Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: gofaster on December 02, 2002, 10:24:59 AM
-
Affirmative Action was a USA program/policy that was started in the liberal period of the '60s and '70s as a way to introduce a more racially diversified mix of students into universities and government institutions. At some levels, it even applied to major corporations for tax and government contracting purposes. It was a reaction to the civil rights movement led by Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., and to a lesser extent, the Black Panthers and Malcolm X.
While the need for Affirmative Action was certainly present 30 years ago, has that need been answered? Is Affirmative Action a dinosaur?
In my opinion, the answer is "yes". Affirmative Action was a form of charity that was intended to address the shortcomings of education wrought by the "separate" and "separate but equal" policies of public education - to correct the wrongs of previous policies. But now that all children have equal access to public education, AA is now becoming an inhibitor to the development of careers for people with the talent and the desire to improve their lot in life by enrolling in higher educational systems. AA was intended to raise people up, not keep them down. For this reason, I believe AA should be abolished. Let people stand on their own two feet, and give everyone a fair shot at improving themselves.
=========From Yahoo News=========
High Court Takes Affirmative Action Case
37 minutes ago
By GINA HOLLAND, Associated Press Writer
WASHINGTON (AP) - The Supreme Court re-entered the debate over affirmative action Monday, agreeing to decide if minorities can be given a boost to get into public universities.
The court will decide by next June if race can be used in college admissions, an issue that the justices have dealt with only once before, in a cloudy 1978 ruling that led to more confusion.
The justices will consider whether white applicants to the University of Michigan and its law school were unconstitutionally turned down because of their race.
The cases give the court an opportunity to ban affirmative action in higher education or say how much weight universities may assign to an applicant's race. The stakes are high because many colleges have race-conscious admissions policies.
Affirmative action supporters argue that without policies that encourage diverse student bodies, the top public colleges in the country would not be representative. Representative of what? A bogus racial census, or representative of treating all students equally, with acceptance criteria based on academic success rather than DNA?
Opponents contend that those policies discriminate against white students, giving slots to less qualified minorities. Ain't that the truth.
A divided appeals court upheld the law school's practices in May, saying the Constitution allows colleges and graduate schools to seek "a meaningful number" of minority students, so long as the school avoids a fixed quota system.
The 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Cincinnati has not ruled in a companion case addressing the school's undergraduate policy, which was argued on the same day as the law school case.
Justices took the unusual step of taking the case anyway, without awaiting a ruling.
The high court has passed up other well-known cases that presented similar questions about the role of race in higher education.
There was pressure from both sides of the debate for the court to intervene now.
"It is hardly an exaggeration to say that the court's decision in these cases will directly affect the lives not only of this generation of students but of generations of students to follow," Theodore Shaw, counsel for the NAACP Legal Defense Fund, told justices in a filing on behalf of black and Hispanic students. Well of course, because abolishing AA will finally acknowledge that all men are truly created equal and should have equal access based on academic qualifications rather than the color of their skin. Isn't that what all future generations should be taught to believe?
The last college higher education case at the high court involved Allan Bakke, a white man rejected for admission to a California medical school while minorities with lower test scores got in through a special program. The court on a 5-4 vote outlawed racial quotas. Justice Lewis F. Powell wrote separately that schools could still consider race, so long as they did not use quotas. Courts around the country have set contradictory rules.
Only two of the justices who considered that 1978 case still sit on the court — Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist and Justice John Paul Stevens.
"Many questions cry out for clarification," lawyers for white law school applicant Barbara Grutter told justices in a filing.
Grutter was a 43-year-old businesswoman and mother when she applied to the law school in 1996 but was not accepted. She said that she suspected reverse discrimination after seeing statistics about the racial makeup and qualifications of recent Michigan law classes. That's odd. I would've thought that a school priding itself on racial diversity would want to include sexual diversity as well.
Her appeal, and the other one by two would-be undergraduate students, center on the Constitution's guarantee of equal protection for all under the law.
Maureen E. Mahoney, a lawyer for the university, told the court in a filing that if the 1978 ruling is overturned, it "would produce the immediate resegregation of many — and perhaps most — of this nation's finest and most selective institutions." How? How can the removal of race as an acceptance criteria create a racially segregated student population? Logically, her position makes no sense. Its like saying "if we remove the policy of including green M&Ms in each bag, then we'll end up with bags containing only yellow and blue M&Ms." She makes no sense.
She said colleges are trying to improve learning with a diverse environment.
