• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Is Affirmative Action good for Colleges and Universities

But if they're qualified, why is everyone making a fuss? They would have been admitted anyway. They implicitly can't be qualified, otherwise, we'd have no need for AA!

Most colleges I have visited (quite a few because I need to apply next summer) have given the reason of "increasing campus diversity" as their reason for supporting AA (about 50%, rough estimate, said they felt fine with it). One admissions guy told me it made the school more attractive to minorities because there are more "people of color" on campus. The idea is not to let in underqualified students, but to give students from minorities boosted representation. At least 25% of all qualified applicants (again rough estimate based on various talks with the admissions office peoples) are denied because of reasons, to me bullshit reasons, like not having the right extracurriculars or not having the best essay in the group. While I dont think it's strictly fair in the application process i support it because the inner city kids (where most of the minority applicants come from) are getting shafted by the govt.

Isn't that the whole point behind AA? Blacks live in poor areas, where their schools are "****", so why aren't they underqualified? That's why AA exists, to promote them in the lottery of life, to paraphrase. If that's not why AA exists, please tell us what else it's there for?

I never said the underqualified people are the ones being let in. I admit there have to be cases where underqualified students are let in due to quotas, but on the whole colleges throw RIGHT OUT all applications which don't meet the minimum requirments for entrance and then go from there. As I said above, most colleges say its to "increase campus diversity" or someother such reason. True, it gives a bit of an unfair edge to minority students, but untill there is an overhaul of public education, I think the system should stay in place (with a little tweeking, not a complete overhaul, to correct the instances where quotas force underqualified students to be let in.
 
getinvolved said:
I think I know where your logic lies when you mkae a statement like this. It can difficult to understand how a policy that favors perhaps a less qualified candidate simply b/c of their race. But, it is also importnat to keep in mind the fact that due to years of oppression, many people who benefit from this policy have started out three steps behind due the limited opportunites offered to them. I think that like any program, affirmative action has some major flaws, but I also think that it's intention must be kept in mind as well.

Affirmative action needs reforms, but calling it "institutionalized racism" disregards it's main objectives.

It's main objective is to give some preferencial treatment based soley on their race. That is racism, pure and simple.

If people want to rise above, they need to realize that they have to work. Giving them a handout just because of the colour of their skin is just telling them that they need the help because they can't do it on their own.

There also needs to be a change of attitude that can only be brought about by the parents. There has to be a change in the attitude that if you get ahead due to hard work and academics, you are not a sell-out to your race. It seems like the only acceptable ways for someone to make something of themselves is to either be an athlete or a music star.
 
Re: White Entitlement

MrFungus420 said:
It's main objective is to give some preferencial treatment based soley on their race. That is racism, pure and simple.

If people want to rise above, they need to realize that they have to work. Giving them a handout just because of the colour of their skin is just telling them that they need the help because they can't do it on their own.

There also needs to be a change of attitude that can only be brought about by the parents. There has to be a change in the attitude that if you get ahead due to hard work and academics, you are not a sell-out to your race. It seems like the only acceptable ways for someone to make something of themselves is to either be an athlete or a music star.

Tell me...does anybody here know how George Bush got into Yale, yet was rejected at the University of Texas?

If you know the answer to this question, I wonder why when we discuss these preferrential admissions practices that absolutely nobody from the majority class has issue with this practice, one that has existed not only in private institutions but state based as well.

Follow this to a logical conclusion. If you still don't get it..I'll be more than happy to spell it out to you. You and many others on this thread are are very confused if you think America is a meritocracy.

TwoPops
 
Tell me...does anybody here know how George Bush got into Yale, yet was rejected at the University of Texas?
So instead of fixing the problem of rich people getting into colleges you want to get minorities into colleges?
 
HELL NO!!
It isnt good. Just because a person is black and gets a 3.0 gpa and a white kid gets a 4.0 and they choose the black kid. Thats FAIR??? Hell no!! Affirmative action is just pulling the races apart even more. Its BS....
 
I have noticed a large bit of discussion on inner-city schools.
There are plenty of "cities" out there that have poor white kids that go to "inner-city" schools as well. So, we shouldn't give these disadvantaged "inner-city" white kids the same chance as the "inner-city" black kids because they are white?

The argument of giving blacks something because of what happened 200 years ago is bullshit. And it is even more bullshit when I hear blacks today pissed off about the fact that thier ancestors were slaves. Get over it! What the **** do you know about slavery? Are we still going to have to deal with that stupid argument 500 years down the road?

