Affirmative Action Right or Wrong?

[Dmac77]

So lately I've been thinking, isn't it just another form of discrimination? How is it fair that a black person gets preferential treatment when applying for college just because they are black? If a white student has better grades, and more extra curricular then a black student, is it fair that that black student is more likely to get into college then the white student?

Note: This isn't just restricted to black students getting preferential treatment, it also relates to other races getting preferential treatment over Caucasians.

Personally I think that affirmative action is just discrimination against Caucasians, and males. What is your opinion?

Don

[Cromulent]

I agree. Discrimination of any type is wrong, I'm all for not allowing employers asking what someones age, race and sex are in application forms. All employers should be concerned with is academic ability and the candidates suitability for a particular job.

Edit : The absolute worst is that in the UK employers MUST employ a certain percentage of people from ethnic minorities regardless of their suitability for the job, meaning that people who might be a better match for the job do not even get a chance to go for the job. It is disgusting.

[Dmac77]

I agree. Discrimination of any type is wrong, I'm all for not allowing employers asking what someones age, race and sex are in application forms. All employers should be concerned with is academic ability and the candidates suitability for a particular job.

dear god it's not possible... we agree on something:eek:!

Don

[Cromulent]

dear god it's not possible... we agree on something:eek:!

Don

I'm as surprised as you are :).

[motulist]

I'm with you guys. As soon as you start considering a person's physical characteristics as part of your decision to hire them / accept them to your school / whatever, then you are now discriminating against people.

[Dmac77]

And when ever someone tries to defend affirmative action they always say that white people wronged minorities years ago. And I just don't get that, why do some people think that it is ok to fix one wrong with another?

Don

[Cromulent]

why do some people think that it is ok to fix one wrong with another?

Because they are foolish. They argue on one hand that discrimination is wrong and try and combat it by introducing measures which discriminate against people.

Absolute idiocy if you ask me.

[Dmac77]

Because they are foolish. They argue on one hand that discrimination is wrong and try and combat it by introducing measures which discriminate against people.

Absolute idiocy if you ask me.

True. The president of the University of Michigan has publicly stated that Caucasians "owe" minorities because we enslaved them in the past. I am flabbergasted by this sort of statement.

Don

[skunk]

This isn't just restricted to black students getting preferential treatment, it also relates to other races getting preferential treatment over Caucasians.

Personally I think that affirmative action is just discrimination against Caucasians, and males. What is your opinion?I think people from the Caucasus should get equal treatment with everybody else.

[j26]

The one thing to think about is that we live in societies that favour white males, and have done for a long time. It is very difficult to change mindsets in short period of time, so that even if discrimination is illegal, people will still discriminate (even unconsciously). As an example, during the Troubles in Northern Ireland, religious discrimination was banned, and the North had more anti-discrimination legislation than any other country, but it was still rife. Another example is that the female population of Irish universities exceeds the male population and has done for some time now, but the "leaders of industry" are still primarily male.

Affirmative action is a convenient way to ensure that every group gets a fair shot and these discriminated groups get a shot to prove themselves. In the longer term the group has to stand on its own feet, but in the short term it MAY be necessary in certain circumstances.

However, it is something that will go nowhere unless there is a concerted effort in society to embrace diversity through education etc.

[.Andy]

I'm not as quick to dismiss it as completely wrong. For example I see the provision of medical school places (and scholarships) for aboriginal and torres straight islanders as very positive. It makes university an affordable and a more attractive prospect for a minority that usually would not consider/pursue that career path due to extrinsic barriers. This in turn allows better provision of medical services as these physicians can relate/understand the issues to a specific population which overcomes enormous hurdles in equity and access to healthcare.

[motulist]

And when ever someone tries to defend affirmative action they always say that white people wronged minorities years ago. And I just don't get that, why do some people think that it is ok to fix one wrong with another?

Even if that were a legitimate argument, it no longer holds true. The last legal discrimination laws were taken off the book over 40 years ago now (and the vast majority of them gone for much longer), and we've now had a couple of generations of black people who've gotten a huge competitive advantage through affirmative action, so at this point you can no longer validly argue that the playing field hasn't been roughly leveled in terms of making up for previous institutional discrimination. Black people may still be suffering from people's personal prejudices, but that is not something that the government has anything to do with.

Even more importantly, even if black people did deserve an advantage to make up for past discrimination, it's completely unjust to give them that advantage by stealing it from an innocent person. Even if you could argue that white grandkids of grandparents that benefitted from discrimination are unduly advantaged today, and thus you are justified in hurting them to give an advantage to a black person, even if that argument was valid, it would still only be valid in that specific instance. Meaning black people who immigrated here after the last discrimination laws were removed should not be eligible for affirmative action, and the only white people who you could legitimately remove advantages from are those who descended from white ancestors who benefitted from the institutional discrimination. If you're white and your family immigrated here 40 years ago then your family did not benefit from institutional discrimination, so it would be completely unjust to steal advantages from you and give it to a black person.

But this is never considered in affirmative action programs, so even if legitimate arguments could be made for affirmative action, the way they are implemented has only created more injustice instead of balancing the scales. And if at some earlier point the pro-affirmative arguments were valid, they no longer are valid today.

[thebassoonist]

I support affirmative action. Diversity is good in education. An African American student may bring a new paradigm to say, a graduate program and therefore future research, than a European American student. It is also important to remember that...

-GPAs and, especially, test scores are fairly poor at predicting how someone will do in college (to a certain extent -- I received an average score on the SAT and ACT and I am graduating with honors).
-Exams like the SAT and ACT are written by a certain group of people (i.e. white, middle class, and probably mostly male) and may assume particular cultural information is "inherently" known by all test takers. The essay sections are also graded by a particular group.
-If one must work while one goes to high school, it is very difficult to do extracurricular activities and keep grades up. Many poorer high school students may not be able to afford things like National Honor Society fees, a car to get to extracurriculars, or have a stay at home parent able to drive them. I must add that minorities are more likely to be in the lower or working class socioeconomic statuses.
-And, we've had affirmative action in the US for a long time. The admitted are called "legacies."

Is the affirmative action program perfect? No. But neither are admission committees.

I'd also like to add that no men in my family have been hurt by affirmative action (all of them have gone to whatever graduate programs they wanted to), and numerous women (including my mother, an attorney) have been helped.

Just my $0.02.

[Cromulent]

I support affirmative action. Diversity is good in education. An African American student may bring a new paradigm to say, a graduate program and therefore future research, than a European American student. It is also important to remember that...

I agree that racial diversity is a good thing. I do NOT agree with positive discrimination. You can have racial diversity but you do not need to discriminate against people to get it.

Edit : As far as the rest of your post goes, they are social problems that should be tackled individually rather than just using positive discrimination to bludgeon the problem until it goes away.

