Affirmative Action
 

What does everyone thnk of the Supreme Court decisions about the U. Michigan cases? If this should go in to the NEWS thread I apologize.

I'm actually against affirmative action, too, even though I'm female. My belief is that it hurts more than it helps because it implies that minorities and/or women are not able to succeed on their own and must have special allowances. This is obviously not true, and that's why I don't like it.

I think AA, when used correctly, is positive. I don't think AA should be used to bring in underqualified individuals just because of their gender, culture, or race.

Consider this situation:
A company/university/etc. wants to bring in new people. They have several prospective individuals, all qualified. They discover that [insert minority group here] is underrepresented. By taking "affirative action" to supplement that particular group, they hire/enroll the minority person first.

It shouldn't be about promoting underqualified people but, instead, giving "preference" to the qualified, yet underrepresented, group.

Yep, that's how it SHOULD work...unfortunately, that's not the way it works in many places.

i completely agree with you. i've never liked the idea of affirmative action because i think that while it exists we (all races and genders included) can never be truly equal. there will always be people wondering if that person only made it in or was only hired because he/she was of a different ethnic origin or gender than what was accepted as the dominant/majority.

I saw an interesting article recently that said that white men are increasingly being on the receiving end of affirmative action in the college application process these days, since the majority of applicants to college now are women. What do people think of that?

I think colleges and universities should be allowed to use race as a factor, but I think they should all be wise in deciding how much of a factor it should be.

I'm a white girl that got into every college that I applied to (on the basis of a great SAT score and pretty good grades, some good extracurriculars and a decent essay), but I'm not going to fool myself into thinking that it was because I worked my butt off in high school. I did occasionally do some hard work, but I did a lot of slacking too. Who's to say that, given a learning-supportive environment like college, the Hispanic girl who had to work after school and then watch her little brothers at night so her mom could work the night shift (and thus didn't have time for the same extracurriculars or as much time to work on homework) -- who's to say that I'm any more "worthy" of going to college than she is?

People make such a big fuss over "well, they're letting those black kids in and their grades and SAT scores aren't as good as ours blah blah blah" . . . but who's to say that grades and SAT scores are the be-all/end-all of whether or not you should go to college? There are plenty of schools out there that say that the essay and the interview (both of which are subjective) count for far more than grades and SAT scores, and nobody complains about using that for criteria.

I'm so sick of white kids who feel like their higher GPA and test scores "prove" that they are entitled to an acceptance from XYZ University, over the kids of color who scored lower. I was the world's biggest slacker in high school and I still graduated with honors, scored over 1500 on the SAT, lettered in two sports, was principal flute in four different bands, acted in the school plays, held offices in a handful of different clubs and edited the yearbook. Does any of that stuff make me any more worthy of going to college than the next kid that comes along? No. In fact, I've proved it that by not accomplishing anything of worth in my two years of college.

I know this rant has gotten way off topic (blame it on the heat), but the job of the college applications committee is NOT to select the kids with the best grades and SAT score for their college. It's to select the kids they think will fit in, accomplish things, do well, and bring new ideas to their college. If they think the black kid with the 3.5 will be a better fit than the white kid with the 3.9, then by all means let them pick the black kid. Is that fair to the white kid? Maybe not. But is life fair? No.

But seeing as how some people will think this of minorities regardless of the situation, I'm all in favor of any system that tries to level the playing field from a legal aspect.

Edited to add: Sugar and Spice, if you're ever in my neck of the woods, the first round of drinks is on me. ;)

Awww, thanks, Sistermadly. I never turn down a free drink! Come to think of it, maybe that's why I haven't accomplished anything worthwhile in my first two years of college. :p

Very true. Although I believed that the 20 points for being an "underrepresented minority" was excessive, I don't know about the quality of Michigan public schools to say that with any certainty. There are many different forms of affirmative action--not just racial. I know that at my school, there's a huge push to get kids from underrepresented states, regardless of race. It's a lot easier to get in if you're from South Dakota than if you're from the Upper East Side of Manhattan.

I think AA as it stands will have to remain in place for at least one more generation (ie, my children's generation) for the playing field to be truly leveled. I can safely say that I am not a beneficiary of AA, but that is because the two generations before me benefitted from it in a way (primarily due to the armed forces) which placed them into the upper middle class, ensuring their offspring (me) the finest education possible. I did not need it to get my college, graduate with honors, and gain admission to the top program in my field for graduate school--but I am part of a small minority. Until public education is improved and social programs are improved, AA will have to remain.

I really appreciate how we're keeping this even-keeled. Keep up the good work! :D

I agree with this. Granted, I may not have a total grasp of the AA concept so this may be off but... what if an African American from a wealthy, educated family is applying to a college and has the same grades as a Caucasian who grew up on welfare living in public housing and only one could be admitted? It doesn't seem right that the African American should be the one who is admitted if the goal of AA is to give someone the opportunity to overcome their disadvantages. Does that make sense?