"Yeah, it would be like this if we weren't slaves to ya'll crackas 700 years ago!"

Affirmative Action COULD HAVE had a usefulness back when schools and universities were de-segregated, to enforce the rules. Now its just ridiculous.
 
Affirmative Action is not equality under the law. It is a violation of our 14th Amendment.
 
alex said:
Affirmative Action is not equality under the law. It is a violation of our 14th Amendment.
Technically it's not, since whites can seek relief under AA if they have been discriminated against based on their race... good luck finding a lawyer to defend that argument though!
 
TheBigC said:
Technically it's not, since whites can seek relief under AA if they have been discriminated against based on their race... good luck finding a lawyer to defend that argument though!

Technically, it is. According to the legal dictionary (http://dictionary.law.com/)

"affirmative action
n. the process of a business or governmental agency in which it gives special rights of hiring or advancement to ethnic minorities to make up for past discrimination against that minority."

So, it is obviously a racist policy, and, as such, violates the policy of equal protection under the law.
 
AA is a great strategy if your goal is to set minorities back 100 years. at the same time it shouldnt be done away with, just reformed to give opportunities to people based on socioeconomic status, not race.
 
The argument of giving blacks something because of what happened 200 years ago is bullshit.
There are millions of examples of someone's ancestors doing something, it's stupid, it has nothing to do with the individual. I could easily say that I have ancestors who fought in a war, so I deserve veteran support, or one of my ancestors committed murder and I should be punished.
 
MrFungus420 said:
Technically, it is. According to the legal dictionary (http://dictionary.law.com/)

"affirmative action
n. the process of a business or governmental agency in which it gives special rights of hiring or advancement to ethnic minorities to make up for past discrimination against that minority."

So, it is obviously a racist policy, and, as such, violates the policy of equal protection under the law.
That may be the common definition, but it's not the legal definition, which is all that would be taken into account if you were to argue that AA policies violated the 14th Amendment. Here is the definition as given by the Department of Labor:

"The Department of Labor's Employment Standards Administration's Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs (OFCCP) enforces the Executive Order 11246, as amended; Section 503 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended and the affirmative action provisions (Section 4212) of the Vietnam Era Veterans' Readjustment Assistance Act, as amended. Taken together, these laws ban discrimination and require Federal contractors and subcontractors to take affirmative action to ensure that all individuals have an equal opportunity for employment, without regard to race, color, religion, sex, national origin, disability or status as a Vietnam era or special disabled veteran." (emphasis added)

It's not about diversity, but it has been mutated by employers and some people to mean that. EO and AA were meant to level the playing field and they've been distorted to promote certain groups instead. This is why you would be able to seek relief under the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and any other original legally-binding document pertaining to the topic because in order to remain Constitutional they had to protect everyone equally *in theory*. They have been interpreted and extrapolated on to mean lots of things since then, but the original legal definition protects everyone.

Here's the full legal definition, I can't sum it up in a couple of sentences: US Codes Title 42, Table of Contents

This is the chapter of the US Code that lays out the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and it protects *everyone*. But again, good luck finding a lawyer that will take your case as a Euro-American claiming discrimination!
 
-Demosthenes- said:
There are millions of examples of someone's ancestors doing something, it's stupid, it has nothing to do with the individual. I could easily say that I have ancestors who fought in a war, so I deserve veteran support, or one of my ancestors committed murder and I should be punished.

ROFL... Exactly.

But this is the reason that Racism will not end, and then, neither will Civil Rights groups who are still around today just LOOKING for a reason to speak out.
 
AA is racism plain and simple. Further, it hurts the races it tries to protect alot more than helping them. It builds this cycle of freebies handed out to the minorities, so the minorities have no reason to strive to be excel. Then, with the next generation, it can be argued that the minority is ill equipped, thus, requiring another round of freebies. The cycle starts all over again. Personally, I think affirmative action is an affront to our society and should be done away with altogether, along with the ACLU and other social extortionists.
 
