Why, wejo?

JEH, let me preface this by saying that I have a great deal of respect for the majority of your posts as they are intelligent, insightful, and oftentimes enlightening. However, this is the flaw I see in your running analogy:

Affirmative action was not put in place to stagger the start,i.e, give minorities an advantage over whites. Rather, it was meant to give minorities an opportunity to step to the line with everyone else (since, historically speaking, they were disadvantaged, and hadn't been allowed to do so.)It unfortunately has gone beyond helping the disadvantaged, and more often than not, helps upper-middle class minorities with average grades and scores get into college as quota fillers despite having the same opportunities as many whites. And that's where it's inherently flawed. But to suggest that the AA should be done away with because it staggers the start in favor of minorities is just as inherently flawed.

calbear wrote:

Affirmative action was not put in place to stagger the start,i.e, give minorities an advantage over whites. Rather, it was meant to give minorities an opportunity to step to the line with everyone else (since, historically speaking, they were disadvantaged, and hadn't been allowed to do so.)It unfortunately has gone beyond helping the disadvantaged, and more often than not, helps upper-middle class minorities with average grades and scores get into college as quota fillers despite having the same opportunities as many whites. And that's where it's inherently flawed. But to suggest that the AA should be done away with because it staggers the start in favor of minorities is just as inherently flawed.

Affirmative Action was originally not meant to affect college admissions at all... but we already discussed that. Like any government program it got out of hand, was corrupted, etc. This is to be expected of any government program.

Now, how is this different? Americans born at sea level have been historically disadvantaged. People born at altitude have been there for generations and have had the ability to develop much stronger lungs. Take the Nepalese Shirkirs, for example, who escort climbers up Mt. Everest - their lungs are far, far more powerful than any American's because of so many generations at altitude. So how is Affirmative Action at colleges any different than weighing down runners?

Like one of the previous posters said well, it is whether you believe this country was built on "equality" or "freedom." Soviet Russia was built on equality, America was built on freedom. Pick what you want, I want freedom. Every underqualified AA case wasting away with a 2.5 GPA at a top school could be taking the spot away from our next Nobel Prize winner.

Finally, any kid can go to a library and ask a librarian for a good old book to read. The idea that the fact that society often tells a kid to go join a gang and take drugs instead of doing this is the problem of someone else is the idea that people are not responsible for their actions. Left wingers love doing this, and it is why families are stuck in the ghetto for so long - they just don't care enough to get out. Bring back the neccessity to get out of the ghetto, and many people will work harder. That's how capitalism works.

If you go to a school that sucks (doesn't teach Jane Austen, for example), it is your parent's obligation to make sure that you are educated. How can this be accomplished? School Choice... that's right: VOUCHERS. Bad schools need competition to improve. Parents must have a choice in where to send their kids. The good schools will survive, the bad schools will die and the education of children will improve.

566 verbal and 640 math

566 verbal and 640 math, according to Nicholas Kristoff of the NY Times. The guy\'s mediocrity incarnate.

No wonder the Univ. of Texas law school rejected him. Maybe that\\\'s why he hates trial lawyers -- sour grapes.

And he can\'t even invent his own schtick. He\'s been pretending he\'s the second coming of Reagan -- making sure there were lots of TV cameras around to catch him clearing brush on his new ranch -- since even before the Supreme Court appointed him president.

Wow, I had no idea I'd outscored Dubya on the SAT. And here I am feeling guilty 'cause Berkeley let me (an affirmative actioned african-american female) in with a 1280...

Apparently the nat'l average for whites is a mere 1,000. I'm pretty sure I read that in Newsweek. Bush's scores are very, very mediocre. Anyone know what Clinton got? Even though he was a slimebag, he had a brain.

calbear wrote:Wow, I had no idea I'd outscored Dubya on the SAT. And here I am feeling guilty 'cause Berkeley let me (an affirmative actioned african-american female) in with a 1280...

Well, Jr.'s never shown any hint of regret over milking his familial privilege for all it was worth, so you sure shouldn't feel guilty. Now that everyone's pointing out the hypocrisy of his opposition to affirmative action, I'll bet he regrets ever wading into that issue, although he probably did so reluctantly to keep the right-wingers happy.

I'm betting you could leave him well arrears in a 5K too.

