Forums → WEPR → Affirmative Action

Says the person who did not get into a college. The people who DID get in benefit from the exposure to diversity. And more people than ever (as of 2010) are going to college, so...

As someone who goes to a college that uses affirmative action, I have never come across a person with this sentiment. More often than not, these kinds of thoughts are directed at athletes (even though we don't give athletic scholarships...), not minorities.

his sounds reasonable at first, until you think about how college admissions actually works. Then, it is completely ridiculous.

No one gets into a decent college just because they are black. Back to Harvard: 35,000 people applied, about 2170 got in. So, how many of those 32,830 students weren't qualified to get in to Harvard? At first, one might say "Well, all of them. Otherwise they would have gotten in."

But that is simply not the case. Some of them might have been more qualified than people who got in, and some of them were probably not fit for community college. But most of them could have gone to Harvard and done quite well. Many of the rejects would have added to the achievements of the University. But there simply isn't enough room.

Given that there are literally tens of thousands of students who are qualified but didn't get in, do you really think they just picked some kid because he was black? No. He would have already had to have been just as qualified as everyone else. Being black just makes it more likely that he will be in the 2170 group.

The fact is, people ARE still racist. Minorities still have to overcome racism. Isn't this act in itself worthy of merit?

So, I have another question. If affirmative action in colleges detracts from the potential of the college so much, then why do colleges do it? Why does a private university that is focused on making as much money as possible give out hundreds of thousands of dollars in the form of scholarships to minorities? Nobody is making them do this. So why?

Great. Since your personal experience is defiantly something that all of us find valid, your opinions defiantly are not biased, and the basis for a good argument.

But one is white and the other is, I don't know, Mexican. Would it be racist if they chose the white guy, because he was white?

Why are so many collages religious?

I never use my own personal experience if I think I don't need to. I searched for an article on this topic and didn't find anything that I thought was credible. To be fair, nobody has provided any concrete evidence on this thread besides myself. You haven't called anyone else out, who's biased now?

Well, it depends on why the college thinks being white matters. Racism, contrary to popular belief, isn't just about race. Racism is the belief that inherent traits in a race justify discrimination. Affirmative action isn't racist because it doesn't act on the principle that Minorities are fundamentally better people, or that white people are lesser. It simply tries to balance out the oppression that minorities must overcome due to other's racism.

If you think about it, if it were white people being oppressed, the same logic could be used. The actual race of the people who benefit from affirmative action is irrelevant.

Um... seriously? Tradition. No really, that's it. Look up the history of higher education; it isn't exactly secular.

But affirmative action is a relatively new thing, at least on this level. Colleges and universities enact all kinds of policies, and all of their own free will. So... why? If it is stupid and racist and potentially excludes worthy students, why is it so prevalent?

And a little history for this I just read from the wiki:

1978 - Regents of the University of California v. Bakke 438 U.S. 265 (1978)

The Supreme Court held that the UC Davis medical school admissions program violated the equal protection clause with the institution of quotas for underrepresented minorities. However, Justice Lewis Powell's decision in the majority upheld diversity in higher education as a "compelling interest" and held that race could be one of the factors in university admissions.

Interesting, isn't' it "race quota" was found to be a violation, but collages (Like we are talking about now) are still able to use it. For some reason.

"Hopwood v. Texas"

Another interesting one where some majority kids claimed to be better suited then some of the minority kids who where let in.

Which is also an interesting thing, bringing about your "Well they had suffered true racism!", the main person (Hopwood) had a young kid with muscular disease, a fate worse then minor racism. They won, and apparently the school was no longer aloud to choose people using race as a factor.

Just a little bit to start off with.

In continuing from my last post (Don't consider this a tipple post, if it ends up being that, but one big post)

"Affirmative Action" style racism is banned in:

California (Prop 209)

Washington (Kinda. Initiative 200, Parents Involved in Community Schools v. Seattle School District No. 1, 149 Wn.2d 660, 72 P.3d 151 [which allowed it, as long as the majority one who was override was less or equally qualified)

Michigan (Kinda, Gratz v. Bollinger [which prevented race from being a huge factor]Michigan Civil Rights Initiative (Michigan Proposal 2006-2) banned it to everything that got public funding)

Nebraska (Kinda, Nebraska Civil Rights Initiative 424)

Arizona (Kinda Proposition 107)

Most of the "Kidna"s I put up there where because they still had some room to be, mostly they could still use Affirmative Action if they didn't get government funding, but who wants that?

So where exactly DO schools use this?

Working backwards...

Why is it so prevalent, according to you?

An interesting story, but isn't it cutting off a majority of people who want to join anyway?

Wait, who is being oppressed now? "Oppressed"? You think that absolutely everyone who is part of a minority has been oppressed? That is kind of insane to say, isn't it?

