What do you guys think about Affirmative Action?

trytej

trytej

CAGiversary!
Feedback
8 (100%)
So I have an essay on Affirmative Action due soon, and don't know if I'm pro or con.

What do you guys think?

P.S. Some website links would be greatly appreciated. :D
 
[quote name='PittsburghAfterDark']It's illegal under the 14th Ammendment.

Beginning and end of facts.[/QUOTE]

More or less my opinion also.
 
Dunno what kind of school you're in, but show some respect for yourself and your teacher by not sourcing the internet. It'll make me proud, for what that's worth.

As far as Affirmative Action is concerned, many, many opponents will criticize it, saying that it is "reverse discrimination." PAD likes to cloak his suggestion by saying that impedes a pure meritocracy (people earn what they work for), claiming it violates the 14th amendment.

What he won't tell you is that there continues to be widespread discrimination against African-Americans, in particular, in hiring. So, what people in favor of Affirmative Action start with, is data that PROVES racism is alive and well in our society, and in particular in the job market.

So, I will not deny that Affirmative Action is "reverse discrimination." However, those who oppose it on those grounds alone seem to have little to no interest in eliminating the kind of discrimination that favors whites in the current job market.

In the end, opponents of discrimination are like this: they oppose policies that favor blacks and discriminate against whites, yet they don't seem to mind the status quo, in which blacks are discriminated and whites are favored.

That opponents of Affirmative Action have offered no alternative policy suggestions to eliminate market-based racism is evidence of that fact; they simply aren't interested in doing away with that which benefits them.

Devah Pager did a nice study (one I've cited to death, I think), available in article form (the article is called "The Mark of a Criminal Record," but I can't recall the journal - try Google scholar); she shows how white males with felony convictions get more job opportunities than black males (with identical demographics, seeking the same jobs) with NO criminal background. All things being equal, race and criminal background are the only variables that changed. Since we would expect a criminal record to hurt people's chances of getting employed, it's disturbingly revealing that it doesn't hurt one's chances as much as being black does.

That's my take. I'm in favor of it, only because no alternative means have been proposed to create more integrated professional workplaces. I believe that, if implemented, it will do a great deal to curb African-American beliefs that they have no chances to "make it" in society by legitimate means, which will have reciprocal effects of increasing all education markers (attendance, graduation, grades), and possibly decrease children born to teens and single parents (since more education correlates very well with fewer children being born).

Hope this helps. Don't plagiarize, and don't source the internet.
 
[quote name='PittsburghAfterDark']It's illegal under the 14th Ammendment.

Beginning and end of facts.[/QUOTE]



No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws
Click to expand...

It does not say laws attempting to correct previous harms, with the goal of making the living standard of minorities equal to whites, are unconstitutional.

Here's a good article:

As the civil war was ending, many Americans understood that it would not be enough merely to say "No" to slavery. The need for positive action was seen to be justified; negative action--rejecting slavery--would not be enough.

The Fourteenth Amendment offered equality and justice. Along with the Amendment came several years of Freedman's Bureau legislation. To undergird freedom special benefits--land, crop aid, grants--were provided for the freed by the same Congress that drafted the Amendment's promise of Equal Protection of the Laws.
Special benefits for blacks, ex-slaves, were not said to be in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment.



Ninety years later, in 1954, the Supreme Court in the Brown decision ruled that state-imposed segregation in the schools was--and therefore had been--in conflict with the Amendment. So, too, as a series of rulings that followed made evident, were all the indignities, the damage, inflicted by a segregated society.

The flat-out disregard of the Brown decision, and the new round of frustrated hopes for interracial justice, brought a much higher and more visible level of activism in the civil rights movement, north and south. The brutal response to this helped to mold widely felt sentiment for a new and vigorous public policy. Government yielded to pressure for action to put an end to the customs and local laws that had been doing for so long what the Fourteenth Amendment forbade.

A new round of laws saying "No" was enacted. They put into dramatic focus the consequences of denial for so long of the protection that the Fourteenth Amendment had promised. There arose almost spontaneously among white civic leaders a sense of what had to be done.

In education, in business, in public life, in the more responsible segments of the media, and in the highest circles of government a new consensus developed. Not only negative enforcement was called for. Positive action was required to undo to the extent feasible the damage that had been done. That, too, became the national public policy. That was the source of the movement for what came to be called "Affirmative Action."

