Maybe I'm Missing Something: Who is affirmitive action supposed to help?

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Stefu
If it can't achieve anything, then why do you care?

I need to do something to pass the time.

[Stefu]

Don't we all?

[BeBMan]

Originally posted by Stefu
"The Fascist Formerly Known As Albert Speer"?

Would be TFFKAAS then Sounds as stupid as his current nick...

[Imran Siddiqui]

Rationally speaking Imran, yes you might have a point beneath your crusade to aid the teenage quasi-nazi, but why won't you just accept the fact that some people might have a problem here?

Some might have a problem, fine. But don't post in every post "Change you Screen name". ****ing annoying. Does he want people going over his posts telling him what they have problems with?

It's a bull**** reaction, and I frankly don't give two ****s if the Nazis ran over his country. So what? Sucks to be him then.

[Shi Huangdi]

Originally posted by Guynemer
Shi, you've either forgotten certain things from that report, or the report neglected to mention them:

Yes, you get 20 points for being a minority. You can also get 20 points for being poor.

But you CAN'T GET BOTH.

A poor white would get the exact same 20 points that a poor black would get.

You can get that 20 points from being an underrepresented minority, for being poor, for being an athlete, for being from an underrepresented geographical location, or at the "provost's discretion".

If you're a First Nations kid from the middle of nowhere in the UP who's lived in a log cabin his whole life, but plays a mean point guard, and you happened to save the provost's kid's life a few years ago, you don't get 100 points. You get 20.

And the poor white kid from a trailer park (or what-have-you) will also get 20.

I forget exactly how many points you get for being a "legacy", meaning your parents went to UM. It was either 5 or 10 points. You know, it's funny, I don't hear anti-affirmative action folks railing against that.

The report failed to mention it, but I am glad to hear U of Michigan consides socioeconomics. I still think it's unjust however, because a black rich kid does not deserve the same advantage as the white person from the trailer park. In fact, I would say the black rich kid does not deserve any extra points at all.

As far as legacies go, I oppose giving them advantages as well, especially at state institutions. But then again there aren't any fedeal laws regarding discrimination in favor of legacies.

And in any case, you have failed to show that I was making a "bald face" lie. Why don't you just retract that bit right now?

[Guynemer]

That wasn't directed at you, Shi. It was directed at the people who lead these charges against AA, people who know that what they are saying is wrong (poor whites are left behind). People who aren't as close to the situation (you, for instance) wouldn't have any idea that they are lying. You're not a liar; you were just deceived.

[Shi Huangdi]

Right, I've been decieved.

Actually I came up with that argument before I heard anyone else used it, because it is the only logical consequence of what will happen. And in spite of all your protests it DOES happen, even at UM. If you get same points for being poor as for being a minority, then poor whites aren't being given the advantage over rich blacks that they should, just as any poor person should be given advantage over richer persons.

[Ned]

Why are America's grad school's filled with foreigners? Do we have anti-Americans affirmative action there too?

[Tingkai]

Another whiny thread about AA from a bunch of poor white boys. Same old garbage about how white boys are victims. Same old complaints that blame everyone else for their problems. Same old myths that have been dealt with before.



Grasp a simple concept. No matter how much you whine, white boys still have it made in the US. The ones who deserve to get into university do get in, as do many who do not deserve to get in. White boys have more job opportunities then anyone else. They'll earn more money than other people doing the same jobs.

In short, stop your whining. We've all heard the same tune countless times before.

[Sikander]

Originally posted by Stefu
"The Fascist Formerly Known As Albert Speer"?

[Sikander]

Originally posted by Tingkai


Another whiny thread about AA from a bunch of poor white boys. Same old garbage about how white boys are victims. Same old complaints that blame everyone else for their problems. Same old myths that have been dealt with before.



Grasp a simple concept. No matter how much you whine, white boys still have it made in the US. The ones who deserve to get into university do get in, as do many who do not deserve to get in. White boys have more job opportunities then anyone else. They'll earn more money than other people doing the same jobs.

In short, stop your whining. We've all heard the same tune countless times before.

I'll stop complaining when we treat every person with the consideration they deserve, and not as a political football who is being used to perpetuate racial stereotyping and discrimination in the name of ending it. When you cease your support for racial discrimination I'll stop complaining about it.

Btw I'm not a 'boy', and according to the Nazis I'm not even 'white'. Why don't you quit your offensive racial categorizations while you are at it?

[Al B. Sure!]

I'm lost... I said AA does not help poor blacks. I said nothing about white people... I only said it dont help poor blacks; it helps upper class blacks

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

And to AS's point above (despite his inflamatory nick which has been beaten to death many threads over), AA is often considred a hand down and an insult to those it intends to help. In every diversity class I've taken/led or been associated with, a resounding theme comes out regarding AA. It insults the reputation of the protected classes it tries to serve. Those that actually make it onto college into the white collar work force etc. always feel an additional baggage as they feel everyone looks at them with suspicion that they are not qualified but only got to where they are because of some form of AA.

I do beleive it vitally important as other suggest here that socioeconomics be the overriding determiner for such a program. Education is the key of course. Likewise I agree that diversity only helps a nation/company/organization as it allows different views and a richer background. But the idea of protected classes based upon religious/racial backgrounds I find so 1900's. Hence the move for a 2000 movement to look to the economically disavantaged first and foremost.

[Tingkai]

Originally posted by Albert Speer
I'm lost... I said AA does not help poor blacks. I said nothing about white people... I only said it dont help poor blacks; it helps upper class blacks

Actually, you started this thread by saying that it just helps the middle class blacks.

What proof do you have that your assumption is correct?

A major point about AA is that it is designed to break racist barriers. So even if your assumption is correct, middle class and upper class blacks still need help in overcoming racist barriers.

The problem with these ongoing whines about AA is that people complain about what they think AA is without providing any substantial data to show whether AA is still prevalent and if it does exist, what exactly are the most common rules.

American newspapers have had AA programs in place for 25 years, but it is largely lip service, an empty program that just exists in name.

[Sikander]

Originally posted by Tingkai

The problem with these ongoing whines about AA is that people complain about what they think AA is without providing any substantial data to show whether AA is still prevalent and if it does exist, what exactly are the most common rules.

American newspapers have had AA programs in place for 25 years, but it is largely lip service, an empty program that just exists in name.

Actually, this is a problem for every side of the debate. The data are often non-existent, which means that the only thing which we can usually measure is the same thing that led to the impostion of AA in the first place, which is the racial / ethnic / religious makeup of a particular group of people. When a program is tried and succeeds or fails it would be very useful to know why.

Unfortunately, people are so touchy when they are grouped by racial / ethnic criteria that many executives and researchers don't want to follow up a program in order to explain it's (lack of) effectiveness lest they manage to turn up some data which offends someone's often overblown PC idealization of one of these ethnic groups. For instance, in the case of the newspapers failure to increase diversity over many years while supposedly trying to do so, is it intractible white racism in a field which tends to employ those who are much more liberal than average, or does it have something to do with the characteristics of the minority groups ("They don't value freedom of speech like we do."), or perhaps the program was well-intentioned but merely failed to reach a large group of minority would-be journalists because it was just poorly implemented. If I were running one of these papers and was being criticized for failing to increase diversity, I would think twice about investigating the program publicly. Either I am going to be called a racist, an incompetent, or accused of "blaming the victim".

Let's move to a color-blind approach, and tinker with it from there.