And this time the Israely kid gets in do the "Affirmative Action", is that Ok now? Someone who has never been discriminated against?

And I would call it discrimination picking one race over another, assuming that the two where equally matched in everything else.

I only read the last page, and you where the only one who posted there who I wanted to respond to.

According to me, because giving minorities scholarships actually makes the school money. People want to go to a school with diversity. Yes, even rich white people. Call it white guilt or whatever you want, it happens.

These people go to the colleges, and their rich parents donate money. It is unbelievable how much money colleges get from donations. It is the same reasoning as athletic scholarships: the school doesn't care about the athletes getting a good opportunity; they want to boost their reputation through a good sports team (also, sell stadium tickets).

And the money keeps coming: after these students graduate, they are more likely to get better jobs. Some of them will become obscenely wealthy. And who do they have to think? The college. Colleges track which demographics are most likely to donate back if they strike it rich. And it turns out, non-whites are more likely to give back than white people.

And when the school makes more money, everyone (*at the school) wins. Suddenly, there is funding to send people to on a research expedition to South Africa for a month- for free. There is money to PAY people to take summer classes.

It isn't just self gratification. Its economic sense. Schools try to be diverse as possible- whatever that means at the time. For instance, my current school currently enrolls more women than men. So, it currently selects for men in the application process. That doesn't really fit in with the whole making-themselves-feel-better theory, does it?

Yes. And they suffer for it. But affirmative action doesn't cut off a majority of people. Harvard is still more white than any other race. Black people are still under represented.

No, of course not. But I think that many (most?) minorities have to suffer through racism. And as I said before, places like Harvard get over 30,000 applicants a year. They simply don't have time to go through every person and judge how racism has affected their lives.

I don't think Israel has any kind of affirmative action since it is pretty much homogeneous... Why would they have affirmative action? It would depend on their justification. The justification in the U.S. IS discrimination, so this line of reasoning is hardly relevant.

And would call it the the first and primary definition. Obviously we don't need to continue this line of thought, since we can both just hold onto our own definitions. But, do you agree that under the first definition that affirmative action is not racist?

Exactly. The only person you called out was the person you disagree with.

Interesting tidbit for those who don't think racism is a problem today:
In 2008, a gallup poll revealed that 82% of white people think that black people have an equal chance as white people to get a job for which they are both qualified.

49% of black people expressed the same opinion.

But what would they know?

So I was correct then? "Oh look at all the minorities we have, we are so accepting! Join us!"

It would seem that "International Students" are over-represented from your theory

I was referring to an Isreally kid coming to America and going to an American school, not a school in his own place. Would it be justified then, even though he has never seen major racism?

Since Ivy League schools don't have time to have proper entrance tests and other such things to weed out who is the best, they should just assume that everyone who isn't bleach white has been the end of horrible, disgusting, racism and let them in over equally qualified people, do to their race?

That sound more like a housing problem, it probably has an equal amount of men and women' housing and thus needs an equal amount of people. Or the college's leader is insane.

So what exactly is a problem? 50% of black people who where interviewed don't think they have an equal chance of getting a job? And you want to make sure that number turns to 0, since they would actually have a BETTER chance of getting a job? Which is better, having 50% of people think that they have an equal chance, or having 0% think they have an equal chance?

Or pick by class, a guy taking a science on computers and getting good grades is more likely to be rich then someone getting a "Liberal arts degree".

And one more thing for the night.

Since Affirmative action basically lowers the bar for minorities and allows them to get into school easier, it makes them preform worse in better schools. For example, "...he article presents a study that, among other things, shows that half of all black law students rank near the bottom of their class after the first year of law school, and that black law students are more likely to drop out of law school and to fail the bar exam.[50] The article offers a tentative estimate that the production of new black lawyers in the United States would grow by eight percent if affirmative action programs at all law schools were ended, as less qualified black students would instead attend less prestigious schools where they would be more closely matched with their classmates, and thus perform better.[50] Sander helped to develop a socioeconomically-based affirmative action plan for the UCLA School of Law after the passage of Proposition 209 in 1996 which prohibited the use of racial preferences by public universities California schools. This change occurred after studies that showed that the graduation rate of blacks at UCLA was 41%, compared to 73% for whites."

And it would seem that not even everyone getting it wants it. For example, Clarence Thomas, who is black (Since apparently that matters to you?) and is a current justice of the Supreme Court, went to Yale, "He believes the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment forbids consideration of race, such as race-based affirmative action or preferential treatment. He also believes it creates "a cult of victimization" and implies blacks require "special treatment in order to succeed". Thomas also cites his own experiences of affirmative action programs as a reason for his criticism.[40][41]"

Alright. Bed time.

Well now I have to reply again.