From coast to coast there were hundreds of local initiatives producing a positive response. One was at a medical school at the University of California campus at Davis. The sentiment for a response was enhanced by an awakening to the shocking disproportion between white and nonwhite physicians.

It was not difficult for the doctors to diagnose: a bequest from the era of disadvantage imposed after the end of Reconstruction after the Civil War. It did not matter that the medical schools were not at fault: the Davis facility was only three years old, but its administration (all white physicians) knew that they had to face the situation.

The fact was plain: the first year class had not admitted any black students--nor any Hispanic or Native Americans for that matter. The prescription devised to solve this and to comply with the national public policy was this: the next class to be admited would have one hundred openings, and sixteen places would be reserved for minorities who did have minimum qualifications or better, but who might have test scores lower than some whites.

Alan Bakke had been trained to be and was employed at a NASA installation as a scientist. No longer as young as the average college graduate, he decided he wanted to change his career. He filed an application to the Davis campus medical school in 1973, without success. On reapplying and failing again, he had learned of the Davis Affirmative Action plan, and concluded that it was the cause. He sued.

The case was litigated in a changed national atmosphere. Now a remedial policy based on the proposition that what had been wrongfully denied should be granted, that it was in the national interest to draw disadvantaged minorities into the main channels of national life, had lost popularity. It became extremely uncomfortable for many who had advanced while blacks were out of the running to contemplate what might happen if they were given an opportunity to catch up.

The Fourteenth Amendment, the idea of equal protection of the laws, was suddenly popular among many who had hardly ever heard about it and knew little of its history. The slogan "reverse discrimination" was coined to attack programs that had been conceived and administered by white men, who had not the slightest bias against whites as a class or desire to take advantage of them.

The judgment of the Court upheld Bakke's admission to the medical school and struck down the minority admission plan. The decisive vote came from Justice Lewis Powell, who aligned himself with Associate Justice Rehnquist and three others in voting down the university's claim. This despite the significance of the historical truth with which Justice Powell introduced the discussion of the Fourteenth Amendment:

The Equal Protection Clause was "virtually strangled in infancy by post-Civil War judicial reactionism." It was relegated to decades of relative desuetude while the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth, after a short germinal period, flourished as a cornerstone in the Court's defense of property and liberty of contract.​

That succinct paragraph deserves more attention than it has received from courts or those concerned with the ultimate fate of affirmative action. It is description of a significant segment of our nation's history.

It should have been a decisive factor in cases such as Bakke's, which had to decide what to do about a constitutional clause that was dormant for so long. That and another passage in which Justice Powell's opinion acknowledged "the continued exclusion of Negroes from the mainstream of American society."

The decision of the Court rejected the University's admission rules. It did not discuss the significance of the "judicial reactionism" that "nearly strangled" the amendment. The Court had a great opportunity and failed.

No precedent dictated the result the Court should reach in Bakke's case. There was no applicable "law" as to the choice to make, in responding to a century of nullification.

Since the Constitution did not contemplate that there would be such disregard for so long, it did not provide guidance as to what was to be done. There was certainly no reason to believe that the Framers of the Amendment intended that its Equal Protection Clause should go into effect immediately and with full intensity after having been violated for so long.

There being no precedent, Justice Powell patched together an opinion built on "dicta," words taken out of their context in other rulings. He declared that the right to Equal Protection was "personal," a phrase utterly meaningless when it was a group that was the victim. He said that any remedy would have to be "narrowly tailored"--a ridiculous phrase to use when a broad group had been affected. He declined to allow a remedy for "societal discrimination," when what was being judged was a nation and its Court's disregard of the very constitutional provision at stake.

The Fourteenth Amendment itself was the fruit of a necessary and wise solution for a comparable problem. The Constitution in effect in 1861 did not contemplate or provide for what was to be done should members of the Union declare themselves to be in a state of "secession" and levy war on the United States. Congress had no power under the basic law as written to enact Reconstruction laws such as one that ordered a state to ratify a constitutional amendment (in this case the Fourteenth) before being treated as a fully qualified one.

The implicit recognition of that power in those circumstances by the Court in Texas v. White and other cases after the Civil War could have been used to guide the Court in 1978.

As in previous epochs, the slim majority of the Court was following the "election returns." And as in the era of Reconstruction, toward its end, the Court's ruling in the Bakke case was used to justify the anti-affirmative action movement.

