edit: Should Affirmative Action be reformed?

[essential1]

Originally Posted by davidisgodly

Originally Posted by Essential1

the thing people always say about Affirmative Action is it puts less qualified people in the place of people who deserve it. That is not true. They don't find the dumbest black guy to fill the "Affirmative Action" spot, they find a person who did decent in class.


You have to look that even though there is affirmative action universities, corporations etc. still find loopholes around it whether it be ignoring it and finding a legal measure to support it or keeping minorities at low level jobs.

I think it should be more about economic status, but as a white person affirmative action has never hurt nor helped me so I do not see a problem as is.

OFF YOURSELF

THERES NO JOKE

OFF YOURSELF

you show me 10 people in each school were less qualified and put in because of affirmative action. I'll find you 1,000 under qualified students who wereput in to college without affirmative action at each school.

 

[czur1127]

Originally Posted by Essential1

the thing people always say about Affirmative Action is it puts less qualified people in the place of people who deserve it. That is not true. They don't find the dumbest black guy to fill the "Affirmative Action" spot, they find a person who did decent in class.


You have to look that even though there is affirmative action universities, corporations etc. still find loopholes around it whether it be ignoring it and finding a legal measure to support it or keeping minorities at low level jobs.

so true......

 

[dirtylicious]

btw...you should not include Asians in the URM group for AA.

AA does not help Asians get into college

 

[moonmaster3]

Originally Posted by mytmouse76

^ how do you know that? that's its because of their race they got accepted?

Are you trying to debate whether or not URM's are judged by a lower academic standard when getting into college? If you are, then yes, blacks hispanicsnative americans etc. are judged by a lower standard academically.

 

[thegr8blkhope]

can someone explain to me how white women benefit the most from AA? i just want more info, ive never heard that before. thanks

EDIT: and if anyone could point me in the way of some literature on both sides of the debate that would be much appreciated (bored at work...)

 

[dirtylicious]

was thinking about this today...
Jim Crow laws were ended in 1965.. compare that to the birth of our nation..1776...that's pretty much 190 years.

I'm wholly in support of AA... but I'd say to those people who oppose it......why not keep AA for 190 years AFTER the repeal of Jim Crow laws?... sothat's in 2155.

it's only fair

 

[38816]

it's that time of year again, already?

i am, of course, referring to the time of year that under-achieving white guys get their rejection letters in the mail, realize they WON'T be kegging itwith brad and chet @ the Gamma house next year, then make the fallacy of attributing their failure to a somehow unqualified black kid that took his"spot" due to Affirmative Action.


The question you should ask yourself, instead of "why are they letting black kids in with lower scores?", should be, "why did thousands of mywhite peers get in but i didn't?"


p.s. the answer doesn't lie in affirmative action....

 

[fantastic4our]

^
"what more can I saaaaay"

 

[moonmaster3]

Originally Posted by eNPHAN

it's that time of year again, already?

i am, of course, referring to the time of year that under-achieving white guys get their rejection letters in the mail, realize they WON'T be kegging it with brad and chet @ the Gamma house next year, then make the fallacy of attributing their failure to a somehow unqualified black kid that took his "spot" due to Affirmative Action.


The question you should ask yourself, instead of "why are they letting black kids in with lower scores?", should be, "why did thousands of my white peers get in but i didn't?"


p.s. the answer doesn't lie in affirmative action....

How is it a fallacy? Either way you look at it, blacks with scores that are below average are getting into schools because they are black. The argument hereisn't that the white kids who have scores lower than the black students aren't getting in, the argument is that those who have higher scores are beingdenied. Unless you are assuming that those under achieving white people are still scoring higher than the black students being admitted?

 

[fede dpt]

Originally Posted by Rexanglorum

If you are interested in Affirmative Action, you should read Affirmative Action Around the World: An Empirical Study by Thomas Sowell. Dr. Sowell is right when he says that in the US, those for or against AA tend to argue for or against the theory of AA and rarely do people cite its results.

What he found is that AA can actually harm the group it is meant to help. The problem is that quotas and set asides and preferences tend to not address the underlying problems that caused a group to be under represented in the University, Civil Service and in Government Contracts in the first place. It is usually the well off minority within the underrepresented group that has the means to take advantage of the Lion's share of the set asides.

Affirmative Action can also cause, resentment against an entire group. It is unfair but the perception on the part of everyopne, who does not get the job or an acceptance letter is that they were wronged. Thomas Sowell cites the example of how in India if they offered, say, 50 civil service jobs and three of them were set aside for members of the untouchables class, the hundred of non untouchables, who did not get the job, think they did not get the job because of untouchables when only three people could really claim that they did not get the job because of quotas. In India and elsewhere, that can inflame ethnic tensions can eventually lead to bloody riots and even civil war.

