quota of people with specific complexion, disabilities and so on. "Offering advantage to the disadvantaged"? What are you even talking here about? Are you telling me that a black person can't study just as hard as white person, or vice versa, and one of them needs some special advantage over the other? Please...Let's take a quick look at how it's around here: Automatic admission: you get that only if you're one of the finalists of a 3rd stage (state-wide) science olympics in a given subject. That's right, only when you went beyond what was required of you in highschool and proven that you're actually good at it. Highschool scores have 0 impact on your admission, so does being good at sports, legacy and other bullshit like that. Giving advantages to the disadvantaged: you come from a poor family? No problem, the university is actually paying you to study if you got admitted. Students who come out of town and from poorer families get first dibs on the dorm rooms. It seems like you got some things backwards in the land of the free...
??? This actually happens you know? I am not saying AA is the answer, but to say that everyone has an equal opportunity for success in the education system is a fucking joke.
|
On November 04 2012 10:11 Zoomacroom wrote:Show nested quote +On November 04 2012 08:41 peekn wrote:We are in a time where AA is not needed, maybe 30-40+ years ago when racism was a real thing, but at the University level, and everywhere else, racism is a thing of the past ahahaahahaha maybe 30-40 years ago when we were racist but now there is no racism anymore ahhahahahaha literally inconceivable that you are not white
Most college educated people(and this includes the college admission board etc.) are not very racist. It's because they are educated.
Racism is in EVERY country, not just in predominately white countries.
To your last comment, I actually think minorities in the USA can be extremely racist.
|
In response to the OP, I think Affirmative Action should end, and they should focus more on income level. Children who are poor are at a big disadvantage compared to their wealthier peers(and this will still help minorities).
|
On November 04 2012 10:54 Judicator wrote:
??? This actually happens you know? I am not saying AA is the answer, but to say that everyone has an equal opportunity for success in the education system is a fucking joke.
at some point old rich white guys figured out that you could make the discussions of racism go away if you simply screamed that such discussions were in themselves racist.
now, I doubt that the people who buy into this on TL, who are a young bunch, are as calculating as that and I suspect they simply want to believe it out of a desire to leave behind our terrible history of racism in the states. unfortunately, it makes it very hard to have civilized discourse on the matter as it tends to get shut down as charges of racism and reverse racism (something that I as a white male find laughable but w.ever) get thrown around early and often and derail any discussion of the matter.
my own impression is that at least 2/3rds of the people against affirmative action in this thread base their position on the idealistic pursuit of racial equality, if not all of them. unfortunately for them, the statistics do not support their position that the solution has solved itself over time or that there is any indication that it will so in the future.
in short, I agree with your post.
|
I think the UT system is dead, but it depends on how conservative the court is. If the Court takes the equal protection clause and the 14th Amendment both into consideration literally, then I don't think the system can stand. Things have changed a lot since Grutter and Bakke. The system, when you take away everything else, is saying that they will accept a black/hispanic/other race over a white if all other criteria besides race are equal, which is inherently unconstitutional.
|
On November 04 2012 10:59 guN-viCe wrote:
In response to the OP, I think Affirmative Action should end, and they should focus more on income level. Children who are poor are at a big disadvantage compared to their wealthier peers(and this will still help minorities).
Honestly I don't know why AA was not pointed towards low income individuals rather than [Insert non-white/asian ethnic group] in the first place. Nothing discrimates like money they say, so help the poor who have it the toughest.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On November 04 2012 09:38 red_b wrote:
I went to high school in Texas and did not make it into UT. My year had a lot of strong students and I went to a very high income high school and despite having more than a dozen 4 or 5s on AP exams I didn't study much and didn't make the cutoff because my gpa wasn't good enough. Im white as shit, both my parents have graduate degrees and had sufficient income that my application was never even considered.
In the end I went to a different undergraduate program, decided at some point to show up to class and graduated with honors, then went to highly ranked graduate program.
I am what this girl could be if she acted with some class and maturity instead of crying that she didn't get in. Hey girl, get better grades if you want to go to UT and your school is good.
The next town from mine was desperately poor. Had a huge population of low income, immigrant/migrant students. Had UT only gone on GPA and test scores, I would have taken the spot of one of the kids from their run down, gang-ridden high school. But even after that, I'm not mad. I'm not bitter.
A kid who worked hard to do the best he could in shitty circumstances got a chance he deserved and my dad's money made sure I ended up ahead of most people in the end anyway.
Im telling you, as a supposed "victim" of affirmative action, that I support affirmative action and Texas' admissions plan.