The main point lost, there was a sort of "consolation" prize. Justice Powell joined the dissenting justices on one point. A majority was put together to recognize that the role of a university in society was such that it could properly seek diversity in a student body and treat race as a plus in admitting minority members.
Over the years following 1978, the Court's opinions in a variety of affirmative action cases varied. Fractured opinions in some cases produced favorable majorities, but only for the benefit of limited groups directly affected. And the Bakke-created shibboleths--"narrowly tailored," "no societal discrimination," "equal protection personal"--were repetitiously referred to. When the elevation of Justice Rehnquist to Chief and the addition of Justice Scalia were followed by the arrival of Clarence Thomas, a combination was forged that produced the broadly negative Aderand case that has, since 1995, brought lower courts to reject even the "diversity" idea as no longer sound law.
Click to expand...

http://hnn.us/articles/1263.html
 
[quote name='mykevermin']Hope this helps. Don't plagiarize, and don't source the internet.[/QUOTE]

Why shouldn't he source the internet, grandpa?
 
I'm all for helping create an equal society for races, ethnicities and whatnot.

I am NOT for lowering standards for specific ethnicities to allow for greater diversity. I don't like that it took more effort on my part to reach parity with specific minorities. Apparently, the 29 on my ACT score is equivelent to a 25 on a black person's ACT score.

[quote name='camoor']Why shouldn't he source the internet, grandpa?[/QUOTE]

Because, it's obvious that public libraries are full of VERY useful information and EBSCO and Infotrac are available to high schoolers.
 
[quote name='camoor']Why shouldn't he source the internet, grandpa?[/QUOTE]

Do you REALLY need me to spell that out for you?
 
If he means no scholarly journal articles available online, then I disagree. Those things are the lifeblood of any/all students.
 
[quote name='capitalist_mao']I am NOT for lowering standards for specific ethnicities to allow for greater diversity. I don't like that it took more effort on my part to reach parity with specific minorities. Apparently, the 29 on my ACT score is equivelent to a 25 on a black person's ACT score.[/QUOTE]

It's been a LOOOOOONG time since I took the SAT or ASVAB (Military equivilent of standardized testing for various training slots.) and I never took the ACT, LSAT or any other standardized admissions test. I never even worried about race when taking them or any admissions process I've ever been in. The University I went to was 95%+ white, the military really is based on merit except in rare cases of familes (Dad or mom is a General, Admiral.), the rare "Senator or Congressmen" pets and West Point bias. Push comes to shove a WP grad is up for the same slot you are and a "tie" decision is up to a fellow WP grad, you're hosed.

I'm genuinely curious on what basis or experience you rate the 29/25 ACT score on. Unless you've worked in admissions is it really semi-common knowledge that scores for whites, Asians, Indians, blacks or Hispanics are all weighted? I mean this is like allowing golfers with varying handicaps to tee off from the women's, men's or professional tees.

You all are much closer in admissions age than me and I'd like to hear your anecdotal stories from either yourselves, friends or family have dealt with this.
 
[quote name='PittsburghAfterDark']It's been a LOOOOOONG time since I took the SAT or ASVAB (Military equivilent of standardized testing for various training slots.) and I never took the ACT, LSAT or any other standardized admissions test. I never even worried about race when taking them or any admissions process I've ever been in. The University I went to was 95%+ white, the military really is based on merit except in rare cases of familes (Dad or mom is a General, Admiral.), the rare "Senator or Congressmen" pets and West Point bias. Push comes to shove a WP grad is up for the same slot you are and a "tie" decision is up to a fellow WP grad, you're hosed.

I'm genuinely curious on what basis or experience you rate the 29/25 ACT score on. Unless you've worked in admissions is it really semi-common knowledge that scores for whites, Asians, Indians, blacks or Hispanics are all weighted? I mean this is like allowing golfers with varying handicaps to tee off from the women's, men's or professional tees.

You all are much closer in admissions age than me and I'd like to hear your anecdotal stories from either yourselves, friends or family have dealt with this.[/QUOTE]

Half of this was based on personal testimonial of people in the racial politics class I took years ago. The other half in various literature I read for the class. Unfortunately, I cannot cite any of it, since I sold all those (terrible) books long ago. This also tends to go along the lines of the case 2 years ago where being black awards you more points on their potential student meter than being white. Of course, they ruled out the quota system rather than ruling out the point system.
 
