Affirmative Action

[flash9286]

I personally disgree with race being a factor in being accepted to a college. I think it would be much fairer if you got extra points if you came from a low-income part of the country, becuase everybody that lives in America knows that if you live in a low-income region the schools arent as good as a middle-income region. Plus all kind of races live in low-income regions.

[Guynemer]

Already a thread on this.

http://apolyton.net/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=74137

You wouldn't know it to listen to the jerk-off media debates, but UM does give extra points to low-income students. In fact, you can't get points for both low-income and being a minority--poor white kids get as many extra points as anyone else who applies to UM.

[Gibsie]

I'm always seeing people discuss AA as if it applies to blacks and NO-ONE else (Well, maybe some Hispanics)... but I've heard that women have benefitted from AA more than anyone. Anyone care to confirm/ deny?

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Gibsie
but I've heard that women have benefitted from AA more than anyone. Anyone care to confirm/ deny?

You heard correctly.

[orange]

Re: Affirmative Action

Originally posted by flash9286
I personally disgree with race being a factor in being accepted to a college. I think it would be much fairer if you got extra points if you came from a low-income part of the country, becuase everybody that lives in America knows that if you live in a low-income region the schools arent as good as a middle-income region. Plus all kind of races live in low-income regions.

My thoughts EXACTLY

[Az]

flash, my man

[Caligastia]

Originally posted by Gibsie
I'm always seeing people discuss AA as if it applies to blacks and NO-ONE else (Well, maybe some Hispanics)...

AA benefits everyone except whites.

[Gibsie]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
You heard correctly.

Well that cements it in my mind, but do you have a link or something to prove this?

[Gibsie]

Originally posted by Caligastia AA benefits everyone except whites.

See DinoDoc, with reverse-racists like Caligastia claiming that no whites (which I guess include our females) benefit from AA here I need your evidence

[Az]

I don't know if they benefitted the most, but they certainly don't need that. 60%-40% in BAs.

I say we should bring AA for men, it's all those evil feminist female teachers that are bringing us down.

[Caligastia]

Originally posted by Gibsie


See DinoDoc, with reverse-racists like Caligastia claiming that no whites (which I guess include our females) benefit from AA here I need your evidence

Some whites benefit (i.e. females), but most don't.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Gibsie
See DinoDoc, with reverse-racists like Caligastia claiming that no whites (which I guess include our females) benefit from AA here I need your evidence

God, I can not believe I had to go to FAIR for a source for this :shudder: , but here it is: The Washington Post (2/23/95), for example, referred matter-of-factly to "the beneficiaries of affirmative action (commonly African Americans)," although most studies, including one by the Labor Department in 1984, indicate that the primary beneficiaries have been white women (Washington Post, 5/31/95).

http://www.fair.org/extra/9509/aa.html

[Flubber]

AA for men . .interesting concept considering that there are more women than men now performing better in high schools, graduating college etc. In theory, the old methods of proving women were subject to systemic or adverse effect discrimination could be trotted out now to say the system now favors women .

Seriously though, I have no problem with the concept of affirmative action,when it is giving a helping hand to those that suffered adverse circumstances BUT I have seen lots of problems with the implementation. For example, the daughter of a dentist got all sorts of financial aid as part of a program to encourage black students to go to law school.

I dislike affirmative action when it acts in a fashion to disadvantage ANY person in a substantive way. For example when on the "bubble" of college admission, I have no problem with favoring a minority or disadvantaged group . Ties go to the minority, for example.

Financial aid should be colorblind for the mmost part and go to needy students period. But again I have no problem with a very slight favoritism-- It won't come close to balancing the crap many minorities have to face their entire lives.

Substantive disadvantage IMHO occurrs when

-- Many needy students can't attend school because funding was appropriated for AA programs
-- a totally qualified candidate is denied a job ( university lecturer in a specific field while pursuing doctoral studies) because they were holding the job open until next year in the hope that a female or minority might apply

-- Total exclusion of a class of people-- A teacher's college announced they would be hiring all female staff until they have achieved 50% female staff . Estimates indicate it may be as many as 10 years before they next hire a man

[Gibsie]

Originally posted by Caligastia Some whites benefit (i.e. females), but most don't.

So half of whites could potentially benefit? Damn, that's virtually none!

[Wernazuma III]

Well, from my point of view, AA is not in itself bad.
I don't know how exactly I portray American reality with my post, I'm not living there. But I'll still try to show some reasons why Affirmative Action should not be simply considered a racist agenda.

People from some minority races still suffer, beside the economic situation, from a cultural climate within their communities that won't make it seem an option to attend higher education - it's the "better stick to your own people, out there they won't do you no good"-attitude which is also partially responsible for the still existing factual segregation in many areas (the other factor for segregation is that often people "out there" will really do no good).
Now, AA is a way to try to overcome fears by giving some incentive to those groups who are unlikely to even try to get to university. Blacks have, even compared to whites of the same social class, worse marks, because - on average - education is considered less to be a way out of bad situation while for whites this seems to be more likely to be regarded as such. Regarding the astounding marks of Asian Americans, it seems that they're confident that a good education will neutralize any possible adverse social effects by racial prejudices. Blacks and Hispanics seem more often to be resignating and blaming their social situation on race only, education not being a factor. Of course, race IS a factor, but at the same time, education WOULD make it better in the overall account. Now, AA is a try also to break this kind of thinking by making it easier.
AA recognizes the fact that members of some ethnic groups are more likely to make a career through education than others. Now, it would be racistic to suppose that such differences have something to do with the intellectual potential of a race! Contrary, AA acknowledges SOCIAL or CULTURAL factors in minority groups to be responsible for such empiric realities and tries to correct the problem. Thus making it not different than any system that only takes into account the economic situatino or the school-type a pupil attended.
That's the very reason why Asian Americans are, like Caucasians, excluded from AA. Once the empirical data of educational differences between races is getting smaller, AA would cease to be OK of course. If you accept economic situation to be taken into account you'd also have to consider social factors with an ethnic background unless you're a racist.
Really, next time Bush will just say that those who have the best marks should be accepted (well, I understand that his daddy didn't take such a step )