Difference between AA and quotas people.

-Rudey
--I am bored and buying crap on eBay again...great.

Well, as I understand the decision, it was kind of a split decision. And, I think the Court got it pretty much right.

My opinion since I first became aware of the situation (and argued on a previous thread) is that the twenty points given in the undergraduate situation was excessive, and in fact, unfair. If the number of points had been more reasonable, I probably wouldn't have objected.

On the other hand, the way the Law School handled their situation seems much more even handed.

I've seen that Affirmative Action was (and in many cases still is) necessary, and I've seen it cause some injustices in itself.

In the long run, however, no system is perfect. The best of all possible worlds is to get the point where Affirmative Action is moot because it is no longer needed.

I just thought of a question and wondered if anyone knew the answer.

In order for someone to be able to say on their college application that they are a member of a certain minority group, is there a "cutoff" regarding how much of that minority they must be?

For example, if someone had one African American grandparent would they be considered an African American for Affirmative Action purposes?

Native Americans are a whole different story. The way I hear it, you have to be registered with your tribe of ancestory in order to receive the benefits.

If AA was truly used in the way that LeslieAGD describes it, then I'm all for it. Sadly, I don't think that's always the case.

eh, i broswed through Gratz v. Bollinger, not exactly to me the landmark decision every keeps getting wet about.

Most of the opinion is saying the school was wrong in part for what they did and how they set their standards, so there's another issue unsettled with AA. Second, they found that Jennifer and Patrick had standing, which is a big deal to me since this will open the gates for more claims on unfair racial preferences unless the school's can prove the narrowly tailored exception. And I guess looking at it from a constitutional point of view, AA is a violation of equal protections clause and title VI since it does set one class of persons above another.

On the other hand, I think sometimes AA is a necessary evil, so that we can force a balance that just isn't going to happen on its own. But reading through this garbage, I don't see this case as being the final word. Only 6 justices took part in the opinion (Scalia must be alseep again) so I'll keep my eye out for a better ruling in the future.


RUgreek

The way I have seen AA used makes me an opponent of this decision. Maybe things have changed in the last 13 years since I was a senior in HS? I went to a HS that was about 70-80% hispanic. Many of my well to do hispanic friends were being courted by several colleges and offered scholarships left and right. I know for a fact that I had much better grades and a higher SAT score and more involvement in activities than one of my best friends yet she had her choice of colleges/scholarships etc... I had a friend (white male) that was #1 in our class had a very high SAT score, involved in many extracurricular activities and yet he was not accepted to a certain Ivy league college. Another girl (hispanic) who also had good grades but not as good as my friend, lower SAT score, about the same involvement in activities was accepted to this college. Many people knew it was probably due to AA and it caused some rift in our senior class. AA became a big topic of conversation among my senior class and it was not seen in a positive light.

I know admittance to veterinary school uses race as a big factor also -at least back in the early 90's (I worked for a professor that was on the admittance committee). I think a person should be judged on a combination of grades, extracurricular activities, interview, GRE not race or gender.

Some affirmative action statistics:

A study shown concluded that if there was no affirmative action at the University of Michigan, the plaintiff's chance of being admitted to the UM would only increased by a very small fraction of a percent. They also compared data from the University of California-Berkeley before and after the California law prohibiting affirmative action. The conclusion? If you were black, your chance of getting into Berkeley plummeted, while once again, if you were white, your chance of getting in only increased by some tiny fraction of a percent. Furthermore, they studied those students who went to college because of affirmative action policies and found that they went onto grad school and professional schools at a significantly higher rate than the kids who would have replaced them had there been no affirmative action. Those who got in via AA also did far more community service and contributed to their communities far more often than those who would have replaced them without AA.

That's why I'm saying that high school grades and test scores shouldn't matter THAT much. If I had two potential students, a white kid with a 3.9 and a black kid with a 3.5, but I know that the white kid will just graduate from college and spend the rest of his life doing nothing but managing a Walmart, whereas the black kid will go to law school and do lifelong volunteer work teaching underprivileged kids to read -- of course I'm going to pick the black kid.

Grades and test scores don't tell the whole story.

No they don't -- especially standardized tests such as the SAT which have been proven to be the MOST discriminatory towards WOMEN (not just minority women, but all women) -- my biggest problem with this is that I sat for 4 years doing all my good psych undergrad student work. I even worked for the last year with my team (we had a small group of seniors assigned to work on special projects each year) taking and re-taking different standardized tests. We proved conclusively that it did discriminate on a variety of levels, but most of all towards women. Our findings supported several of the "real" studies (ie, grant studies that you find in the big journals that people can't even get through the title of without falling asleep!) -- so after we do all that work, and end up with a great final grade, we are told "now, in order to go to grad school here, you need to take the GRE" -- I'm like....huh? Didn't we just discuss this?!

