SC upholds UT Affirmative Action.

[Svnla]

I can get behind the notion that buckshot isn't human



That is a common misconception with AA. Someone scoring much higher isn't excluded.

The court has already ruled against quotas, against using race as a tiebreaker, and against arbitrarily awarding extra "points" to minority applicants. The court has upheld the use of race in a holistic review of the applicant.

Many things fall under "AA" that aren't really a part of the reviews process. Many colleges invest in outreach programs that target specific demographics, so they increase minority enrollment which gives them a larger pool to choose from.

Targeting percent increase in certain minorities over a certain period of time so the student body better represents the regional demographics is allowed. Specific quotas are not allowed. But really, the main way most colleges increase minority enrollment is through outreach, not at the review process.

AA is complicated and the arguments used against it have usually been addressed decades ago by the courts.

"Targeting certain minorities"? Why not Asians? Last time I check, they are even more "minority" than blacks and hispanics. Why can't Asians be target to get in as other "certain minorities"? Because they are doing so well on their own so now they face penalties? Why not just come out and say it out loud that if you are this certain race, you are being targeted to get in over other race(s) and if you are in other groups, you are SOL. Standardized test scores, grades, extra curriculum activities, and other measurables be damn.

What you said was very much what the President of UT (University of Texas) system said yesterday on NPR (I listened to it on the way home from work). When the reporter asked him "what will be the end game" and he very much danced around with words such as "holistic", "diversity", "complex", this and that and did not give a straight answer. I am not personally being frustrated by you Suby but more about the whole AA/set aside program to target "certain minorities" while blow off other minority while the same people that preach over and over again about equality for everyone.

In closing, my point still stands as I said earlier in my first post in this thread:

Who said something about not judge a person based on his/her skin color but the content of his/her character? Answer - MLK.

I rather let in Tyrone Washington that works very hard to overcome the fact that his dad is in jail, his mom is on crack and out of the picture, his school/neighborhood is a mess, he lives with his grandmother and works part time to earn money to help with raising his young siblings and yet he is still able to get good grades, good ACT/SAT scores, and all the good stuffs...ie..I rather judge him by the "grid/determination/character" than just let him in simply because the color of his skin and because the system just wants to target "certain minorities" and he happens to be the correct one.

 

[fskimospy]

No I'm not.

Because when you're dealing with individuals, averages shouldn't matter. If it's wrong for cops to be naturally suspicious of a young black man based on his statistical propensity to be a criminal, it's equally wrong for admissions officers to give a young black man credit due to his statistical propensity to be a member of an underclass.

It's racial profiling.

What you're describing is a violation of the 4th amendment. College admissions are not constitutionally protected. And to say that we are 'dealing with individuals' is true for everything ever that deals with people. I guess we should do away with statistical evidence because in the end we're dealing with individuals.

So again, you are explicitly arguing that although you fully acknowledge that the average white person have advantages to getting into college over black people based on their race that we should not attempt to account for this. In effect you're saying that because affirmative action might put a black student into college who had lesser merit than a white student that we should leave in place a system where white students of lesser merit get in over black students.

That's explicitly an endorsement of white racial advantage.

No we shouldn't, if that is the situation. But that's not the situation. We're looking at both applicants who might have started exactly at the same point and wound up at the same destination, and valuing one over the other based on who is the color we like, and who is not.

Might have, but most often did not. Society is already valuing one over the other based on what color they like. What you're saying is that we should allow that to continue unaccounted for. Again, you're arguing for the continuation of white preference in college admissions. Why is that better?

I'm saying that prejudging people based on their race is racism.

No one is prejudging anyone based on their race, so you're in luck.

Negative. I'm advocating that blacks and every other race be considered for university admissions without regard for skin color.

Right, within a system you've already accepted has a built in white advantage over them. How is that anything other than racism?

Isn't it hypocritical to acknowledge that racial advantages exist and then say that the system should ignore them because to not ignore them would be racist?

 

[werepossum]

"Targeting certain minorities"? Why not Asians? Last time I check, they are even more "minority" than blacks and hispanics. Why can't Asians be target to get in as other "certain minorities"? Because they are doing so well on their own so now they face penalties? Why not just come out and say it out loud that if you are this certain race, you are being targeted to get in over other race(s) and if you are in other groups, you are SOL. Standardized test scores, grades, extra curriculum activities, and other measurables be damn.

