Is Affirmative Action racist?

[TurtleDude]

so what do you call it when an average income applicant with a 3.8 GPA is turned down in favor of a wealthy legacy applicant with a 3.4 GPA?

opportunity for a few poor kids with 4.0 averages to attend a school they cannot afford

 

[AGENT J]

so what do you call it when a white applicant with a 3.8 GPA is turned down in favor of a black applicant with a 3.4 GPA?

applicant of/for what? LOL
you understand the world isnt this black and white right?

 

[TurtleDude]

more failed insults, your posts stink of desperation. nope not according to the law its not.

You or that university can call it what ever it wants that doesnt make it so LMAO

AA/EO is a legality issue, what PEOPLE choose to do in other regards is on them.

so you deny a program where blacks with 3.4 averages gaining admissions over whites with 3.8 averages is NOT AFFIRMATIVE ACTION

or blacks who finish in the 65th percentile of a standardized civil service test are hired over whites who finish in the 90th percentile?

sorry to break the news-both of those situations are commonly called AFFIRMATIVE ACTION

it might be not the system that you were hired under but it sure happens a lot

 

[haymarket]

opportunity for a few poor kids with 4.0 averages to attend a school they cannot afford

A noble goal in the furtherance of blatant discrimination is still blatant discrimination.

Embracing of discrimination because it benefits your own class is devoid of any moral principle or high ground.

 

[AGENT J]

opportunity for a few poor kids with 4.0 averages to attend a school they cannot afford

LMAO I think you need to reread the question

the poor kid was sent home?

 

[TurtleDude]

applicant of/for what? LOL
you understand the world isnt this black and white right?

Yeah I understand that there are several types of affirmative action-something which you have utterly failed to admit

 

[TurtleDude]

LMAO I think you need to reread the question

the poor kid was sent home?

I think you have no clue what you are talking about again.

 

[TurtleDude]

A noble goal in the furtherance of blatant discrimination is still blatant discrimination.

Embracing of discrimination because it benefits your own class is devoid of any moral principle or high ground.

did your union promote on seniority or actual merit?

 

[haymarket]

so you deny a program where blacks with 3.4 averages gaining admissions over whites with 3.8 averages is NOT AFFIRMATIVE ACTION

or blacks who finish in the 65th percentile of a standardized civil service test are hired over whites who finish in the 90th percentile?

sorry to break the news-both of those situations are commonly called AFFIRMATIVE ACTION

it might be not the system that you were hired under but it sure happens a lot

Just take your same statements and substitute average income people for the high scorers on these tests and substitute legacy or wealthy beneficiaries of that sort of affirmative action and you have the exact same sort of blatant discrimination.

 

[haymarket]

did your union promote on seniority or actual merit?

The union I belonged to promoted nobody. We never had any sort of AA program - based on race or income or anything else.

 

[AGENT J]

so you deny a program where blacks with 3.4 averages gaining admissions over whites with 3.8 averages is NOT AFFIRMATIVE ACTION

or blacks who finish in the 65th percentile of a standardized civil service test are hired over whites who finish in the 90th percentile?

sorry to break the news-both of those situations are commonly called AFFIRMATIVE ACTION

it might be not the system that you were hired under but it sure happens a lot

Im not denying that these things happen? never did and never would
what Im saying is that when it happens it is not AA/EO and thats a fact.

so no need for your sorries because the real newsflash is they can CALL it whatever they want that doesnt make it so

I seen a women beater call the abuse he gives his wife love doesnt make it so and a lot of abusers feel that way, so what LOL

 

[AGENT J]

I think you have no clue what you are talking about again.

anther attempted and failed insult LOL
and yet nothing or merit again

 

[haymarket]

Yeah I understand that there are several types of affirmative action-something which you have utterly failed to admit

One of which is legacy admissions and policies which favor the wealthy over those not wealthy or legacy.