Anyway, I suck on standardized tests - I am the "stereotypical" female that can't do math ;)

Sorry for the little side-note (as I feel it does pertain to AA), but I wanted to add this info in.

Regarding AA, I have an understanding of both sides -- to comment now (when I am supposed to be packing the car) wouldn't allow me enough time to clarify my underlying feelings for each, however, I can agree with most of what has been said from both "sides" of the issue....its just a matter of finding a way to make it work so that all people are judged on their merits and what they can contribute to the learning environment.

great posts sugar and spice.

Wow! I just wanted to say I'm proud of everyone for expressing their opinions maturely!
I'm glad I didn't wake up to a topic flame war! :)

In terms of being "Native American" I have two little pieces of experience.

First is that whether you are "accepted" as a member of any given tribe is very much up to the tribe as to "how much (fill in the blank) blood you have.

Second, some companies have policies. When my mother died and I found out that all of her talk about Cherokee ancestry was true (my cousin -- same generation as me -- did the family geneology and proved it conclusively), I went to the HR person at the TV station I workd for. The litmus there is "Tribal affiliation or community recognition."

My kids and I all qualify, but we haven't asked for any of the scholarship money available. I guess we just figured to leave it for those who might need it more than us.

Finally, both of our kids who decided to go to college were accepted everywhere they applied and got reasonable scholarships. In the case of our son, that included numerous "highly selective" schools. (National Merit Scholar son ended up with a full academic ride)

AA aside, our experience is that if you are an excellent student, with a well rounded HS career in terms of extracurriculars, student government, and have good test scores, etc., the chances are pretty good you'll be accepted.

I'm not sure if I agree with all that, but everyone is entitled to believe what they want. To say a white kid is lazy and a black kid is the savior of all is a bit over-stretching the truth. That's the point AA is suppose to make, not to say a black smart kid is a better person, but they are equally qualified to do the same thing, but because of racial or gender discrimination, one is blindly chosen over the other.

As for study after study after.... they always sound great on paper, but none of them truly make social sense. Each person thinks and decides on their own, not based on the statistical majority. I'm not sure how these studies are made, but to claim white kids that would have taken black kids places in college are not pursuing post-graduate education solely because of the color of their skin is ridiculous to me. Financial facotrs i'm sure played a role in it, and I think value of extra education is based on the greater probability of standing out. For instance, white lawyers are everywhere, but black lawyers are still a low %, so they will in a sense be considered a "hotter commodity."

If admission chances increased only slightly, it still does not change the fact that acceptance or denial is a plain decision; you're either in or out. If we had admissions based on percentages, then there might be a good argument that AA has little or no effect on reverse discrimination. However, the fact remains, one person gets in and the other doesn't.

AA is still in my opinion necessary for the time being. You just can't trust anyone these days to do the right thing. But arguments for its value to society kind of bother me. Don't tell me white kids are spoiled and undeserving, just say minorities are trying to level the playing field and reach a higher standard that they would not normally be able to get had AA not existed.


RUgreek

How do you know what someone will be doing 10 years from now?

i really like all these arguments. when i look at people arguing abuot the public school thing though it makes me think. this case was decided about graduate school, not undergrad. to get to graduate school you need at least 4 years of college (on average). shouldn't most of the inequalities have evened out at this point? aside from the GRE i think that it really should have. the point system makes a lot of sense looking at these arguments when your'e jsut considering undergrad, but i'm still not convinced when it comes down to grad school.

just something to 'throw in' about AA
 

Although gender had nothing to do with this particular court's ruling, gender also plays a role in AA, and a lot of people forget that.

Some universities might want gender-based equality and might admit a woman to a certain college who might have a lower test score, GPA, whatever over a male applicant whether or not she was a minority.

(Please see the word "some" and "might".. I have never worked for a university admissions dept. though! :) )

The same goes for jobs in the 'real world' when we graduate.

In my organizational behavior class we went in-depth into discussions about companies all over who are trying to help women (not just minorities) break the "glass ceiling" and succeed just like many men in the respective fields had before.

Which is why I have a hard time feeling sorry for Gratz and Hammacher (sp?). They were, at best, mediocre students who felt as if admission to their state flagship university, which just happens to be one of the top schools in the nation, was owed to them. Reading interviews with Jennifer Gratz, I don't feel any pity or sympathy for her at all--she wasn't reasonable with her college choices! I doubt kids from Virginia, however good they are, don't bank on getting into UVa to the point where it's the only school they applied. That was the equivalent of what she did.