What you said was very much what the President of UT (University of Texas) system said yesterday on NPR (I listened to it on the way home from work). When the reporter asked him "what will be the end game" and he very much danced around with words such as "holistic", "diversity", "complex", this and that and did not give a straight answer. I am not personally being frustrated by you Suby but more about the whole AA/set aside program to target "certain minorities" while blow off other minority while the same people that preach over and over again about equality for everyone.

In closing, my point still stands as I said earlier in my first post in this thread:

I rather let in Tyrone Washington that works very hard to overcome the fact that his dad is in jail, his mom is on crack and out of the picture, his school/neighborhood is a mess, he lives with his grandmother and works part time to earn money to help with raising his young siblings and yet he is still able to get good grades, good ACT/SAT scores, and all the good stuffs...ie..I rather judge him by the "grid/determination/character" than just let him in simply because the color of his skin and because the system just wants to target "certain minorities" and he happens to be the correct one.

But it isn't targeting minorities, it's targeting minorities that are not achieving. Thus Asians, who are over-achievers, get to join white people in getting screwed. In fact, Asians get doubly screwed as they don't have the legacy network (at least to the same extent) that gets so many marginal whites admitted.

Admittedly it's a shitty system that's unfair, but life is unfair. If we have to not let in a white or Asian student at the bottom of acceptability to let in some black person who is slightly less qualified but had to work much harder to get to that level, that's an acceptable compromise to me.

And I HAVE been on the other end of that stick. I grew up dirt poor; we didn't even have a bathroom indoors until I was in school. Yet when I tried to get into TVA's plant operator school, I wasn't even allowed to fill out an application because the next few classes were exclusively reserved for minorities. (Which actually means HALF the next few classes were exclusively reserved for minorities; those in charge always take care of their own first.) And I'm fine with that. I'm doing okay - not making what I would be making as an operator, certainly, but there's nothing I honestly need that I can't afford - so if I get bumped aside to allow some black kid a shot he wouldn't otherwise get, so be it. That's much better than getting bumped aside for some TVA exec's nephew.

 

[Subyman]

"Targeting certain minorities"? Why not Asians? Last time I check, they are even more "minority" than blacks and hispanics. Why can't Asians be target to get in as other "certain minorities"? Because they are doing so well on their own so now they face penalties? Why not just come out and say it out loud that if you are this certain race, you are being targeted to get in over other race(s) and if you are in other groups, you are SOL. Standardized test scores, grades, extra curriculum activities, and other measurables be damn.

What you said was very much what the President of UT (University of Texas) system said yesterday on NPR (I listened to it on the way home from work). When the reporter asked him "what will be the end game" and he very much danced around with words such as "holistic", "diversity", "complex", this and that and did not give a straight answer. I am not personally being frustrated by you Suby but more about the whole AA/set aside program to target "certain minorities" while blow off other minority while the same people that preach over and over again about equality for everyone.

I'm not sure why you keep talking about Asians here. Werepossum makes a good point, AA targets demographics that are underperforming. FWIW, college racial make up is in-line with population demographics. This means all races are being equally represented. This is great news.

I'd like to take this opportunity to ask what is merit? Is it a numerical score? Depends on the mission of the university. If a university only looked at SAT/ACT and transcripts then they could fill their schools with a homogenous group, but most don't want that. The mission statement of many universities is not just to round up everyone with the high scores because that is not representative of the country or the world and it misses the creativity and insight that new world perspectives can bring to higher education. Here is Harvard's mission statement:

The mission of Harvard College is to educate the citizens and citizen-leaders for our society. We do this through our commitment to the transformative power of a liberal arts and sciences education.

Beginning in the classroom with exposure to new ideas, new ways of understanding, and new ways of knowing, students embark on a journey of intellectual transformation. Through a diverse living environment, where students live with people who are studying different topics, who come from different walks of life and have evolving identities, intellectual transformation is deepened and conditions for social transformation are created. From this we hope that students will begin to fashion their lives by gaining a sense of what they want to do with their gifts and talents, assessing their values and interests, and learning how they can best serve the world.

Having a diverse and well rounded student body is key to their mission, so the application process reflects that. This is what "holistic" means. Its a pulled back view of the applicant and what they have to offer, not just data from their HS or test scores.

I rather let in Tyrone Washington that works very hard to overcome the fact that his dad is in jail, his mom is on crack and out of the picture, his school/neighborhood is a mess, he lives with his grandmother and works part time to earn money to help with raising his young siblings and yet he is still able to get good grades, good ACT/SAT scores, and all the good stuffs...ie..I rather judge him by the "grid/determination/character" than just let him in simply because the color of his skin and because the system just wants to target "certain minorities" and he happens to be the correct one.

