Affirmative Action

[Undertaker #59]

Where do you stand on it?

[bideau]

Originally posted by Undertaker #59
Where do you stand on it?

It served its purpose.

Our society has come a long way since the civil rights movement. Although there will still be some examples of discrimination out there, I believe its much less of an issue.

Its time that people earn jobs, college placements, etc based on merit and not race/ethnicity/gender/religion/sexuality.

[Flagg the Wanderer]

Here's the problem with affirmative action:

as unfair as it is to those who get left out on account of affirmative action, it may actually be MORE unfair to those who get in because of it; and those who would have gotten in without it.

Ferinstance: 3 black people get into Hahvahd.
Person A got in on merit - he would have gotten in no matter what - straight A student, internships, National Merit Scholar, won the science fair, national history day, tri-captain, you name it.
Person B was pretty borderline in a colorblind admissions process.
Person C got in based on affirmative action (well, quotas in this case, I guess). He was a solid student in his crappy school district in East Palo Alto, CA, and tri-captain.

Now, let's put aside the argument about the 1-2 people that were not admitted because of Persons B and C, and just look at these three folks.

This system is unfair to Person A, because at every step he is going to face the underlying suspicion in others that he's quota-keeper.

It's unfair to Person B, for the same reason and because he will wonder himself.

It is MOST unfair to Person C, however. Person C is utterly unprepared for the rigors of Harvard (though I've been told that it isn't actually all that hard once you're in, but that was from someone who was very well educated upon entry). In talking to others around him, he will be very much aware that he is a quota-keeper, and so will his classmates. Whether they care or not hardly matters. In all likelihood, he will flounder...his actual unpreparedness being aggrevated by a crisis of confidence in himself.
Add to that that very often people in Person C's situation are facing a brutal amount of pressure from their families and the community in which they grew up, aggrevated by the fact that if they do start to shine in their new environs, they will often be scorned in their old stomping grounds as "college boy," "thinks he's too good for his old neighborhood," that sort of thing. So to add to the actual unpreparedness and the problem of confidence, often Person C is actually torn about whether or not he actually WANTS to do well and embrace the lifestyle that he has available, if that effectivly means losing the life he has heretofor known. It isn't exactly rare that Person C (and sometimes Persons A and B) submarine their own academic careers in some form or other.

Also, how is affirmative action fair to Asians, who are graded DOWN on an admissions curve under AA guidelines?

I think that affirmative action was a necessary counter to try and lift many minorities from economic stagnation. The playing field is not level, but it is much closer now, and there is no denying that the system is unfair by definition - it is just attempting to remedy previous unfairness.

I think it does so very badly. In its current form, I'm against it.

I'm in favor of utter colorblindness.

[dchester]

Originally posted by bideau
It served its purpose.

Our society has come a long way since the civil rights movement. Although there will still be some examples of discrimination out there, I believe its much less of an issue.

Its time that people earn jobs, college placements, etc based on merit and not race/ethnicity/gender/religion/sexuality. I'm pretty close to Bideau on this one. The one thing that might be helpful (if it could accurately be implemented) would be a shift from race/gender/etc. to a focus on economic criterias. Poor people have very limited access to things like the internet. They usually live in neighborhoods with the worst public schools. I would be in favor of colleges giving preferential admissions (along with extra support groups) to people of limited means.

My son does very good in school (he got a Presidential Education award signed by Bush) and doesn't need affirmative action to succeed. If people are expected to do well in school, they usually will (one of the great failures of liberalism is that minorities are given excuses to fail, so they are more likely to do so). However if someone still wants to give us something, I'll take it (especially since none of my ancestors ever got the 40 acres and a mule we were promissed after the Civil War).
o:-)
________
Honda XRM history (http://www.honda-wiki.org/wiki/Honda_XRM)

[Annihilus]

Originally posted by dchester
However if someone still wants to give us something, I'll take it (especially since none of my ancestors ever got the 40 acres and a mule we were promissed after the Civil War).
o:-)

*** Departing from serious thread momentarily ***

I don't know about a mule & 40 acres, but you can probably get some torn up sod and some beat up Colts on the evening of September 9th.

:D

*** Now back to your regularly scheduled thread ***

[Mark_Henderson]

Actually, George Bush does believe in affirmative action based on color for Ivy League schools. He supports preferential admission if your blood is blue...

[dchester]

All the Ivy League schools have affirmative action for the rich. It's called "Legacy". And then when that fails (like when Teddy got kicked out of Harvard for cheating), the rich parents can just make a big donation to get their dunce re-admitted (like Joe Kennedy did for his youngest son).

Moral of the story, the rich always make out. It doesn't matter what their politics are.
________
Land Rover Series history (http://www.ford-wiki.com/wiki/Land_Rover_Series)

[bideau]

Originally posted by dchester
All the Ivy League schools have affirmative action for the rich. It's called "Legacy". And then when that fails (like when Teddy got kicked out of Harvard for cheating), the rich parents can just make a big donation to get their dunce re-admitted (like Joe Kennedy did for his youngest son).

Moral of the story, the rich always make out. It doesn't matter what their politics are.

Well, Legacy only works for those alumni who make generous donations.

My wife is a Harvard grad but finances prevent big donations. My daughter graduate 4th of 165, near perfect SATs, near perfect SAT IIs and was highly recommended by the person who interviewed her. She received a very nice one paragraph rejection letter.

The poor person who called my wife a couple of weeks later looking for a donation got quite the earful :4321:

But it all ended well because she's at a school that she absolutely loves.