More or less. Have you seen a college brochure? It is very easy to be cynical. I was just explaining the economics behind it.

And Asians. It is actually getting harder for Asians to get into Harvard now.

You're saying an immigrant from Israel wouldn't be discriminated against? Are you serious? There are many people here who think that Israel shouldn't even exist. Also, Americans have a mean anti-Semite streak that hasn't quite gone away yet. But that's another thread.

Anyway, international students get a similar bump for being international. The reasons should be obvious. I agree with this policy- its hard for international students to come all this way, but they help the school a lot. Especially in the form of foreign language assistants... So the extra scholarships provide a little more incentive.

You've seen the statics, so it is clear that that isn't what they do. And I have already explained why entrance tests aren't everything. Life experiences count for a lot in college admissions, that's why they encourage autobiographical essays for the application.

We have coed housing, right down to the dorm rooms. Just like in real life!

Well, clearly 50. But 100 is better still. The point is that over half of black people polled (and gallup tends to be pretty good) think that they are discriminated against in the workforce. But the vast majority of white people deny any such problem. Its like white people refuse to see what is actually going on.

They do that to. Pretty much every application asks for your intended major, and why you chose that major, and what you have done so far to prepare for that major, and etc. But, the problem is getting the rich people to apply in the first case. And like I said, people are more likely to apply to a school that is perceived as diverse.

Affirmative action isn't like the defining factor in the application process, its like a little &quotlus one" added into the grand tally.

And I agree- but how do we measure merit? An SAT score? Community service? Really, when you think about it, there is no objective way to measure something like merit. So, Admissions can never truly be fair, just as fair as possible.

Lets go back to SAT/AP scores. On average, Black families tend to make about $10,000 less than white families. Which family do you think will be more likely to afford an SAT tutor? Which will be more likely to be able to afford live in an area with a good public school that offers many AP classes? Basically, when we consider merit, I think race should be a factor. At least for now, there is evidence that minorities are still being discriminated against.

Nichodemus, you say white people shouldn't be punished for their ancestor's sins, but should black students be held back simply because their parents are still being discriminated against?

I can see the basic reasoning behind affirmative action, but I find myself not in support of it. The fact is there is a correlation between being of a certain race and being of a certain social class, and in fact, past disadvantage seems to be the pretty obvious cause of this as well. I would in fact say that this is a problem, the idea that "all men were created equal" is such a silly one, in the sense that, you are born into a family that is going to have different access to resources than another family. If you are born into a rich family, you will get a better education, your odds of having to drop out to get a job are lower and so on. So really, there is undeniably a problem.

Though affirmative action has been around for a long time, and if you look at the numbers the problem has only gotten worse. This seems to be a tell tale sign that affirmative action does not work.

I agree with Nichodemus that making education more equal is an important step.

I also think that looking at this from a race based perspective is the wrong approach, the problem is that there are a disproportionate number of certain races in the lower class. You can target those races, or you can target the lower class, in which case because of the way the numbers are, you end up, by number helping one race more, while not helping those who didn't need help to begin with. Though, I am not entirely sure whether anything beyond improving education in poorer areas is much need in the first place, but regardless, I think the real problem is class, not race.

ugh... post got eaten by the internet... well here it goes again:

No, they're parents earn less and it takes a long time to level the playing field, but I don't see actively sanctioned discrimination?

If you're going to be picky about salaries, then why not check up on every family, black, latino, white or what not, since there will always be rich or poor people on both sides?

They do. I think salary is even included on the common app. Many colleges (and pretty much all top level colleges) give out a substantial amount of need-based grants. I personally would not be able to attend my college without the grant money I receive.

But we also have to account for the fact that there would be a disproportionate number of white people to minorities without affirmative action. And while I think that concrete quotas are bad (well.. just plain stupid really), I also think many institutions benefit from being representative of society.

Colleges in particular are very sensitive to this. Diversity is a powerful thing- it betters the learning environment for everyone, not just minorities. It enables us to learn about other cultures, other ways of life. Diversity in colleges enables us to see first hand people from all backgrounds do amazing things.

Aren't those the most fair benchmark, since the SATS are a universal test of our abilities?

Or in some cases,

Instead of making themselves a "TASTE THE RAINBOW!" school, why not just have good teachers, good rooms, well equipped classes and the rest?

I can't see any reason why having the same amount of males and females in collage would be considered beneficial.

more minority kids then majority kids

And minority people have more life experience?

it more difficult for the students who get in, lowering the graduation rate and raising the dropout rate.

"Look at all the exotic people we have!"

Again, as I said before, it isn't just diversity for diversity's sake. Everyone benefits.

have minorites picked over them don't benefit.

It's much easier to raise them to be smart, to want college, to pay attention in school, and make it so this has no reason to happen.