Hypothetical people aren't what these programs target. That sounds like a great inspirational story, but for the vast majority of poor/undereducated minorities that is a fantasy. A kid with their dad in jail and their mom on crack is more worried about eating than studying for the ACT/SAT. I'd be surprised if "Tyrone" ever graduated high school.

However, is it fair that Tyrone worked so damn hard but some white suburban kid with the perfect life scored 1 point higher, so he gets to slide into school over Tyrone? That is why scores do not truly reflect the applicant's merit and the admissions team will take into account Tyrone's story, his letters of recommendation, and his determination. The school's outreach program may have gotten Tyrone to apply where he may not have. That is the power of AA.

Which is why I need to reiterate what AA is. I already said arbitrarily adding points to a minority applicant is disallowed, quotas are disallowed, and using race as a tiebreaker is disallowed. Most AA programs use outreach to meet their diversity targets. The more minority applications they get the bigger the pool they have to choose from compared to overrepresented races. This just means whites and asians have more competition.

 

[werepossum]

I'm not sure why you keep talking about Asians here. Werepossum makes a good point, AA targets demographics that are underperforming. FWIW, college racial make up is in-line with population demographics. This means all races are being equally represented. This is great news.

I'd like to take this opportunity to ask what is merit? Is it a numerical score? Depends on the mission of the university. If a university only looked at SAT/ACT and transcripts then they could fill their schools with a homogenous group, but most don't want that. The mission statement of many universities is not just to round up everyone with the high scores because that is not representative of the country or the world and it misses the creativity and insight that new world perspectives can bring to higher education. Here is Harvard's mission statement:

Having a diverse and well rounded student body is key to their mission, so the application process reflects that. This is what "holistic" means. Its a pulled back view of the applicant and what they have to offer, not just data from their HS or test scores.

Hypothetical people aren't what these programs target. That sounds like a great inspirational story, but for the vast majority of poor/undereducated minorities that is a fantasy. A kid with their dad in jail and their mom on crack is more worried about eating than studying for the ACT/SAT. I'd be surprised if "Tyrone" ever graduated high school.

However, is it fair that Tyrone worked so damn hard but some white suburban kid with the perfect life scored 1 point higher, so he gets to slide into school over Tyrone? That is why scores do not truly reflect the applicant's merit and the admissions team will take into account Tyrone's story, his letters of recommendation, and his determination. The school's outreach program may have gotten Tyrone to apply where he may not have. That is the power of AA.

Which is why I need to reiterate what AA is. I already said arbitrarily adding points to a minority applicant is disallowed, quotas are disallowed, and using race as a tiebreaker is disallowed. Most AA programs use outreach to meet their diversity targets. The more minority applications they get the bigger the pool they have to choose from compared to overrepresented races. This just means whites and asians have more competition.

And to see the flip side, replace Tyrone with Myung. Myung escaped North Korea into China at eleven with his mother and grandmother. His father had been imprisoned for having a Bible, and died in a North Korean work camp; his sister had died of a winter fever, because there is no medicine for peasant girls. Before that, he had rarely gone to sleep when he wasn't hungry. During the long, cold winters, Myung slept a lot, because sleeping uses fewer calories and for a North Korean peasant farmer, much like a medieval European peasant, sleeping a lot can make the difference between starving to death and surviving to work again. He learned basic Korean grammar, the glories of the Great Leader and his family, and history - mostly about the Great Leader - and the glories of communism. At thirteen, after two long years of refugee camps, Myong won the lottery and was allowed to emigrate to the United States, being sponsored by a small church. Myong and his mother moved to the Bronx, his grandmother being buried in the cold northern steppes of China. Myong took classes in English, math and science to increase his third grade level education, his mother worked as a janitor at two minimum wage jobs and took English classes in between. Believing that education was the key to success, Myong's mother pushed him hard and Myong worked hard, even though he was shy and undersized and the other kids could hardly understand his thick accent and broken though improving English. Though he never totally caught up, Myong worked harder than anyone he knew, even the few other Asian kids, at graduated just shy of the top 10%. However, all his extra classes and tutoring left him no time for extracurricular activities, or friends. Myong's application was not quite good enough to attend university and he was nudged out by Jessie Jackson's son, because while Asian students were over-represented statistically, black students were under-represented.