About 15 percent of the first year Michigan law students are minorities. The Supreme Court was told that without diversity considerations, the number of minorities in a freshman class could plunge to less than .04 percent. So, in essence, the school is admitting that 10 percent of the students don't have the academic qualifications to be in the Michigan law school and are keeping students who qualify academically from being accepted? If so, then maybe the school should have separate acceptance criteria: "If you're white, then you have to have a 3.8 GPA to get in, but if you're black, hispanic, or other minority, then you only need a 3.5 because we understand you need special help to overcome your limitations."
Mark Rahdert, a professor at Temple University, said it's difficult to predict how the conservative Supreme Court will rule, but that justices had little choice but to again take up the divisive subject.
"It could literally change the face of the student body in public colleges and universities around the country," he said. Yes, by allowing only the talented students to get in, rather than the talented white students and some others who didn't make the grades but got in because they came from minority parents.
The cases are Grutter v. Bollinger, 02-241, and Gratz v. Bollinger, 02-516.
-
I would agree that AA is less necessary than it once was. I take issue with this statement of yours though:
It was a reaction to the civil rights movement led by Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., and to a lesser extent, the Black Panthers and Malcolm X.
The hell it was! It was a reaction to the racial discrimination that pervaded our society at the time. MLK etal were just pointing out the obvious.
Your statement is a shining example of the insidious nature of discrimination and how it can be present on levels that may not even be noticed by its perpetrators.
I know you aren't a racist. But racism still exists.
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
I would agree that AA is less necessary than it once was. I take issue with this statement of yours though:
The hell it was! It was a reaction to the racial discrimination that pervaded our society at the time. MLK etal were just pointing out the obvious.
Your statement is a shining example of the insidious nature of discrimination and how it can be present on levels that may not even be noticed by its perpetrators.
I know you aren't a racist. But racism still exists.
Actually, we're both right. MLK and Malcolm X pointed out the obvious, and it was their efforts that persuaded the appointment of liberal justices to the Supreme Court. My memory is a bit muddy as to which President appointed which Justice to the Court, but I know that most of the liberal government policies were a reflection of political pressure brought about by the civil rights movements. Part of that governmental response carried over into the legal interpretations of the US Supreme Court.
What I'm really waiting for is someone to come right out and say what Maureen Mahoney alluded to in her statement about the removal of race as a determinant causing the schools to become segregated. She's afraid that the advancements of racial groups to date will become trivialized when the Great White Face starts sitting in the court rooms, corporate boardrooms, and political back rooms. More than one professor has contended that subcultural differences are a great inhibitor to the success of blacks in the US, reflected by things such as the racial proportion of single-parent families, crime statistics, and level of education.
But these are issues that can't be resolved by government hand-outs such as Affirmative Action.
-
Midnight...here in Bda the government has taken AA to a new level.
Our Minister of Tourism and Telecommunications & E-Commerce has been recently quoted as saying "We give contracts to people who look like me!"..she is black, apparently...but has a white father and in the summer I look quite a bit darker than her.
Basically a labour government was elected here in 1998..essentally the "black" party. They have a self-appointed mandate to right all the wrongs of the racial past on the island and have TOTALLY turned the tables....in an effort to try and help blacks.
The first large government contract was awarded to a newly formed company whose principles are black. They were sucessful in getting a govt. contract to build a huge school here. They are about a year behind and millions over-budget. The Premier requested the auditor general to look into the progress..when his report came back he was accused of being a racist by all of the government ministers because it was unfavourable. Now they want to change the constitution AGAIN so that they can get rid of anyone who gives negative reports on the government's tendering process.
I say AGAIN..because this same government has changed all the electorate voting boundaries...by changing the constitution (and not following the correct due process to do so). The Minister of education was quoted as saying "We don't care what YOU people think" when asked why a referendum, or constitutional conference be scheduled.
I almost responded to Animal's "Do Black People Love You?" by saying.."Well, no, actually they hate me"...this government has fostered a level of racial tension that you would not believe here.
I could go on and on about this, but I'm hungry...going for lunch.
-
But we need to change the way the school system works.
As far as I know in California,(k through 12) you get funds based on your area tax base, so go areas have good schools and teachers, (simplified) poor areas get way less money and bad teachers.
I think all the money should go into a big pot, and be divided out based on how many students go to the school. Not the areas tax base.
I think this way everyone truly would get an equal education.
-
I think the University of Michigan should institute a program to get more short people on their basketball team, to make the team more "representative".
-
AA was once necessary? How was ever treating someone differently based soley on race necessary or in fact moral?
Hooligan
-
I think AA should be turned down to .5 from the MA standard
-
GtoRA2: I think all the money should go into a big pot, and be divided out based on how many students go to the school...
I think this way everyone truly would get an equal education.
