Affirmative Action is Racist

[Rin]

Of course Affirmative Action is racist! >.< You cannot claim that everyone is equal, and then decide that even though we are equal and should be treated as such, there are some groups that need special help.

As an Asian-American, the following article kinda irks me...
http://www.browndailyherald.com/2.1...e-action-asian-admission-rates-rise-1.1671413
It basically says that for admissions, states without AA show an increase in admissions for Asians and decrease for every other race o.O (article says: black+Latino students -6.5% while Asians +6.2%.)
Looks like I will be applying to California, Florida, Texas, or other states without AA for grad school x_x; (My grades aren't fantastic, but I hope that if it comes between me and someone with similar stats, the tie-breaker won't be because of something as superficial as race >.<)

 

[umbarsc]

There seems to be some sort of implicit understanding in this thread that racism is completely abolished and AA only serves to benefit minorites of lower socioeconomic status, which is pretty ridiculous. How did everyone reach that conclusion again?

I would agree with class-based AA, but it's just silly to imply that soceity is free of racial bias. The magnitude of the problem can be debated, but that's not to say that it's a non-problem altogether.

 

[cim]

I would agree with class-based AA, but it's just silly to imply that soceity is free of racial bias. The magnitude of the problem can be debated, but that's not to say that it's a non-problem altogether.

I think it's sillier to assume that everyone of a certain race is affected by racial bias equally, regardless of their wealth or where they live or the other circumstances that affect how their lives have happened based on race. That's the main issue I have with AA.

That, and it punishes people who would never do anything to anyone of another race ever.

 

[The Requiem]

I'm not sure why, but I love it when this argument comes up.

I think it's sillier to assume that everyone of a certain race is affected by racial bias equally, regardless of their wealth or where they live or the other circumstances that affect how their lives have happened based on race. That's the main issue I have with AA.

That, and it punishes people who would never do anything to anyone of another race ever.

Exactly. I don't understand why that some people don't think its completely ridiculous for someone to be rewarded or punished for being born into a certain heritage. On the moral side of things, a class-based AA would be a much better thing than what we have going on now. Don't go giving me a handout because my skin is brown. I don't particularly enjoy being patronized.

Personally I think AA ruins things in the long term. For example, with the school thing. People who are completely qualified to get accepted into a school are overlooked, because this less likely candidate was born with a different skin color. Now this person gets to go through the motions, and comes out on the other end of college into the working world. Now wouldn't the less qualified individual put out less quality work? Sure it's not the majority, but having a percentage of people who didn't work as hard as others for their merit has to have some effect on the grand scheme of things.

 

[MrIndigo]

I don't think that's as much of a problem if you're selecting from otherwise-equal-candidates, as AA supporters want it to.

What I don't like about it, though, is that it actually impedes forming a colour-blind society. It draws distinction between races while it is in practice (and one of the problems of selective welfare systems is that even after the problem is solved, removing the program is politically unsavoury) and it sows the seeds of discontent and division.

Ultimately, programs like these show the folly of outcome-based (as opposed to opportunity-based) equality programs.

 

[cim]

Personally I think AA ruins things in the long term. For example, with the school thing. People who are completely qualified to get accepted into a school are overlooked, because this less likely candidate was born with a different skin color. Now this person gets to go through the motions, and comes out on the other end of college into the working world. Now wouldn't the less qualified individual put out less quality work? Sure it's not the majority, but having a percentage of people who didn't work as hard as others for their merit has to have some effect on the grand scheme of things.

A really minor point: Just because someone is initially less qualified does not necessarily mean they will learn less than a more qualified person would, work less hard than a more qualified person would, etc. If the college can be passed easily by "going through the motions", then the school isn't rigorous enough anyway...

Some people support affirmative action as a means of giving equal opportunity to "diamonds in the rough"; students held back by circumstance rather than intelligence or motivation. Drawing the line with color is oversimplifying.

 

[The Requiem]

A really minor point: Just because someone is initially less qualified does not necessarily mean they will learn less than a more qualified person would, work less hard than a more qualified person would, etc. If the college can be passed easily by "going through the motions", then the school isn't rigorous enough anyway...

Some people support affirmative action as a means of giving equal opportunity to "diamonds in the rough"; students held back by circumstance rather than intelligence or motivation. Drawing the line with color is oversimplifying.

I'll give you that, I did overlook the hard work factor. At the same time, there's definitely a better way to give a good "diamond in the rough" a chance other than placing people higher on the list of candidates according to race/gender. I'd say things like essay questions that plenty, if not every, college applicant (forgive me for being a high school grad student on a rather extended summer vacation, not sure if all colleges ask for this sort of thing) have to answer to get some insight on who the applicant is.

 

[cantab]

This is because colleges try to CRAFT student bodies. They look for a balance of interests, a balance of opinions, and a balance of experience brought by the student body.

And why should that have anything to do with race? (Culture and background are not the same thing as race.)

I know I personally was a little turned off by schools that report that their student body is 85%+ white because it just wouldn't feel like there were enough different types of people.

The USA is 75% white. So a student body 85% white wouldn't be that far off the national demographics.

College is supposed to be about learning both inside and outside of the classroom, and about meeting tons of people radically different from yourself.

People don't have to look different to be different.

Incidentally, as far as I am aware most UK Universities do not seek to 'craft' student bodies. Rather, they take the students they think are best (and that they think will accept their offer).

Even in the USA - are Harvard really taking the lower academic grades because they want a diverse student body? Or are they taking the lower grades because they know the grades don't tell the whole story, because a student may have a low GPA but excel in a specific focus of study, because a student may be proving their ability in extra-curricular activities? (Top UK Universities typically interview applicants; I don't know if Harvard does the same, but if so then it's likely the interview counts for more than one's school grades).