I have the survey somewhere and the statistical analysis on my computer in ny. It was my westinghouse project.

-Rudey
--I'm so cool...look at me talk about my westinghouse. Yeah!!!

Nerd.

I definately agree with this. At my first university, it wasn't very diversivied. Since I've transferred however, I've met so many different people from so many different backgrounds/ethnicities/places, etc., that I am just amazed on how much I've learned from them since I've moved.

Understanding the culture of another and believing that others should receive preferential treatment based on factors other than ability or achievement seem to be two separate issues. Unless you are saying, that because of your “understanding” you have concluded that certain groups need preferential treatment in order to compete.

That's exactly what I thought of (wage gap--which is not only gender based, but race based as weel BTW) when I started reading the article. Even when things like education and experience are the same, white males tend to make more than any other group. (((Wondering if the cookies were any good)))

mmmmmm.... tastes like feminism!

they were delish! ;)

nah, they'd probably be mean and offer you a free fortune cookie. . .

well, considering i'm black, native american, somewhat hispanic and part jewish and a woman. . .


WHAT IN THE HELL WOULD THE PRICE OF MY COOKIE COST????

We had a discussion a few months ago where we addressed that point:

http://forums.greekchat.com/gcforums...n&pagenumber=1

I think the posts you might be more interested in are in the last half.

Thanks for the tip. I was interested in your opinion. Perhaps I'll find it there.

It's somewhere in there.

Essentially, I feel that American culture is set up to provide more educational opportunities to whites than to people of color. Affirmative action, when properly used, is one way of levelling the playing field. So yes, in a way I'm saying that some minorities DO need the extra help that affirmative action provides, though not necessarily through any fault of their own. It's summed up much better by many of the posts in that thread, though, which is why I directed you there.

Part of it is economic, as minorities are more likely to be "low-income" than whites. And since economic factors are influences by educational factors, which are influenced by economics, which is influenced by education . . . it's a self-perpetuating cycle which can be difficult to bust out of. In some cases AA helps to end the cycle.

So you believe that people need extra help because of their race in order to compete. That's fine. Our opinions differ.

So why do you believe that minorities don't "achieve" as much as whites do, academically? If it's not society, then what?

Some minorities do achieve as much or more than whites. I don't believe that society in general holds anyone back who is able to compete on their own. Perhaps certain cultures have different expectations of their members than others, both high and low.

Why do poor Bangladeshi, Indian, Chinese students do so well in NYC?

-Rudey
--Tell me please.

What about the possibility that some people who can't compete on their own fail to do so because of society issues? Otherwise, you're getting very close to saying that certain races are innately not prepared to succeed, or at least less prepared to succeed than others. Which is sticky. And not a point that I want to argue.

I don't think that anyone can argue that different culture have different expectations when it comes to education, and that each culture needs to work on improving those expectations -- but pressure comes from outside the individual cultures too. For example, I see the idea that "The only way blacks will ever get rich or famous is via entertainment or sports" promoted by whites just as often, if not more, than it is by African-Americans themselves.

As for Rudey's question, if those students are not a product of American culture, then the standards American culture sets up don't apply to them.

What does that mean?? You have to be second generation American to have those standards apply to you?

-Rudey
--Interesting.

If someone is first-generation American and Chinese, then they're still Chinese-American. By "Chinese" I assumed you meant Chinese students who were raised in China but came to the US for educational purposes only.

As for the question, I assume that this is in part due to, as bethany said, the cultural expectations. Nobody is arguing that those exist.

Most immigrants come and start families here or bring very young children here. And why doesn't culture apply to them? Why don't they all turn out to work at 7-11's and drive cabs simply because that's what culture says? Is it an internal culture then? Who is responsible for that if it's internal??

-Rudey

That fact in and of itself makes the difference...

Certain cultures DO have different expectation its member's achievements...

It may be one thing to GRADUATE from high school and goto college--which many young people are told in underrepresented communities...

It is completely another to matriculate through college, GRADUATE with honors and obtain viable employment or go to graduate or professional school...

In my arena, most folks are telling their children--goto college and be like your cousin "so-n-so"... Forget the fact that one has to REGISTER for classes to be in college... The whole cultural understanding of academia is being misunderstood by non-mainstream cultures...

And if the college/university itself does not have a "culture within a culture"--which just the reality of the situation--then success rates for students of color, especially underrepresented student's retention rates are seen as lower... Or worse, folks just do not see the need to apply...