You would expect communism to be discredited after a century of failures...
miko
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
But racism still exists.
Wouldn't it be a good first step if the government abolished all the racist laws and policies?
Something like the CA ballot Proposition 209
"The state shall not discriminate against, or grant preferential
treatment to, any individual or group on the basis of race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin in the operation of public employment, public education, or public contracting."
-
Hooligan,
Affirmative action was a jumpstart for social evolution. Your question as to how it is right or moral to treat anyone differently according to their race is easy to answer with another question.
Considering that, at the time, our society so severely discriminated against blacks that they had no opportunity to develop qualifications or prove their merit in certain roles, how would it have been morally right to not put into place measures that guaranteed that they would have some of those opportunities that white Americans enjoyed? You can only make the argument that AA should never have been put in place due to its affording people of a certain race preferential treatment if you can demonstrate that there was a greater equality of opportunity between all Americans before its insitution of if you can present a different, "better" means of attaining such equality.
All of that said, it has served its purpose and should be done away with in most if not all cases, imo.
-
So your saying it is fair that the California school system puts more money into rich kids educations then into poor kids?
It not communism!
I think that is racism built into the systems.
We are taxed, all of us, so should it not go out in equal amounts per student?
Or you think kids in a good area deserve better educations??
-
I only have one thing to add....
I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character.
Martin Luther King
Translated: AA is a no no.
-
Originally posted by GtoRA2
So your saying it is fair that the California school system puts more money into rich kids educations then into poor kids?
It not communism!
I think that is racism built into the systems.
We are taxed, all of us, so should it not go out in equal amounts per student?
Or you think kids in a good area deserve better educations??
quality of education has nothing to do with the amount of money you spend per student.
-
Originally posted by miko2d
You would expect communism to be discredited after a century of failures...
You would think so, but unfortunately this is not the case. Just read this BB.
"Dumb people learn from their own mistakes, smart ones learn from other people's mistakes"
-
mietla
quality of education has nothing to do with the amount of money you spend per student.
Yeah that may be true, but it sure does help.
And that is no excuse for giving poor kids less money when we are all taxed for it.
Do you think this is communistic?
-
Originally posted by mietla
quality of education has nothing to do with the amount of money you spend per student.
wouldn't that depend on how the money was spent?
-
What could possibly be wrong with AA?
Why not deny opportunities to people who have worked to achieve the chance to enjoy a top education or job?
If it is wrong to deny these things to black Americans, why is it not wrong to deny it to white Americans based solely on the color of their skin?
If we make these goals (education, jobs) to be the result of achievement and hard work, (results oriented), how can it be viewed as unfair?
Legislate laws prohibiting discrimination, not requiring it, in a misguided attempt at social change that directly punishes a group of people.
dago
-
Originally posted by GtoRA2
So your saying it is fair that the California school system puts more money into rich kids educations then into poor kids?
It not communism!
I think that is racism built into the systems.
We are taxed, all of us, so should it not go out in equal amounts per student?
Or you think kids in a good area deserve better educations??
Sure it is a commie idea. Why not extend it to food or shelter. Shouldn't all children eat the same and have nice houses?
Why should we allow some people to drive BMW, while other have to drive a Pinto?
It's alway the same stupid argument, sameness for everybody. For the commies, an equally spread misery is more attractive than a prosperity based on merit.
-
I would agree with the elimination of all forms of AA as long as everyone had equal opportunity.
Too bad they still don't.
-
You would think so, but unfortunately this is not the case. Just read this BB.
Yeah, I thought fascism was dead, but unfortunately this is not the case. Just read this BB.
There's only one statement more ridiculous than yours, and that's the one I've just written above.
"Communists everywhere - oh my!" :eek:
-
I attended law school from 1995-98. I don't know for sure, but I would guess that about 15% of my class were black men and women. I was acquainted with probably 2/3 or that 15% and not one came from a disadvantaged background. Some, in fact, came from legitimately wealthy families and attended the finest private schools.
I don't know what any of their applications looked like, so I can't guess how many would have made it into law school if the admissions process were truly color blind. I do know, however, that they were not of the class of people that affirmative action was designed to benefit.
I think that affirmative action does more harm than good, but if we're going to have it, why use race as a proxy for disadvantage?
- JNOV
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
I would agree with the elimination of all forms of AA as long as everyone had equal opportunity.
Too bad they still don't.
Who does not have equal opportunity in the USA?
-
Originally posted by Dowding (Work)
Yeah, I thought fascism was dead, but unfortunately this is not the case. Just read this BB.
There's only one statement more ridiculous than yours, and that's the one I've just written above.