I support affirmative action because of the alternative, but let us not forget its affect on those who are shunted aside. Just because someone has white or golden skin doesn't mean his life has been a stroll through fragrant gardens, and just because someone has black or brown skin doesn't mean his life has been one of struggle.

 

[Svnla]

I'm not sure why you keep talking about Asians here. Werepossum makes a good point, AA targets demographics that are underperforming. FWIW, college racial make up is in-line with population demographics. This means all races are being equally represented. This is great news.

I'd like to take this opportunity to ask what is merit? Is it a numerical score? Depends on the mission of the university. If a university only looked at SAT/ACT and transcripts then they could fill their schools with a homogenous group, but most don't want that. The mission statement of many universities is not just to round up everyone with the high scores because that is not representative of the country or the world and it misses the creativity and insight that new world perspectives can bring to higher education. Here is Harvard's mission statement:



Having a diverse and well rounded student body is key to their mission, so the application process reflects that. This is what "holistic" means. Its a pulled back view of the applicant and what they have to offer, not just data from their HS or test scores.



Hypothetical people aren't what these programs target. That sounds like a great inspirational story, but for the vast majority of poor/undereducated minorities that is a fantasy. A kid with their dad in jail and their mom on crack is more worried about eating than studying for the ACT/SAT. I'd be surprised if "Tyrone" ever graduated high school.

However, is it fair that Tyrone worked so damn hard but some white suburban kid with the perfect life scored 1 point higher, so he gets to slide into school over Tyrone? That is why scores do not truly reflect the applicant's merit and the admissions team will take into account Tyrone's story, his letters of recommendation, and his determination. The school's outreach program may have gotten Tyrone to apply where he may not have. That is the power of AA.

Which is why I need to reiterate what AA is. I already said arbitrarily adding points to a minority applicant is disallowed, quotas are disallowed, and using race as a tiebreaker is disallowed. Most AA programs use outreach to meet their diversity targets. The more minority applications they get the bigger the pool they have to choose from compared to overrepresented races. This just means whites and asians have more competition.

Because Asians do not fall in the the "desirable"/"underperforming" demographic group, therefore, no AA for them. Too bad for them, eh?

What we have now is reward for mediocrity in the name of "holistic", "diversification", "complex", "underperforming" <insert more empty words but hollow feeling good here>. Let start the race to the bottom but hey, at least we fulfil our goal of "underperformers". Yay!!!!

Do well in HS but you are not in certain demographic group, too bad. More competion/hill for you to climb.

I can go on and on but I already said what I need to say in my previous post (#126).

I rather follow MLK footstep and judge everyone <no exception> base on his/her character and not the hue of his/her skin or whether he/she is in the "desirable" or "underperforming" or whatever "in/hot/popular" buzzwords of the day or demographic group. But it is me.

 

[Subyman]

And to see the flip side, replace Tyrone with Myung. Myung escaped North Korea into China at eleven with his mother and grandmother. His father had been imprisoned for having a Bible, and died in a North Korean work camp; his sister had died of a winter fever, because there is no medicine for peasant girls. Before that, he had rarely gone to sleep when he wasn't hungry. During the long, cold winters, Myung slept a lot, because sleeping uses fewer calories and for a North Korean peasant farmer, much like a medieval European peasant, sleeping a lot can make the difference between starving to death and surviving to work again. He learned basic Korean grammar, the glories of the Great Leader and his family, and history - mostly about the Great Leader - and the glories of communism. At thirteen, after two long years of refugee camps, Myong won the lottery and was allowed to emigrate to the United States, being sponsored by a small church. Myong and his mother moved to the Bronx, his grandmother being buried in the cold northern steppes of China. Myong took classes in English, math and science to increase his third grade level education, his mother worked as a janitor at two minimum wage jobs and took English classes in between. Believing that education was the key to success, Myong's mother pushed him hard and Myong worked hard, even though he was shy and undersized and the other kids could hardly understand his thick accent and broken though improving English. Though he never totally caught up, Myong worked harder than anyone he knew, even the few other Asian kids, at graduated just shy of the top 10%. However, all his extra classes and tutoring left him no time for extracurricular activities, or friends. Myong's application was not quite good enough to attend university and he was nudged out by Jessie Jackson's son, because while Asian students were over-represented statistically, black students were under-represented.

