For example, two different high school seniors are applying to UC Berkeley. One is a white male from La Jolla who has a 3.9 GPA and 740-690-720 on his SATs, the other is an African-American female from South Central Los Angeles who has a 3.6 GPA and 710-670-700 on her SATs. Sometimes, though not always, the 2nd student will be accepted while the 1st student will be rejected, even though 'by the numbers' he would seem to be more qualified. This is a very controversial phenomenon which may affect some of you in your college search process; it may be a benefit or it may be an obstacle.
There are very passionate opinions on both sides of this issue. Are these types of preferences necessary to 'level the playing field,' promote diversity, and make up for decades--even centuries--of oppression and discrimination? Or is this simply 'reverse racism,' when we should live in a color-blind society where people are judged solely by merit? You are going to read some articles that lay out various aspects of these opposing viewpoints. The title link above is one that all of you should read; it's actually 2 different articles, one arguing each side of the issue. In addition to that, please read at least TWO (2) of the three articles linked below:
http://www.balancedpolitics.org/affirmative_action.htm
http://encyclopedia.jrank.org/articles/pages/5916/Affirmative-Action.html
http://www.soyouwanna.com/site/pros_cons/affaction/affaction.html
Also, you should look at the 4 links below, as they talk about some of the most important Supreme Court decisions relating to the issue of affirmative action. The 1st one is from the late 1970s and deals with the University of California; the next 2 are from 2003 and deal with my beloved University of Michigan. BTW, these cases have been known to show up on the AP exam from time to time, as well! The last case is just from the most recent Court session, and may give an indication as to where affirmative action policy is headed in the future.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regents_of_the_University_of_California_v._Bakke
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gratz_v._Bollinger
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grutter_v._Bollinger
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ricci_v._DeStefano
So after all that, what is it exactly I'd like you all to blog about? Here are the main questions for you to address:
- Based on what you have read, what do you think are the most effective arguments IN FAVOR OF affirmative action?
- Based on what you have read, what do you think are the most effective arguments AGAINST affirmative action?
- What are your own thoughts about affirmative action? Is it necessary to 'level the playing' field? Is it 'reverse discrimination' that should be abolished? Or do you take a middle-of-the-road, 'mend-it-but-don't-end-it' approach?
- What stands out to you from any/all of the Supreme Court decisions over the years dealing with affirmative action? Do you strongly agree or disagree with any of their reasoning? Why?
Remember, please make TWO (2) separate comments: one on the readings themselves and the questions posed above, and then another in response to a classmate's comment. Obviously you should feel free to post more than that if you so desire! The due date for these comments is the day of your final exam: January 19th (1st period) or January 20th (4th period). I look forward to your comments, and I want to take this opportunity to thank all of you for making this first experiment with AP Government blogging such a success! Thanks, Silvy :)
Affirmative action was a brilliant example of how incredibly stupid government programs can be. Initiated by president Johnson, affirmative action did a wonderful job of filling our universities and leadership positions in industry with under-qualified and sometimes completely UNqualified personnel. With the onset of this program, public universities were forced to accept lower qualified students in order to meet a quota set by the government, meaning they had to enroll a specific number of minority students every semester/quarter. Naturally, these under-qualified students were ill prepared for university rigor, and often fell seriously behind to the point of flunking out of the school they attended. However, the schools were not allowed to let this happen because they would no longer be in accordance with the government quota. Therefore, to retain these failing students, many universities had to significantly lower the standards they set for their curriculums. This in turn led to a flood of graduates with university degrees without nearly enough knowledge to back them up. These graduates entered the workforce unprepared and under-educated, which left many companies both public and private struggling under poor administration.
ReplyDeleteAffirmative action completely undermines the American dream. Those who work hard and persevere will succeed in life. Affirmative action gives an unfair advantage towards minorities regardless of qualifications. There is absolutely NO rational conclusion as to why those less qualified should be given first choice merely because they happen to be a minority. America is full of equal opportunities for ALL, and should remain that way. Those who work the hardest DESERVE university acceptances and job promotions. Their ethnicity/gender is of absolutely NO importance. Those who truly want equality for all will see this argument as both solid and reasonable.
A perfect example of how terrible affirmative action is as a program comes from African-American Ward Connerly, a member of the UC Board of Regents (governing body of the UC school system). He OPPOSED affirmative action completely, however his reasoning took a completely different angle. He said that affirmative action actually HURT minorities, because the degrees they earned before entering the workforce would never be regarded as highly as those of non-minorities; because it was widely known that minorities were given a significant advantage in their education by the affirmative action program, and therefore their degree meant much less because it was not a credible reflection of their capabilities; it was subsidized. This in turn would hurt those minorities who actually did try hard and truly earn their degrees, as they would be forever associated with the unqualified freeloaders who received an undeserved boost from the government.
From every angle, affirmative action was a pathetically ignorant and impractical attempt to ensure “equality” by civil rights-obsessed extremist liberal socialist idiots who possess not even a hint of any accurate notion as to how a prosperous society actually works.
Overall i believe that affirmative action is a unfair system of trying to make getting an education more fair. I believe that it puts hard working whites in a disadvantage to be accepted to a school or job because that university or company is afraid to be seen as racially unfair. I believe that the most effective argument in favor of affirmative action is that the minorities havent been given the chance to get the education or skills that whites have that are needed for the requirements of a job or school and therefore they should be given a slight advantage in the acceptance process. I think that this is very uneffective in producing qualified and hard working minority workers because it gives them their promotion or education without working as hard as others.