Hell, I would NOT apply to UCLA right now, because I wouldn't want to be told that I am not good enough to be there... I would rather be able to prove to myself that I failed any given test because I lacked the understanding of the material or chose not to study rather than thinking that the professor or my classmates were racist...

That is why many in the African American community would choose to go to Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCUs) because they just want to circumvent suffering that kind of pressure. At the same time, the HBCU's are inherently unequal and do not have similar resources as mainstream colleges and universities...

What are these issues? I would never say that certain races couldn’t compete. That's the approach of Affirmative Action. Affirmative Action leaves the impression that certain races cannot compete without preferential treatment. If I thought that I could receive preferential treatment through AA, that belief just might lower my personal standards or self-expectation. I am saying just the opposite. Let everyone compete according to his or her own ability! Race has nothing to do with ability. If an individual cannot compete according to their own ability, perhaps they need to either work a little harder to achieve or formulate different career/educational goals. If there are indeed societal issues designed by whites to hold back certain races, why don't these same designers hold back all minorities?

35 years ago, that is exactly what was going on--until Martin Luther King was assasinated...

All that most of us are seeing now is the fallout from the sins of our forefathers... Residual effects... Eventually, your utopia that you espouse might come into fruition... However, do not be so foolish to think it will not come out of bloodshed...

Bloodshed? Interesting. Is this literal bloodshed? Race wars? Do you espouse such ideology? The sins of whose forefathers, white or black? Perhaps both...

I think that if you're raised in one culture, then introduced to another at, say, age 18, your chances of sticking with the values of the original culture are much higher than your chances of adopting the second. Of course, the longer you stay immersed in the second culture, the more of it you will probably come to adopt. That's why those who move here when they're two will, in general, be more susceptible to the pressures of American culture than those that move here when they're 30 and already have a culture to call their own, so to speak.

Of course all this is in general terms and there are exceptions.

But that's really getting into another whole issue entirely.

The reasons that some minorities fail to achieve are either innate or society-based (i.e., back to the old nature/nurture debate). I don't think anyone is arguing that minorities are innately set up to fail. So that means it must be society-based. But then what?

For example, it's been established that alcoholism is a much bigger problem among Native Americans than among other races. There's speculation that Europeans gave Native Americans alcohol (sometimes in exchange for goods) because they liked watching the Native Americans (who had no alcohol tolerance) get drunk -- perhaps so that, while they were drunk, the Europeans could take advantage of that fact and trade with them, getting the better end of the deal. There's also speculation that alcoholism became an issue because of the pressures of living on reservations and the problems that Native Americans faced. So what came first, the discrimination or the alcoholism? Similarly, did "black American culture" develop the way in part due to discrimination, or did discrimination result from the way whites viewed "black American culture"? It's another one of those things where it's impossible to tell and a hard cycle to break.

There is a tendency to simplify racial issues way too much. None of our actions exist in a vacuum, and they never have.

Hey, given the fact that some of my own forefathers fought and died in the Civil War as officers, seems to me that many of the lines are beginning to blur...

Given the fact that some of my own forefathers may have owned and raped some of my own foremothers suggests that the point of anger and humiliation does not change...

Without struggle, there is no progress... Frederick Douglas...


EXACTLY...

My issue is that the stuff has to be straightened out by the next generation... Like our grandkids will have to pay for this war in Iraq...

Because not every racial group has had the same experiences in American history. American slavery was limited, for the most part, to blacks. American Indians had to deal with relocation and the fact that, with reservations, they are held to different laws and standards than other Americans. Japanese-Americans had the concentration camps. Many times the races clustered in certain parts of the country when they first imigrated, due to choice or necessity (blacks in the South, Asians on the west coast, Hispanics in the Southwest) and the waves of immigration came at different time periods (the biggest wave of Hispanics has been relatively recently, as opposed to the biggest influx of blacks during slaver). All of this leads to racism and thus to culture developing in different ways. And all groups bring a mix of cultures from their previous homes that add to the differences too.

If Asian-Americans are stereotyped as being "good at school" and African-Americans stereotyped as being "good at sports," these can become self-fulfilling prophesies.

Nice Douglas quote. I once had that on my mirror. Does struggle mean bloodshed?

You missed my point, ace - and I haven't read the rest of the thread yet, so sorry if this has already been addressed, but let me restate:

Their right to voice dissenting opinions on ANYTHING - whether it be politics, racial equality, sports, or the heliocentric theory of the solar system, should always be protected.

"Protected" here should be read as, "allowed to exist, as long as it is limited to stating an opinion."