Keep in mind that the SATs were "re-calibrated" close to ten years ago, inflating the average grade by about 100 points. So Bush's score is close to a 1400 by today's standards.

third choice wrote:

Keep in mind that the SATs were "re-calibrated" close to ten years ago, inflating the average grade by about 100 points. So Bush's score is close to a 1400 by today's standards.

Regardless, Jr.'s scores "were far below the median scores for students in his Yale class: 668 verbal and 718 math," according to Kristof.

Affirmative Action is definitely a good thing as long as it doesn't do what calbear just described (helping mainly middle-class minorities - which it does unfortunately).

There are a couple schools of thought even for the sympathetic which makes AA a hot button.

1) They need it because they are disadvantaged.

2) Isn't it racist to assume that minorities NEED an extra advantage?

Unfortunately, these two schools of thought are common within the minority groups as well.

In my opinion (which some others have stated too) it isn't a race thing but a class thing. What we need to do is pump money and resources into EDUCATION where education has clearly failed (poor areas). Give these people a major hand up in that way, because of course, not all of them minorities.

The benefit of improving education is that it creates opportunities for its recipients which causes fewer instances of crime. Even those who hate minorities ought to be for helping minorities in any way they can because it does limit crime. This is not to say that minorities are more prone to crime - this is to say that the poor and uneducated are more prone to crime.

Here's the ONE big problem with what I suggest - some families and people do not value education and would not excel because of that no matter how much money and opportunities you throw their way - the thing is though that some would, and those that didn't take advantage would at least come to the reaslization at a later date that someone tried to help, and perhaps they would help instill educational values in their own kids.

So, generally speaking, I am still for AA, but I don't like it in its current state. I would be for getting rid of AA if the educational system were greatly overhauled. Although I do not currently teach for a living, I am a certified High School English teacher, and I left in part because of the problems I saw in the system (one of which was the money that could come my way - sad but true, but in Central Ohio it is impossible to raise a family of 4 on $35,000).

I admire the irish, italien, russian, etc. imigrants because they were the first to live in the gettos and now there not there. I wonder how that happened. Did they use affirmative action? Dont think so. They admired the american dream and worked their way out of the gettos. Good for them.

mizuno_jack wrote:

I admire the irish, italien, russian, etc. imigrants because they were the first to live in the gettos and now there not there. I wonder how that happened. Did they use affirmative action? Dont think so. They admired the american dream and worked their way out of the gettos. Good for them.

Right! That's what I've been saying! Very few rich people came to America (until recently). America was for the poor and the unwanted. But in an (almost) capitalist society it was easy for hardworking people to work their way out of the ghetto and become rich. Yes, sometimes people have bad luck and end up in the ghetto, but in general it is simply laziness. It is the lack of determination to work harder or make yourself smarter. It is not bad luck if a family is stuck in the ghetto for four generations, that is simply them not wanting enough to get out.

the primary difference between the white ethnic groups and african americans was that even after slavery our country and government leagalized discrimination against african americans in the form of jim crow laws. AFrican amercians were never given the same opportunity to pull themselves up, and this is without looking at the direct influence of slavery.

third choice wrote:

The difference between Legacy and race is this: A Private College is around to make money, it is a private establishment, a business. It is in their interest, in general, to let in the smartest students because they can help the faculty create better work to bring the school more prestige. They are also very likely to get the best jobs in the future, and may give more money back. However, a legacy also helps the college tremendously. The parents of legacies are much more likely to give money (if they haven't already) than other parents. In other words, legacies make Private Institutions a ton of money.

Been gone for a couple of days. Sorry for the belated reply....

Actually, Third Choice, the VAST majority of colleges and universities are NON-PROFIT institutions, which means that they exist to advance their educational missions, not to maximize profits. That is why they are tax exempt. It is also why my annual contributions to my alma mater are tax deductible.

I can turn your legacy argument around easily by pointing out that the reason colleges admit terrific violinists and great athletes is the same reason that many want to ensure ethnically and socioeconomically diverse student bodies: to DIRECTLY enrich the total educational experience of all of those who are part of the university community by providing them with a diverse and stimulating environment. At least as an initial matter, admitting legacies who get in only because of who their relatives are or where they went to school tends to UNDERMINE this purpose. You are right that there may be some long-term benefit to the whole community if it increases voluntary giving, but, if that's the goal, maybe the colleges should just sell their admissions slots to the highest bidders. That would serve the same purpose. And maybe you'd support that. But I think that most people would be concerned that such a system would only serve to perpetuate today's social inequalities.