ReplyDeleteI think that the best argument against affirmative action is that it promotes an unfair work environment in which whites know that minorities had it easier to get in and therefore continue to see them as inferior instead of both whites and minorities working just as hard to meet the same requirements to get into school which would show everyone that the minority earned their posistion and didnt just have it handed to them because they are a minority and people dont want to be seen as racially unfair.
In response to lances remarks, i feel the same way although on less of an extreme level. I too believe that affirmative action creates unqualified business people that are not as ready as someone else to do the job because they had an advantage in obtaining their education or job promotion and didn't have to meet as high as standards as someone else did. I think that affirmative action is the wrong way to go about leveling the playing field because it only intensifies racial unequalities. I think that affirmative action should be abolished and instead of putting such an emphasis on race the emphasis should be put on economic status. For instance A wealthy black male will have an easy time getting a good education while a poor white male may have a hard time finding the same education because he lives in the inner city or distant rural areas. If the white male works really hard to find and obtain as good as an education as the black male who got it easily the black male is still going to get into college easier because of his race and not because of how hard he has worked as compared to the poor white male
ReplyDeleteAffirmative action is one of those extremely stressful subjects for me to talk about since it brings along with it extreme positions on both sides. And it can be very hard for me to be articulate when I feel passionate (it's a problem)! That being said, although there may be loopholes in the system, I think a system that encourages and regulates diversity (in colleges, businesses, the government, etc) is necessary.
ReplyDeleteOppression exists. How could it not when our history is plagued by slavery, misogyny, heterosexism, religious intolerance, etc? One of the huge ways oppression takes form today is in lack of resources. Just 60ish years ago, "reverse" affirmative action was in place. Privileged whites attended the richest and fullest of resources school available, while people of color were educated in under-resourced and underfunded facilities. I do not think that affirmative action exists to "make up" for all of those years, but, rather to acknowledge the underprivilege that has for so long been dealt with by minority populations... and still exists today. Affirmative action is just an attempt to bridge the privilege/resource gap.
Idealistically, I wish affirmative action didn't have to exist. But this would only be true in a society where the playing field is already leveled - obviously not ours. Without affirmative action, those with access to resources would be the only ones able to get into college, get certain jobs, etc. I agree with the person above me that economic status should also play a role - but doesn't it already? Aren't race and economic status totally connected? Isn't it true that minorities and poverty so often go hand in hand?
Hopefully there will be a day where colleges and businesses share proportionality to the whole country when it comes to race/gender/orientation/etc., but until then, affirmative action is doing the best it can to get there.
Also, as a comment on the articles, there's a lot of talk about how affirmative action is supposed to almost be like an apology for all the discrimination and oppression of the past. I don't really see it that way though. To me, affirmative action exists to try to make schools (and other things) a similar environment to the United States. Like I mentioned in my earlier post, it should be a goal that schools try to maintain an equally proportional amount of diversity to the country, within reason.
ReplyDeleteWhile no one desires a completely competitive world where a matter of death or failure is always feared by individuals, it is also inappropriate to promote a sense of rewards and accommodations without fair reason. We live in an economically competitive nation, where people compete for education and employment for the ideal standard of living. The necessary tools for ideal living, which would be education and employment, encourage productivity from all individuals of society. The benefits of this competition are the products of individuals fairly competing for good living, and therefore the incentive of good living produces more desire to create. It is necessary for individuals to contribute to society to maintain an orderly functioning nation that strives off of the byproducts of individuals using their energy to live well. The collective intelligence of the nation expands as competitive people create more to improve their lives, and their creations help the standards of living for future generations. This whole cycle is disrupted when the incentive to produce and expel energy for rewards is seen as unnecessary. When is this incentive seemed to be eliminated?... When people try to utilize the idea of affirmative action. Why should current generations suffer at the will of legislators who are worried about PAST ACTIONS by PAST GENERATIONS? The idea of promoting certain individuals over others is blatantly seen as discriminatory, so how could it seriously be justified? We should not be “punished” by the actions of people in the past, just because some try to instill a feeling of “white guilt” for those historic actions. Such worrisome about the history concerning few citizens as compared to the non racist majority disrupts the flow of society for future generations. Accommodating minorities rids of the incentive for productivity and therefore creates a class of people demanding while not contributing. This also creates racial tension by promoting the idea that certain groups suck from the system while not producing, while other have to use their energy and maybe only get just as much, only because some people is justifiable for what some people did in the past.
ReplyDeleteAlso, when looking at the controversy from a legal basis, I think that it is a strict violation of the Fourteenth Amendment for the Constitution. The Equal Protection Clause states that “no state shall deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws”. It is clear then that all citizens should be equally protected by the laws. To ensure this, no laws may be gender or racial (or other categorical social groups) specific. Then how does the idea of affirmative action even withstand? It clearly protects minority groups over “majority” groups, therefore giving them more protection. This is invalid with the amendment’s demand for EQUAL PROTECTION. Also important to notice is the recent 2009 Supreme Court case of Ricci v. DeStefano, in which nineteen firefighters (including two Mexican) where discriminated against by not being chosen for promotion when the black candidates were when they had lower test scores. The 5-4 opinion declared the city’s (New Haven) actions as discriminatory…then why aren’t the actions of colleges and other employers using race-based decisions also seen as discriminatory?