I think if more people who were in my position were more honest with themselves, they would realize that they actually do have a lot of unfair advantages and that there are plenty of opportunities that giving a poor kid a shot to go to a state school isn't a bad thing.
quality post and outstanding guy
|
On November 04 2012 09:38 red_b wrote:
I went to high school in Texas and did not make it into UT. My year had a lot of strong students and I went to a very high income high school and despite having more than a dozen 4 or 5s on AP exams I didn't study much and didn't make the cutoff because my gpa wasn't good enough. Im white as shit, both my parents have graduate degrees and had sufficient income that my application was never even considered.
In the end I went to a different undergraduate program, decided at some point to show up to class and graduated with honors, then went to highly ranked graduate program.
I am what this girl could be if she acted with some class and maturity instead of crying that she didn't get in. Hey girl, get better grades if you want to go to UT and your school is good.
The next town from mine was desperately poor. Had a huge population of low income, immigrant/migrant students. Had UT only gone on GPA and test scores, I would have taken the spot of one of the kids from their run down, gang-ridden high school. But even after that, I'm not mad. I'm not bitter.
A kid who worked hard to do the best he could in shitty circumstances got a chance he deserved and my dad's money made sure I ended up ahead of most people in the end anyway.
Im telling you, as a supposed "victim" of affirmative action, that I support affirmative action and Texas' admissions plan.
I think if more people who were in my position were more honest with themselves, they would realize that they actually do have a lot of unfair advantages and that there are plenty of opportunities that giving a poor kid a shot to go to a state school isn't a bad thing.
slowclap.gif
i raise my glass to you sir
|
On November 04 2012 09:38 red_b wrote:
I went to high school in Texas and did not make it into UT. My year had a lot of strong students and I went to a very high income high school and despite having more than a dozen 4 or 5s on AP exams I didn't study much and didn't make the cutoff because my gpa wasn't good enough. Im white as shit, both my parents have graduate degrees and had sufficient income that my application was never even considered.
In the end I went to a different undergraduate program, decided at some point to show up to class and graduated with honors, then went to highly ranked graduate program.
I am what this girl could be if she acted with some class and maturity instead of crying that she didn't get in. Hey girl, get better grades if you want to go to UT and your school is good.
The next town from mine was desperately poor. Had a huge population of low income, immigrant/migrant students. Had UT only gone on GPA and test scores, I would have taken the spot of one of the kids from their run down, gang-ridden high school. But even after that, I'm not mad. I'm not bitter.
A kid who worked hard to do the best he could in shitty circumstances got a chance he deserved and my dad's money made sure I ended up ahead of most people in the end anyway.
Im telling you, as a supposed "victim" of affirmative action, that I support affirmative action and Texas' admissions plan.
I think if more people who were in my position were more honest with themselves, they would realize that they actually do have a lot of unfair advantages and that there are plenty of opportunities that giving a poor kid a shot to go to a state school isn't a bad thing.
Two things, first of all, Fisher has attended another school and graduated, and still followed through with the suit, so I'm not sure why you characterize her as classless and immature, but whatever.
Secondly, you yourself framed this as an income disparity problem, not a racial problem. So why is it so bad to fight against using race as a preferential characteristic rather then income?
|
Im against any form of tempering with rightful meritocracy.
Not against giving them a few spots, but the rate at which its being done, its destroying meritocracy
|
The solution to racial discrimination is to stop all forms of discrimination on the basis of race.
I hope that affirmative action is struck down, and that the US can finally take another step towards racial equality.
|
On November 04 2012 11:08 red_b wrote:Show nested quote +On November 04 2012 10:54 Judicator wrote:
??? This actually happens you know? I am not saying AA is the answer, but to say that everyone has an equal opportunity for success in the education system is a fucking joke.
at some point old rich white guys figured out that you could make the discussions of racism go away if you simply screamed that such discussions were in themselves racist.
I don't know about old rich white guys but Morgan Freeman has been pretty vocal on stopping racism by not talking about it.
|
On November 04 2012 10:59 guN-viCe wrote:
In response to the OP, I think Affirmative Action should end, and they should focus more on income level. Children who are poor are at a big disadvantage compared to their wealthier peers(and this will still help minorities).
I agree mostly, but it fails to take into account the culture importance that some ethnic groups place on their children to succeed in school versus the amount that other ethnic groups place on it.
|
On November 04 2012 11:39 hinnolinn wrote:Show nested quote +On November 04 2012 09:38 red_b wrote:
I went to high school in Texas and did not make it into UT. My year had a lot of strong students and I went to a very high income high school and despite having more than a dozen 4 or 5s on AP exams I didn't study much and didn't make the cutoff because my gpa wasn't good enough. Im white as shit, both my parents have graduate degrees and had sufficient income that my application was never even considered.