I support affirmative action because of the alternative, but let us not forget its affect on those who are shunted aside. Just because someone has white or golden skin doesn't mean his life has been a stroll through fragrant gardens, and just because someone has black or brown skin doesn't mean his life has been one of struggle.

I really dislike these hypothetical people. Show me a NK defector whose story is like that that didn't get full scholarships to numerous universities. That right there is why a holistic approach is much better and goes in line with that I'm saying. Test scores aren't the end-all-be-all. The entire story of the applicant matters. It doesn't arbitrarily have buckets for race. They target outreach for underrepresented classes and races so they have a chance to be heard and take into account their specific situations.

Your NK immigrant would be a prime example of the system working, because they would no doubt get in with a story like that!

 

[Subyman]

Because Asians do not fall in the the "desirable"/"underperforming" demographic group, therefore, no AA for them. Too bad for them, eh?

What we have now is reward for mediocrity in the name of "holistic", "diversification", "complex", "underperforming" <insert more empty words but hollow feeling good here>. Let start the race to the bottom but hey, at least we fulfil our goal of "underperformers". Yay!!!!

Do well in HS but you are not in certain demographic group, too bad. More competion/hill for you to climb.

I can go on and on but I already said what I need to say in my previous post (#126).

I rather follow MLK footstep and judge everyone <no exception> base on his/her character and not the hue of his/her skin or whether he/she is in the "desirable" or "underperforming" or whatever "in/hot/popular" buzzwords of the day or demographic group. But it is me.

I still don't think you are understanding AA. Asians apply in mass to colleges, so colleges do not need to do outreach. Specific stories like were possums would absolutely be taken into account.

Again what is merit? You haven't answered. Is Tyrone holistically a better student worthy of a University admission than normal white kid that has the same test scores? You yourself said he was highly determined and against all odds he had great scores. Are you saying we should only look at test scores and not the person's personal story and the things they had to over come?

 

[Svnla]

I still don't think you are understanding AA. Asians apply in mass to colleges, so colleges do not need to do outreach. Specific stories like were possums would absolutely be taken into account.

Again what is merit? You haven't answered. Is Tyrone holistically a better student worthy of a University admission than normal white kid that has the same test scores? You yourself said he was highly determined and against all odds he had great scores. Are you saying we should only look at test scores and not the person's personal story and the things they had to over come?

See now you are focused on outreach aspect of AA (in which I have no problem with) but earlier, you said it yourself that AA is for underperformers. "AA targets demographics that are underperforming". And that is not for me.

If it was up to me, I would remove all references to a candidate's race/ethics/background/etc. so all candidates start out fresh and equal under the eyes of the selection committee members.

For example, instead of Tyrone Washington, graduate of B.T. Washington HS of a poor area in Miss State, I would have applicant name is T.W , graduate of a public HS, then GPA, ACT/SAT scores, list of extra curriculum activities, and then a letter in his own words of why the selection committee should pick him. And then Tyrone could tell the members of how he worked hard and overcame obstacles to be where he is now. By his own achievements and hard work (his own merit) and not by the skin color or demographic group, Tyrone would be a good candidate and should be in, not because he shares the same demographic group of "underperformers".

I do not believe anyone would have objection to that. Once again, I have no problem with "outreach" program of AA as you stated (see my post above about I am all for blacks/hispanics help out other blacks/hispanics with school works and such) but I have problem with "underperformers" or certain "demographic" aspect.

 

[Subyman]

See now you are focused on outreach aspect of AA (in which I have no problem with) but earlier, you said it yourself that AA is for underperformers. "AA targets demographics that are underperforming". And that is not for me.

Yes, its outreach targets underperforming or underrepresented demographics... Again, quotas, testing adjustments, and racial tie breaking are disallowed.

If it was up to me, I would remove all references to a candidate's race/ethics/background/etc.

So you'd only rely on test scores and HS transcripts only. You'd have a rather homogenous study body and would miss out on exceptional stories like werepossum's NK defector or the highly determined Tyrone. The most prestigious school in the US, Harvard, disagrees.

For example, instead of Tyrone Washington, graduate of B.T. Washington HS of a poor area in Miss State, I would have applicant name is T.W , graduate of a public HS, then GPA, ACT/SAT scores, list of extra curriculum activities, and then a letter in his own words of why the selection committee should pick him. And then Tyrone could tell the members of how he worked hard and overcame obstacles to be where he is now.

I do not believe anyone would have objection to that.