In a general sense, affirmative action is a discriminatory policy that disrupts the order of a functioning and productive society, and deprives us of having even a close sense to equality.
WOW! We have some very passionate and incredibly articulate opinions already coming fast and furious. I want to focus on something that I'm very glad Sean and Annie brought up: the idea of preference based on economic status rather than race.
ReplyDeleteMany people--even if they don't like the idea of affirmative action--recognize that students who attend a school like Coronado or Torrey Pines could be in a 'better' situation than someone at an inner-city school; they may have access to more things that can help them succeed and be more attractive to colleges. But is what makes the inner-city student's situation 'difficult' more about their being poor than about their race? I myself am not saying that it is; merely that this is a somewhat newer view on the affirmative action issue that many people are taking.
I don't want to distract too much from the articles nor from my original questions, but what about 'socio-economic status' preferences rather than racial preferences? Would this alter anyone's views?
Remember, too, that racial preferences are only part of the affirmative action issue--policies may be impacted by gender, religion, national origin, or sexual orientation, as well. Nonetheless, I think this 'economic' question is an important one, so thanks again to Sean and Annie for bringing it up!
I am definitely wishy-washy on the whole affirmative action debate. However, I do believe that even without affirmative action, at least in most cases, diversity will still be present in the work place or at schools. In other words, I strongly believe that there are many people that fall into a category of a minority group that are just as qualified naturally, or even more qualified than say, a white male that will be given an equal opportunity to continue their education at a prestigious college or at a job of their choice because they truly are gifted and they seize the opportunities they were/are given in their particular circumstance. The main exception that I speak of is if someone who is of a minority race, or is apart of a minority religion, or is of any minority group for that matter, is underprivileged from a socio-economic standpoint, and it is something that can be proved, then by all means give them a chance to have the opportunity to succeed if they are willing to work hard and make the most of their opportunity. Now jumping to the arguments of “for” or “against” affirmative action, for the most part I could see both sides of the argument yet a couple arguments from each side stood out in my mind as not being such an effective argument. For example on the side that is “against” affirmative action, I did not really like the argument that “students admitted on [the ] basis [of affirmative action] or often ill-equipped to handle schools to which they’ve been admitted”. In my opinion it truly depends on the person’s situation. If they did not have the opportunity to go to a good school (based on where they live/ socio-economic) then I find it necessary to give them a chance to attend highly-regarded schools so long as they try their best and seek out help if they need to get into the swing of things. Saying that they are “ill-equipped” is a little harsh and is a big generalization. On the side of being “for” affirmative action I have a hard time seeing eye-to-eye with the fact that “affirmative action is needed to compensate minorities for centuries of slavery or oppression”. Now don’t get me wrong, if it is clear that a particular individual is directly affected by a form of oppression today that is hindering their ability to attend a good school or land a good job, then that is a different story but, if for example, an African-American today is only indirectly affected by the horrible issue of slavery and/or oppression (I can only imagine how hard it must have been for their ancestors or even distant relatives to cope with such a unfair and cruel issue) then in all honesty, I do not think that they should automatically be given an obvious advantage based on the fact that in the past, people of their race where severely harmed and treated unfairly, yet it has nothing to do with their personal situation here and now.
ReplyDeleteI definitely disagree with the article that says, “Students admitted on this basis (in favor of racial minority) are often ill-equipped to handle the schools which they’ve been admitted.” Ok if you’re going by Mr. Silverman’s example of a 3.9 GPA white student with a slightly higher SAT score versus a 3.6 GPA minority student with slightly lower test scores I do not think this makes the minority student “ill-equipped” it just means they will have to try harder in college. If the minority student was living in a one bedroom apartment in the Bronx with with a single parent and a couple siblings and barley making ends meet every moth versus a white Coronado graduate the kid with the slightly lower GPA and test scores should have a better chance at getting into a college before a white Coronado graduate. I think that is affirmative actions purpose is. The problem with that however, is that the college doesn’t really know which minority student is living the high life while a white kid might be the one scraping to make ends meet. For me it’s hard to say for certain which side I agree with because I can see both sides.
ReplyDeleteAnd I apologize for not proof reading that
ReplyDeleteThe issue of affirmative action is a complex one. While affirmative action "draws people to areas of study and work they may never consider otherwise" and "gives disadvantaged students a boost," I believe that this system initially created to bring about racial and socio-economic equality has infact inhibited and proved unfair to the "common white man or woman." I do believe that those who have grown up in impoverished homes, the disadvantaged who have overcome daunting situations, should be looked at in a different light, if, and only if, they tried their hardest and took full advantage of what they had, even if it was not much. I believe universities have become too focused on what obstacles applicants have "overcome" in thier lives. It no longer is enough to do well in school, play sports, join clubs, and do alright on standardized tests. Growing up in a stable home, in a good neighborhood, and attending a good school, should not be considered a strike against you, and in my opinion, nowadays it is when it comes to college admissions. I agree with the statement in the first article "affirmative action leads to reverse discrimination." I think when it comes to college admissions, everyone should be looked at equally, disregarding race, demographics, and economic situations. Only when the candidate has truly overcome an extreme situation do I believe they should be admitted over another student, black or white, rich or poor.
