Correct.
Poll: 57 percent of Millennials oppose racial preferences for college, hiring
- Thread starter Antiochus
- Start date
- Status
Correct.
elrechazado
Banned
It's truly orwellian to claim that not wanting to judge people by the color of their skin is racism.
Emerson
May contain jokes =>
I am truly ignorant on this subject, so I am actually asking for education here.
I understand the basic concept, but how does affirmative action actually work? Is it a certain number of minorities which need to be hired/admitted/etc.?
Freezie KO
Banned
Well said. The irony is palpable.
You Are Viewtiful
Member
If they wouldn't get in if it wasn't for AA, then they probably don't really belong there.
Sounds like paranoia to me. Why is the default assumption that institutional racism must exist in every level of everything? The fact that AA exists in universities is proof enough that people prize ethnic diversity.
I personally think that someone who believes everyone on the planet is racist, is more likely to be a racist himself
Stephen Colbert
Banned
It should be based on socioeconomics, not race. That's the only way Affirmative Action would be fair, to base it on socioeconomics rather than a person's skin color. It would also end all the resentment about the issue while continuing to give a leg up to the many african american kids that do live in impoverished circumstances.
Barack Obama's kids, Will Smith's kids (and the kids of the millions of successful african americans) won't have any problem getting into college. But the kids of the low income white family that used to earn a living working in a factory before Bain shut it down, and now live in abject poverty will have a tough time getting into college.
The fact is, plenty of poor white american kids have it a much higher wall to leap to make into college compared to kids of african american ceos, doctors, and engineers.
You should reward the people who work hard and perservere despite growing up in a impoverished home without access to the resources that an upper middle class family (tutors, loans, the safety of not growing up in a gang ridden neighborhood) has.
Barack Obama's kids, Will Smith's kids (and the kids of the millions of successful african americans) won't have any problem getting into college. But the kids of the low income white family that used to earn a living working in a factory before Bain shut it down, and now live in abject poverty will have a tough time getting into college.
The fact is, plenty of poor white american kids have it a much higher wall to leap to make into college compared to kids of african american ceos, doctors, and engineers.
You should reward the people who work hard and perservere despite growing up in a impoverished home without access to the resources that an upper middle class family (tutors, loans, the safety of not growing up in a gang ridden neighborhood) has.
Zoe
Member
With all other qualifications equal, the minority gets picked.
You Are Viewtiful
Member
Stephen Colbert
Banned
Excellent point.
Asian Americans and Indians are actually hurt far more than any other races by the quota systems that some school use today in the name of Affirmative Action.
This is inspite of the fact that many of these kids are first generation immigrants with barely any money or access to resources.
How does it make sense for a policy designed to help people overcome their circumstances to actually end up disproportionately hurting a whole race of minorities?
Affirmative Action should be based on socioeconomics, not skin color. It should give a leg up to the kids who grow up in poverty and in gang infested neighborhoods and manage to perservere inspite of their environment, irrespective of their skin color.
The Rooney Rule in the National Football League simply requires that a minority candidate be interviewed for a position.
elrechazado
Banned
Stop being racist.
Neither is truly correct but both have some truth to them. Race simply becomes a factor for admissions as a component of a candidate's background. As is, as others have pointed out, many other things like socioeconomic status, state of residence, rural or urban childhood are also part of this equation.
Since all of these are evaluated on a qualitative scale and given the sheer number of variables that go into looking at the typical student/hiree it's really impossible to know precisely how a student gained admission. There is a tendency to assume that because a person of color, particularly a Black or Hispanic person has been accepted race has been a factor in this decision. That's not always, nay probably not even mostly true. Race is something that can be evaluated upon and it's also something that can be discarded if the evaluator feels that the student or worker is sufficiently qualified so that race should not be factor in admission.
In other words, it's complicated. There is no checklist, there is no quota, but there is emphasis placed on the value of differing backgrounds or opinions when somebody is evaluated. Race can be part of that decision making process.