[quote name='capitalist_mao']Half of this was based on personal testimonial of people in the racial politics class I took years ago. The other half in various literature I read for the class. Unfortunately, I cannot cite any of it, since I sold all those (terrible) books long ago. This also tends to go along the lines of the case 2 years ago where being black awards you more points on their potential student meter than being white. Of course, they ruled out the quota system rather than ruling out the point system.[/QUOTE]

That case of specific points given to race stood out since that wasn't the norm, it was an extreme example.
 
[quote name='alonzomourning23']That case of specific points given to race stood out since that wasn't the norm, it was an extreme example.[/QUOTE]

It was an extreme example, however, many schools do give special preference to specific ethnicities. Or, lower standards are set for specific ethnicities to encourage higher enrollment for the sake of diversity.
 
[quote name='capitalist_mao']It was an extreme example, however, many schools do give special preference to specific ethnicities. Or, lower standards are set for specific ethnicities to encourage higher enrollment for the sake of diversity.[/QUOTE]

Or they simply have a minimum quota.
 
[quote name='capitalist_mao']It was an extreme example, however, many schools do give special preference to specific ethnicities. Or, lower standards are set for specific ethnicities to encourage higher enrollment for the sake of diversity.[/QUOTE]

From my own experience, more diverse schools have a more socially and politically aware student body. There are also a lot more perspectives voiced in class discussions. There is a better learning environment overall. Schools with little diversity tend to be locked away in their own little world, and the atmosphere is more like high school, which does a disservice to the students attending. I'm in one like that now, I hate it.
 
[quote name='alonzomourning23']From my own experience, more diverse schools have a more socially and politically aware student body. There are also a lot more perspectives voiced in class discussions. There is a better learning environment overall. Schools with little diversity tend to be locked away in their own little world, and the atmosphere is more like high school, which does a disservice to the students attending. I'm in one like that now, I hate it.[/QUOTE]

Notice how this has absolutley nothing to do with affirmative action, except the underlying implication that it can't be achieved without AA.
 
[quote name='zionoverfire']Notice how this has absolutley nothing to do with affirmative action, except the underlying implication that it can't be achieved without AA.[/QUOTE]

It deals with the issue, since it is a benefit of AA. "For the sake of diversity" was used, as if diversity alone was the point, it's the things diversity brings with it, beyond the basic premise of improving the lives of a statistically disadvantaged group. Also, PAD asked about peoples experiences with AA a few posts ago.
 
[quote name='alonzomourning23']From my own experience, more diverse schools have a more socially and politically aware student body. There are also a lot more perspectives voiced in class discussions. There is a better learning environment overall. Schools with little diversity tend to be locked away in their own little world, and the atmosphere is more like high school, which does a disservice to the students attending. I'm in one like that now, I hate it.[/QUOTE]

Schools like mine, which encourage diversity in the population, typically have a population that segregates itself. That is to say, the asians hang out with the asians, the Indians with the Indians, the Muslims with the Muslims, the blacks with the blacks, etc. From a few sources that have broken rank to hang out with white people actually tell me they get flack from other people of their race/ethnicity/skin color for hanging out with people who are different (Primarily seems to happen with the Asians and Indians the most).

Also, if you want to make the high school analogy, it does, indeed, apply to this school (and from what I've heard, most state schools). YOu can readily identify people solely by the clothing they wear and get a good idea of which cliques they're a part of (especially since this semester all the sororities decided to make shirts that say "great women go greek").

If we want to continue on to the greek system, you can even see self-segregation there where most houses are mostly populated by white people, as well as the "black" house and the "asian" house.

My school may have a diverse population, but the population doesn't mix very well.
 
[quote name='alonzomourning23']It deals with the issue, since it is a benefit of AA. Also, PAD asked about peoples experiences with AA a few posts ago.[/QUOTE]

AA is based off blind numbers, if diversity is truely your concern it would be far more effective to use the same type of entrance bias and any funds set aside for AA to bring in more students from other states and countries.

And that's not an experience with AA, an experience would be actual people whom you knew who while they had poor grades and low test scores were allowed into a school because of AA and have managed to make a contribution greater than that of the average student.
 
