Affirmative Action

Remove all ads!

White kids inherently have it better than black kids, so we should give black kids a boost up in admissions, even if individual cases don't fit that description? Bullsh*t.

I'm attempting to discredit the generalization that white people are handed everything and don't have to work for it. What if, for some individual case, the opposite was true? Hypothetically, a black and white student of equal social class, equal education, and equal qualifications apply to a school under an Affirmative Action program. The black student innately gets the spot, based on all of those criterion. Is that fair? Or simply because it's so rare of an occurence, it's not worth considering? My point is that I was such an occurence, and I'm not the only one who feels a little cheated.

I'm sorry your life was so difficult, Laches. Oh, wait, no I'm not. I couldn't care less. I'm not looking for your sympathy or anyone elses.

You failed to address the point entirely, or even respond to my points, you simply dismissed my hard work because you think you worked harder. When we are talking about Affirmative Action, we aren't talking about money. Yes, I got government sponsored aid so that I could come here to Berkeley. So did practically everyone else of my socio-economic status. I also EARNED grants and scholarships because of my scholastic acheivements.

The topic here, however, is admissions. Berkeley does not, nor does any public university in California, to my knowledge, give any consideration to economic status beyond financial aid. How do I know? Nowhere in my application was I required to log the earnings of my parents, only in a financial aid statement I filed AFTER I was excepted did I have to disclose this information. But it doesn't matter if I'm rich, white, protestant, and male, on none of those characteristics should I be given a boost or discriminated against. And by offering positions to members of other categories and not extending me the same consideration, that is exactly what they are doing. They are giving weight and favor to certain races. If they did that for other aspects of a human being: religion, sex, hair color, etc. there would be a major outcry. If males got points for being males, and males for some reason [this isn't true, just an example, ladies] were generally thought to be smarter, than Feminists everywhere would burn and pillage. But there is this notion, which you voiced ever-so-elegantly, that white people inherently have it better in this country than anyone else, but further, as a result, we don't have the rights that all the other peoples have to voice our opinions when injustice is being done. We just keep our mouths shut because at the end of the day, apparently ALL white people have it better than ALL black people.

Untrue, and sickening. Find a better solution.

[ January 23, 2003, 09:31: Message edited by: Amon-Ra ]

 

Amon, you're misreading what I typed. I don't think my life has been difficult, I think it has been great, I love it. I was just pointing out that you being a self proclaimed member of the "intellectual elite" who volunteered, was on the track team, got A's etc. seemed designed to elicit some type of sympathy or support for your argument that I didn't see as particularly persuasive. Now, with that out of the way....

Nowhere did I say that "All white people have it better than all black people." You're putting words in my mouth in order to make it easier for you to argue with me, that's a strawman. I did say, that on average, white people are much better off economically than African-Americans and other minorities.

According to the U.S. census figures, the average white household in 2001 made $44,517 while the average black household made $29,470. See: http://www.census.gov/hhes/income/income01/inctab1.html

So, because of a racist history the average African-American begins at an economic disadvantage relative to the average white American. Meritocracy demands a level playing field but the playing field has never been level for African-Americans. It goes far beyond mere economic status as well. A poor white person has a better chance of rising in economic class by virtue of being white. Rallymama's statistics are just one indication of this.

From the Kerner Study:

So, yes, I'm sorry to say, it is readily apparent that the average African-American has a tougher go of it than the average white American and the cases you hypothesize of a white American not getting accepted to a University in favor of an African-American who receives an undeserved bonus are few and far between I assert.

Also, I am certain that Universities DO give preference to those who originate from a lower economic status during the admissions process. The fact that you are not required to disclose your income did not preclude it. Harvard has a well known program which takes into account a person's economic status -- see the Bakke case for details.

So, first, I didn't assert what you said I did. Second, on average African-Americans have it much tougher than white Americans. Third, economic status is a consideration that helps when seeking admission to at least many Universities.

Also, you didn't answer the question: what is the purpose of a public University?

[ January 23, 2003, 19:40: Message edited by: Laches ]

 

I am personally opposed to Affirmative Action. It's a simplistic solution for a complex problem, as ejsmith said.

People complain that businesses do not have enough minorities, based on the percentages of employees. BUT not all people are created equal. For example, I am a mainframe computer programmer by trade. Over the past 10 years, I have worked with very few black programmers, because there just aren't that many out there. Now, if the government determines that my company is required to hire, say, 35% black people for programming positions, (based on the percentage of the population of Pittsburgh that are black) the quality likely is going to suffer because there are not many black people in programming, and many black programmers will be hired based on thier race, rather than thier qualification to do the job. I would like to see equality, I would like to see companies hire more black programmers, but forcing companies to make xx% of thier work force black is not going to work.