"Communists everywhere - oh my!" :eek:
ridiculous? You are one of them (not to mention Boroda).
-
GtoRA2: So your saying it is fair that the California school system puts more money into rich kids educations then into poor kids? It not communism!
Of course it is communism. For every person's right there is another person's obligation. Your "they deserve" is liberal-speak for "they have a right" which is really "you, miko, have an obligation".
But I do not live in India or California or Duchess county or Queens. I live in Brooklyn. I have no obligation to pay for anyone's children to the detriment of mine. I may be willing to do that - but it's up to me to determine what way and how much - or would be in a coercion free society.
Why don't you follow your collectivist reasonong to the logical conclusion - children cannot get equal education living in unequal material and ideological conditions. They certainly deserve not only equal living conditions but "approved" upbringing. So let's reduce everyone to equal lifestyle or take children away from parents altgether.
If parents cannot strive to improve conditions of their children, then what's the point of free market economy? Or is it only free market if you can spend money on frivolous stuff like cars and TVs but not on your children? Of course we know how "efficient" non-free-market economies are...
OK, assume you've prevented me to not outspend some other guy - by making all salaries equal or even took my kids to live in a state-run boarding school.
How about using my money and/or intelligence, manners and education and lifestyle afforded by those to attract a wife with superior genes, health- and intelligence-wise in order to have superior children who would out-compete the others - by being smart and not handicapped by bad health?
Obviously even if you raise them in exactly the same conditions as others, the children of parents with my and my wife's IQ (say, 130) cannot possibly come out equally educated as average children - whose IQ is by definition 100! So you would have to assign wifes and breeding privileges as well, right? Otherwise no "equality".
you think kids in a good area deserve better educations??
How do you think those children "deserved" anything from me? What did they do for me and how could they? How did I incur any obligations towards them? I was not there at the moment of their conception, had no say in selecting the parents, planning their budget, lifeslyle (alcohol consumption, diet), career choices, etc. How come I am held responcible for someone conceiving a child they cannot afford?
I am all for charity but any charity comes with strings attached - like no drugs or alcohol or SUVs or any more children untill you can afford all those things. There are such controls with governmental aid.
We are taxed, all of us, so should it not go out in equal amounts per student?
Obviously, some pay more than othes, that's how their commuinities have more to spend per student. That's why people have insentive to work and make money - thus automatically serving other people's needs in a market economy - rather than sitting on welfare like most of population of the Soviet Union did and some americans do.
BTW, even technically, spending "equal amounts per student" is a stupid idea. Dumb students are not educatable beyong certain level and instead of having they spend boring unproductive time in school, they chould be given basic vocational skills corespondng to their level of intelligence.
Gifted students should be given as much advanced tutoring as they can absorb - as those are the ones on whom the future of our country will depend. They will rung government, corportaions and research. Fortunately gifted students in US have eniugh grants and schoolarships available to get into the best schools - private grants given without anby coercion.
Government bureaucracy and teacher's unions would and do spend that money extremely inefficiently. Only natural - since ethey do not earn it.
Free market economy can provide education for everyone according to their abilities and not deprive people from motivation. Eduation pays for itself. Thus it is profitable to loan people money for education since they will pay the loan with interest and still be in the money. Of course only capable would take such loans and then make sure (or their parends would) that the money is not wasted. College loans are common. So would be school loans if state did not grab control of the education.
miko
-
Originally posted by Rude
Who does not have equal opportunity in the USA?
The poor (usually minorities).
The assumptions that undergird this debate miss an important reality: educational outcomes for minority children are much more a function of their unequal access to key educational resources, including skilled teachers and quality curriculum, than they are a function of race. In fact, the U.S. educational system is one of the most unequal in the industrialized world, and students routinely receive dramatically different learning opportunities based on their social status.
Look HERE (http://www.brook.edu/dybdocroot/press/review/spring98/darling.htm)
-
Originally posted by Rude
Who does not have equal opportunity in the USA?
Someone who goes to school in a poor neighborhood where there are no AP classes, but who wants to go to a University of California school, where the average incoming GPA is over 4.0.
-
No where on my resume is my race stated. In the service one had to check off your race type on promotion tests. One was assured that this had no bearing on you promotion, it was for statistical purposes.
I always checked the "other" box and wrote in patriot, Martian, or something else.
AA is discrimination per Webster. To make a difference. To choose.
-
Sure it is a commie idea. Why not extend it to food or shelter. Shouldn't all children eat the same and have nice houses?
What utter BS.
Your saying a kid borne to black parents in a poor neighborhood, should not get the same money from the state, as a white kid borne in a rich area.
