Okay, now Bush is just flat out lying

[Wernazuma III]

Originally posted by intrigue
I have no problem with grants and scholarships aimed at specific groups or types of people - free money can be dispursed as seen fit by those that have it to give away.
But acceptance into universities should be based soley on merit and potential. Not skin, gender or anything of the like. Especially universities that are partially funded by the nation's tax revenue.
In my view, Affirmative Action is a huge irony... Limit the possibilities for a specific type of people because the possibilities for another were limited in the past.

It's NOT becaue their possibilities were limited in the past, they still are. They don't have the same chances, not even if attending the same schools, but if it were only that problem... There still is a huge social difference between blacks and whites. It's a simple fact that school doesn't equal school in the US (not only there, but you have kind of huge differences between public school system and elite education).
Of course, merit and potential should be the criteria for admittance in a university and not race, but it's highly haypocritical to say that only the highest percentages should get in or get grants. That disregards the simple fact that not everyone has the same opportunities in the first place.
Everytime people try to correct some systems of inequality, some people will be treated not 100% correct. Yet, this law doesn't seem to exclude whites completely, they merely take into account that on average it's a higher merit for an Afro-American to achieve a certain performance because of social reasons (including also racial prejudices) makes life generally harder for them - now that's not a 100% accurate assumption but not off the top.

[Az]

There still is a huge social difference between blacks and whites. It's a simple fact that school doesn't equal school in the US

So you're correcting a wrong with another wrong?
In any case if there are social differences, why not make it purely social? like, poor people will be helped to get into school, via a similar system. Why a rich black kid, (say, the son of BETs owner ) should have more of a chance than a poor white person.

In short, this solution is like pinching yourself real hard so you wouldn't feel the toothache.

[intrigue]

I agree that the opportunities are not the same for those trying to get into colleges because of income. This is primarily why I say that I am fine with grants being aimed at specific groups... but I still think the university's acceptance guidlines should never be concerned with ethnicity or gender. For a university the concern should be having the highest grades. I am a high beleiver that anyone can afford to go to a university in this country - the effort to get the grants that are available is what is required. I am finishing my Master's degree right now, and I come from a poor family - but I have managed to get in and pay for it as well. I have no sympathy for the financially challenged arguements.

[Drake Tungsten]

Bush didn't lie. The Michigan law school sets aside a certain percentage of spots for minority students. That's a quota.

[Jac de Molay]

The thing is, it seems they have so many ways around the problem. They can use any number of criteria except race to accept more blacks, and it would be Ok.

Such as..."an environment of adversity", socio-economic disadvantage, geographical diversity, etc.

The only time AA is exceptable, in the courts' view, is when all other means are not feasible or have been exhausted. This doesn't apply in UofM's case.

[The diplomat]

As I understand it, the Univeristy of Michigan attributes points based on various factors inculding race. Thus, an african-american student gets 20 points just for being black.

I think everybody would agree that if they gave a white boy 20 points because of his race, that would be racism. So why is it ok to give a black kid 20 points based on race? If one is wrong then so should the other be too!

It is wrong to give preference based on race! The UofM system is racist and wrong. We need to be color blind in our society, and giving students extra admission points based on the color of their skin doesn't do that!

[Zkribbler]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten
Bush didn't lie. The Michigan law school sets aside a certain percentage of spots for minority students. That's a quota.

Bush did lie. Michigan does not set aside certain percentages of spots for minority students because that would be a quota and that has been unlawful since Bakke was decided 30 years ago. Instead, the school gave 20 bonus points to minorities (out of a possible 150) in order to increase the diversity of its student body.

Originally posted by Shi Huangdi
Gore won alot of White moderate votes in election 2000. If Bush can take more of those votes he can eat a loss in minority votes.

That's one big if. Moreover, in 2002, the Dems lost the House and the Senate because of poor minority turn out. If the White House successfully K.O.s affirmative action [and I think it will ], then minorities will be energized to turn out in 2004.

Originally posted by Lancer
Zkribbler, young people who got passed over for admission to a college that took quota people instead will be pleased with the end of this biased system because their kids won't have to go through it.

(a) No quota people. (b) Although the young people who got passed over for admission may be ticked, there's a lot more minority kids coming up through underfunded public schools who see AA as the only way they have to compete with white kids from private and well-funded public schools. (c) By K.O.ing AA, you're telling minorities that diversity does not count. This will be seen by many as being a throw back to the de facto segregation of the 60's.

[BTW, if anyone gives a frigg, I was once passed over for a promotion which was given to a lesser-qualified African-American because of AA. I did not get ticked.]

[Shi Huangdi]

" It's a simple fact that school doesn't equal school in the US"

Yes, but that has little to do with race. There are black who go to elite schools and white who go to crap schools.

"Bush did lie. Michigan does not set aside certain percentages of spots for minority students because that would be a quota and that has been unlawful since Bakke was decided 30 years ago."