[Dmac77]

I think people from the Caucasus should get equal treatment with everybody else.
Smart Ass:D:p

The one thing to think about is that we live in societies that favour white males, and have done for a long time. It is very difficult to change mindsets in short period of time, so that even if discrimination is illegal, people will still discriminate (even unconsciously). As an example, during the Troubles in Northern Ireland, religious discrimination was banned, and the North had more anti-discrimination legislation than any other country, but it was still rife. Another example is that the female population of Irish universities exceeds the male population and has done for some time now, but the "leaders of industry" are still primarily male.

Affirmative action is a convenient way to ensure that every group gets a fair shot and these discriminated groups get a shot to prove themselves. In the longer term the group has to stand on its own feet, but in the short term it MAY be necessary in certain circumstances.

However, it is something that will go nowhere unless there is a concerted effort in society to embrace diversity through education etc.
How is it fair that someone with poor grades gets preferential treatment to someone who gets good grades? Your logic makes no sense. People who are "smarter" should have abetter chance of getting into college then someone who is "stupider" (for lack better word). How would it be fair if I worked my ass off for 4 years taking AP classes and graduated high school with a 4.0 GPA, only to get denied entrance into college because someone who isn't as smart as me is a minority gets preferential treatment?

I'm not as quick to dismiss it as completely wrong. For example I see the provision of medical school places (and scholarships) for aboriginal and torres straight islanders as very positive. It makes university an affordable and a more attractive prospect for a minority that usually would not consider/pursue that career path due to extrinsic barriers. This in turn allows better provision of medical services as these physicians can relate/understand the issues to a specific population which overcomes enormous hurdles in equity and access to healthcare.
I would have no problem if someone who is as smart as me but is poor got a scholarship instead of me, but I do have an issue with some who isn't as smart as me getting that scholarship because of their gender or skin color.

Even if that were a legitimate argument, it no longer holds true. The last legal discrimination laws were taken off the book over 40 years ago now (and the vast majority of them gone for much longer), and we've now had a couple of generations of black people who've gotten a huge competitive advantage through affirmative action, so at this point you can no longer validly argue that the playing field hasn't been roughly leveled in terms of making up for previous institutional discrimination. Black people may still be suffering from people's personal prejudices, but that is not something that the government has anything to do with.

Even more importantly, even if black people did deserve an advantage to make up for past discrimination, it's completely unjust to give them that advantage by stealing it from an innocent person. Even if you could argue that white grandkids of grandparents that benefitted from discrimination are unduly advantaged today, and thus you are justified in hurting them to give an advantage to a black person, even if that argument was valid, it would still only be valid in that specific instance. Meaning black people who immigrated here after the last discrimination laws were removed should not be eligible for affirmative action, and the only white people who you could legitimately remove advantages from are those who descended from white ancestors who benefitted from the institutional discrimination. If you're white and your family immigrated here 40 years ago then your family did not benefit from institutional discrimination, so it would be completely unjust to steal advantages from you and give it to a black person.

But this is never considered in affirmative action programs, so even if legitimate arguments could be made for affirmative action, the way they are implemented has only created more injustice instead of balancing the scales. And if at some earlier point the pro-affirmative arguments were valid, they no longer are valid today.
Agreed.

Don

[motulist]

The one thing to think about is that we live in societies that favour white males, and have done for a long time. It is very difficult to change mindsets in short period of time, so that even if discrimination is illegal, people will still discriminate (even unconsciously). ...

Affirmative action is a convenient way to ensure that every group gets a fair shot and these discriminated groups get a shot to prove themselves. In the longer term the group has to stand on its own feet, but in the short term it MAY be necessary in certain circumstances.

But the government has no authority to govern people's subconscious biases! Afaik, the argument that got affirmative action laws passed was that white people were unfairly given an advantage by stealing that advantage due to INSTITUTIONAL discrimination. Meaning for example when a company, as a policy, did not hire black people. But I've never heard anyone in power argue that there should be affirmative action to make up for people's subconscious biases! Do you really think the government should have the authority to try to counteract against thoughts that you have in your head? That's like the worst orwellian nightmare come true! You cant persecute people for thought crimes!

And even more than that, it is very clearly shown that good looking people have always gotten better jobs, got paid more, had more power and prestige, etc, for at least the last couple of centuries. Does that mean that the government has a right to institute affirmative action for ugly people?

[Dmac77]

I support affirmative action. Diversity is good in education. An African American student may bring a new paradigm to say, a graduate program and therefore future research, than a European American student. It is also important to remember that...

-GPAs and, especially, test scores are fairly poor at predicting how someone will do in college (to a certain extent -- I received an average score on the SAT and ACT and I am graduating with honors).
-Exams like the SAT and ACT are written by a certain group of people (i.e. white, middle class, and probably mostly male) and may assume particular cultural information is "inherently" known by all test takers. The essay sections are also graded by a particular group.
-If one must work while one goes to high school, it is very difficult to do extracurricular activities and keep grades up. Many poorer high school students may not be able to afford things like National Honor Society fees, a car to get to extracurriculars, or have a stay at home parent able to drive them. I must add that minorities are more likely to be in the lower or working class socioeconomic statuses.
-And, we've had affirmative action in the US for a long time. The admitted are called "legacies."

Is the affirmative action program perfect? No. But neither are admission committees.

I'd also like to add that no men in my family have been hurt by affirmative action (all of them have gone to whatever graduate programs they wanted to), and numerous women (including my mother, an attorney) have been helped.

Just my $0.02.
I'm sorry, but that is BS! I'm all for diversity, but if a white European student is smarter, and has worked harder to get into college then a black student from the ghetto the white European student should be the one going to college or getting a scholarship.

[it5five]

I'm sorry, but that is BS! I'm all for diversity, but if a white European student is smarter, and has worked harder to get into college then a black student from the ghetto the white European student should be the one going to college or getting a scholarship.

Why is your hypothetical black student assumed to be from the ghetto?

I think that statement/slip of the tongue is quite revealing.

Also, I don't think you would be considered "European" if you aren't from Europe.

[.Andy]

but I do have an issue with some who isn't as smart as me getting that scholarship because of their gender or skin color.
But in my example it has nothing to do with you. It has everything to do with attracting the best students (in this case those from a minority) that ultimately will be able to provide a better service to a population which is currently facing inequality to service, and therefore suffering.

Academic grades have very little correlation with real world performance.

[Dmac77]

Why is your hypothetical black student assumed to be from the ghetto?

I think that statement/slip of the tongue is quite revealing.

Also, I don't think you would be considered "European" if you aren't from Europe.
No, I don't think that it is revealing in any way, unless you being enlightened by the statement that most underachieving black students are from ghettos. No I'm not European in the sense that I' from Europe, but the term is commonly used in place of caucasian ( I prefer not to give skunk anything else to feed on).
Don

PS

Do you enjoy trolling and trying to provoke me?

EDIT: @.Andy- I was being hypothetical, I should have said white student.

