Subyman
Moderator <br> VC&G Forum
- Mar 18, 2005
- 7,876
- 32
- 86
I agree there's some argument for affirmative action to help lift people out of the hole that historical discrimination and oppression has put them in.
But I'd add a couple of caveats:
It must be constantly explicitly reevaluated. As you said, it's supposed to be temporary, but even if that was stated and understood at the time it's very easy for these things to become the status quo, and for the presence of the system to serve consciously or unconsciously as sufficient evidence that the system is needed. For example, there are still people today that think that women deserve preferential treatment in general admissions to universities and it needs to be demonstrated outright that no, they really don't.
They are reevaluated every year by each school independently. From what I understand, they produce a list based on their internal criteria and if it does not sufficiently include minorities then they may employ AA. As minorities rise in society due to AA, AA will be less relied upon.
Second, we have to be mindful of the fact that this isn't just about giving people resources, compensation, or privilege but putting them in positions that have an impact on society. As far as I'm concerned, the more important, higher responsibility and specialized a position is the less it should be considered for affirmative action. That, and by these points you should be far enough into the system to be able to stand on your own merit. I don't want to see affirmative admissions to medical school (or worse, graduations from medical school) leading to notably under qualified practicing doctors. The benefit to a small minority of a minority needs to be weighed against the public risk.
I'd argue that the graduation standards have not decreased in medical schools since AA, but I do not have definitive proof.