I do not think everyone should drive the same car or make the same money, but we should all at least start on equal ground, and right now kids in poor areas do not have the same opportunities as kids borne in other areas. Not just in the school system, but the school system can be changed. can be changed and should be. I am talking about Grade/ and High school.
This is not about politics it is just right and wrong.
:mad:
Miko,
I am not even going to waste my time...
-
Originally posted by GtoRA2
Your saying a kid borne to black parents in a poor neighborhood, should not get the same money from the state, as a white kid borne in a rich area.
As I said money spend per student has very little (if anything) to do with the outcome. Do you think that when they build a school in a poor neighbourhood, they pre-build delapidated and already covered in graffiti?
I do not think everyone should drive the same car or make the same money, ...
Why not? where do you stop your equalizing?
education?
food?
toys?
computer?
house?
but we should all at least start on equal ground, and right now kids in poor areas do not have the same opportunities as kids borne in other areas.
that is simply an unachievable utopian dream. Would you delegalize private schools so my kids can;t get a better education that someone else's kids?
Miko,
I am not even going to waste my time...
Why not? A discusion involves a dialog. Address the issues instead of attacking the person.
-
From the article I linked earlier:
Contrast MacKenzie High School in Detroit, where word processing courses are taught without word processors because the school cannot afford them, or East St. Louis Senior High School, whose biology lab has no laboratory tables or usable dissecting kits, with nearby suburban schools where children enjoy a computer hookup to Dow Jones to study stock transactions and science laboratories that rival those in some industries. Or contrast Paterson, New Jersey, which could not afford the qualified teachers needed to offer foreign language courses to most high school students, with Princeton, where foreign languages begin in elementary school.
EQUAL OPPORTUNITY?
-
Equal opportunity is a myth. The best we can hope for is providing most with an opportunity that passes for acceptable. Moreover, there are many factors much more important than the condition of your high school's science lab for which no amount of money can compensate, such as the quality of one's parents and the interest they take in his or her education and upbringing.
- JNOV
-
Another stupid troll. You boys will NEVER learn, will you.
Karaya2
-
ridiculous? You are one of them (not to mention Boroda).
lol Mietla! You really think I was serious? Tell me you're kidding, right!?
I was following the mood of the thread, fool.
If anything I'm a moderate liberal. But I'm left-leaning in some ways, nationalistic and conservative in others. I guess I don't fit any real 'pigeonhole'. Sorry to disappoint you.
-
AA is discrimination.
You have two individuals, one better qualified than the other. yet you choose the lesser qualified based on race.
It's a very clear case of racism.
It's an attempt to correct a disparity. But using a racist method to do so is not my idea of progress.
I hope they win the lawsuits.
-
Originally posted by 2Slow
No where on my resume is my race stated. In the service one had to check off your race type on promotion tests. One was assured that this had no bearing on you promotion, it was for statistical purposes.
I always checked the "other" box and wrote in patriot, Martian, or something else.
I used to do the same thing when I would fill out forms in high school and college. Sometimes I'd check "white, non hispanic", sometimes I'd check "Native American", and then there was the all-inclusive "Other". Nowadays, I don't even bother.
-
Originally posted by Dowding (Work)
lol Mietla! You really think I was serious? Tell me you're kidding, right!?
I was following the mood of the thread, fool.
If anything I'm a moderate liberal.
A liberal, a commie, same thing. Different stages of the same disease.
P.S. I avoid using smilies in my posts.
-
Originally posted by GtoRA2
What utter BS.
Your saying a kid borne to black parents in a poor neighborhood, should not get the same money from the state, as a white kid borne in a rich area.
I do not think everyone should drive the same car or make the same money, but we should all at least start on equal ground, and right now kids in poor areas do not have the same opportunities as kids borne in other areas. Not just in the school system, but the school system can be changed. can be changed and should be. I am talking about Grade/ and High school.
This is not about politics it is just right and wrong.
:mad:
Miko,
I am not even going to waste my time...
Miko has put his viewpoint very eloquently, take it apart and engange his arguments.
I guess it was just an emotion on your side, no reason.
-
I will not waste my time on either of you. I can see from you other posts your not worth the time.
I did get a kick out of you calling me a commie....
I am a pretty conservative guy.
Believe what you want, I will do the same.
( I know your going to come back with the same old, stuff, blah name calling no real argument etc. You started the name calling, and calling someone a commie in my book is pretty bad. )
-
you are right, good day,
-
minorities will never be taken seriously until affirmative action is done away with. you just don't respect someone the same when they are playing the same game as you but with a handicap or a headstart - whether they deserve it or not.