That is pretty much what they do... Again AA is mostly out reach so more minorities apply and what you are saying here is a "holistic" approach that you say you are against earlier. You would take into account their background in the letter, which you said you were against earlier, and not just the test scores. You are practically stating AA and agree with outreach and a holistic view, not just testing merit.

To see what demographics are underrepresented you have to know your student body make up, so you have to know their race during the application process. :thumbsup:

Here is an interesting story if you'd care to read it:

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/...league-admissions-college-university/7119531/

Its about a young man with Ghana background whose a first generation American with very impressive scores. His ethnic background and personal story made him a unique and desirable candidate because of the perspective he brings to the school.

What is interesting about the story as well is that it mentions 57% of all applicants are female, so schools find males more desirable when comparing 1:1 so they can keep their make up relatively close to 50:50. Would you disagree with that?

 

[Svnla]

Yes, its outreach targets underperforming or underrepresented demographics... Again, quotas, testing adjustments, and racial tie breaking are disallowed.



So you'd only rely on test scores and HS transcripts only. You'd have a rather homogenous study body and would miss out on exceptional stories like werepossum's NK defector or the highly determined Tyrone. The most prestigious school in the US, Harvard, disagrees.



That is pretty much what they do... Again AA is mostly out reach so more minorities apply and what you are saying here is a "holistic" approach that you say you are against earlier. You would take into account their background in the letter, which you said you were against earlier, and not just the test scores. You are practically stating AA and agree with outreach and a holistic view, not just testing merit.

To see what demographics are underrepresented you have to know your student body make up, so you have to know their race during the application process. :thumbsup:

Here is an interesting story if you'd care to read it:

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/...league-admissions-college-university/7119531/

Its about a young man with Ghana background whose a first generation American with very impressive scores. His ethnic background and personal story made him a unique and desirable candidate because of the perspective he brings to the school.

What is interesting about the story as well is that it mentions 57% of all applicants are female, so schools find males more desirable when comparing 1:1 so they can keep their make up relatively close to 50:50. Would you disagree with that?

As I wrote above, not just GPA or ACT/SAT scores but letters from the candidates would be good. Letters from counselors/advisors/people that vouch for the candidates should be taken under consideration. I rather to see the whole thing about the candidates than just what color of their skin are or what group/demographic they are.

I think we are at a impasse. I think I say what I need to say already above with my posts.

In closing, this is what Google says about AA definition:

an action or policy favoring those who tend to suffer from discrimination, especially in relation to employment or education; positive discrimination.

That's just wrong IMO. I will put this here - https://www.mtholyoke.edu/~jesan20l/classweb/pright.html

 

[werepossum]

I really dislike these hypothetical people. Show me a NK defector whose story is like that that didn't get full scholarships to numerous universities. That right there is why a holistic approach is much better and goes in line with that I'm saying. Test scores aren't the end-all-be-all. The entire story of the applicant matters. It doesn't arbitrarily have buckets for race. They target outreach for underrepresented classes and races so they have a chance to be heard and take into account their specific situations.

Your NK immigrant would be a prime example of the system working, because they would no doubt get in with a story like that!

That was admittedly an extreme version, but we had a janitor for awhile who escaped North Korea with his family. Nobody offered his kids any special treatment, yet they overcame a LOT more than any Americans to be where they were.

 

[Jaskalas]

Again, quotas, testing adjustments, and racial tie breaking are disallowed.

What kind of double speak bull!@#$ is it to pretend quotas don't exist, while arguing for that very thing?
It clearly does exist, or you wouldn't be excluding people in favor of others. Such as limiting the number of women over men.

 

[alcoholbob]

If Affirmative Action's purpose is to help under-performing minorities, then it's nothing more than purely a equality of outcome argument rather than equality of opportunity.

It's basically saying it's perfectly valid for the the poor Vietnamese kid who risked death on a boat and is working while studying hard needs to score 1400 on the SAT while the rich Hispanic or Black kid in Silicon Valley only needs to score 1100 on the SAT, and tipping the scales like this is just because racial equality of outcome is the number 1 goal, not individual equality. This is even more insane than communism, which at least only claimed it was looking for equal outcomes for individuals, not racial groups. Even communists wouldn't advocate ignore individual circumstances, for instance, under what argument can you make that a 2nd generation immigrant of African doctors should get a boost over a poor Hispanic kid whose ancestors have lived here before the Mexican-American war? Blanket associations of people by race IMO is immoral.