And Laches, the "quota" system was used here in Pittsburgh when Heinz Field, the new Steelers stadium, was built. They were required to hire a certain percentage of minority and female owned businesses. Good points otherwise though.

I don't know what the solution is that will make everyone happy (I suspect there isn't one), but affirmative action definitely is not it.

 

I would imagine that one of the reasons there are so few black computer programers is that on average a much smaller percentage of black families can afford computers relative to white families. So, black children are less likely to grow up with them and this combined with the fact that they are less likely to obtain a higher education = fewer programers.

Here is a high profile problem though: black football coaches in college and the NFL. There are 117 Div I-A college football programs. Working from memory here, about half of all college footbal players are black (much higher numbers at the BCS conference schools.) Before the year started, there were only 4 black head coaches and only 12 coordinators. So, 4/117 and 12/234. This while 1/2 of all players are black.

A primary reason why there are so few blacks in high positions is fundraising. There was an article in SI or ESPN quoting anonymous sources from AD departments as saying that they had been told by rich alumni that hiring a minority would result in a decrease in revenue.

The point of all this is that I think some people don't realize that they are at a competitive advantage in life in the U.S. if they are white. Even whites from poor economic backgrounds stand a better chance of economic success than similarly situated African-Americans.

Affirmative action is an acknowledgment that the playing field isn't level and an attempt to balance it on a large scale. Affirmative action also encompasses many types of programs. I'll say it again, quota systems are illegal and have been for quite some time in this context.

In my opinion, the UM program was poorly designed which is surprising considering they are supposed to have a strong law school. I would've erred on the side of caution and put the Harvard plan in place.

A holding that the UM program is unconstitutional does not me all forms of affirmative action are. It's actually long past time for the Supreme Court to speak up since thusfar the Court has provided virtually no guidance.

 

Thanks and bravo, Laches: first, on catching the strawman, and second on playing party to a devil's advocate.

It's just been a long while since I've heard a truly convincing argument for it that wasn't coated in shouting, "Racism Racism, let's march and rally". Your first address to my post was merely a shutdown of my psuedo-plight [I'm a child of a middle-middle class suburban family, not trailer trash] and I was looking for a little more substance. Sorry if I got nasty, it was meant to elicit a coherent and logical response.

I'm attend UC Berk, I got in on merit, practically a free ride, do you really think I'm all that much against Affirmative Action? It hasn't hurt me any.

 

"We just keep our mouths shut because at the end of the day, apparently ALL white people have it better than ALL black people."

I know that the average white family makes more money than the average black family. But there is a reason to this. It's not racism or coming from a poor place (because as we all know from laches, you can do very well, even in a piss poor place) It's that the black culture, in general, does not value academics as much as white and asian cultures.

What a white person percieves as intelligence, may not be what a black person percieves as intelligence. unfortunately, our schools and tests are catered to the white/asian acceptance of intelligence. And minorities consistantly score lower on these tests(ACT etc) than whites and asians.

Affirmative action is in place in part because many people think "why should this white/asian acceptance be the standard? who says their values are better than ours?" and that this is acceptance of white/asian values is bias against many minorty cultures. Affirmative action attempts makes up for this.

But affirmative action is worthless. No one is saying that their culture's values are better than other's, because they aren't. But when it comes down to it, in the world of money, it does. Academics get you more money. And if you want a better life (more money), then you had better get some education, because that is what drives personal income. And if you don't see education as a very high goal, then so sad, because the world is run by money, not morals.
-outputrotation

 

Laches, I was the one that started the other thread that you speak of, and I remember our quota decision well. It is an entirely unfair and illegal system requiring public institutions to meet certain percentages of minorities.

If society stopped emphasizing racism and other such issues, they would fade over a generation or so. Sadly, that is not going to happen.

I am opposed to any policy into which race, gender, or sexual preference enters into the equation. No matter how you look at the attempt to formulate equality, you end up discriminating against someone. I wonder what would happen whenever the majority (which will be Hispanics in America within about 20 years, BTW) screams discrimination. Will we get the same preferential treatment that minorities get now, or become the laughing stock of the nation?

True, although from my experience lately, there is really no difference in the sounding of names, due to the fact that most families have some slight racial blending.

I've always believed that you have to work your way from the bottom. If you have the necessary skills/talents to achieve success, your background quickly becomes immaterial. Essentially, exactly what Amon-Ra said.

Nor does any college in Pennsylvania, or in the nation that I'm aware of. Financial aid only goes out to qualified people, or at least it should.

Females do get points for being females for admissions into graduate or medical/law schools.