[.Andy]

No, I don't think that it is revealing in any way, unless you being enlightened by the statement that most underachieving black students are from ghettos.
Where do most underachieving white students comes from?

edit;
EDIT: @.Andy- I was being hypothetical, I should have said white student.
Then I'm not sure my point was as clear as I intended. In some instances affirmative action is successful as it provides a net benefit for the community. In the case of offering limited medical student places to minorities it improves the health outcomes for the whole of society, as it redresses inequality at the provision of service.

[LethalWolfe]

My primary beef w/affirmative action is that it's based on race and not socio-economic status even though it's goal is supposed to give people who grew up low on the socio-economic ladder a chance they otherwise wouldn't have gotten. Not every poor person from a broken home is black and not every middle-class suburbanite is white.


Lethal

[it5five]

No, I don't think that it is revealing in any way, unless you being enlightened by the statement that most underachieving black students are from ghettos. No I'm not European in the sense that I' from Europe, but the term is commonly used in place of caucasian ( I prefer not to give skunk anything else to feed on).
Don

PS

Do you enjoy trolling and trying to provoke me?

EDIT: @.Andy- I was being hypothetical, I should have said white student.

I commented on it because I find it curious you would compare two completely different types of people for your example. You used yourself, presumably a relatively affluent white kid compared to an underachieving black kid from the ghetto.

If there are two kids, one black and one white, with similar GPAs and similar socio-economic backgrounds, both apply to the same university, but only one can be accepted, who do you think should get the spot?

Not to mention you are failing to address why there are more poorly performing minority students in the poorer areas of town.

[.Andy]

My primary beef w/affirmative action is that it's based on race and not socio-economic status even though it's goal is supposed to give people who grew up low on the socio-economic ladder a chance they otherwise wouldn't have gotten.
Isn't it both? At all the universities I've been to there has been scholarships based on financial need in addition to scholarships (and reduced academic barriers to entry) based on ethnicity and/or geographical location (i.e. rural students).

[Dmac77]

Where do most underachieving white students comes from?

edit;

Then I'm not sure my point was as clear as I intended. In some instances affirmative action is successful as it provides a net benefit for the community. In the case of offering limited medical student places to minorities it improves the health outcomes for the whole of society, as it redresses inequality at the provision of service.
Those would be the lazy @sses that live off of daddy's money, and attend private schools just to flunk out. No I am not a member of this group.

My primary beef w/affirmative action is that it's based on race and not socio-economic status even though it's goal is supposed to give people who grew up low on the socio-economic ladder a chance they otherwise wouldn't have gotten. Not every poor person from a broken home is black and not every middle-class suburbanite is white.


Lethal
Agreed.
Affirmative action is just like communism (and with the utterance of that word pseudorbit will enter). It looks good on paper, but fails miserably when it is implemented.

Don

[.Andy]

Those would be the lazy @sses that live off of daddy's money, and attend private schools just to flunk out. No I am not a member of this group.
I'm not sure what you're on about here. Where you addressing my post that you quoted?

[Dmac77]

I commented on it because I find it curious you would compare two completely different types of people for your example. You used yourself, presumably a relatively affluent white kid compared to an underachieving black kid from the ghetto.

If there are two kids, one black and one white, with similar GPAs and similar socio-economic backgrounds, both apply to the same university, but only one can be accepted, who do you think should get the spot?

Not to mention you are failing to address why there are more poorly performing minority students in the poorer areas of town.

I think under those circumstances I think that it should come down to the luck of the draw.

I never said that it is ok that students in ghettos generly preform poorly. It's an issue that needs to be addressed and solved.

Don

PS

You assumed wrong. I'm not wealthy, in fact, I'm technically lower middle class.

EDIT: @.Andy- IMO, I am addressing your post. From what I understood in your post I thought you meant to say that I had suggested that there are no underachieving white students.

[Cromulent]

Those would be the lazy @sses that live off of daddy's money, and attend private schools just to flunk out. No I am not a member of this group.

Not sure I agree with this. Technically I'm an underperforming white student (or ex-student at least). I neither went to private school, nor lived off my fathers money.

[Dmac77]

Not sure I agree with this. Technically I'm an underperforming white student (or ex-student at least). I neither went to private school, nor lived off my fathers money.

Ok, maybe I should have also said that there are those that just don't care also:D

Don

[Cromulent]

Ok, maybe I should have also said that there are those that just don't care also:D

Don

Not sure I agree with that either :). Not everyone sees the benefits of eduction when they are teenagers. It took me five years of full time work to come to the conclusion that I actually wanted to make something of myself. Do I regret not working hard at school? Yes, of course. Do I feel less educated than those who did work hard at school? In a weird kind of way, not really. The educational system (of this country at least) churns out people who are very good at particular areas, but they lack an overall understanding of the world at large and the bigger picture. Self education, and that is something I've spent most of the last 6 years doing is as valid and arguably as good as standard education up to the age of 18 or so.

Now I'm planning on going to University again, so just because people underperform when they are teenagers does not mean they under perform for life :).

Sorry for the off-topic post but it is an area I feel quite passionately about.

[yg17]

Do you enjoy trolling and trying to provoke me?



Welcome to the political forums. If you say something stupid, we're gonna make you explain yourself.

[Dmac77]

Not sure I agree with that either :). Not everyone sees the benefits of eduction when they are teenagers. It took me five years of full time work to come to the conclusion that I actually wanted to make something of myself. Do I regret not working hard at school? Yes, of course. Do I feel less educated than those who did work hard at school? In a weird kind of way, not really. The educational system (of this country at least) churns out people who are very good at particular areas, but they lack an overall understanding of the world at large and the bigger picture. Self education, and that is something I've spent most of the last 6 years doing is as valid and arguably as good as standard education up to the age of 18 or so.

Now I'm planning on going to University again, so just because people underperform when they are teenagers does not mean they under perform for life :).

Sorry for the off-topic post but it is an area I feel quite passionately about.

Well as a current teenager and (soon to be) high school student, I can confidently say that most kids (that I know) that are underachievers do it on purpose, just to piss adults off, and to "get back at them". Now granted I attend a school district that is mostly made up of middle class to upper middle class families, but I can still give an accurate representation of kids in those classes.

Don

[Cromulent]

Well as a current teenager and (soon to be) high school student, I can confidently say that most kids (that I know) that are underachievers do it on purpose, just to piss adults off, and to "get back at them". Now granted I attend a school district that is mostly made up of middle class to upper middle class families, but I can still give an accurate representation of kids in those classes.

Don

Yes, well the point was you are a teenager and so are they. Their attitudes are extremely likely to change with age. There is a huge difference between a 14 year old and an 18 year old and another big difference between say an 18 year old and a 25 year old. Attitudes change with time.

