Affirmative Action

Hades wrote: Relevant Quote wrote: The Argument: There are several factors that a college should take into account when considering applicants, such as grades, test scores, and extra-curricular achievements. However, an applicant's race is not a legitimate factor to take into consideration because it is outside of the student's control. It is impossible for a college to consider every aspect of a student's background when making admissions decisions. Why focus on race in particular, as opposed to the thousands of other aspects that differentiate students from one another? The Response: The purpose of the college admissions process is not to reward merit but to get the best overall student body. Insofar as affirmative action increases the diversity of the student community, it makes for a better learning environment.

My point exactly. College admissions should be awarding merit. And by doing so, it creates diversity. Under affirmative action, you create diversity by creating a dichotomy: those who deserve to be at the school and those who don't. Diversity shouldn't matter in a learning environment. A physics class of white students learns the same physics as a class of black students, or a class of diverse students. The material doesn't change when you introduce diversity.

If agree that racial background should not be allowed on any application, be it a job app, a college app, or a credit card app. It doesn't matter. We are all people. Martin Luther King said "I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character." He was right! Martin Luther King is hailed as someone who fought for the rights of black people but that is not entirely true. He was fighting for the rights of ALL people. A society without color.

Clark Kent wrote: You guys throw around the phrase "affirmative action" like it is a simple thing.  Saying that you are for or against "affirmative action" makes about as much sense as being for or against "gun control" or "war" or "tort reform". Affirmative action is a collection of complex policies and practices.  It might be helpful to specify what exactly you are for or against. But as to the situation at hand - there are a couple of questions.  The first one is "why do you believe that race was the deciding factor, or even a significant factor?"

No, I am against Affirmative Action. Period. You are trying to make affirmative action look like more than it is to make our arguments seem invalid. Affirmative Action is a policy to give the less advantaged "equal" chances to advance in their academic and career paths. At the time of its conception, it was needed because the minorities were not being given equal chances. Many gifted minorities were not given the oppurtunity to advance because of their race. But it is a different time now. Now, the "minorities" are given greater chances to succeed, but not because of their merits but because of their race. Many people, myself included, no longer have an equal chance at advancement because we are not diverse enough. Thats where the problem lies.

As for my case, if you knew the guy, you would understand. Why do I think race was a deciding factor? Because of all the qualities a school of MIT's caliber looks for, he had none of them. He showed no regard for others, as he didn't even have the common courtesy to show up to his interview. And his grades and academic qualities were subpar for a school of such high prestige. He would have been fine for a state school or even some of the less intense private schools. But since he is black, his mediocracy gets promoted to make it look like "his qualities may not be very high, but he is a disadvantaged minority so he never had the chance to do any better..." When the fact is that he just isn't a good enough student.

Clark Kent wrote: You guys throw around the phrase "affirmative action" like it is a simple thing.  Saying that you are for or against "affirmative action" makes about as much sense as being for or against "gun control" or "war" or "tort reform". Affirmative action is a collection of complex policies and practices.  It might be helpful to specify what exactly you are for or against. But as to the situation at hand - there are a couple of questions.  The first one is "why do you believe that race was the deciding factor, or even a significant factor?"

I will specify exactly what I am against: Affirmative Action. Using color or ethnic background as a basis for judgement, no matter what the end result, is wrong. True equality can only be achieved when all people are treated equally. All AA does is perpetuate discrimination in one form or another.

Also, if he surpassed the other student in all areas, and the other student did not even bother showing up for the interview, please tell me what else it could be other than racial favoritism.

MattyJ wrote: No, I am against Affirmative Action. Period.

You really should define what you are against...

You are trying to make affirmative action look like more than it is to make our arguments seem invalid.

I am simply attempting to define what we are talking about.  I have not attempted to invalidate anybody's arguments.  Hard to do, since no arguments have been made yet, only vague statements of general opinion.

Affirmative Action is a policy to give the less advantaged "equal" chances to advance in their academic and career paths.

Ah - a definition.  :)

Using this (rather narrow) definition of AA, I gather that you are against giving "compensating" advantages to disadvantaged folk.  Period.

Is that an accurate statement of your position?

At the time of its conception, it was needed because the minorities were not being given equal chances. Many gifted minorities were not given the oppurtunity to advance because of their race. But it is a different time now.

From this I gather that you aren't really against AA at all (necessarily).  You are simply saying that it is misapplied because minorities are not disadvantaged?

That is quite different from saying that you are against helping the disadvantaged.

I am confused as to exactly what your position is.

As for my case, if you knew the guy, you would understand. Why do I think race was a deciding factor? [various reasons] ... But since he is black, his mediocracy gets promoted to make it look like "his qualities may not be very high, but he is a disadvantaged minority so he never had the chance to do any better..." When the fact is that he just isn't a good enough student.

So to paraphrase:  "I can't understand why he got accepted and I didn't, therefore it must have been race."

It may have been race.  It very well may have been.  But from your post you honestly don't have a single reason to think so, other than that you can't think of any other reason.  That is hardly proof of anything.

Here's an example of diversity-based affirmative action, along the lines of what Hades was describing:

I am organizing a lunch with coworkers.  Just a social thing.  After inviting the three people in neighboring offices I realize it will be all guys.  Stag lunches are boring, so I invite a couple of women from a different floor instead of inviting some more guys from my area.

I selected women over men, specifically based on their gender, because I believe that their presence will make our lunch more enjoyable for everybody, even though in the process I stiffed some equally- or better-qualified male lunchers.

Was I wrong to do so?

Tae Kwon Do wrote: Im all for Affirmitave Action like programs, but I think they should base them off of household income, not race or skin color. Its no longer an issue of black and white, its an issue of rich and poor. This is all just my opinion.

Would it change your mind if I could show that, even after factoring in socio-economic status, race is a very significant factor?

DBibeau855 wrote: Tae Kwon Do wrote: DBibeau855 wrote: See, this makes sense, why give a spot to an inferior student when his parents make a net income of 200,000 a year. The white student who from a single parent home. Should be considered over the other student. Thats the way it should if we are going to have an affirmitive action program. No Im saying an Affermitive Action type policy. Even though the kid from a single parent home making 18k a year may have a lower GPA or less credentials than the rich boy whos parents can buy the kids way into college, the Colleges should have to go look for the worse off kid. Same as todays system but put in income insted of race. Why, tuition is a fact of life, it helps pay for the student services, salaries and campus up keep. If we just said screw the rich kid whos parents "buy" their way in, wich every family does. The college would just decline.

So now your point is that monitary asistance programs are bad?