The moral of this story should be that college admission is not owed to anyone--especially when it involves the elite schools. I know minority 4.0/1600/valedictorians with excellent activities who were rejected from Harvard/Brown/MIT/Stanford. At good schools, there's not enough room to let in the best kids by numbers alone. The review has to be holistic to provide the best student bodies possible.

This reminds me of the general pettiness which has infiltrated college admissions--I know it's gotten worse today. I know that when I, who was in the top 1% of my graduating class, with excellent SAT scores and activities, was accepted to my Ivy League college, the AA talk happened immediately--to the point where people were trying to find out my family income, scores, and GPA, in really underhanded ways. I had people--allegedly friends--tell me I got in just because I was a student of color and was dependent on a scholarship. Let's just say I don't talk to those people anymore. So, if you are a student of color regardess of your academic performance, socioeconomic status, or extracurricular activities, you will get the affirmative action excuse hurled at you. There really wasn't a point to this hijack, but I thought it was important that I mention this.

DeltAlum, do you know how that would be handled if the person in question was a small percentage, say, Hispanic or African American?

I vaguely recall learning in a history class that in the post Civil-War south if a person were known to be 1/8th African American their status would be considered to be African American as opposed to Caucasian even if they looked completely Caucasian.

Obviously, that pigeonholing of people no longer exists. But would it be possible that today some enterprising high school senior raised as a Caucasian in a majority Caucasian community does some geneological family research and discovers that he or she is 1/8th or so African American and so checks that box on the college application?

With colleges getting more and more competitive these days, I wonder if people do that and if they do, is it "right"?

That absolutely makes sense; I totally agree with you! I would be really interested in hearing the opposing argument, though.

Re: just something to 'throw in' about AA
 

Actually, more women are attending colleges than men these days.
I believe AA mainly becomes a gender issue when dealing with jobs.

omg i am SO gonna get flamed, so i'm gonna do my best to not sound like a complete idiot in this process to not make it worse.

with AA.....the concept is a good idea, a nice thought...but so was communism. <FLAME> i don't think it's the responsibilty of the university to bring in students of other races or genders, i think it's the sole responsibilty of the student. <FLAME> sorry, but this is so the republican coming out in me.....<FLAME, FLAME, FLAME> i understand the idea that not everyone comes from the same educational system, but that's why most universities that get these AA attacks require teacher recs and student essays.....see how a student performed in class, no matter what the class size, etc.

if you want something bad enough, you are going to work your ass off for it. period. you're gonna do whatever it takes, and NOT rely on something as unimportant to your skills as a human being as your gender or your race. does that make sense? i really hope i am not sounding super bad, but this is my opinion on the matter......and maybe i don't know enough facts about how it "really works", but i've read over this thread and i'm not a moron, so i think i get how it's supposed to.....just not feelin it. i understand that universities want diversity and to give students who may not have the opportunity a chance....but i'm sorry......someone is gonna have a better score, essay, rec.....and if that person is a black female, send her a congratualtions note and give her her dorm key. however, the same should be said for a white male. people want things to be fair and to be treated with equality.....AA just doesn't really seem all that equal and fair to me.....<FLAME> i'm not trying to keep anyone down, i'm not trying to say that AA is dumb or stupid.....i just happen to think that AA was a good idea, just not IDEAL.

i just was always taught you reap what you sow.....don't rely on anything but yourself and your own merits to get you through life. which means if you work hard enough, you'll get there. there will always be knocks and hard times, but you keep going.

if/when i am flamed, please keep in mind that this is all my opinion....i did not resort to name-calling, and i would appreciate the same respect. :) thanks!

I said "If." Of course you can't know.

They can make a reasonable guess at what race you are if you have a first name like "Aisha" . . . or a last name like "Chang" or "Gonzalez." Or for that matter, a last name like "Dimitroyovskaya." Of course you can't guess the color of everyone's skin by the name they have, but you can make a reasonable guess and be right on in most cases. The little box isn't the only clue to someone's race.

Not to mention the fact that every college I applied to had a "I prefer not to say" box in the race category, so if you wanted your race to not be factored in, you could check that.

True. Like I said above, Caucasian males are actually on the receiving end of affirmative action when it comes to college acceptances more than Caucasian women are. In college, white women are the "majority."

Edited to add: In college, white women are the majority . . . except at schools like Cal Tech or MIT where the student base has been historically male. Those are the few schools where being a woman will qualify you for AA points.

um.....you said "if"....just not exactly in the right place......you said you "know that the white kid will just graduate from college and spend the rest of his life doing nothing but managing a walmart"....the only "if" there was setting up the scenario...

not trying to be bitchy, just saying where the confusion came in on that one. i'm sure you meant it another way......

:)

I know . . . but I figured the qualifier "if" was enough to set up the fact that it was a completely hypothetical situation. :)