[Dmac77]

Yes, well the point was you are a teenager and so are they. Their attitudes are extremely likely to change with age. There is a huge difference between a 14 year old and an 18 year old and another big difference between say an 18 year old and a 25 year old. Attitudes change with time.

True. I'm still trying to realize that IDK everything (skunk, so help me god, I will go off on you so bad that every IP address in my zip code blacklisted from this site if you make some smart ass remark:)*psychotic twitch*).

Don

[Cleverboy]

Affirmative action is VERY imperfect. In many cases its entirely unnecessary. It is a band-aid that could often serve to irritate the wound, rather than heal it. That said... who said like was perfect?

The sad truth is... unless it affects YOU, not addressing discrimination (whether using "positive discrimination" or some other device) is much more preferable than addressing it. I remember a friend once telling me, that someone he knew, who managed a store in a southern state... confessed to him that he felt bad he couldn't promote a black worker he had. The guy worked hard, and were he white, he'd promote him in a second... but that if he tried to promote him, his white neighbors would ostracize him and he feared for his family. This conversation was about 10 years ago. I remember looking at my friend blankly, because his attittude was "Oh, well... what can ya do?"

When someone says, "Yes, discrimination is wrong but so is affirmative action... so let's handle it in some other way." I can't help but smile and wait for the vacant space where they propose a solution that helps move society forward by correcting the institutional gender-bias and racism inherent in our current system.

We need to move as quickly as possible to a point where affirmative action is absolutely unnecessary. We need to find those points where it is still being used, and should not be and eliminate it.

However, as much as I think it can SUCK, I'm also very aware of the problems it solves (imperfectly) that would not otherwise vanish. And for godsakes, it not simply about black people.

It's about dealing with institutionalized discrimination according to race and gender. Women have been just as victimized by their sex. My girlfriend is in IT, and she has faced an uphill battle to be acknowledged for her skills and instinct as a woman. She's been told that she didn't get a promotion because she's a woman. --She's considered suing, but like SO MANY... the cost of pursuing legal action isn't always practical.

So... yeah, unless you have someone affected by the catch-22 of a free and open society with a legacy of discrimination that can easily masquerade as "preference"... you probably have every incentive to simply spout platitudes about "positive discrimination" and "better" ways of dealing with problems that you never attempt to detail or think too deeply on.

I don't like affirmative action. It needs to be nuked wherever and whenever possible. From personal experience however, its not as simple as wishing fairness.

It's a shame. It's also true.

~ CB

[Dmac77]

Affirmative action is VERY imperfect. In many cases its entirely unnecessary. It is a band-aid that could often serve to irritate the wound, rather than heal it. That said... who said like was perfect?

The sad truth is... unless it affects YOU, not addressing discrimination (whether using "positive discrimination" or some other device) is much more preferable than addressing it. I remember a friend once telling me, that someone he knew, who managed a store in a southern state... confessed to him that he felt bad he couldn't promote a black worker he had. The guy worked hard, and were he white, he'd promote him in a second... but that if he tried to promote him, his white neighbors would ostracize him and he feared for his family. This conversation was about 10 years ago. I remember looking at my friend blankly, because his attittude was "Oh, well... what can ya do?"

When someone says, "Yes, discrimination is wrong but so is affirmative action... so let's handle it in some other way." I can't help but smile and wait for the vacant space where they propose a solution that helps move society forward by correcting the institutional gender-bias and racism inherent in our current system.

We need to move as quickly as possible to a point where affirmative action is absolutely unnecessary. We need to find those points where it is still being used, and should not be and eliminate it.

However, as much as I think it can SUCK, I'm also very aware of the problems it solves (imperfectly) that would not otherwise vanish. And for godsakes, it not simply about black people.

It's about dealing with institutionalized discrimination according to race and gender. Women have been just as victimized by their sex. My girlfriend is in IT, and she has faced an uphill battle to be acknowledged for her skills and instinct as a woman. She's been told that she didn't get a promotion because she's a woman. --She's considered suing, but like SO MANY... the cost of pursuing legal action isn't always practical.

So... yeah, unless you have someone affected by the catch-22 of a free and open society with a legacy of discrimination that can easily masquerade as "preference"... you probably have every incentive to simply spout platitudes about "positive discrimination" and "better" ways of dealing with problems that you never attempt to detail or think too deeply on.

I don't like affirmative action. It needs to be nuked wherever and whenever possible. From personal experience however, its not as simple as wishing fairness.

It's a shame. It's also true.

~ CB

I should have varied my use of minorities, sorry! But it would be so simple to destroy affirmative action, just make it illegal to require gender and ethnicity on application forms. That simple.

Don

[imac/cheese]

How is it fair that someone with poor grades gets preferential treatment to someone who gets good grades? Your logic makes no sense. People who are "smarter" should have abetter chance of getting into college then someone who is "stupider" (for lack better word). How would it be fair if I worked my ass off for 4 years taking AP classes and graduated high school with a 4.0 GPA, only to get denied entrance into college because someone who isn't as smart as me is a minority gets preferential treatment?


I would have no problem if someone who is as smart as me but is poor got a scholarship instead of me, but I do have an issue with some who isn't as smart as me getting that scholarship because of their gender or skin color.


There is a problem with your example. If you take four years of AP classes and get a 4.0, you are not going to be denied entrance into college.

Colleges should be allowed to look at the whole person and determine what benefits each person will bring to that university. Some students bring great academic skills, others bring athletic ability, others brings daddy's money, and others bring diversity and a different perspective. All of those qualities can be looked at as a benefit to the university. You should be happy that colleges are attempting to bring in minorities and diversify their student body because that diversification will enhance your education.

Does anyone actually know a person that has been denied entrance into college because a "stupider" minority was given their slot? This seems to be a topic that really doesn't negatively affect many people that many people still love to rant on about.

Affirmative action is just like communism (and with the utterance of that word pseudorbit will enter). It looks good on paper, but fails miserably when it is implemented.

Actually, getting rid of affirmative action looks good on paper. Looking at each and every person based only on what they have achieved and nothing else seems like a perfect process; however, when put into practice a lot of people that have been disadvantaged from the start end up being held back. People that might bring a great benefit to the university end up being excluded. Statistics that are used to quantify a person's abilities and skills often paint a picture far from reality.

On the other hand I do not agree with government quotas for affirmative action, but if a college or university wants to give some benefits to minorites, I am all for it.

[Dmac77]

I was using a hypothetical example.

And please don't give me this BS about race causing disadvantages. Maybe 20 years ago but not today or at least it doesn't happen enough today to warrant affirmative action. I can understand for financial situations but not because of someone's race.

Don

[imac/cheese]

I should have varied my use of minorities, sorry! But it would be so simple to destroy affirmative action, just make it illegal to require gender and ethnicity on application forms. That simple.