People NEED to read that book.




He wrote this a few years ago that I kept...

[table][tr][td][/td] [/tr][tr][td]

[h1]The Grand Fraud: Affirmative Action for Blacks[/h1]
No issue has been more saturated with dishonesty than the issue of racial quotas and preferences, which is now being examined by the Supreme Court of the United States. Many defenders of affirmative action are not even honest enough to admit that they are talking about quotas and preferences, even though everyone knows that that is what affirmative action amounts to in practice.

Despite all the gushing about the mystical benefits of "diversity" in higher education, a recent study by respected academic scholars found that "college diversity programs fail to raise standards" and that "a majority of faculty members and administrators recognize this when speaking anonymously."

This study by Stanley Rothman, Seymour Martin Lipset, and Neil Nevitte found that "of those who think that preferences have some impact on academic standards those believing it negative exceed those believing it positive by 15 to 1."

Poll after poll over the years has shown that most faculty members and most students are opposed to double standards in college admissions. Yet professors who will come out publicly and say what they say privately in these polls are as rare as hen's teeth.

Such two-faced talk is pervasive in academia and elsewhere. A few years ago, in Berkeley, there was a big fight over whether a faculty vote on affirmative action would be by secret ballot or open vote. Both sides knew that the result of a secret ballot would be the direct opposite of the result in a public vote at a faculty meeting.

When any policy can only be defended by lies and duplicity, there is something fundamentally wrong with that policy. Virtually every argument in favor of affirmative action is demonstrably false. It is the grand fraud of our time.

The need for "role models" of the same race or sex is a key dogma behind affirmative action in hiring black or female professors. But a recent study titled "Increasing Faculty Diversity" found "no empirical evidence to support the belief that same-sex, same-ethnicity role models are any more effective than white male role models."

The related notion that a certain "critical mass" of black students is needed on a given campus, in order that these students can feel comfortable enough to do their best, has become dogma without a speck of evidence being offered or asked for. Such evidence as there is points in the opposite direction.

Without affirmative action, its advocates claim, few black students would be able to get into college. In reality, there are today more black students in the University of California system and in the University of Texas system than there were before these systems ended affirmative action.

These black students are simply distributed differently within both systems -- no longer being mismatched with institutions whose standards they don't meet. They now have a better chance of graduating.

What of the idea that affirmative action has helped blacks rise out of poverty and is needed to continue that rise? A far higher proportion of blacks in poverty rose out of poverty in the 20 years between 1940 and 1960 -- that is, before any major federal civil rights legislation -- than in the more than 40 years since then. This trend continued in the 1960s, at a slower pace. The decade of the 1970s -- the first affirmative action decade -- saw virtually no change in the poverty rate among blacks.

In other words, most blacks lifted themselves out of poverty but liberal politicians and black "leaders" have claimed credit. One side effect is that many whites wonder why blacks cannot lift themselves out of poverty like other groups, when that is in fact what most blacks have done.

Affirmative action is great for black millionaires but it has done little or nothing for most people in the ghetto. Most minority business owners who get preferences in government contracts have net worths of more than one million dollars.

One of the big barriers to any rational discussion of affirmative action is that many of those who are for or against it are for or against the theory or the rationales behind group preferences and quotas. As for facts, the defenders simply lie.

[/td] [/tr][/table]

 

[emmanuel goldstein]

i know in my life ive been the minority ...

 

[38816]

Originally Posted by moonmaster3

Originally Posted by eNPHAN

it's that time of year again, already?

i am, of course, referring to the time of year that under-achieving white guys get their rejection letters in the mail, realize they WON'T be kegging it with brad and chet @ the Gamma house next year, then make the fallacy of attributing their failure to a somehow unqualified black kid that took his "spot" due to Affirmative Action.


The question you should ask yourself, instead of "why are they letting black kids in with lower scores?", should be, "why did thousands of my white peers get in but i didn't?"


p.s. the answer doesn't lie in affirmative action....

How is it a fallacy? Either way you look at it, blacks with scores that are below average are getting into schools because they are black. The argument here isn't that the white kids who have scores lower than the black students aren't getting in, the argument is that those who have higher scores are being denied. Unless you are assuming that those under achieving white people are still scoring higher than the black students being admitted?

, oh, so you think there's a kid with amazing testscores who got passed over for a kid with below average test scores?

when it comes down to it, the kids getting rejected are obviously the least qualified among their peers.

(if you're going to respond back, reread my last sentence a couple times and FULLY understand what i saidthere.....)

Originally Posted by Emmanuel Goldstein

i know in my life ive been the minority ...

, with dreads, you would be...

and honestly, i'm not surprised to hear a sentiment such as this coming from you......