[quote name='capitalist_mao']Schools like mine, which encourage diversity in the population, typically have a population that segregates itself. That is to say, the asians hang out with the asians, the Indians with the Indians, the Muslims with the Muslims, the blacks with the blacks, etc. From a few sources that have broken rank to hang out with white people actually tell me they get flack from other people of their race/ethnicity/skin color for hanging out with people who are different (Primarily seems to happen with the Asians and Indians the most).

Also, if you want to make the high school analogy, it does, indeed, apply to this school (and from what I've heard, most state schools). YOu can readily identify people solely by the clothing they wear and get a good idea of which cliques they're a part of (especially since this semester all the sororities decided to make shirts that say "great women go greek").

If we want to continue on to the greek system, you can even see self-segregation there where most houses are mostly populated by white people, as well as the "black" house and the "asian" house.

My school may have a diverse population, but the population doesn't mix very well.[/QUOTE]

That's probably an issue with how the school handles diversity than anything else. At my old school that wasn't really the case. While there were international student organizations designed specifically for that nationality, some were open to everyone, and the majority involved everyone at some points. For example, the japanese international student society openly sought anyone who wanted to join. Looking at the leadership, going by names, 1 was japanese, most were vietnamese or chinese, and 1 was european.

The middle eastern student and the 2 largest muslim student groups were more the normal way groups ran. While they placed more emphasis on getting people that actually were what the group was, their conferences (most political and cultural organizations would bring in speakers from time to time), major events etc. were usually plastered around the school, inviting people to learn about the culture. One of my favorite ones was one of the muslim student associations got a professor from baghdad university to come and speak about the sunni's and shia's in Iraq (emphasis placed on shia's). They even had a multi cultural week in the university mall, were the entire place was lined with about 80 different culture clubs, one per table. Many would hold events (such as dances), in the mall, throughout the week, where everyone was invited.

There was a lot of tension between supporters of israel and palestine though. That was the only real cultural tension at my school, but it was political more than anything else. In previous years political arguments had resulted in a few arrests at my school, and last year an anti zionist jewish student who was involved with sphr (solidarity for palestinian human rights) was expelled for disruptive and and unauthorized protests. It never really turned ugly (racist) though, and once when anti jewish (not just anti israel) leaflets were passed out in a sphr meeting, the groups leadership immediately denounced it and removed the students involved from the organization.
 
[quote name='zionoverfire']AA is based off blind numbers, if diversity is truely your concern it would be far more effective to use the same type of entrance bias and any funds set aside for AA to bring in more students from other states and countries.

And that's not an experience with AA, an experience would be actual people whom you knew who while they had poor grades and low test scores were allowed into a school because of AA and have managed to make a contribution greater than that of the average student.[/QUOTE]

Most of the time, AA isn't that drastic. It's usually when you have 2 students, both qualified, the minority a little less than the european student, and you let the minority in. Or always giving the minority the advantage when the two are about equal. And I knew a white christian kid who had worse grades than me, lower sat's, no ap courses, and less activities, but yet he got into a college that I was rejected from. I can't explain that, but if the kid was black most people would jump at that as an example of affirmative action when, in reality, it wasn't. People are too quick to jump at minorities as getting in only because they're a minority, when that often isn't the case.

AA basically brings in more minorities, but they don't stand out in most cases.

Also, on international students, schools sometimes have much higher admission standards for international students, at least the ones I've been too. One was loaded with international students, the other 2 I can't even find an out of state accent.
 
I wasn't talking about student groups. I'm talking about personal social situations. The types of groups people associate themselves with outside of school.
 
[quote name='capitalist_mao']I wasn't talking about student groups. I'm talking about personal social situations. The types of groups people associate themselves with outside of school.[/QUOTE]

I know, my point was I think the way the school functioned carried over, since that wasn't the norm at my school. International students, the ones most prone to this, had a tendency to associate primarily with people from their country, but many chose to associate with others as well. Sure non international students tended to know a lot of people from their ethnic group, but it wasn't segregated like what you describe. There wasn't a major issue with integration. I never felt like I was treated differently because I was white when I was with minority students.
 
Tough call...I really like mykevermin comments on it. It's pretty close to how I feel and consider the matter. Having mixed kids I can only hope they have all the opportunities possible as any parent would. I think that Affirmitave Action is wrong yet right for when it was implemented. I can only hope that eventually in my lifetime it won't be needed. I think Affirmative Action is a small small price to pay for many years of injustice.
 