Don

Affirmative action and discrimination are not simply wiped out by removing gender and ethnicity on the application forms. It is normally quite easy to tell a person's gender from their name. not every time but normally. It is also often quite easy to tell a person's race from their name. I am sure you can think of plenty of minority names that whould never be used by a typical white person. Eliminating those gender and race portions of applications would allow the bigot to discriminate and then say, "I didn't know that Jamal Johnson was a minority."

[Cleverboy]

I should have varied my use of minorities, sorry! But it would be so simple to destroy affirmative action, just make it illegal to require gender and ethnicity on application forms. That simple.LOL. You realize the huge holes in this strategy don't you? Come on, man. Apply that idea to the first example I listed. Moreover, you seem to think... "Ha! Once someone has been hired, those racist or sexist jerks can't fire them!" Honestly. REALLY?

This is a symptom of not having dealt with this type of discrimination personally. You tend not to think too deeply on impracticalities. Oh, and you DO realize that it IS illegal to require gender and ethnicity questions on application forms already? Aside from men named "Marion" or "Arlene", its often hard for women NOT to identify themselves in other ways. Especially... you know... at the job interview and everything.

~ CB

[r.j.s]

I don't agree with it, at all, it's just legalized discrimination.

[imac/cheese]

I was using a hypothetical example.

And please don't give me this BS about race causing disadvantages. Maybe 20 years ago but not today or at least it doesn't happen enough today to warrant affirmative action. I can understand for financial situations but not because of someone's race.

Don

How many times are people's financial situations linked with their race and their family background?

You would be surprised how many times I have seen someone's race cause them a disadvantage. When I was your age I might have said the exact same thing, but I was from a small rural town that was 95% white and I never really experienced much in the way of racism. After having traveled around the country, I have seen extreme rascism and sexism from professors, students, military members (including officers), police officers, contractors, engineers, and City Officials. When racism exists, it causes disadvantages for minorities.

[r.j.s]

After having traveled around the country, I have seen extreme rascism and sexism from professors, students, military members (including officers), police officers, contractors, engineers, and City Officials. When racism exists, it causes disadvantages for minorities.

I'd be willing to bet that 9 out of 10 times those were personal problems those racist people needed to deal with, not something that was institutional.

[iShater]

So lately I've been thinking, isn't it just another form of discrimination? How is it fair that a black person gets preferential treatment when applying for college just because they are black? If a white student has better grades, and more extra curricular then a black student, is it fair that that black student is more likely to get into college then the white student?

Note: This isn't just restricted to black students getting preferential treatment, it also relates to other races getting preferential treatment over Caucasians.

Personally I think that affirmative action is just discrimination against Caucasians, and males. What is your opinion?

Don

I'd be careful, cause in 2040 or something like that (I need to find the article) Caucasians will be a minority, so you will be saying how much you like affirmative action. ;)

I'm sorry, but that is BS! I'm all for diversity, but if a white European student is smarter, and has worked harder to get into college then a black student from the ghetto the white European student should be the one going to college or getting a scholarship.

How do you measure smartness?


I do think that socioeconomic should be a factor more than race, because it would cover all underprivileged groups.

[r.j.s]

I'd be careful, cause in 2040 or something like that (I need to find the article) Caucasians will be a minority, so you will be saying how much you like affirmative action. ;)

Knowing our government, hell no, it will still be the same. They will get around to changing it around 2090 or so.

[imac/cheese]

I'd be willing to bet that 9 out of 10 times those were personal problems those racist people needed to deal with, not something that was institutional.

I agree. And those people with personal rasist problems sat in positions where thay could affect the lives of minorities. I was even the victim of racial profiling as I was driving a car that might be considered a black person's car through a black town late at night. When the white cop pulled me over (for no reason) and realized I was white, he let me go and said I should be careful in "this black town."

The comment I made was in reference to the Dmac stating that minorities are no longer disadvantaged in today's world. They still are.

[r.j.s]

The comment I made was in reference to the Dmac stating that minorities are no longer disadvantaged in today's world. They still are.

Yes, some people are. But it's because of someone's personal prejudice. The government is currently making racism mandatory against whites when they are as qualified as a minority. That's what's wrong - and the longer it stays, the more people are going to take advantage of that fact to "get one up on the man," instead of working a little bit harder to be better.

[iShater]

Yes, some people are. But it's because of someone's personal prejudice. The government is currently making racism mandatory against whites when they are as qualified as a minority. That's what's wrong - and the longer it stays, the more people are going to take advantage of that fact to "get one up on the man," instead of working a little bit harder to be better.

This is the government, they have no way to go about finding if someone is being personally prejudiced, so they use numbers and percentages.

I take offense that you assume that people are not working hard. We are talking about certain jobs and university education, something that someone who is NOT working hard wouldn't be trying to do. :mad:

[r.j.s]

I'm not saying everyone isn't working hard, but there are people out there that will only do what they have to in order to get by.

[diamond.g]

Hmm, good question. I think that AA in theory is a good plan (I guess morally), but in practice I don't think that it is a good thing. The only way to fix the problem is to make sure there is no minority or majority. So until the US is 100% mixed with no "pure anything" then there will always be some form of discrimination. I guess you could call it making America stop calling them selves <ethnicity>-American.

[motulist]

Does anyone actually know a person that has been denied entrance into college because a "stupider" minority was given their slot? This seems to be a topic that really doesn't negatively affect many people that many people still love to rant on about.

How would a person know? It's not like when they send you your rejection letter they tell you "Sorry, even though you had higher grades, better recommendations, and were all around better qualified, we decided to give your seat to a lesser qualified minority to fill our quota of black people in each class. Sorry." The only thing the people hurt by affirmative action are ever gonna see is the standard rejection form letter or not getting hired. Just because you can't directly connect the dots on the surface doesn't mean they aren't connected. By your logic, companies who massively pollute a local water supply with carcinogens can't be sued for causing a person's wrongful death because any particular person can never prove that the pollution was what directly caused their cancer and wasn't just that they were going to naturally get cancer anyway.

Even more contradictory, you just invalidated the entire argument for affirmative action!



Does anyone actually know a MINORITY person that has been denied entrance into college [or a job!] because a WHITE PERSON was given their slot? This seems to be a topic that really doesn't negatively affect many people that many people still love to rant on about.

[Lyle]

When someone says, "Yes, discrimination is wrong but so is affirmative action... so let's handle it in some other way." I can't help but smile and wait for the vacant space where they propose a solution that helps move society forward by correcting the institutional gender-bias and racism inherent in our current system.

We need to move as quickly as possible to a point where affirmative action is absolutely unnecessary. We need to find those points where it is still being used, and should not be and eliminate it.Good post, and I generally agree with your position on affirmative action. I do wonder, however, what criteria we're looking for to say that it's no longer needed. I'm having difficulty imagining the various affected civil rights leaders ever proclaiming, "You know what? I think we're good now. Affirmative action is no longer necessary!"

