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.