 

[AGENT J]

Yeah I understand that there are several types of affirmative action-something which you have utterly failed to admit

another question dodge

what is that like 40?

thats what I thought

I wont admit it because its simply not true, AA involves legality and what you are talking about does not.

people call abortion murder, its not :shrug:

 

[TurtleDude]

another question dodge

what is that like 40?

thats what I thought

I wont admit it because its simply not true, AA involves legality and what you are talking about does not.

people call abortion murder, its not :shrug:

so you deny that the systems I described are affirmative action programs

http://www.princeton.edu/~tje/files...on Preferences Espenshade Chung June 2005.pdf

Interesting analysis
African-American applicants receive the equivalent of 230 extra SAT points (on a 1600-point scale), and being Hispanic is worth an additional 185 SAT points. Other things equal, re- cruited athletes gain an admission bonus worth 200 points, while the pref- erence for legacy candidates is worth 160 points

Princeton University - Ending affirmative action would devastate most minority college enrollment

According to the study, without affirmative action the acceptance rate for African-American candidates likely would fall nearly two-thirds, from 33.7 percent to 12.2 percent, while the acceptance rate for Hispanic applicants likely would be cut in half, from 26.8 percent to 12.9 percent. While these declines are dramatic, the authors note that the long-term impact could be worse.

 

[AGENT J]

so you deny that the systems I described are affirmative action programs

http://www.princeton.edu/~tje/files...on Preferences Espenshade Chung June 2005.pdf

Interesting analysis
African-American applicants receive the equivalent of 230 extra SAT points (on a 1600-point scale), and being Hispanic is worth an additional 185 SAT points. Other things equal, re- cruited athletes gain an admission bonus worth 200 points, while the pref- erence for legacy candidates is worth 160 points

Princeton University - Ending affirmative action would devastate most minority college enrollment

According to the study, without affirmative action the acceptance rate for African-American candidates likely would fall nearly two-thirds, from 33.7 percent to 12.2 percent, while the acceptance rate for Hispanic applicants likely would be cut in half, from 26.8 percent to 12.9 percent. While these declines are dramatic, the authors note that the long-term impact could be worse.

yes I do because that is not AA/EO in legality its that simple, just like abortion is not murder :shrug:

and you know this already you are just trying to play words games and I wont fall for it lol

 

[TurtleDude]

Affirmative Action (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)


Ranking law schools from best to worst, Sander found that affirmative action boosts African-American students 20 or more steps up the ladder, putting them in schools with white classmates who possess considerably better LSAT scores and college grades. The upshot: “close to half of black students end up in the bottom tenth of their classes.” This bad performance yields three bad consequences. First, African-American students suffer high attrition rates. Second, they fail the bar exam at a high rate (the principal predictor of a student's passing or failing is her grades, not the quality of her school). Third, they suffer a significant employment penalty for low grades “in all schools outside the top ten.” Sander estimates that under a race-blind admissions system, American law schools would actually create more African-American lawyers than they do under affirmative action (Sander 2004, 449, 460, 478, 479).

Race-blind admissions would leave elite law schools with virtually no African-American students (Rothstein & Yoon 2008, 712)

 

[AGENT J]

Affirmative Action (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)


Ranking law schools from best to worst, Sander found that affirmative action boosts African-American students 20 or more steps up the ladder, putting them in schools with white classmates who possess considerably better LSAT scores and college grades. The upshot: “close to half of black students end up in the bottom tenth of their classes.” This bad performance yields three bad consequences. First, African-American students suffer high attrition rates. Second, they fail the bar exam at a high rate (the principal predictor of a student's passing or failing is her grades, not the quality of her school). Third, they suffer a significant employment penalty for low grades “in all schools outside the top ten.” Sander estimates that under a race-blind admissions system, American law schools would actually create more African-American lawyers than they do under affirmative action (Sander 2004, 449, 460, 478, 479).