 

Just a quick note, once again, I'm certain that some Universities prefer applicants from disadvanataged economic backgrounds to those from better backgrounds. Harvard's policy is famous for this (or it was, not sure what it is the last few years.) They essentially had a program like that I described in the medical school up the page. Certain applicants fall in the "maybe we'll admit" category and are put aside and later examined in depth. Showing on these applications that you've overcome a disadvantaged economic background is given weight and looked at as an advantage. Harvard has expressly admitted this in the past. It is also entirely legal for this since the discriminatio is not considered an invidious one.

Also, it hasn't been noted yet, but affirmative action also works the other way. A federal court has ruled and it is now in place that for traditionally black Universities white people are the minority. Therefore, affirmative action type recruitment programs where whites are the minority take place and being white entitles you to financial aid not available to other black students. This has most visibly taken place at the traditional black Universities in Alabama such as Alabama A&M and Tuskeegee (sp?)

 

I do not like affermative action.I beleive we have to attack this promblem differently.
One thing I think would change is how the money for public education gets distributed.Now it is based on the Tax base of the area surrounding the school.This is seems to favor kids that grow up in succesfull families.
Money doesnt change everything but I beleive if the states took all the money for schools and distributed it eqauly to each school,this would help to increase the education in areas of poor economic growth thus (hopefully) raising everyones standard of living and helping to level the playing field so to speak.

[ January 27, 2003, 06:26: Message edited by: Dorion Blackstar ]

 

After a self-imposed vacation from SP, I'm sorry to have my first post a hostile one, but...

Oh, please. Do you honestly think that racism can just be "not emphasized" and that because of that, racism would disappear? And by "not emphasized" do you mean ignored? There is a debt to be paid to minorities, disadvantaged kids, etc. This is not some bull**** race card. It is hard fact that minorities in America have it harder than the white majority.

On a related topic, The single most defining aspect of American history is slavery. Subconciously, much of white America has spent the last 250 years in shame for what happened, and many people do not want to deal with the consequences today. Can we go back in time and prevent the horror? Of course not. Can we pass laws that try to even the playing field? Of course. Think of a better solution, and I'll be listening.

P.S. Kudos to Laches for continuing to provide even-handed, well-informed arguments.

 

There's a big difference between leveling the playing field and paying off some kind of karmic debt with handouts. Why should money come out of my pocket for the sake of someone whose ancestors were slaves, when MY ancestors weren't even in this country at the time slavery was happening?

I agree that all participants should have an equal chance at reaching the goal - be it a job or a college admission slot - but if the only way to support one group is to damage another, the system is still broken.

 

GO RALLY!

Racism is on the decline in the US. It is time to start rolling reverse racism back.

There is no debt owed by today generations in the way of reparations. This is just a grab for money. "Because my great-great-grandaddy was a slave everyone owes me". I love this argument. There is an entitlement because of ancestry? This argument usually comes from the same people who say that inheritance tax is justified because the person receiving the inheritance didn't earn the money themselves, so they shouldn't be entitled to receive it. Hypocrisy at its finest!

I know I posted this in another thread, but it fits here too:

A liberal is someone who feels a great debt to his fellow man, which debt he proposes to pay with your money. --G. Gordon Liddy

 

Let me add a little more fuel to this fire. My personal experience has been that many minority groups relish that status to the point of actively avoiding assimilation into the overall society. While I heartily agree that every subculture should maintain its traditions - and even share them with other groups - there is still an underlying set of societal "rules" that govern how people in general interact with each other (a.k.a. ethics). It's not right for any group to be able to play by a special set of rules, nor is it right for one group to skew those rules to shut out another group.

I try to be open-minded when encountering minorities, but it gets pretty tough to be accommodating when those minorities aren't willing to be the slightest bit accommodating of me. It's not right to demand something you're not willing to extend in return - respect. Expand that attitude to a nationwide scale and extend it across a number of presidential administrations, and you can begin to see why the majority is getting tired of pouring money into social programs that have no visible payback.

 

Did I EVER mention reparations, or even literally paying back anyone........no.

 

Does my post say that you did?

NO!

 

BTW, just got off my butt and checked this out,
here is how the UM program works:

you receive a certain amount of points (20) for ONE of the following categories:

1)If you are from an underrepresented minority

2)If you are from an underrepresented county (or school district?) in Michigan

3)If you're from a poor economic background

4)If you're a legacy (your parents went to UM).

Here are some thoughts:
a) it has been argued above that you don't receive a benefit if you're white and poor but 3 above indicates that this is not the case.

b)you get points if you're a legacy, how many legacies do you suppose are white vs minority?

c) I'm still curious if someone can show me support of a quota system being used today, in this context particularly but other contexts as well.