ReplyDeleteI can see how many support affirmative action. It is an attempt to level the playing field, as many would say. The point of affirmative action is to give minority students, who may have lacked equal opportunities as whites, a better chance of getting a job or going to a good university. I believe in this philosophy. However, it is hard to gage whether affirmative action is really doing this. Personally, I do not support affirmative action, especially with college admissions. In the past, universities have consisted of mainly white males. We live in a different age now.
ReplyDeleteI do not believe affirmative action is fair. I searched for affirmative action on the internet, and I found a report on FOXNews.com. Marie Gryphon, the author, said, “The reason that more minority students don’t get college degrees has nothing to do with competitive admissions policies. The truth is that most minority students leave high school without the minimum credentials necessary to attend any four-year school, selective or not” (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,125729,00.html). This is an important point to make. Affirmative action does not improve the living situations and income of minorities. It only discriminates against those who do not have a minority background.
I am glad Mr. Silverman brought up the idea that race may not be the key disadvantaging factor. Socio-economic status can create the spectrum that separates advantaged from disadvantaged people.
ReplyDeleteOn the first article Mr. Silverman suggested we read, one of the reasons supporting affirmative action was that “students starting at a disadvantage need a boost.” However, many times, affirmative action for college applications does not give the disadvantaged a “boost.” From FOXNews.com, “Dale and Kruegar compared students rejected by selective colleges with students who attended those schools. They discovered that when students’ entering credentials, such as high school grades and test scores, were the same, the rejected students made just as much money as those who atteneded ‘top tier’ universities” (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,125729,00.html). Is affirmative action actually accomplishing what it was created to do?
I believe that certain instances such as admission to universities should not base their admissions upon race but solely on their test scores, community service and what their socio economic standing is. To base it on race seems to be biased to me just for the simple fact that not all minorities are poor and have had a horrible education. To assume these stereotypes is wrong. A minority cold for example live in Coronado whose family is semi wealthy and goes to Coronado High School which is considered to be a very beneficial public high school.. Assume that this person doesn’t get good grades or good test scores but get picked over a white student who scores higher and has the same socio economic statues or worse…is that fair. To me it is not. I am glad that schools and employers are trying to create a diverse group in their establishment but I believe that there should be a different system instilled to achieve that diverse goal. The University v. Bakke was a justified case because to have someone who is more qualified get ousted by someone who is less qualified due to race seems wrong. I understand that some schools aren’t as privileged as Coronado due to larger classes, outdated textbooks and less qualified teachers but such tests as the ACT’s and SAT’s allows some platform for equality. Personally I would rather be accepted to a school or job because I deserved it rather that because of my race because i was raised that you must work hard for what you want to achieve but maybe my thoughts don’t count because I am a white person who has grown up in Coronado since 7th grade.
ReplyDeleteAs many of those have mentioned above, affirmative action is a very tough situation. I feel that students getting into college based on their socioeconomic backgrounds does seem like reverse racism. We do not get to choose our ethnic background, and I feel that if students magically had that option, some would choose to be a minority for the chance to get into the top tier universities. So many students with minority backgrounds are able to get into these universities without the outstanding grades that many white students have, even though they are rejected. Coco's comment brings up a good point that "affirmative action does not improve the living situations and income of minorities. It only discriminates against those who do not have a minority background." I feel that admitting these students into these top universities will only further their struggles, because college is much more difficult in high school and if these students do not do well in college, they are only going to fall behind at the college level.
ReplyDeleteOn the other hand, I feel that in some ways affirmative action is a good thing. Affirmative action definitely serves as a great way to promote diversity, especially at the collegiate level. As college serves to prepare you for the real world, I believe that diversity is a very important part of a college campus, as it is so evident in the world that surrounds us. America is a melting pot of cultures, and if you are surrounded by a sea of white people for four years, (excuse me if I am being politically incorrect) you will not be prepared for the rest of the world out there.
There are good arguments on both sides, as both sets of articles demonstrated, and I feel that this issue will continue to be debated for a very long time without reaching one set standard on how to deal with the issue. One solution, in regards to college admission, could be to completely get get rid of the admissions office's knowledge of the applicants' ethnicity, thus putting everyone on an even playing field. After students are admitted, based on their grades, test scores, and extracurriculars, then students could be evaluated based on their ethnic background, in the form of scholarships or other things such as priority for classes. I acknowledge that this idea sounds very similar to how financial aid works, but I guess that just shows how complex the situation is.
There are defiantly two sides to this debate that have good and bad aspects to them. These are some of the arguments I found interesting. Two effective arguments for affirmative action were that it was a policy designed to right the imbalances caused by long standing discrimination. The other argument is that to argue with affirmative action thus discriminates minorities even further by not allowing social equality. Two arguments against affirmative action is that the laws for affirmative action makes black the color of preference thus re-burdening society with racial ideals. The second argument is that a create a victim mentality because it encourages blacks to exploit their past victimization's.
ReplyDeleteI like what Annie says about affirmative action being an attempt to bridge the privilege and resource gap and in an ideal society it wouldn’t have to exist. I also understand many people lead privileged lives which make it way easier to focus on your studies rather than working jobs to help put food on the table for your family. I am kind of split both ways on this argument because I understand both sides but I do not think just because you are a minority you should have an advantage but I do think your 'socio-economic status' should have an effect schools looking at you.