TheBigC said:
That may be the common definition, but it's not the legal definition, which is all that would be taken into account if you were to argue that AA policies violated the 14th Amendment. Here is the definition as given by the Department of Labor:

"The Department of Labor's Employment Standards Administration's Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs (OFCCP) enforces the Executive Order 11246, as amended; Section 503 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended and the affirmative action provisions (Section 4212) of the Vietnam Era Veterans' Readjustment Assistance Act, as amended. Taken together, these laws ban discrimination and require Federal contractors and subcontractors to take affirmative action to ensure that all individuals have an equal opportunity for employment, without regard to race, color, religion, sex, national origin, disability or status as a Vietnam era or special disabled veteran." (emphasis added)

It's not about diversity, but it has been mutated by employers and some people to mean that. EO and AA were meant to level the playing field and they've been distorted to promote certain groups instead. This is why you would be able to seek relief under the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and any other original legally-binding document pertaining to the topic because in order to remain Constitutional they had to protect everyone equally *in theory*. They have been interpreted and extrapolated on to mean lots of things since then, but the original legal definition protects everyone.

Here's the full legal definition, I can't sum it up in a couple of sentences: US Codes Title 42, Table of Contents

This is the chapter of the US Code that lays out the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and it protects *everyone*. But again, good luck finding a lawyer that will take your case as a Euro-American claiming discrimination!

That is not a definition of Affirmative Action. Section 4212 has no definition of Affirmative Action. The Dept. of Labor website doesn't have a definition of Affirmative Action. They both just say when there is a requirement for Affirmative Action.

Using the FindLaw website you've referenced above, I was able to find a definition of Affirmative Action: "an active effort (as through legislation) to improve the employment or educational opportunities of members of minority groups or women"

Affirmative Action is a program designed to give preferential treatment to minorities and women.

If you want to see Affirmative Action in action, watch CNN or CNN's Headline News. The majority of the broadcasters that I've seen are minority women.
 
nkgupta80 said:
but who do you think the colleges would and should want more. The kid with the 4.0 and the 1600 who's lived his whole life in a sheltered suburbian environment, or the kid with the 3.7 and 1450 who has lived in 5 different countries around the world and has a diverse cultural background?


you can make an argument that the second kid's experience is a strength that the other kid doesn't have. I had a roommmate in college who had 1600 SAT's (earned in 8th grade :mrgreen: ) but who had lousy grades. the fact that he was a 2450 rated chess player at age 14 was the main reason he was accepted at Yale. I have no problem with "affirmative action" when it means taking into account REAL obstacles or using other than pure GPA/SAT scores to judge people. After all, if I am a tennis coach recruiting a national level team would I pick a state champion who has a private coach and his own indoor court or a kid who grew up in the parks and only finished 10th at the state tournament? You could make a good argument that with a major college varsity program's help the second boy could achieve more since he hasn't maxed out his talent compared to the other kid.

a boy who scores 1450 at a crappy urban school might be more talented than the 1500 score from Phillips Exeter Academy or Bronx HS of Science.

AA as practiced nowadays is crap-I saw rich black kids from Exeter and then Yale get into Harvard Law or Yale law with 3.4 GPA's on the grounds they were disadvantaged while lower middle class white kids from farm families with 3.9's were turned down. That is the problem with AA-they don't actually judge people and what they have accomplished-like Michigan where you got more points for being black-even if you were Oscar Robertson or Calvin Hill's son-than you got for having a 1600 SAT or 4.0 valedictorian GPA.

BTW Private schools should be able to do what they want. IF Yale didn't give rich alums' kids (who btw have higher graduating GPA's on the average than non-legacies) a break on admission, the place would become an institution only for the rich
 
Turtle dude said:
I have no problem with "affirmative action" when it means taking into account REAL obstacles or using other than pure GPA/SAT scores to judge people.
So instead of Jonny being an 3.8 GPA, 1400 SAT student, now he's a BLACK 3.8 GPA, 1400 SAT student. Dr. King would be proud.

Help the poor and the disadvantaged, not the people with more of a chemical in their skin.
 
All Affirmative Action (i.e. race preferences) is good for is creating a diversity of competence. It places unfit blacks in positions they don't belong in, just for the sake of getting more black faces in the schools. If everyone can't come to a consensus that this "thinking" (for lack of a better term) is horridly flawed, I shudder to think what kind of genius is ok with it.
 
Affirmative Blacktion.
 
Affirmative Blacktion.

Clever clever. Real funny too.....

All Affirmative Action (i.e. race preferences) is good for is creating a diversity of competence. It places unfit blacks in positions they don't belong in, just for the sake of getting more black faces in the schools. If everyone can't come to a consensus that this "thinking" (for lack of a better term) is horridly flawed, I shudder to think what kind of genius is ok with it.

Provide me proof that the students accepted under AA are unfit to attend the university they were let into. If you can do that for me, I would be opposed to AA, but I have seen no evidence of this. I see enough dumb-**** college students who, IMO are unfit to attend college anywhere, at the University my father teaches at, and guess what, they're mostly white.
 