Good comments from both Mao and Alonzo. I think the issue is we need to expose the kids we have to all different colors at an early age and this may help to minimize the choices of our kids choosing color cliques.
I think Myke made an excellent point but my beef is some of the people still living in the inner cities, White and Black and other, are inherently disadvantaged in their educational materials and possibly school environment as well and either this should be corrected in the school system or frankly these people saying they want it fair have no place to stand on. It's like complaining someone gets a bike when you're running but they were hobbling and had a problem with one of their legs while you started in top shape and are still in pretty good shape halfway through.
 
I hate to say this, but living in a pretty segregated city, I still see a need for affirmative action. That doesn't mean that I don't think it has sometimes been abused.

My biggest qualm with AA isn't that it takes jobs away from me, but that I could be hired for a job over someone better qualified. Knowing that AA secured my job would make me question my qualifications and I would fear that my peers would always look at my work with a bias. ("Oh, well, the only reason he even got the job...")
 
[quote name='sheepboy_1923']Knowing that AA secured my job would make me question my qualifications and I would fear that my peers would always look at my work with a bias. ("Oh, well, the only reason he even got the job...")[/QUOTE]

That is a difficult side-effect of AA policies; do those hired feel guilt/inferior since they were hired? Now, I would imagine that it is difficult, if not illegal (it ought to be) to explicitly tell a person, or their coworkers, that they were hired because of AA. It would create a work environment that is hostile to the new hire, and that new hire might perform poorly, resulting from considering themselves unsuitable for the job. In short, by being explicit about who is and isn't a AA hire, it could lead to the failure of AA hires as a self-fulfilling prophecy.

Even if you're hired in the absence of AA, I suppose there is always tokenism to worry about as well. Damed if you do, damned if you don't, no?
 
[quote name='alonzomourning23']It does not say laws attempting to correct previous harms, with the goal of making the living standard of minorities equal to whites, are unconstitutional. [/QUOTE]

Oh, so making stuff up as you go along is a fine idea then? If the Constitution doesn't specifically state something it "must be in there somewhere"? Now you know why so many things have been wrongly decided by the courts. On top of AA you can add that "right to privacy" which, while noble and good, is not guaranteed in the Constitution. Ooops, there goes Roe v. Wade.
 
[quote name='PittsburghAfterDark']Oh, so making stuff up as you go along is a fine idea then? If the Constitution doesn't specifically state something it "must be in there somewhere"? Now you know why so many things have been wrongly decided by the courts. On top of AA you can add that "right to privacy" which, while noble and good, is not guaranteed in the Constitution. Ooops, there goes Roe v. Wade.[/QUOTE]

Portraying the constitution as a de facto document, intended to remain unchanged and taken literally, is a foolish argument. You'd find 8 Supreme Court justices would disagree with you on that.
 
[quote name='PittsburghAfterDark']Oh, so making stuff up as you go along is a fine idea then? If the Constitution doesn't specifically state something it "must be in there somewhere"? Now you know why so many things have been wrongly decided by the courts. On top of AA you can add that "right to privacy" which, while noble and good, is not guaranteed in the Constitution. Ooops, there goes Roe v. Wade.[/QUOTE]

Similar measures to AA were introduced at the same time the 14th amendmend was ratified.The 14th amendment does not state AA is illegal, as you even seem to acknowledge in this post. But, you analysis is wrong. "If the Constitution doesn't specifically state something it "must be in there somewhere" It sounds good, it's just not in there. The constitution is not designed to outlaw every pratice it does not mention, which is the argument you're using here.

Arguments for or against AA need to be built on various interperetations of passages in the constitution.
 
AA is an imperfect solution to a serious social problem. Having been around some racist or at least certainly with people who hold stereotypes of people, I can definitely say some people would not hire a minority based on their skin color. I agree it's not really in the constitution, but does anyone else have a viable solution?
 
[quote name='PittsburghAfterDark']Oh, so making stuff up as you go along is a fine idea then? If the Constitution doesn't specifically state something it "must be in there somewhere"? Now you know why so many things have been wrongly decided by the courts. On top of AA you can add that "right to privacy" which, while noble and good, is not guaranteed in the Constitution. Ooops, there goes Roe v. Wade.[/QUOTE]

C'mon now. You swore to uphold the thing; you should know how it works.