Karsticles
Member
Bingo. It makes so much sense, and theoretically does the same job.
As Byakuya mentions, there's already an elaborate network of structures set up to reward low-income people with preferential access to schooling, and we already have the data that shows they don't effectively address the problem of disproportionate selection by race.
Technically, Mumei isn't claiming that not supporting affirmative action is racist*. He's saying that the assumption that the people who benefit from affirmative action are not of equal merit is racist.
* It is, though, because it requires a level of blindness about the institutional structures in our society so great that it's almost the more charitable option to assume it's willful.
captmcblack
Member
People talking about purely socioeconomic financial aid and such - explain why need-based financial aid as I understand it here isn't what you're looking for. Nobody has clarified this for me yet!
The Wikipedia page for affirmative action in the United States is good, particularly the introductory paragraphs:
In the United States, affirmative action refers to equal opportunity employment measures that Federal contractors and subcontractors are legally required to adopt. These measures are intended to prevent discrimination against employees or applicants for employment, on the basis of "color, religion, sex, or national origin".[1][2] Examples of affirmative action offered by the United States Department of Labor include outreach campaigns, targeted recruitment, employee and management development, and employee support programs.[2]
The impetus towards affirmative action is to redress the disadvantages[3][4][5][6][7] associated with overt historical discrimination.[8] Further impetus is a desire to ensure public institutions, such as universities, hospitals and police forces, are more representative of the populations they serve.[9] Affirmative action is a subject of controversy. Some policies adopted as affirmative action, such as racial quotas or gender quotas for collegiate admission, have been criticized as a form of reverse discrimination, and such implementation of affirmative action has been ruled unconstitutional by the majority opinion of Gratz v. Bollinger. Affirmative action as a practice was upheld by the court's decision in Grutter v. Bollinger.[10]
The impetus towards affirmative action is to redress the disadvantages[3][4][5][6][7] associated with overt historical discrimination.[8] Further impetus is a desire to ensure public institutions, such as universities, hospitals and police forces, are more representative of the populations they serve.[9] Affirmative action is a subject of controversy. Some policies adopted as affirmative action, such as racial quotas or gender quotas for collegiate admission, have been criticized as a form of reverse discrimination, and such implementation of affirmative action has been ruled unconstitutional by the majority opinion of Gratz v. Bollinger. Affirmative action as a practice was upheld by the court's decision in Grutter v. Bollinger.[10]
Post #11.
Affirmative action only reinforces that subconscious racism.
<+)O Robido O(+>
Member
Then what's to stop people from just choosing only poor white people and no black people?
Stephen Colbert
Banned
Do either you or Byakuya have any data actually backing up your assertion that preferential access to low-income students is less effective than giving preferential access based on skin color?
If you're going to claim that basing affirmative action on socioeconomics doesn't work, but that basing it on race does, I would like to see supporting evidence for this claim.
Further, I think the ultimate goal of Affirmative Action is to help people overcome their circumstances, and to help end the cycle of poverty where poor kids never get a chance to get out of poverty due to institutional limitations.
I also think there is a lot more discrimination that goes on today based on socioeconomic class rather than race. Almost everyone would prefer to have a rich family of african american engineers and doctors move in next door than would prefer to have a poor uneducated white family of janitors in a trailer home move in next door.
Why is that the fault of the program and not the individual then?
elrechazado
Banned
Statistics?
This makes the most sense to me. The idea should be to help people who are economically disadvantaged get a fair shot, regardless of the reason.
Wrong.
Affirmative Action is the acknowledgement that certain racial groups in this country have had to deal with being unable to excel in this nation while they were, at the same time, used to help Whites excel.
Indeed, Whites had "Affirmative Action" since the beginning of this nation and, in many ways, still have it to this day. Racism in America isn't this direct fire-hosing of Blacks, it's buried in the system. See hiring trends for people with non-White names, acceptance stats for low scoring Whites, percentage of Blacks in jail versus Whites for crimes where equal percentages participate (therefor, numerically, more Whites than Blacks commit said crimes), etc.