[kavika411]

Affirmative action is, by definition, discrimination. That is a calm, unemotional fact. The ultimate question is whether there are occasions that we, as individuals and/or as a society, decide that certain discrimination at certain times is "ok." (In that regard, some people who herald a "colorblind" society often don't actually mean it, even if they think they do.)

Another calm, unemotional fact is that minorities have been unfavorably discriminated against in the United States, both by the government and by corporations.

I don't like affirmative action. I don't like it because I don't like discrimination on any level, and because affirmative action, as an institution, has no endgame, no goal.

However, even though I believe capitalism is the best market system, I do not think capitalism can "fix" quickly enough the discrimination that has occurred and continues to occur. So, I'm at a loss.

To answer the OP, I believe affirmative action is a form of legalized discrimination, it is terrible, and it is necessary until a better solution presents itself, or until it is not reasonably necessary.

[LethalWolfe]

Isn't it both? At all the universities I've been to there has been scholarships based on financial need in addition to scholarships (and reduced academic barriers to entry) based on ethnicity and/or geographical location (i.e. rural students).
Affirmative Action is geared towards giving preferential treatment based on race and gender and the typical reasoning for giving preferential treatment is that certain minority students come from socio-economic backgrounds that put that at a disadvantage, as compared to typical white students. My point is that socio-economic inequality is a barrier that effects people of all races and genders. Affirmative Action is an attempt to use discrimination to counter act discrimination but no one who supports AA seems to want to openly say that.

Like others have said though this is an imperfect approach to the problem, but does their exist a more perfect approach?


Lethal

[imac/cheese]

How would a person know? It's not like when they send you your rejection letter they tell you "Sorry, even though you had higher grades, better recommendations, and were all around better qualified, we decided to give your seat to a lesser qualified minority to fill our quota of black people in each class. Sorry." The only thing the people hurt by affirmative action are ever gonna see is the standard rejection form letter or not getting hired. Just because you can't directly connect the dots on the surface doesn't mean they aren't connected. By your logic, companies who massively pollute a local water supply with carcinogens can't be sued for causing a person's wrongful death because any particular person can never prove that the pollution was what directly caused their cancer and wasn't just that they were going to naturally get cancer anyway.

Good point. You are right that a person reversely discriminated against would not ever really know.

Even more contradictory, you just invalidated the entire argument for affirmative action!

This on the other hand did not invalidate the argument for AA, because lots of people actually know someone who is a minority who did not get a job or promotion because of his/her race/gender. I know of several myself and another has been mentioned earlier in this thread. And how many others exist that people do not know about?

[LethalWolfe]

Good point. You are right that a person reversely discriminated against would not ever really know.

Pet peeve here, there is no such thing as 'reverse discrimination.' There is only discrimination.


Lethal

[mactastic]

Anyone who thinks affirmative action is immoral and ought to be disbanded feel like weighing in on the DVBE? Why should "smarter" and "better qualified" people be turned down in favor of a disabled veteran?

[r.j.s]

If someone is better qualified, then they are better qualified. That's it. Even though it's DVs, it still discrimination. Discrimination is still wrong.

[furcalchick]

affirmative action was useful back in the day, but it's way outlasted it's usefulness. it's unfair to everyone.

[.Andy]

If someone is better qualified, then they are better qualified.
This was my point earlier. You aren't necessarily better qualified for a university position purely on the basis of marks. Sometimes you are better qualified because you are a minority. In the case of healthcare choosing a cohort that more reflective of ethnic diversity of the community results in better outcomes and greater equality of service to all the community. Marks aren't everything. In fact they aren't reflective of much in the real world at all.

[r.j.s]

This was my point earlier. You aren't necessarily better qualified for a university position purely on the basis of marks. Sometimes you are better qualified because you are a minority. In the case of healthcare choosing a cohort that more reflective of ethnic diversity of the community results in better outcomes and greater equality of service to all the community. Marks aren't everything. In fact they aren't reflective of much in the real world at all.

I wasn't speaking of qualified as in marks, I meant qualified by whatever criteria the college/corporation/whatever determine are needed to succeed.

[LethalWolfe]

Anyone who thinks affirmative action is immoral and ought to be disbanded feel like weighing in on the DVBE? Why should "smarter" and "better qualified" people be turned down in favor of a disabled veteran?
As I understand it that's not really an apples-to-apples comparison. From DVBE.com (http://www.dvbe.com/inc.php?f=about):

About Us
Dvbe.com was created by service-disabled veterans. Its purpose is to assist veteran-owned businesses by profiling their companies. This portal facilitates business opportunities with Government entities and contractors. This website is owned and operated by Service Disabled Veteran Enterprises, LLC., a California Limited Liability Company, dba as SDVE, LLC.
A business networking association isn't the same thing as a government mandated Affirmative Action program.


Lethal

[Cleverboy]

Good post, and I generally agree with your position on affirmative action. I do wonder, however, what criteria we're looking for to say that it's no longer needed. I'm having difficulty imagining the various affected civil rights leaders ever proclaiming, "You know what? I think we're good now. Affirmative action is no longer necessary!" I think that will inevitably be a political decision. As shown by the growing amount of negative opinions regarding affirmative action (even by women and people of color)... its clearly on its way out, and all the hemming and hawing in the world won't change that. It's very purpose needs to be self-evident. If it isn't... then it is done away with. If it is, then it becomes a point of contention, and people need to make their case.

With the exception of educational institutions in establishing some degree of proportional representation and diversity, I think affirmative action has little place in the private sector.

With higher education, it should be phased out and replaced with more class-based considerations. I DO however think colleges should be free to pursue goals of encouraging a sense of diversity on campus without the use of hard quotas.

As it deals with governmental offices and positions, I'm not so sure there shouldn't be an active attempt to insure parity and access. We recently underwent an episode with Attorney General Alberto Gonzales where basic political affiliations were used to discriminate in hiring. When it comes to the handles of power, I think there's room for government to exert access for protected of classes (this includes: race, color, religion, sex or national origin) so long as those considerations are applied uniformily. This also involves redistricting laws and the like that affect voting power. A lot of work needs to continue to insure a balance and its hardly a no-brainer.

Here is an excellent blog post about the history on this:
http://narayanan.wordpress.com/2006/05/05/ending-pervasive-discrimination-a-primer-on-affirmative-action-in-the-us/

Some people might find it helps shed more light on the subject.

Q. What is Affirmative Action?

A. It is a set of measures taken to correct the effects of past discrimination against one or more members of a protected class. It is also called positive discrimination in some countries (e.g. Britain). For example, a federal contractor who has historically hired a smaller percentage of women or minorities than the comparable percentage in the local work force, may be required to create a plan to remedy the imbalance. Such affirmative action plans are monitored for effectiveness.