-Demosthenes- said:
So instead of Jonny being an 3.8 GPA, 1400 SAT student, now he's a BLACK 3.8 GPA, 1400 SAT student. Dr. King would be proud.

Help the poor and the disadvantaged, not the people with more of a chemical in their skin.

I think we agree. One of the many downsides of affirmative action is that black students accepted into law schools above what their talent merits have higher rates of failure while if they would have gone to a school equal to their abilities they probably would have done fine. AT my class at Cornell, there was a woman who was clearly an AA pick (and Cornell did not have the huge gap that existed at Yale where the top black score was below the lowest white score in 1981) and she was the only flunk out my first year. There were a couple of very talented black students-they worked hard but had no chance at law review-at say SUNY Buffalo or even Fordham-one who became a federal judge-probably would have been on the law review.

One can make an argument (I don't buy it but its defensible) that society needs black lawyers and doctors to serve black clients. I don't believe that we need to push aside top white or Asian kids at top law or medical schools though for less talented or hardworking blacks
 
OdgenTugbyGlub said:
Clever clever. Real funny too.....



Provide me proof that the students accepted under AA are unfit to attend the university they were let into. If you can do that for me, I would be opposed to AA, but I have seen no evidence of this. I see enough dumb-**** college students who, IMO are unfit to attend college anywhere, at the University my father teaches at, and guess what, they're mostly white.

that is an interesting comment not supported by hard evidence. THERE are two kinds of qualifications to say attend law school-objective and subjective

its like an olympic team. I was a finalist for two teams as a shooter. OBJECTIVELY I was qualified-my scores were above the olympic MQS (minimum qualifying score-say equivalent to the 4 minute mile) and I consistently beat people who had represented Great Britain, Mexico, Columbia, Canada, Israel and other countries in major tournaments. THus I was OBJECTIVELY QUALIFIED

I WAS NOT SUBJECTIVELY QUALIFIED because the USA only had two slots and I was never one of the two best at any trial. At best i was in the top 10-maybe top 5 on my best days. True, If I lived in Britain or Canada I may have made the team: In the USA I was not good enough. Guys among the ten fastest hundred meter runners in the world are often "not qualified" to run for the USA in the Olympics because 1-2-3 are from the USA in some years as well. The defending world champion in table tennis is often not qualified to defend his title when he is Chinese-they have so much depth, a guy who easily crushes England and the USA's best can't make his own team

Yale Law School has 175 seats in its first year class-at least the year I was not accepted. probably 1000 of the 7-9000 who apply are truly qualified. Many who are turned down end up being on the law review at other top schools like Stanford, Columbia, Chicago, Cornell, Duke and even Harvard (harvard has 3X or more seats available-by definition, all of the people going to harvard could not have been offered a spot at Yale)

However, of those 1000, only the top 200-250 (some turn down an acceptance to YLS to go to another elite institution) are subjectively qualified

Black students accepted at Yale Law School-at least when I was applying-may have been objectively qualified. NONE were subjectively qualified because a couple hundred white or Asian students with grades and boards higher than the top black entrant were rejected.
 
OdgenTugbyGlub said:
Provide me proof that the students accepted under AA are unfit to attend the university they were let into. If you can do that for me, I would be opposed to AA, but I have seen no evidence of this. I see enough dumb-**** college students who, IMO are unfit to attend college anywhere, at the University my father teaches at, and guess what, they're mostly white.

The fact is that blacks are statistically less academically qualified than the white population. The universities have policies demanding that the universities' student population reflect the demographics of the state. Given that, it only follows suit that blacks and other minorities are given preferential treatment and admitted over a white person even though the black person is less academically qualified. And they even have that stupid student voucher movement. Everyone knows that white people do better than black people in school..have you ever been to the DOE website? Have you ever heard of Richard Herrnstein and Charles Murray?
 
Turtledude said:
I think we agree.
I'm glad, sry if I judged you post too quickly.
NN said:
Everyone knows that white people do better than black people in school..
Racial tendencies, existent or not, should not be used to judge individuals.
 
-Demosthenes- said:
Racial tendencies, existent or not, should not be used to judge individuals.

I don't judge individuals. I said that it's statistically impossible for universities to be admitting black applicants on their accademic record alone because blacks statistically do worse in school and because the universities have policies demanding that the student population reflect demographics.
 
Back
Top Bottom