 

[Paratus]

I see the same people as usual struggling with the concept of AA.

When the government of the people by the people and for the people screws over it citizens for several generations then somekind of remedy has to be put in place.

AA is that remedy. It does positively discriminate and no that's not ideal. But it's the bare minimum necessary evil to reduce the harm our government shouldn't have done in the first place.

So if you don't like the idea of AA then consider that the next time you vote for some politician who wants to discriminate against some other minority. Because until we start living up to "equal under the law" we'll continue to need AA.

 

[agent00f]

That is a reasonable summary of justice, but in your analogy as it relates to affirmative action:

1. What do you consider the original injury? (I am assuming slavery)
2. Can we apply contemporary understandings of justice to events that transpired at a time when societal norms did not consider the injury an injustice?
3. Should there be a statute of limitations on injury for compensation?

I agree with your analogy in the sense that X pitted Z against Y, and is also asking Z to recompense Y on their behalf. But who defines what constitutes adequate compensation for the original injury?

First of all, it's fundamental to the idea of civilization & justice to make victims whole to some degree, even if perps aren't able to fully pay. So even if the perps in the women battering example somehow welch out of their deal, society through taxation/welfare are going to pay for that women's shelter and so on anyway. Notice this is ~equivalent to the sleezy deal proposed, ie everyone else pays for crimes of some.

1. The original injury is slavery and clearly at least continued with segregation and redlining and so on, which people still alive today experienced. The magnitude of the crime is massive and unconscionable.

2. Let's use as an example property that Nazis took from Jews & others. Clearly that wasn't illegal to germans at the time (or else Nazis would be sitting in german jails). But in any ethical sense it's an obvious injustice, and the victims in this case have every right to compensation, which is why germans paid reparations.

3. As mentioned, some of the injury is relatively recent. Note that recompense can't necessarily be escaped even by death. Like if the perp(s) in our example who owe $100k died, they can't simply will the $100k to their kids. Of course people who owe money will always argue they aren't responsible, esp if they can get other suckers to pay. There's plenty of old money in the south for example, much of it from former large estates. Again, someone is paying to make victims whole; better you than them.

I see the same people as usual struggling with the concept of AA.

When the government of the people by the people and for the people screws over it citizens for several generations then somekind of remedy has to be put in place.

AA is that remedy. It does positively discriminate and no that's not ideal. But it's the bare minimum necessary evil to reduce the harm our government shouldn't have done in the first place.

So if you don't like the idea of AA then consider that the next time you vote for some politician who wants to discriminate against some other minority. Because until we start living up to "equal under the law" we'll continue to need AA.

For some reason people are willfully ignorant of what affirmative action is, even though it's self-explanatory in the name itself from the very start. That reason is frankly pretty obvious, because even it's called "Recompense That Old Bigots Welched On So Everyone Has To Pay" they still purposely won't get it.

 

[agent00f]

Yes, its outreach targets underperforming or underrepresented demographics... Again, quotas, testing adjustments, and racial tie breaking are disallowed.

Matters of student body diversity are in principle different in kind to AA. In practice they correlate, but talking about diversity when the topic is AA is confusing to people who don't know what AA is.

 

[cyclohexane]

Good. Life ain't fair. A good lesson to teach the plaintiff

 

[Subyman]

What kind of double speak bull!@#$ is it to pretend quotas don't exist, while arguing for that very thing?
It clearly does exist, or you wouldn't be excluding people in favor of others. Such as limiting the number of women over men.

Wading in with insults and issues that have already been discussed in the thread. Feel better?

Ruling against quotas:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regents_of_the_University_of_California_v._Bakke

 

[Subyman]

If Affirmative Action's purpose is to help under-performing minorities, then it's nothing more than purely a equality of outcome argument rather than equality of opportunity.

It's basically saying it's perfectly valid for the the poor Vietnamese kid who risked death on a boat and is working while studying hard needs to score 1400 on the SAT while the rich Hispanic or Black kid in Silicon Valley only needs to score 1100 on the SAT, and tipping the scales like this is just because racial equality of outcome is the number 1 goal, not individual equality. This is even more insane than communism, which at least only claimed it was looking for equal outcomes for individuals, not racial groups. Even communists wouldn't advocate ignore individual circumstances, for instance, under what argument can you make that a 2nd generation immigrant of African doctors should get a boost over a poor Hispanic kid whose ancestors have lived here before the Mexican-American war? Blanket associations of people by race IMO is immoral.