[dchester]

Originally posted by bideau
Well, Legacy only works for those alumni who make generous donations. Exactly my point. It's affirmative action for the rich. You apparently weren't rich enough to qualify.
________
medical marijuana news (http://potwire.com)

[bideau]

Originally posted by dchester
Exactly my point. It's affirmative action for the rich. You apparently weren't rich enough to qualify.

Yeah, you're right Dave. We read some pretty revealing articles about the disparity between the haves and have nots at the "elite" schools.

One particular article painted a very negative picture of the Duke admissions department. The claim was that Duke reserves a large number of seats for their highest donors. They cited many examples. but the worst case being a girl who was barely passing high school. She initially got rejected. But daddy, who was CEO of a large corporation (they mentioned the name but I can't recall) and a very large donor, threatened to pull back millions unless his little girl got admitted. Guess what happened?

Another article detailed the pipeline between the high priced prep schools and the "elite" colleges. Very eye opening. My wife was very upset about this article. They discussed Harvard quite a bit. She had always defended the process there because she was a public school grad (FHS, Dave) who's parents had no money to contribute. She's not too keen on her alma mater anymore.

[spiderman]

You guys just don't get it! It's all George Bush's fault...if he wasn't out snorting cocaine and getting lap dances 30 years ago, then rich people wouldn't be getting into Ivy League schools. :Lecture:

[Nomadic Logic]

Originally posted by Mark_Henderson
Actually, George Bush does believe in affirmative action based on color for Ivy League schools. He supports preferential admission if your blood is blue...
Just to clear things up...
http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/08/06/bush.legacy/

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- President Bush said Friday he opposes the use of a family history at colleges or universities as a factor in determining admission.

Bush stated his position to what's known as "legacy" in response to a question during a Washington forum for minority journalists called Unity 2004.

He was asked, "Colleges should get rid of legacy?"

Bush responded, "Well I think so, yes. I think it ought to be based upon merit."

[bideau]

Originally posted by Nomadic Logic
Just to clear things up...
http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/08/06/bush.legacy/

Uh, Nomad, how else would he possibly answer that question? What's he supposed to say: "Hell yeah, that's how I got into Yale. And if its good enough for me, its good enough for my friends".

Seriously, the process is not as heavily weighted towards legacy as it used to be. But special emphasis is granted towards donors and the high priced prep schools. The odds greatly increase when a students has these advantages.

[spiderman]

People, these schools are what they are BECAUSE of the alumni!

[Nomadic Logic]

Originally posted by bideau
Uh, Nomad, how else would he possibly answer that question? What's he supposed to say: "Hell yeah, that's how I got into Yale. And if its good enough for me, its good enough for my friends".

Seriously, the process is not as heavily weighted towards legacy as it used to be. But special emphasis is granted towards donors and the high priced prep schools. The odds greatly increase when a students has these advantages.
He could dodge and double talk like your run of the mill politician.

[Undertaker #59]

I think its very interesting with the politically diverse group of people that we have here, that just about everyone doesn't like affirmative action in its current form. :thumb:

[dreadlord]

Amazes me how anybody can like any social program run by the federal government. Great ideas followed by pi$$ poor execution imho.

[townes]

Originally posted by dreadlord
Amazes me how anybody can like any social program run by the federal government. Great ideas followed by pi$$ poor execution imho.


Dread, affirmative action is a law, not a social program run by the federal government.


Affirmative action is a response to structural inequality in our economic system, and this would be a much better country if it wasn't necessary. There are aspects of it I agree with and aspects of it i don't agree with, but one thing is certain, the idea that we need quotas in education is ridiculous, the opportunity for high quality education should be available to all, and no-one should get shut out for lack of money, or belonging to the wrong race or gender.

[Tiger_69]

Originally posted by townes
Dread, affirmative action is a law, not a social program run by the federal government.You're right, it's a law but whether or not it's a social program run by the government is highly debatable. Demanding that employers hire a certain percentage of workers because of their ethnic background - regardless of expeience - is a social issue. Call it a combination of the two, if you will.Affirmative action is a response to structural inequality in our economic system, and this would be a much better country if it wasn't necessary. At this point and time, I don't believe it's necessary. I'm being held back at my job because my boss seems to have issues with favoring others that are non-white (he's a white man...probably in fear of being tagged as a racist if he doesn't do it his way). Why? I don't know but I do know that I have the knowledge to accomplish more than them, and he has to know that as he's constantly asking me for more information than he does from them. There are aspects of it I agree with and aspects of it i don't agree with, but one thing is certain, the idea that we need quotas in education is ridiculous, the opportunity for high quality education should be available to all, and no-one should get shut out for lack of money, or belonging to the wrong race or gender. This should apply to all but the law doesn't necessarily reflect this theory. It tends to favor one race over another, and that's wrong.

[Prometheus441]

:Lecture: Let me step onto my soap box here,as I try to avoid politicing here.This is just an issue that is hot button for me.Affirmitive action as it exsists in the country today is a scurge.
It not longer empowers the minority,it robs them of that.As an example,lets say that you have to go into the hospital for brain surgery.The Surgeon is a minority.Do you stop to think to yourself,
"I wonder if this guy is the best surgeon or did he get through as
a result of affirmitive action".Its a fair question to ask,and for the
minority surgeon who graduated top of his class,its grossly unfair
that his ability is called into question by some policy that has out
its usefulness.

Affirmitive action is also a slap in face to the minority because
it says to them " We (the goverment) dont think you can do it on your own,so we are going to lower the bar for you.I know many minorities that take this as a major insult.Finally,I would say that
discrimination against anyone for your race,sex,sexual orientation
or disorientation (lol) is terrible.Equally,reverse discrimination that
occurs by affirmitive action is equally as bad.I think affirmitive action should be placed in the bucket as the talk of repreations.
People dont need excuses not to exceed,they only need the chance to excel.