In the end I went to a different undergraduate program, decided at some point to show up to class and graduated with honors, then went to highly ranked graduate program.
I am what this girl could be if she acted with some class and maturity instead of crying that she didn't get in. Hey girl, get better grades if you want to go to UT and your school is good.
The next town from mine was desperately poor. Had a huge population of low income, immigrant/migrant students. Had UT only gone on GPA and test scores, I would have taken the spot of one of the kids from their run down, gang-ridden high school. But even after that, I'm not mad. I'm not bitter.
A kid who worked hard to do the best he could in shitty circumstances got a chance he deserved and my dad's money made sure I ended up ahead of most people in the end anyway.
Im telling you, as a supposed "victim" of affirmative action, that I support affirmative action and Texas' admissions plan.
I think if more people who were in my position were more honest with themselves, they would realize that they actually do have a lot of unfair advantages and that there are plenty of opportunities that giving a poor kid a shot to go to a state school isn't a bad thing. Two things, first of all, Fisher has attended another school and graduated, and still followed through with the suit, so I'm not sure why you characterize her as classless and immature, but whatever. Secondly, you yourself framed this as an income disparity problem, not a racial problem. So why is it so bad to fight against using race as a preferential characteristic rather then income?
Indeed, what difference does the race of the kids from the run down poor school make? Sure, the rich kids have an advantage when it comes to their upbringing. Yes, this should be taken into consideration. But affirmative action isn't helping the dirt poor kids from run-down, gang-ridden high schools unless they're a minority. Barack Obama's kids get the same affirmative action that inner-city kids with parents working 3 jobs. Considerations should be made based on the backgrounds of applicants. Those considerations should not be based on race. It's wrong. If race is as big of a disadvantage as some people would paint it to be than this would show through AA based on socioeconomic status. Minorities would be getting the boost anyway. But minorities who don't need it wouldn't be, and that would be an improvement.
|
On November 03 2012 05:38 Whitewing wrote:Show nested quote +On November 03 2012 02:41 ghrur wrote: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? 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.
... That was my point? Asian Americans are doing well DESPITE being treated "REALLY unfairly" historically, yet they now get punished because they accomplished precisely what AA aims to do. They cultivated that culture of education, and I highly doubt it was thanks to affirmative action. They don't suffer the same disadvantages BECAUSE they've been able to climb the socioeconomic ladders, yet they're being punished for doing so by AA. It defeats the whole purpose of it, which is to bring minority groups up. Instead, the one minority group that raises itself up is pushed down in favor of other minority groups which have yet to raise themselves up because they have, I suppose, different cultures which do not value education as much. And you know what else is ironic? Because they value education, AA makes it that much harder for them to get a great education.
|
On November 04 2012 12:44 [UoN]Sentinel wrote:Show nested quote +On November 04 2012 11:08 red_b wrote:On November 04 2012 10:54 Judicator wrote:
??? This actually happens you know? I am not saying AA is the answer, but to say that everyone has an equal opportunity for success in the education system is a fucking joke.
at some point old rich white guys figured out that you could make the discussions of racism go away if you simply screamed that such discussions were in themselves racist. I don't know about old rich white guys but Morgan Freeman has been pretty vocal on stopping racism by not talking about it.
Morgan freeman is an old and extremly rich black man.
Morgan probably understands how obscene it is for extremly wealthy black guys to make middle-class white people feel guilty (or punish them) about slavery or discrimination since these people (and even the overwhelming majority of their ancestors) never were in a position to practice them.
|
Yeah, strike it down. Too much like a quota, too little in keeping with the freedom that law provides (In this case 14th Amendment). Let the grants continue to provide financial support to students who cannot afford it, and a free market generate the loans for families with good credit that cannot afford it without the loan (a big discussion of its own to be sure, especially in the case of Florida and school fees by degree). Let the focus be to improvements in schools with high "minority" percentages (i.e. where minorities make up the majority) that under perform and not the colleges that have high admissions criteria.
I myself benefited from a similar program in California, where a top percentage of high school graduates would have guaranteed admission into a state college. To think that my race might've been the deciding point if I had missed the cutoff is disgusting. That would be similar to disgust I feel for the ad hominem attacks on the minorities daring to oppose constant race discourse in favor of a colorblind society.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