People really need to quit throwing out arbitrary scores. The entire point is to not use only test scores and grades to determine merit. The reviews process looks over the person's entire story, which would take into account that poor vietnamese kid who risked death on a boat or whatever you can come up with to make your dichotomy.

 

[s0me0nesmind1]

fact of the matter is that less qualified white kids than her also got in. knowing that fact, i have no idea how she had any leg to stand on.

The problem isn't poor little white girls with shitty grades.

The problem is incredibly smart Asian americans that are denied that DO have the qualifications, they just don't have space because they have to allocate space to lesser-qualified people of other races.

You guys want segregation in life? Keep shit like this up. You guys are doing an awesome job. It's crap like this that brings the rise of douches like Trump

 

[ElFenix]

The problem isn't poor little white girls with shitty grades.

The problem is incredibly smart Asian americans that are denied that DO have the qualifications, they just don't have space because they have to allocate space to lesser-qualified people of other races.

You guys want segregation in life? Keep shit like this up. You guys are doing an awesome job. It's crap like this that brings the rise of douches like Trump

Then maybe the plaintiff's lawyers and the people bankrolling Ms Fisher's lawsuit against UT should have found an incredibly smart asian kid who didn't get in to UT Austin and had to settle for Stanford.

Oh wait there aren't any because they all got in under the top 7% rule. It's only marginal cases like Ms Fisher who didn't get in because of the way Texas set up the enrollment criteria.



What does it say about LSU that she's been up to the Supreme Court twice over the injustice of having to go there?

 

[SheHateMe]

Good. Life ain't fair. A good lesson to teach the plaintiff

....but she's white! That's gotta be worth something.....right?




I find it amusing that even with UT's "underprivileged" program...47 white kids got in. So 90% of the kids who took a spot from a well deserving white girl weren't actually minorities.

 

[Starbuck1975]

First of all, it's fundamental to the idea of civilization & justice to make victims whole to some degree, even if perps aren't able to fully pay. So even if the perps in the women battering example somehow welch out of their deal, society through taxation/welfare are going to pay for that women's shelter and so on anyway. Notice this is ~equivalent to the sleezy deal proposed, ie everyone else pays for crimes of some.

1. The original injury is slavery and clearly at least continued with segregation and redlining and so on, which people still alive today experienced. The magnitude of the crime is massive and unconscionable.

2. Let's use as an example property that Nazis took from Jews & others. Clearly that wasn't illegal to germans at the time (or else Nazis would be sitting in german jails). But in any ethical sense it's an obvious injustice, and the victims in this case have every right to compensation, which is why germans paid reparations.

3. As mentioned, some of the injury is relatively recent. Note that recompense can't necessarily be escaped even by death. Like if the perp(s) in our example who owe $100k died, they can't simply will the $100k to their kids. Of course people who owe money will always argue they aren't responsible, esp if they can get other suckers to pay. There's plenty of old money in the south for example, much of it from former large estates. Again, someone is paying to make victims whole; better you than them.




For some reason people are willfully ignorant of what affirmative action is, even though it's self-explanatory in the name itself from the very start. That reason is frankly pretty obvious, because even it's called "Recompense That Old Bigots Welched On So Everyone Has To Pay" they still purposely won't get it.

America is not a closed system. You have people representing a broad spectrum of races, ethnicities and cultures constantly entering the stream. My grandparents immigrated to this country and faced bigotry, although admittedly it was not systemic hence their ability to rise above it.

I don't think anyone can reasonably deny the atrocities of slavery or segregation or even manifest destiny. I personally feel we should do more to correct what this nation did to native Americans.

I don't see affirmative action as the correcting much of anything. However I do respect the SCOTUS ruling on it.

 

[agent00f]

America is not a closed system. You have people representing a broad spectrum of races, ethnicities and cultures constantly entering the stream. My grandparents immigrated to this country and faced bigotry, although admittedly it was not systemic hence their ability to rise above it.

I don't think anyone can reasonably deny the atrocities of slavery or segregation or even manifest destiny. I personally feel we should do more to correct what this nation did to native Americans.

I don't see affirmative action as the correcting much of anything. However I do respect the SCOTUS ruling on it.

I'm not sure what any of this has to do with the basic concept of ethics/justice presented. Sure the natives deserve recompense, too, as they get in part with AA. Notice the same people still don't think they even deserve fair treatment, per response to Justice/internal dept's land use settlement some years back.