Racism isn't subconsciousness. It's the policy.
Poor Whites have more advantages than poor Blacks.
They have a White name, generally, live in areas around other White people that are prone to having better schools, they're less likely to go to jail or committing the same crimes a Black person would, poor Whites have on average (if my numbers are right) 16x the amount of wealth than poor Blacks of the same level below the poverty line due to having accumulated possessions that Blacks wouldn't have been able to get over the years...
Asian-Americans may be the most harmed by affirmative action in college admissions, and they are the fastest growing ethnic group in the US, but almost no comments in support of AA even mention that issue. Black people this white people that... it's like we're in the 1950s or 1860s not 2012.
Somebody from a lower economic status would not have the same opportunities compared to more well to do students as you already know. As a result, their qualifications might not be to par with the normal standards of the particular school so with affirmative action they have more leeway when getting in. Schools already do this with athletes, why not disadvantaged students if they show potential? This is of course on top of financial aid.
How is an inner city kid going to compete with a kid from a wealthy suburb that has better functioning classes, more options for AP courses, SAT prep and all that? I'm sure you already know that but I'm speaking generally. This would be my main argument for affirmative action primarily based on socioeconomic status. And this would of course help blacks and hispanics, in addition to some Asians since schools tend to group Asians all into one group but they're not all the same.
You can try to get both, do it proportionally? Poor white people still need help.
edit: I am no way denying that institutional racism still exists in a lot of cases, especially when it comes to jobs. (and obviously police work)
Stephen Colbert
Banned
Poor Whites have more advantages than poor Asians as well. Asians too were discriminated against, they too were used as slave labor to build the railroads, and thrown in internment camps with all their possessions seized.
Yet, AA disproportionately stacks the deck AGAINST Asian Americans. That's the best evidence that basing something like AA on skin color alone is fundamentally flawed.
What matters is the fact that...
Upper Middle Income Educated Blacks, Whites and Asians have more advantages the poor blacks, poor whites and poor asians.
Upper Middle income educated families don't become trapped in a cycle of poverty that they have a very difficult time climbing out of. Upper middle income educated families don't live in gang infested neighborhoods. Poor people of all races do.
Byakuya769
Member
People tossing up model minorities to deflect structural biases that have been in place for hundreds of years. Awesome.
It's pretty straightforward to observe that there have been programs to support low-income students in their access to college since, at the very latest, 1965, and yet in 1976 only 3% of students were Hispanic, only 9% were African-American, and only 2% Asian/Pacific Islander. This should be sufficient evidence that these low-income programs were in no way successful in accomplishing the goals of affirmative action, while current numbers (13%, 14%, 6%) in the age of affirmative action are much closer to representative.
http://nces.ed.gov/fastfacts/display.asp?id=98
Do you have any proof that a low-income-targeted program, somehow distinct from all the existing such programs, would have the same effects at creating a representative sample?
captmcblack
Member
When people say Asians get hurt by AA, how do you mean?
Like they don't get to benefit from it because they are Asian, or they don't get to benefit from it disproportionately because more Asian people are qualified to benefit from the programs than in other races - and as a result, from a purely numerical standpoint, they'd be the people that mostly (or even exclusively) benefited from it?
Just curious.
Like they don't get to benefit from it because they are Asian, or they don't get to benefit from it disproportionately because more Asian people are qualified to benefit from the programs than in other races - and as a result, from a purely numerical standpoint, they'd be the people that mostly (or even exclusively) benefited from it?
Just curious.
Zoe
Member
Asians are over-represented, so they wouldn't be chosen with AA.
IMO, the Asians that are hurt the most are the minority (non-CJK) Asians.
They're the racial group that's "overrepresented" the most in higher education relative to their overall % of the college age population.