Article IX - The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Article X - The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
 
[quote name='defender']Tough call...I really like mykevermin comments on it. It's pretty close to how I feel and consider the matter. Having mixed kids I can only hope they have all the opportunities possible as any parent would. I think that Affirmitave Action is wrong yet right for when it was implemented. I can only hope that eventually in my lifetime it won't be needed. I think Affirmative Action is a small small price to pay for many years of injustice.[/QUOTE]

That's pretty close to my opinion as well: in an ideal world, we woudn't need AA, and maybe one day we won't ... but I don't see any better ideas on the table.

Off topic, how's the other coast treating ya, Defender?
 
[quote name='alonzomourning23']Most of the time, AA isn't that drastic. It's usually when you have 2 students, both qualified, the minority a little less than the european student, and you let the minority in. Or always giving the minority the advantage when the two are about equal. And I knew a white christian kid who had worse grades than me, lower sat's, no ap courses, and less activities, but yet he got into a college that I was rejected from. I can't explain that, but if the kid was black most people would jump at that as an example of affirmative action when, in reality, it wasn't.[/quote]

Actually it works a bit more like this: colleges decide what a good quota is for black enrollment and then except at least that number of students regardless of how qualified or not they are. If too few are accepted one year they simply lower their expectations. It's not about giving a few bonus points for race it's about guaranteeing that a certain percent of the student body is black regardless of weather they are qualified or not.

AA basically brings in more minorities, but they don't stand out in most cases.
Click to expand...
So if they don't stand out then they really aren't improving diversity at all are they? In fact all they seem to be doing is taking the place that could be given to a more qualified applicant.
 
I would assume that by "don't stand out" he means that students who got in b/c of AA aren't discernible from minorities who did not.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']I would assume that by "don't stand out" he means that students who got in b/c of AA aren't discernible from minorities who did not.[/QUOTE]

In which case he would be greatly mistaken.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']So, I will not deny that Affirmative Action is "reverse discrimination." However, those who oppose it on those grounds alone seem to have little to no interest in eliminating the kind of discrimination that favors whites in the current job market.

In the end, opponents of discrimination are like this: they oppose policies that favor blacks and discriminate against whites, yet they don't seem to mind the status quo, in which blacks are discriminated and whites are favored.

That opponents of Affirmative Action have offered no alternative policy suggestions to eliminate market-based racism is evidence of that fact; they simply aren't interested in doing away with that which benefits them.[/QUOTE]

I think you are over-generalizing here. Surely only some who oppose affirmative action think this very way, since I oppose it 100% and I don't think this way. I see affirmative action as race-based discrimination, pure and simple, and in answer to the "make up" argument I would say two wrongs just do not make a right, particularly when the goal is to take race out of the equation, or at least that should be the goal. In summary, old wounds are not healed by inflicting new ones.

What we need to do is (1) change the educational system so that there really is equal opportunity, or at least closer to it; and (2) aggressively go after any racism that comes to light to prove the good faith of the country in ridding ourselves of this scourge. I think the vast, vast majority of people would agree that fixing the problem rather than pitting racial groups against each other is the best solution.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']How so?[/QUOTE]

It's pretty easy after talking to most people in college for a few minutes to figure what they are doing there.
 
[quote name='zionoverfire']It's pretty easy after talking to most people in college for a few minutes to figure what they are doing there.[/QUOTE]
Are you talking just about minorities, because I've met plenty of people who I don't think belong in college that aren't minorities.
 
[quote name='elprincipe']I think you are over-generalizing here. Surely only some who oppose affirmative action think this very way, since I oppose it 100% and I don't think this way. I see affirmative action as race-based discrimination, pure and simple, and in answer to the "make up" argument I would say two wrongs just do not make a right, particularly when the goal is to take race out of the equation, or at least that should be the goal. In summary, old wounds are not healed by inflicting new ones.

What we need to do is (1) change the educational system so that there really is equal opportunity, or at least closer to it; and (2) aggressively go after any racism that comes to light to prove the good faith of the country in ridding ourselves of this scourge. I think the vast, vast majority of people would agree that fixing the problem rather than pitting racial groups against each other is the best solution.[/QUOTE]

Your solutions are useful, and I think would be excellent in the form of actions supplementary to AA. It's the cynic coming out in me (as if it needed to come out) that claims that "going after racism" is easier said than done. Do you prosecute people who "accidentally" discriminate (Eduardo Bonilla-Silva's excellent text, "Racism Without Racists" would provide a contextual argument for that), as well as those found to do so overtly?