ReplyDeleteThe problem with discussions of Affirmative Action is that people play it fast and loose with the term. When I say that I support Affirmative Action, I do not mean that I agree with the practice of, for example, displacing qualified white students with less qualified minority students on college campuses. I do, however, believe that diversity is very important, and that schools have an obligation to seek out qualified minority students and make it possible for them to attend. Part of the experience of being in college is being exposed to a variety of people from diverse racial and socioeconomic backgrounds and of diverse opinions. That being said, I don't think the fact that a candidate for admission is impoverished or a minority is, alone, grounds for admitting that student to a college. This practice is not fair to the student admitted under Affirmative Action, the other admitted students, or the rejected students. Let's say, for example, that Harvard admits a minority student from an inner-city, lower class family with a 2.9 GPA and mediocre SAT scores. That student is not likely to thrive at Harvard because they are not academically prepared for its rigor and might also have a hard time thriving socially due to culture shock. Harvard has just set that student up for failure, in addition to lowering its academic standards and treating non-minority, privileged students with the same credentials unfairly by rejecting them. What colleges should be doing instead is seeking out talented, qualified students in schools and communities that do not offer the same opportunities that we're offered at Coronado High School and helping those students in the admissions process. That way, disadvantaged and minority students are assisted to such a degree that the "playing field" between themselves and privileged, non-minority students is leveled, but that the college's academic requirements are not slackened to facilitate admissions under Affirmative Action. Once those students are admitted, colleges must also follow through with financial aid and other assistance that allows the student to actually attend. I strongly support Affirmative Action so defined because it promotes diversity without sacrificing academic integrity.
ReplyDeleteLance-
ReplyDeleteIn response to your comment, I can't say that I disagree with you. Qualified people who work hard deserve to get ahead in life, and it's unfair to, for example, admit a minority student to Harvard simply because they're a minority, whether that be racially or socioeconomically. That being said, not everyone gets to go to Coronado High School. Everyone posting on this blog is taking AP United States Government and Politics. We're applying to college online with assistance of excellent college counselors, and, likely, the active support of our parents. Compare your experience to that of a student in inner-city Detroit, who could easily be as smart, ambitious, and hard-working as you are. That student, however, might go to a high school where AP Government (or AP courses at all) are not offered and college counseling is nonexistent, live in a house without a computer, and whose parents cannot or do not support a college education. Despite the fact that you are intellectual equals, you are going to go to college and that student may well not. In my view, Affirmative Action should exist to find that student in his or her Detroit high school and give them the same opportunity and ability we have to apply to college. This hardly undermines the American Dream. It simply makes it possible for the Dream to become a reality for people who have the ways but lack the means.
In response to Maddy B’s comment, I too agree with the fact that “colleges should be seeking out talented, qualified students in schools and communities that do not offer the same opportunities” as say, our high school or any other high-achieving school. Her comment sort of ties back to my previous comment that there are many minority students out there who are just as qualified or even more qualified than non-minority students, and in such cases their economic or family situation should not hinder their ability to go to college. Also Maddy’s comment about the fact that “college’s academic requirements [would] not [be] slackened” if colleges were to seek out minority students who are hard-working and well-qualified, is another valid point that definitely supports diversity while not being unfair to other students who are hard-working and well-qualified but who naturally have more opportunities.
ReplyDeleteIn regards to the Gratz v. Bollinger case, I feel that the ultimate ruling was legitimately backed up with good reason since under no circumstance do I think that something like a 20 point gain in an individual’s admission to a college that uses a point-scale system should be given to a person based on their race, especially when a perfect SAT score, which is nearly impossible to get, is only worth 12 points. The way I see it, you cannot determine what ethnicity you are, but you can definitely work hard and prepare for an SAT test if you so choose. Also, I do realize that some minority students would have a more difficult time obtaining resources that would help them prepare for the SAT or any other college required test, but at the very least I am pretty sure that they could go to a library near their area and access collegeboard.com or some other website that would let them run through some SAT style questions. This point ties back to my belief that regardless of the amount of opportunities you have, you can certainly make the most of the ones you do have.
*Btw…in my first entry “or” [in quote] should be “are” and “where” should be “were” [in last sentence].
I do believe affirmative action is very beneficial to the minorities. But it is hurting the common folk. I do think that in many cases it is racist to the non minorities especially in the Michigan case. I dont think students should be accepted to any school on a point system like they were in that case i think that is bias aswell. I believe that a student should be accepted clearly on there academic performance in school and there test scores. I believe college isnt fit for everyone and if a student is getting in based strictly on there race. But yes diversity is important but only if the university believes the student is ready and capable of doing the course load that is expected. I do agree with the supreme court decisions i believe they have made it fair for both minoirites and non minorities.Making it a challenge for both to get into the same university and not making it easier for one and not the other.
ReplyDeleteI have to agree with maddy and adie in the case i do believe everyone should be able to go to college. I believe they should be able to go college no matter where they come from. I do believe that yes if there financial situation is rough that the college or university should give them some sort of stipend so the talent student can afford to go there. I do support diversity in the school like they do just no if the student is not as qualified as the other. But i believe in many cases and student often gets accepted over another by where they live and what their gender or race is.
ReplyDeleteI strongly disagree with Lance's first blog comment. What makes you think that those minority applicatns are "UNqualified"? They are "unqualified" based on what? Their test socres?Their overall GPA? Let me tell you something. They are completely USELESS once you're in college.
ReplyDeleteA high SAT score doesn't help you to prepare for college in any way. As a matter of fact, a student born in a rich family can simply raise his socre doing expensive coaching sessions.