My point was that this portrayal didn't even get to the point of the issue, and thus didn't represent any sort of dissenting opinion on actual Affirmative Action policy - their example did NOT, in my opinion, fit what they were trying to fight.

Affirmative Action scenarios seek to promote diversity equivalent to the overall population distribution - if you want to euphemize this as "giving minorities advantages," you're missing the point, to my mind, but you're free to play semantic games all you want. It's just that - a semantic link. It is not a literal advantage; it is merely (IDEALLY) the partial elimination of a disadvantage. While these sound equivalent, you should be able to see that they are not.

When you then set up a scenario in which you give literal advantages based on race, you are now two steps removed from the policy you are attacking. This is NOT an effective way to convey your anti-AA point.

And what would be a more direct way? How about only a certain number of cookies could be sold to white kids before one must be sold to a black kid, and another number for an asian kid, etc, reflecting the distribution of society. Here, you're hoping to have a huge line of white kids waiting for cookies, proving somehow that they are being left behind - and even then, I'm not sure it holds water, but it's a lot better than "You pay less because you're black."

It's a tenuous link - but at least it addresses the frigging topic.

YES - AA programs generally suck in many ways.

NO - these guys did not prove that.

Protect speech - don't protect stupidity, there are actual important battles available to fight. I'm not saying these guys shouldn't be able to do this sort of example - I'm saying they did it poorly, and I wanted you to realize you're defending retards.

I dunno? :confused:

But for some, baptism with the blood of Jesus, who make folks white as snow, works...

For me... That just makes another person dead...

Then again...

If you don't have something to die for, what reason do you have to live?

Forgot who said that...

LOL@ the Jesus reference...

Question:

Is everyone saying that the system that we had in place BEFORE AA was better?

That is, rampant and blantant discrimination based on race/sex/etc.

All those who are arguing against AA are essentially arguing FOR the system we had before it.

Please outline pros of this argument so proponents of AA may better understand. Thanks.

Your logic does not stand. Rejection of AA does not mean an automatic acceptance of discrimination. AA is discrimination. The system should be based upon ability and performance.

So what DOES it mean then? Was the system ever based on ability and performance? Come on, give me something better.

I missed your point. The sponsors of the bake sale miss the point of AA. No one seems to understand the issue, except perhaps, you. Calling these individuals idiots based upon a disagreement is ridiculous, ace.

I did not say that the system has ever been based upon ability. Are you saying a system based upon ability and performance would not be better than one based upon special preferences?

Based on tradition and history do you HONESTLY think this is possible?


BTW, I am with sugarandspice in wondering how a study like the one UCLA/Loyola conducted would be possible? And no matter what kind of questions were asked on the survey or whatever method they used, I would question the validity until I saw demographics, and sample pool. All that aside, I really don't think the affect diversity has on someone or hundreds of someone's can be tangibly measured.

Rudey can you please cite the study from UCLA so I can take a gander? Thanks.

OK then - so why do we assume it to have a positive impact? Does it really make any more sense to assume something intangible in one direction than in another?

Remove yourself from all passionate link to the topic at hand, and I think you'll agree with me. If you can't measure it (and I'm with Rudey - you probably can, you just need to decide what you're measuring to prove the point), then why do we assume an outcome?

No measurement == no proof.

OK, but I'm not 'calling them idiots' because of some viewpoint difference (if any, remember that I didn't really state my views) - I think they made a fallacious scenario that doesn't prove their point, and this failure is why I'm 'calling them idiots.'

maybe we should turn our anger towards the kids who get in off of mom and dad's hefty donations to the college and the fact that their child was an alma mater

those people are the real enemies


especially when you have kids committing suicides because they don't WANT to go to their parent's alma mater but they make them. . .

No, no, no, I definitely agree. My whole point was using a study or survey or ANYTHING to back up you point of view is pretty much ludicrous. This topic is really one of opinion. Just out of curiousity, how would one measure such a thing?

I never said that having a "diverse" environment would be helpful, either. In fact, even in the face of diversity, most people tend to self-segregate, so there ya go.

My whole thing is trying to get people to understand that if one opposes Affirmative Action, one should then propose something BETTER (while still being realistic).

I guess we would have to define "work." If work means to allow the same students entrance into programs that they are currently able to enter when given special preferences, possibly not. Allowing anyone preferred placement into a program is what makes the current system not work. A colorblind system would remove benefits that some students currently receive over others. Other than that, an ability-based system would work. A colorblind system would reduce prejudice. The current system is anything but prejudice free. Do you really believe that certain individuals cannot compete through ability alone?