No worries. Asian-Americans widely support affirmative action, so don't put yourself out on our account. Possibly because we understand that racism is bad even if the programs to oppose it don't directly benefit us.
http://aaldef.org/APAHE Policy Brief.pdf
empty vessel
Member
Good god, Scalia-style conservatism has captured the Millennials. The little snits might be worse than the baby boomers.
I doubt they'll destroy the economy as much as the boomers have.
Ahaha. The Millenials are heavily Democratic! They're just, you know. Privileged.
captmcblack
Member
If an inner city kid is uniquely gifted and talented and hardworking, they can benefit from programs like this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prep_for_Prep
That is what helped this poor inner city black kid get into an excellent school, go to college, and all of that stuff. Of course, I was lucky to have been born with what it took to do this program, and lucky enough to even be chosen for it to begin with...and of course, I can't extrapolate luck across all similar people and all similar situations. So yeah, I get that poor people in general have it tougher across all races.
...but the stuff you're talking about, where disadvantaged students with potential get lifted up because of that potential? It exists. I lived it. And non-minority students get that too, not just in programs like that, but also via need-based financial aid, scholarships, gifted and talented programs, and other such things in many schools all across America.
[EDIT: @ xbhaskarx, so it's the second issue I was talking about - they don't get to benefit from it disproportionately because of their numbers. Yeah, that's a little different kind of "hurt" than the one affirmative action is aimed to fix.]
Economics does not address race.
"... One recent study indicates that the elimination of race-based admissions policies would lead to a 63 percent decline in black matriculants at all law schools and a 90 percent decline at elite law schools. Sociologist Stephen Steinberg describes the bleak reality this way: "Insofar as this black middle class is an artifact of affirmative action policy, it cannot be said to be the result of autonomous workings of market forces. In other words, the black middle class does not reflect the lowering of racist barriers in occupations so much as the opposite: racism is so entrenched that without government intervention there would be little 'progress' to boast about."
In view of all this, we must ask, to what extent has affirmative action helped us remain blind to, and in denial about, the existence of a racial underclass?"
In view of all this, we must ask, to what extent has affirmative action helped us remain blind to, and in denial about, the existence of a racial underclass?"
This is already a factor in college admissions. Students from lower sociocenomic backgrounds get a leg up regardless of race.
Stephen Colbert
Banned
You're the one making the claim that low income targeted programs aren't as effective as color based targeted programs. The burden to prove that claim exists with you.
And to compare the improvements after just a handful of low income targeted programs from 1968-1976 (less than 8 years) and compare them to the effects of both affirmative action alongside low income targeted programs for a period of a full 36 years isn't evidence of anything, by any stretch of the imagination.
Wafflecakes
Member
One of that 57%.
Should be merit or need based. If more minorities need help then more power to them. A poor white person should not get fucked over for financial aid because of their skin color.
Should be merit or need based. If more minorities need help then more power to them. A poor white person should not get fucked over for financial aid because of their skin color.
Contrariwise, if we're concerned with correcting the problems with institutionalized racism in America, then suggesting that a system that does not consider race will accomplish that is an extraordinary claim and requires proof of its own. You may not love my source, but where's your evidence? Fact-checking is a two-way street.
According to wikipedia, that program has a 6% acceptance rate. While some people may be born more capable than others, I think most people have a chance at being adequate / good enough to get into college but due to the environment they were born in they don't have as much of a chance. From where (and when) I grew up, I don't know if such a program existed in the area, and if it were, I'm not sure if my parents would know enough to get me to apply. Fortunately, I did what I could despite going through a terrible high school and was able to get into an Ivy but I can still see that being the best at an inner city high school might not necessarily make you competitive with other kids from a strictly meritocratic point of view.
But back to the main point I was arguing, is that affirmative action is okay for students coming from a low socioeconomic status. I'm not totally against race being a factor but it shouldn't be the main one - although I will admit I don't know the exact details on how college admissions work it out. This is on top of all the programs that are available for disadvantaged students - which needs to be expanded but that's another topic to discuss.
- Status
Similar threads
- Poll