High school GPA? Give me a break. HS Teachers tend to have their lists of "favorite students" and raise their grades in the end of year.(you know what the bottom line is.)
That is not what's gonna happen in college. A college professors could simply have too many students in his class that after they graduate,he still doesn't know what their names are.
Do you seriously think unqualified students only happen in the minority? Come on now. Becuase majority students tend to be favorable in high school, they often are the ones who completely fail to match college standards.
Scores don't tell everything. Other than high school GPA and standardized test, college also looks on other aspects of you life such as School activity,work experience,personality,special circumstance and so on. Ethnicity is just one of those a hundred things colleges want to know you as a student, not as a test taker. I really wonder why people make a big deal out of it, and use solely test scores for qualification standards, not extracurricular activities,etc.
Student A is a more qualified than student B becuase he scores 20 pts higher on the SAT, and has an overall GPA .02 higher than that of student B's. According to Lance' law, student A is better. End of story.
Sadly enough, I have to agree with the first article on how affirmative action is creating reverse discrimination. Minority students are often born and raised in poor study environment, but not always. There are many white students, dealing with just as many adversities as a minority students has to deal with, end up not going to colleges they deserve because of it.
ReplyDeleteOverall, I do agree that affirmative action is a stupid thing in the long run. But it is very beneficial at the moment because it helps to break some of the stereotypes as more and more qualifying minority students have emerged over the past few years. I would love to see the affirmative action banned once everyone has equl opportunity opportunity in education.
Regarding the court cases, I think it is absolutely ridiculus for applicants to sue colleges for rejecting admissions. Colleges are the ones to decide which student they're gonna take, otherwise the entire application process will become meaningless. I am surprised that the court actually ruled in favor of applicants because although affirmative action is on the way out,it makes no sense whatsoever for the court to intervene in college admission process.
I completely agree with hilaryhansen. Yes, this system does help minorities, but by doing so it hurts others. She also says "yes diversity is important but only if the university believes the student is ready and capable of doing the course load that is expected" and I agree. If you let other people into the college that aren't as prepared as other students simply based on race I think you are setting some people up to fail and I don't think that is right and it hurts everyone in the long run.
ReplyDeleteI agree with the goal behind affirmative action but I also agree with the ruling of the Supreme Court in Gratz v. Bollinger. Simply giving an applicant 20 points because he is African American or Hispanic does not seem fair, or ethical. However, there are some reasons to accept someone who may be does not have as high a GPA or SAT scores. Maybe the University of Michigan could give 20 points to someone who works full time in high school to help the family make ends meet. This would more likely be an African American or Hispanic kid, but not necessarily. Not all white kids come from middle class families. The result probably would end up with more diversity in the university anyway. And someone who goes to high school and works forty hours a week likely has what it takes to make it in college. I mean, let's be real: If the college is nothing but rich, upper-class white kids would you want to go there? Maybe the truth is yes. Personally, I would not. A lack of diversity would just short change my own college experience.
ReplyDeleteI dont agree with the government program of affirmative action at all because its treating people completely different and unequal which could be argued as unconstitutional. For example, it really makes no sense to choose a less qualified, less skilled person for a job just because of their skin color or race. This is discrimination against the more qualified person because that person worked harder and would be a more skilled employee. I think getting into college should be completely merit based, and if the schools turn out to be 95% white, it just goes to show who worked harder and earned their place. True, many white families might be wealthy and have an advantage, but its still the same concept because that just means that their parents or grandparents worked hard and earned that money in a merit based system.
ReplyDeleteLike everyone else, I completely agree that the idea of affirmative action is ridiculous. It isn't fair that someone can get into a really competitive schools just because of skin color or their ethnic background, such as UCLA or UC Berkeley. Also, I know if I were of a different ethnic group and I was given an advantage to something somewhere just because I was a minority, I would be offended. I believe everyone, regardless of where their heritage may come from, should earn their places in society.
ReplyDeleteI completely Disagree with Lance's views on the American dream. I don't think affirmative action gives an unfair advantage to minorities. I think it gives minorities an equal chance that they deserve. Lance even said, "those who work harder DESERVE university acceptances and job promotions." How could you possibly know based simply on a GPA or SAT score who is trying harder? You can't.
ReplyDeleteYou are the dean of admissions at a college and you are having to choose between two applicants. The first applicant is a white student from Coronado. This student gets tutored twice a week, has an overall GPA of a 4.3, and took many AP classes. The second applicant goes to a school in Compton and has an overall GPA of a 3.8, but there were no AP classes offered at this school. In this students spare time they take care of their siblings while their parents work all week from 6am-8pm. If we do what Lance thinks we should do, the white student from Coronado would get accepted because they "worked harder," and the way you can prove it was their 4.3 GPA.