Case in point; I'm working on grant and dissertation proposals that extend research done by Douglas Massey and Garvey Lundy from 2004. They had three groups of people with identical characteristics phone rental facilities in a local paper looking for apartments. All participants were given identical histories (education, age, income, family, etc.); the only thing that varied was their dialect (which was termed "White Middle-Class English," "Black Middle-Class English," and "Black English Vernacular," respectively). In the end, both black groups had a *remarkably* harder time getting access to viewing rental property (the middle class and vernacular groups had to make 2 and 3 times as many calls, respectively, as whites to get access to an apt). In the end, there is the problem of plausible deniability on the end of the landowners. Because all correspondence happened over the telephone, how could they know they were talking to a white person or a black person? How would you prosecute that?

While I'm overgeneralizing, it is because I'm not seeing anything being proposed by opponents of AA, other than their opposition to AA. Most, I would certainly argue, are more than content with the status quo; they seem to think that the market will remedy itself, given enough time. 40 years after the civil rights act, and little to no headway has been made. I'm too cynical to think that "going after racism" (an arguably oversimplified response to a complex problem) will change anything. Also, keep in mind that policies "going after racism" in any way will likely do precisely what you say AA will: pit races against each other.
 
[quote name='docvinh']Are you talking just about minorities, because I've met plenty of people who I don't think belong in college that aren't minorities.[/QUOTE]

Ah, but how many of those people were given easier entrance requirements based solely on the color of their skin?

There are plenty of idiots in college; most of them have to compete on a fair playing field to get in.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']Do you REALLY need me to spell that out for you?[/QUOTE]

Yeah.

There's a huge archive of classics material that is online, free of charge - it's called the Perseus Digital Library. http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/

I used it many times in College - and it's all authentically translated. On the original Greek/Latin/whatever you can click on words and get an instant translation.

I don't think that one should use the internet as their sole source as a general rule, but it really is a great resource.

Granted, my subjects of interest were different then public policy but I have to assume that comparable materials are out there.

It's not all rumors on the internets anymore!
 
[quote name='camoor']Yeah.

There's a huge archive of classics material that is online, free of charge - it's called the Perseus Digital Library. http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/

I used it many times in College - and it's all authentically translated. On the original Greek/Latin/whatever you can click on words and get an instant translation.

I don't think that one should use the internet as their sole source as a general rule, but it really is a great resource.

Granted, my subjects of interest were different then public policy but I have to assume that comparable materials are out there.

It's not all rumors on the internets anymore![/QUOTE]

Don't forget project gutenberg,

Also, plenty of news sources to cite. I've cited a few news articles from online articles.
 
That's the very fact of the matter; if it *were* a fair playing field, white AND black idiots would get into college. As it stands, white idiots ARE getting in and black idiots aren't; we can deduce, then, that the white idiots are getting in because of the color of their skin.

Thus, the playing field is most certainly not fair.
 
[quote name='camoor']Yeah.[/QUOTE]

Don't be dense; it's not as if I'm scouring physical card catalogues in the library. I'd be dead if not for EBSCO and CSA.

There are valid resources on the internet. I've yet to have many students cite internet sources that are legitimate, instead getting "Disco Stu's HAWT!!1! Smoking Cessation Page."

You may be able to differentiate between EBSCO and a geocities page, but that doesn't mean everyone can.

So, when I say "don't cite the internet," I'm not saying "don't use the internet to access materials readily available in a library."

Jesus.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']That's the very fact of the matter; if it *were* a fair playing field, white AND black idiots would get into college. As it stands, white idiots ARE getting in and black idiots aren't; we can deduce, then, that the white idiots are getting in because of the color of their skin.

Thus, the playing field is most certainly not fair.[/QUOTE]

That's a huge leap in logic, more likely white idiots get in because of money, personal contacts and most importantly of all that they actually apply. Take away those three things and I can find a whole lot of dumbass white people who will never go to college for you.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']That's the very fact of the matter; if it *were* a fair playing field, white AND black idiots would get into college. As it stands, white idiots ARE getting in and black idiots aren't; we can deduce, then, that the white idiots are getting in because of the color of their skin.

Thus, the playing field is most certainly not fair.[/QUOTE]
That's kind of my point, how is it only the white idiots are getting in and the minority idiots are not? :) I'm kidding, but you said what I was thinking.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top