Q. Are there employment quotas or job reservation in the (non-federal) private sector in the U.S.?

A. No. Quotas and reservations are generally disfavored by economic liberals and conservatives alike.

Q. Why is the private sector exempt from the mandates of Affirmative Action?

A. The American Constitution enumerates specific powers to the government and reserves all other rights to the people themselves. Consequently, the jurisdictional reach of federal powers has always been subject to limits, except when correcting actual or imminent harm. The U.S. Supreme Court has applied strict scrutiny to Affirmative Action legislation since it goes beyond creating equal opportunity in the workplace, and has held it to be justifiable only to remedy specific injury to a particular group. At the practical level, U.S. legislators are concerned about hobbling the free market American economy, or reducing its long-term global competitiveness by reducing the flexibility of the labor force by mandating quotas.

~ CB

[imac/cheese]

This was my point earlier. You aren't necessarily better qualified for a university position purely on the basis of marks. Sometimes you are better qualified because you are a minority. In the case of healthcare choosing a cohort that more reflective of ethnic diversity of the community results in better outcomes and greater equality of service to all the community. Marks aren't everything. In fact they aren't reflective of much in the real world at all.

I agree completely with you one this one.

:confused:

[motulist]

lots of people actually know someone who is a minority who did not get a job or promotion because of his/her race/gender. I know of several myself and another has been mentioned earlier in this thread. And how many others exist that people do not know about?

No, you know of minority people that went up for a job and it was given to a white person, but you don't know if that job was given to them because they were white, or because the employer thought the other person was going to be a better employee. The minority person may think it was given to the white guy because he was white, but that most definitely does not mean it's true.

It's only natural that when you get rejected by anything, be it a prospective employer, a school, a woman, a night club, or whatever, almost every human will always rationalize why they didn't get selected as if it were due to some external force that they aren't in control of, that way they spare their ego. It's only natural to blame someone or something else when you get rejected, but in most cases that turns out to be just a defensive rationalization rather than the truth.

[imac/cheese]

No, you know of minority people that went up for a job and it was given to a white person, but you don't know if that job was given to them because they were white, or because the employer thought the other person was going to be a better employee. The minority person may think it was given to the white guy because he was white, but that most definitely does not mean it's true.

It's only natural that when you get rejected by anything, be it a prospective employer, a school, a woman, a night club, or whatever, almost every human will always rationalize why they didn't get selected as if it were due to some external force that they aren't in control of, that way they spare their ego. It's only natural to blame someone or something else when you get rejected, but in most cases that turns out to be just a defensive rationalization rather than the truth.

You reasoning is quite sound except for the fact that I didn't hear about the examples I know of from the minorities, but from employers, recruiters, and third parties that knew the hiring authorities. The example given earlier in this thread is one where the white employer stated that he could not promote the black employee. These are not cases of blaming the system for one's own failures.

[mactastic]

As I understand it that's not really an apples-to-apples comparison. From DVBE.com (http://www.dvbe.com/inc.php?f=about):

A business networking association isn't the same thing as a government mandated Affirmative Action program.


Lethal
It's not a perfect comparison, because it is not totally mandatory, although I typically must include language for it in my contracts due to certain state... incentives.

And it does steer more business towards a subset of the general population that otherwise would not see this increase. So while it is not technically mandatory, it is highly encouraged (http://www.pd.dgs.ca.gov/dvbe/default.htm) and there can be consequences for failing to meet the goals set.

The Disabled Veteran Business Enterprise (DVBE) Participation Program was established to acknowledge disabled veterans for their service and to further DVBE participation in state contracting, promote competition and encourage greater economic opportunity.


The state established a DVBE participation goal of at least three percent. The goal applies to the total contract dollars expended each year by an awarding department. Each state agency establishes their own method for attaining the goal and they have the discretion to include the program goal within individual contracts. Every year, state agencies must also report to the governor and the legislature their total DVBE contracting participation. If the minimum three percent goal is not met, the state agency must provide their reasons for not meeting the goal and an implementation plan for future DVBE participation improvement. They may also be required to stand before a legislative panel to further clarify their results and efforts.

[Rodimus Prime]

I think it is wrong. It is discrimination in the other direction. I want to see more white males sueing companies, states and not for Affirmative actions. Saying reverse discrimination then proving it. It would get the last off the laws thrown off the books. I know of constuction companies that offically have a woman as the owner who does nothing with the bussiness but the name. Normally the wife of the Real owner. Gets them easy bussiness just because it is owned by a woman which I think is wrong. I have seen the minority own bussiness price gouge because they can get away with it because they do not have any one else going against them because they are not minority owned.

Sorry but I think the laws are crap. Lets face some facts some bussiness will be mainly white male because A) not one women go into. B) like it or not reason white are more educated than minorities so chances are there going to be more of them in the job market at the educated levels.

As for the education part and white being better educated that is as you go back down families line you will find the first generation college students much father back. 3+ generations. Which yes is effected by the older discrimination laws of the past. But it is no reason to screw over the current generation which does not think much about race. I do not think much about some one race/sex in the world any more. I think more of what is there education back ground and that is a much better equalizer.

[stubeeef]

I must say that most of what he says is certainly, lets say, CONTROVERSIAL? Ya, controversial...:eek:

But this little clip (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DePqURwttfM) has some truths to think about.

[pseudobrit]

My primary beef w/affirmative action is that it's based on race and not socio-economic status even though it's goal is supposed to give people who grew up low on the socio-economic ladder a chance they otherwise wouldn't have gotten. Not every poor person from a broken home is black and not every middle-class suburbanite is white.

Just heard Robert Reich talking about this the other day on Marketplace. I think it's an excellent idea to stop the curse of being born poor that is seeping through every race.

I think affirmative action is a good thing overall. It's an especially flawed concept when it's race-based and it's not usually implemented effectively enough.

The bigger problem is that there is still so much racism in our country that flies under the radar. Being a white male, I can't tell you how many racist things have been uttered to me with a wink and a nod from someone who assumed I'd be naturally receptive to it. You'd better believe that kind of attitude creeps into the nooks and crannies of nearly every business.

So it's not "fair", but who says it has to be?

[SwiftLives]

I had Affirmative Action explained to me once in a way that actually made sense. If you've got two candidates applying for a job or to a college, and both have the same GPA, chances are, the potential employer is going to look beyond just academics to extracurriculars or hobbies or things that could potentially determine character. Now, one of these candidates might have been on some sports teams or a member of the the National Honor Society or a member of a local philanthropic club, whereas the other might not have anything like that.

The problem is that the person without the extracurriculars grew up in an underprivileged community, where none of that was even offered. His school couldn't afford an athletic team because the community's PTA was not affluent. Or he couldn't join a local charity because he had to work after school to pay the bills.

Affirmative Action in theory, attempts to level the playing field and provide that additional step which was not made available to the underprivileged candidate.

The problem I have with Affirmative Action is how it links being underprivileged to having darker skin than someone else. What if in my scenario the underprivileged candidate were caucasian?