Third, let me just say that I continue to think it strange that a "free marketeer" like yourself wouldn't be concerned that the Supreme Court might be poised to interfere with the decisions of these universities to exercise their FREE CHOICE to provide what they believe will be the best educational environment for all of their students. According to a free market theory, we should let them do whatever they want. If they make poor choices, which (in your mind) might be promoting affirmative action, and if that's a bad thing for the school as a whole, presumably the market will "correct" things in pretty short order; that is, the best applicants would flock to the schools that are truly "merit-based" (as you would define it), and those silly schools that thought affirmative action was a good thing would have to change or suffer the consequences.

Lastly, in reponse to your cultural bias point (concerning the SAT), don't get me wrong. I think that reading Shakespeare is a good thing. In fact, I majored in English Literature with a concentration on Shakespeare. And I think a healthy vocabulary is a very good thing. I just don't think that it should be a litmus test for determining who had the "aptitude" for being enriched at the very best schools.

that's not what they are trying to promote....they aren't concerned with that...they (the faculty and administrators) are racists. They are racists because they don't feel minority students are capapble of competing on their own...they do it for themselves, to make themselves look good and to perpetuate their own progressive reputations with their other progressive friends who hangout at the cappacino bars at Border's Bookstore...

If diversity is the goal, if that is the measure of the best all-around environment or institution, then the real winner is the Army where forced diversity is practiced every day in barracks all around the globe...

that is better representation of true diversity, where minorities are not sought after and selected like trophies to be put in a trophy case.

Whereas promotion of diversity is always the claim--universities really have a greater agenda--protecting Israel:

http://www.pmwatch.org/pmw/mediocrity/displayCall.asp?essayID=64

Universities want to make money and gain prestige. Everyone wants to be like Harvard and Princeton, with an incredible name and $15 Billion in the bank. While the schools may claim to be "non-profit," the people running them certainly do not care. They want to make money for themselves, and prestige for themselves, just like pretty much every other person. In order to make money you need to let in legacies first, and then people who you think have the highest chance of making money in the future. In order to gain prestige a school needs to publish high quality research, and that requires prestigious faculty, and smart, original students. The reason schools aren't open to the highest bidder are two-fold: One, you would lose most of the smartest people in the country, because the smartest people are rarely the richest, and you would lose the second part of your mission. $20 Billion is nothing if everyone thinks that your school sucks. Second of all, many times you can make more money letting in people who aren't necessarily as rich. Take Warren Buffet, for example. He wasn't extremely rich growing up and couldn't have paid too much to go to Columbia. But now he is one of the three richest men in the world, and will most surely make a donation soon (as he is quite old) that will be measured in the billions of dollars. Clearly, it was worth the wait for money of that kind.

Now, finally, about the Supreme Court thing that Tryon Creek brought up. Of course I don't want this issue decided by lawmakers and federal employees, I always believe that freedom wins out. What I want the courts to do is to leave colleges in the free market. There are schools, like Michigan, that truly believe in quotas and will use them as long as they are allowed to. Well then they can, and all people like me can do is to try to talk them out of it. And they will suffer the consequences of having a less prestigious, less profitable school - but those are the opportunity costs (as they would say in a freshman econ class) of AA. What I abhor, however, is that many schools are forced into a quota system. Many schools would prefer to leave race off the application, and treat everyone as a human with no skin color, but they cannot for fear of getting sued. What do you think would happen if Yale's black population dropped from 10% to 4% in one year? They would get sued for a Billion Dollars. All I ask of the Supreme Court is to assure universities that those cases are unconstitutional and that the colleges can continue to leave race off the application without losing a suit. I want the federal government to promise to leave the universities alone....

Not that the federal government ever keeps its promises...

All I can say is, I sure miss the real Duane Allman. I can hardly listen to Mountain Jam, Little Martha or the second half of Layla (where Duane simply stole the show from Clapton)without getting sad at the thought of what that guy would have accomplished with his guitar in his later years. Damn, he was only 24 when he died.

I think you should be a little more cirumspect about claiming his legacy. He had a generous soul.