Race-blind admissions would leave elite law schools with virtually no African-American students (Rothstein & Yoon 2008, 712)

interesting "Philosophy"

to bad that doesnt impact AA/EO law :shrug: LMAO

 

[TurtleDude]

How Diversity Punishes Asians, Poor Whites and Lots of Others


Consistent with other studies, though in much greater detail, Espenshade and Radford show the substantial admissions boost, particularly at the private colleges in their study, which Hispanic students get over whites, and the enormous advantage over whites given to blacks. They also show how Asians must do substantially better than whites in order to reap the same probabilities of acceptance to these same highly competitive private colleges. On an "other things equal basis," where adjustments are made for a variety of background factors, being Hispanic conferred an admissions boost over being white (for those who applied in 1997) equivalent to 130 SAT points (out of 1600), while being black rather than white conferred a 310 SAT point advantage. Asians, however, suffered an admissions penalty compared to whites equivalent to 140 SAT points.

Although all highly competitive colleges and universities will deny that they have racial quotas -- either minimum quotas or ceiling quotas -- the huge boosts they give to the lower-achieving black and Hispanic applicants, and the admissions penalties they extract from their higher-achieving Asian applicants, clearly suggest otherwise.

 

[TurtleDude]

interesting "Philosophy"

to bad that doesnt impact AA/EO law :shrug: LMAO

More idiocy, the thread was Is AA racist, not what the law is. you really have proven you have no clue

 

[AGENT J]

How Diversity Punishes Asians, Poor Whites and Lots of Others


Consistent with other studies, though in much greater detail, Espenshade and Radford show the substantial admissions boost, particularly at the private colleges in their study, which Hispanic students get over whites, and the enormous advantage over whites given to blacks. They also show how Asians must do substantially better than whites in order to reap the same probabilities of acceptance to these same highly competitive private colleges. On an "other things equal basis," where adjustments are made for a variety of background factors, being Hispanic conferred an admissions boost over being white (for those who applied in 1997) equivalent to 130 SAT points (out of 1600), while being black rather than white conferred a 310 SAT point advantage. Asians, however, suffered an admissions penalty compared to whites equivalent to 140 SAT points.

Although all highly competitive colleges and universities will deny that they have racial quotas -- either minimum quotas or ceiling quotas -- the huge boosts they give to the lower-achieving black and Hispanic applicants, and the admissions penalties they extract from their higher-achieving Asian applicants, clearly suggest otherwise.

more interesting read that has no impact on the legality of AA/EO

again I ask do you have any proof that AA/EO is racist?

 

[AGENT J]

More idiocy, the thread was Is AA racist, not what the law is. you really have proven you have no clue

well since AA/EO has legality to it the law is involved:lamo

thats why you keep choosing insults and not offering anything of merit to the OP or proof that AA/EO is racist :shrug:

 

[TurtleDude]

more interesting read that has no impact on the legality of AA/EO

again I ask do you have any proof that AA/EO is racist?

You lose so you now claim that AA is not illegal rather than your idiotic claim it is not racially discriminatory.


Of course it is racist. Whites and especially asians are punished. Why should a Chinese kid need a 1500 SAT score to be competitive with a black with an 1100? That is PURE racism

 

[AGENT J]

You lose so you now claim that AA is not illegal rather than your idiotic claim it is not racially discriminatory.


Of course it is racist. Whites and especially asians are punished. Why should a Chinese kid need a 1500 SAT score to be competitive with a black with an 1100? That is PURE racism

lose?
lose what? LMAO

this is not a contest, im stating facts and staying on topic while you are talking about things that are not AA/EO :shrug:

what are you talking about now? my stance has NEVER changed once

AA/EO is not racists, bigoted or discriminative by its very definition.
nothing has changed LOL

now anything else people CHOOSE to practice on top of AA/EO could and might EASILY be called racist, however it will not be AA/EO they are practicing :shrug: it will be some made up policy they CHOOSE to practice not that AA/EO makes them.

sorry nice try and spinning but you fail, now please prove AA/EO is racists.

 

[Thunder]

so what do you call it when a white applicant with a 3.8 GPA is turned down in favor of a black applicant with a 3.4 GPA?

I call it legacy enrollment.