MyY point is that I wish Affirmative Action would become economic-based rather than race based. As it exists today, it's outdated, and frankly, I think it's regressing the progress made my civil rights leaders in the past.

I admit - I'm a huge idealist...but no one has ever been able to explain the difference to me between someone with darker skin and someone with lighter skin...or hair...or eyes. I just fail to see any difference. OR care about any difference.

[iGary]

No. Best qualified person, green, yellow, orange ... should get the job.

[solvs]

I'd be careful, cause in 2040 or something like that (I need to find the article) Caucasians will be a minority

Just to point out, minority doesn't mean there are less of that group, it just means that they don't have the majority of the power. Look at South African apartheid. Even if there are more blacks there, the whites were the majority because they ran things. Same here.

Anyway, thank you to Cleverboy, and partially to SwiftLives as well, for helping to explain how Affirmative Action actually works, because reading some of these posts, some of you clearly don't understand it, nor how it's used (though yes, it is still pretty flawed).

[hulugu]

...
MyY point is that I wish Affirmative Action would become economic-based rather than race based.....

I think this is an important distinction. The economic disadvantages, though they often correlate with minority populations, should be the most important aspect rather than race.

[skunk]

Just to point out, minority doesn't mean there are less of that group, it just means that they don't have the majority of the power. Look at South African apartheid. Even if there are more blacks there, the whites were the majority because they ran things.That's not true, Solvs. In South Africa they went from minority rule to majority rule, that's all. A majority is a majority, whether its enfranchised or not.

[solvs]

That's not true, Solvs. In South Africa they went from minority rule to majority rule, that's all. A majority is a majority, whether its enfranchised or not.

As a term, majority refers to who's in charge. So while in this country there can be more women, more people of color other than white European, and if men are the majority in charge, they are still considered a majority. While they may technically be a majority of the population, the term majority as it was applied above means majority power holder as I pointed out.

[imac/cheese]

...The problem is that the person without the extracurriculars grew up in an underprivileged community, where none of that was even offered. His school couldn't afford an athletic team because the community's PTA was not affluent. Or he couldn't join a local charity because he had to work after school to pay the bills.

Affirmative Action in theory, attempts to level the playing field and provide that additional step which was not made available to the underprivileged candidate.

The problem I have with Affirmative Action is how it links being underprivileged to having darker skin than someone else. What if in my scenario the underprivileged candidate were caucasian?

MyY point is that I wish Affirmative Action would become economic-based rather than race based. As it exists today, it's outdated, and frankly, I think it's regressing the progress made my civil rights leaders in the past.

I admit - I'm a huge idealist...but no one has ever been able to explain the difference to me between someone with darker skin and someone with lighter skin...or hair...or eyes. I just fail to see any difference. OR care about any difference.

I think you hit the nail on the head when you discussed the underpriviledged communities. It is difficult to determine which aspect better defines people from underpriviledged communities. If you choose socio-economic factors to decide who is from an underpriviledged community you leave out kids of all races that have some money but live in an area where the community doesn't have an programs or services. If you use race as the determining factor, you leave out white people who are living in those communities. Neither one is perfect...

[skunk]

As a term, majority refers to who's in charge. So while in this country there can be more women, more people of color other than white European, and if men are the majority in charge, they are still considered a majority. While they may technically be a majority of the population, the term majority as it was applied above means majority power holder as I pointed out.You are clearly speaking from a parallel universe.

[solvs]

You are clearly speaking from a parallel universe.

Minority group (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minority_group):
A minority or subordinate group is a sociological group that does not constitute a politically dominant voting majority of the total population of a given society. A sociological minority is not necessarily a numerical minority — it may include any group that is disadvantaged with respect to a dominant group in terms of social status, education, employment, wealth and political power. To avoid confusion, some writers prefer the terms "subordinate group" and "dominant group" rather than "minority" and "majority", respectively.
In this case, that's what the above poster was referring to.

[skunk]

Minority group (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minority_group):

In this case, that's what the above poster was referring to.In which case, both you and he would do well to "avoid confusion", as the article says... :)

[solvs]

In which case, both you and he would do well to "avoid confusion", as the article says... :)

I wasn't the one who said "minority", just pointing out that it may not mean what that poster thinks it does in context. ;)

[diamond.g]

Does anyone thing AA got us a non-white president (elect)?

[Ugg]

Does anyone thing AA got us a non-white president (elect)?

Obama's grandparents paid for him to attend a private high school in Hawaii. If you've seen any of his school photos, you'll have noticed that while he may be the only black kid, the vast majority were minorities.

I think people fail to recognize the diversity that exists in Hawaii as well as the fact that it is one of the youngest states in the union. As a result, it doesn't have all the baggage to carry around. A huge percentage of the state is multi-ethnic.

If anything, I think Barack and Michelle are from the post-affirmative action era. Sure, it might have helped them get a step up, but they're both incredibly smart people and their success is based on their families' support, not on AA.

It's my opinion that his birth and upbringing in Hawaii is what got him to where he is. Had he been born and raised in Chicago it might be a different story.

[63dot]

So lately I've been thinking, isn't it just another form of discrimination? How is it fair that a black person gets preferential treatment when applying for college just because they are black? If a white student has better grades, and more extra curricular then a black student, is it fair that that black student is more likely to get into college then the white student?

Note: This isn't just restricted to black students getting preferential treatment, it also relates to other races getting preferential treatment over Caucasians.

Personally I think that affirmative action is just discrimination against Caucasians, and males. What is your opinion?

Don

It's even worse for Asians. If you are Asian you have to outscore all White, Hispanic, and Black applicants by a large margin to be put on the same footing for entry into college.

Being Asian I have mixed feelings.

On one hand, if it wasn't for affirmative action in the 50s and 60s, Asians would pretty much be relegated only to state funded colleges and universities cutting themselves off from the choice jobs on the market.

On the other hand, today, if you are Asian, expect to have to get an SAT, MCAT, LSAT, GRE, GMAT score a whole standard deviation higher than all other races just to be considered equal.

In the controversial book, the Bell Curve, and others like it, there is discussion if the Ivies, Stanford, and MIT were just to use gpa and SAT score alone, those schools would be virtually 100% percent Asian and Jewish and thus face a major backlash of all other groups hating them. There are only 8 Ivies, and maybe two times as many great private Universities in the USA and that accounts for very, very few seats (of 1,500 universities) and if they were just Asian and Jewish, if based only on test scores, then they would make those schools appear preferential to those two groups. Ethnic minorities that were not Asian would lose any political ties with the Asians and civil rights would fall behind.

Unfortunately, against my own relatives younger than me, I believe affirmative action needs to stay in place. No one race is smarter than any other and high scores of Jewish or Asian kids are mostly cultural upbringings. Take a poor white, hispanic, or black child and raise him in an urban Jewish or Asian home and I guarantee, that kid will score in the top 10th percentile in math on the SAT. It's not genetic at all.