I understand the concept of affirmative action and I feel that both sides make great points. Some of the best arguments I read in favor of affirmative action included things such as trying to increase diversity in colleges. I agree that diversity is a very important part of what makes some schools better than other. With diversity people learn about different cultures from different people, therefore making people more understanding and more educated in aspects of other countries. I also liked that argument of giving people with less opportunity a chance at a better future. I know that some people have disadvantages because of their race and don't have as many opportunities as others might have. Those are great arguments. Now for the arguments against affirmative action, there are a lot of great points as well. I agree that people who have worked hard enough to achieve great achievements scholastically should not be disadvantaged because they are not a minority. If schools deny a person because of their race, then it is not making any difference in an attempt for equality. I believe that the person who is academically above another should not be disadvantaged and should be rewarded for their work and be admitted. Race should not be a factor even when trying to create diversity in a school or work environment.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Lance, maybe not as strongly though. But I also agree with Andrea in that hard work cannot always be measured by GPA and SAT scores. I know many people that work hard and still have bad grades while others don't work at all and have great grades. It isn't the same for everyone. In trying to preserve or create diversity, I feel other options should be tried. I feel affirmative action is unfair. I do not have any ideas for how to preserve equality, but I do not think affirmative action is the way.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Andrea's comment in regards to Lance's view on affirmative action. Although I can say that I have worked hard throughout my high school career, I cannot deny the fact that there are thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, of students throughout the United States simultaneously receiving competitive GPA's and providing for their family. As I stated earlier, there is a very fine line between what is fair and unfair when it comes to affirmative action. No, a student should not be admitted to a university solely based on their race, but in many instances, I believe the underdog that was able to achieve above average grades and test scores, despite all of the barriers they were facing, deserves the acceptance letter more than the Caucasian kid who was set up for success. An acceptance into college could very well be a disadvantaged minority student’s only chance to escape the cycle they have been born into. A chance to leave their life behind, to start over completely, and have a true shot at success, is not an opportunity that will arise again for them. The way I see it is, if the acceptance into the college will truly make or break the applicant’s future, the spot should unquestionably be given to the qualified applicant who has no, or very few other options if denied.
ReplyDeleteAffirmative Action seems to be often misinterpreted. No student gains admittance to a high-performing university based on their race alone. Other factors are looked at: GPA, test scores, honors, activities, community service, etc.
ReplyDeleteMrs. Fish read excerpts from a book in her class saying that "a student doesn't have to be the 'smartest genius' to succeed - he only needs to be smart ENOUGH." My reason for bringing this up is to help back my claim that a student with a 3.5 GPA is not so dramatically less qualified than the 4.0 student like some seem to think. Numbers alone cannot define a person's success.
A top-performing university has every right to select a minority student with 'good enough' grades and test scores and such for the sake of equal opportunity and for a valuable student diversity. It is not likely that the same school would accept a minority with a 2.5 GPA in the first place because race alone does not nullify the rest of the application. In addition, accepting the student would be doing a great disservice for him/her because the university would be setting the student up for failure.
I did see some of the more obvious arguments of the anti-affirmative action position in Lance's response. I do agree with a few of the essential thoughts in his post (why should an underperforming student be given priority over a better performing student - race being excluded?) but I do believe that there are too many exceptions to these broad-reaching, over-generalized, and over-simplified claims.
ReplyDeleteMacdaddy's anecdote of the rich black male and the poor, struggling, white male is a good example.
Maddy Bersin's anecdote of the student living in Detroit is another good example.
On that note, I think Maddy's second response in particular perfectly articulated my thoughts. I am baffled that someone would believe that "affirmative action undermines the American Dream." It is quite the opposite. It simply makes it possible for the Dream to become a reality for people who have the ways but lack the means.
Ahh, affirmative action. I've never really felt qualified enough on this subject to discuss it, and I don't know enough to have a strong opinion on it. Even after reading the articles and cases Mr. Silverman posted, I don't quite know what to think.
ReplyDeleteOur system is really skewed, to say the least, to work well for people who are already wealthy. Most of these wealthy people are also white, because of centuries of imperialism, slavery, segregation, etc., etc. It's not just our education system that reflects this, and within the education system, the racial and socioeconomic disparity are definitely evident well before we reach higher education.
It seems to me that affirmative action is an attempt at fixing this, but it's implemented too late in the system. If redress were made at the preschool level, on through high school, the performance gaps between racial and socioeconomic groups would not be an issue because those gaps would probably decrease substantially. Instead of giving our two theoretical people two completely unequal educational experiences and then trying to make up for it at the college level, we need to work on giving them both the same opportunities from the start.
I think what Andrea said has almost nothing to do with what this discussion is actually about. When you compare two students that went to two different types of schools, and both did the best the could, but decide to give an advantage to the student who went through a less effective or less efficient school system, that is not a problem. The real problem lies in Universities giving advantages to students because of their ethnic or racial background. Two students with similar GPA and standardized test score that both go to Compton High, San Diego High, or even Coronado High could apply to the same schools, but one gets accepted to higher performing schools because they are chinese-american, african-american, from the middle east, or other nationalities. I don't know about you, but that doesn't sound fair to me.
ReplyDeleteAt first, when I read about affirmative action, I immediately thought about how it encouraged reverse discrimination and was unfair. However, I ultimately realized that affirmative action has good intentions and is a necessary measure that is needed to ensure that minorities have equal opportunities and that colleges have diversity. In a truly utopian environment, society would be color-blind, everyone would be considered equal, and everyone would have the same opportunities. However, the fact is that discrimination, racism, and oppression still exist within the United States, and affirmative action can help minorities to overcome these adversities. True, affirmative action is not a perfect way of deciding college admissions, but then what is the perfect way? Affirmative action is such a difficult issue because every college applicant has had different experiences. Not every African-American applicant is of a low socio-economic class and has suffered from discrimination, and not every white applicant has grown up in an affluent neighborhood and has received a great education. But, like Annie said, socio-economic class and race do sometimes seem to go hand-in-hand. I do hope that some day that everyone will be able to be judged based solely on their merits, but I feel like, right now, affirmative action is necessary because, often times, minorities have had experiences and have grown up in environments that effect their academic achievements.