See my point on this in my reply to Guynemer. Policies like the U of M's (or any AA program) enforce a quota just by different means.

"That's one big if. Moreover, in 2002, the Dems lost the House and the Senate because of poor minority turn out."

Right well, in 2002, the Dems still got a good number of voter from moderate independents. But keep in mind Bush is substantially more popular then Republicans in Congress are, and the Dems had the advantage in that election of a poor economy. The Dems could be in trouble if the economy isn't doing as well.

"Although the young people who got passed over for admission may be ticked, there's a lot more minority kids coming up through underfunded public schools who see AA as the only way they have to compete with white kids from private and well-funded public schools."

Again, stop with this fallacy that black = bad education white= good education. This isn't in the 1960 when the vast majority of blacks are poor, there is now a substantial black middle class in this country. There are also white students who come very poor backgrounds. Now there are places like U of M that reward students who come from poor backgrounds, but that is not always the case.

"By K.O.ing AA, you're telling minorities that diversity does not count. "

So by not having a system of discrimination it means they don't count?

[GePap]

AA is theoretically wrong, in the sense that it is not equal: sadly, the same voices crying out to end this descriminations of whites (and asians) never seem to bother about the endless other ways in which blacks continue to be discriminated against in private, if not in stated policy.

Using a policy descrimination to overcome a private one is not the same as "two wrongs", as the public policy is meant to counteract the private one.

But there are other ways to do this better than simly race, as there certainly are a growing number of blacks who come from secure middle class backgrounds. I agree wiht the notion of AA based on socioeconomic criteria, above that of race, to make up for the continuing latent racism that keeps African-Americans in the lower socio-economic rings of society.

[Drake Tungsten]

Bush did lie. Michigan does not set aside certain percentages of spots for minority students because that would be a quota and that has been unlawful since Bakke was decided 30 years ago. Instead, the school gave 20 bonus points to minorities (out of a possible 150) in order to increase the diversity of its student body.

Listen to the speech again. The undergraduate program uses the point system but doesn't have a quota. The law school, OTOH, sets aside a percentage of spots for minority students. That was the quota Bush was talking about.

[Japher]

I sure am glad I went through the UC program were AA was abolished sometime ago. Actually, it was abolished when I was a sophmore. Prop 209 rocked!!!

A point to ponder however.

Soln:

Instead of looking at the applicant as a black man, white man, black woman, asian woman, etc... How about we just look at the person as a person?

I can see how AA supports want the additional assistance because they know they can take advantage of it and because they feel, and in some cases can prove, that their civil rights were violated, yet that is why there are laws against it.

I would like to see colleges look more at the students and the life they have lived to this point. They may of had below average grades, and maybe even had decent SAT scores, yet they were involved, and the grew up in a bad neighborhood, or didn't go to the best schools. Yet, for what was given them they managed to overcome adversity and end up near the top. We therefore want them. However, little timmy grew up in a neighborhood were the average household income was in the high 6 figures, he did good in his classes because he had high paid tutors. He didn't do any activities and his SAT are decent compared to his GPA. This child did not challenge themselves to the standards that we would of liked.

Notice I never mentioned color, creed, or nation, but I was able to make a decission? Maybe additional points could be given based on demographics, which have been analyzed to yield a basis to determine chance of success, then rate the canidate on where they are currently in order to reach that success threshhold.

Demographics do not favor a race, unless you feel that racial profiling is a good thing, and is not unconstitutional to the letter. It would give a good rating of where the student should be compared to where they are. It would not be based souly on GPA, standardized test scores, and the color of your skin.

[Capt Dizle]

Affirmative action is clearly wrong but set that aside.

The grudge many Americans hold over affirmative action is one of the fundamental reasons we have a Republican president and Congress.

The backlash over these sorts of policies has just begun. Reap the whirlwind.

[Capt Dizle]

Oh, and as for white names getting more job offers than black names, how can you blame white people for trying to get back?

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by jimmytrick
Oh, and as for white names getting more job offers than black names, how can you blame white people for trying to get back?

You're an idiot.

[Guynemer]

Again, people, I acknowledge that AA is flawed on a philosophical level. I used to write the exact same things that some of you are writing. But sometimes, you have to look beyond philosophic purity and confront reality.

The reality is that minorities still face many, many, many difficulties in this country due only to their race--above and beyond difficulties due to their economic status. Be honest: if AA is ended, will minorities fare better or worse in this country?

No, the policy isn't perfect. But basing things purely on economics ignores the fact that middle-class minority children face the same racism--or perhaps worse--as their poor counterparts. Cynical as I am, I am convinced that some day, maybe even in my lifetime, we will reach a point were AA based solely on economic status will make sense. I don't know when that will happen, or what it is that will tell us when that time has come. It is pretty obvious to me that it hasn't come yet.