ReplyDeleteI think one of the biggest arguments for affirmative action that colleges make is that they want to bring a diverse array of cultures, backgrounds, and ideas to their schools, which almost everyone would agree sounds like a good thing. However, if a school goes strictly by race to ensure that this occurs, I don't think there is much benefit at all. In fact, affirmative action seems to stereotype people of different races if the argument is that a white student comes from a significantly different background than a Latino student or a black student. While affirmative action is supposed to challenge racial divisions, it in a sense promotes it - to assume that people of a certain race have faced adversity. I find that what DOES set people apart is, as mentioned before, not necessarily race, but one’s financial situation, as mentioned by Sean, Annie, and Mr. Silverman, too.
ReplyDeleteThen again, even someone who has lived in poverty should not be guaranteed into any college, for the reason that various students said before: the student may not be able to handle the intense coursework. I think it comes down to the "Smart Enough" idea that Michael touched on above. If the student has been able to achieve not the best -but good enough- grades, and has had to overcome many obstacles to do so, the student should by all means be admitted. In fact, I think a college would want this student most, as such achievements say a lot about his or her character, determination, work ethic etc.
I agree with Graces and Briannas comments earlier. I think that on certian issues, like admission to college, that the colleges should not base their admissions to the school upon race at all. They should focus more on the appilcants grades, test scores, extracurricular activites, community service, and what economic standing is. Their should be diversty universities, but giving the upper hand to miniorites seems unfair. If people want to get in to a good school, they have to earn it and work for it. they cant just be given a leg up because of their race, its unfair. If minorites want to go to a top school, then they should have to earn it as every other person does. As Brianna said "we do not get to choose our ethnic background, and I feel that if students magically had that option, some would choose to be a minority for the chance to get into their top universities."
ReplyDeleteAlso, regarding what Annie said ("...it should be a goal that schools try to maintain an equally proportional amount of diversity to the country, within reason"), I think she's right.
ReplyDeleteAffirmative action as an apology doesn't make sense to me (it's like trying to replace a dead family member with a monetary settlement -- the harm is still done, but now you have something mostly unrelated as a sort of token apology; ie, slavery still happened but now it's marginally easier for black students with a high academic record to get into big-name colleges). But affirmative action as a way of maintaining diversity is better than nothing at all, at least until the time when race isn't as much of an issue and this diversity maintains itself.
I believe that affirmative action is unfair and is pretty ridiculous. I believe that it could be argued as unconstitutional. It puts really hard working whites in a disadvantage when applying to college, because the college doesnt want to be unfair to minorities. However, whites are starting to become minorities, so I am wondering if they will gain the advantage. I believe that the strongest argument for affirmative action is that students starting at a disadvantage need a boast. I believe that the strongest argument against affirmative action is that it leads to reverse discrimination.
ReplyDeleteI agree with what Briana said earlier. Colleges shouldn't give advantages on peoples' admissions just because of their ethnic background. They should just look at their high school GPA and their standardized testing scores. I also agree that it is important for colleges to have diversity since America is such a diverse place. But I believe that there is a better way to make colleges diverse then using affirmative action.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Eric that the strongest argument against affirmative action is reverse discrimination. However, I think that affirmative action was created with good intentions. It was a smart way to speed up integration. I do not feel like it is as necessary now to give people an advantage for their race/ethnicity. But on the other hand, affirmative action does increase diversity (as far as numbers go atleast), which I see is positive. Mr. Silverman brought up a good question about socio-economic status. I think this should be considered more than race. I keep going back and forth though, because, in the case of colleges, they are looking for diverse races over diverse backgrounds (which are more accurate in selecting a diverse group). But in the end, both are things that we can not control. We do not get to decide where we are born or what color skin or what gender we are. I think the intentions of affirmative action were noble and necessary at the time of racial prejudices, but our country has come far enough that affirmative could be rid of and everything should be based work ethic and meeting qualifications, things that are in the students control.
ReplyDeleteI think Lance and some of the other students need to step back, be honest with themselves, and understand that the SAT scores are not an objective way to make a diversified Class of 2014, which is the college class that we will be. if you took an SAT prep class then you have to admit that 1.) it's expensive (and you probably didn't pay for it yourself). 2.) your SAT scores went up . . . a lot!So, socio-economic factors DO play into SAT scores, and that's just as unfair as picking an applicant simply because they are African-American or Latino. You don't have a choice if you are born into a poor or a rich family any more than you have a choice if you are born into a Latino or African American family. So again, the Supreme Court is right in that the goal of diversity in college campuses is an admirable one, but that simply looking at race isn't going to cut it. I actually think that they know what they're doing when I read the court cases that Mr. Silverman posted.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Alexa and JK. Socio-economic status should be considered more than race. Just like for race, we can't choose what socio economic status we are born into. Colleges need to look at what the applicants socio-economic status is and make a decision off that instead of race. Race is playing to big of a factor when it comes to admittance to college.
ReplyDeleteAlso what Eric said is interesting. Whites are starting to become the minorities so it will be interesting to see what our "advantages" will be.
I think that the most effective argument in favor is that it doesn’t push students to work hard or perform better and that it demeans true minority achievement. I think it’s almost offending because it’s kind of saying that they need help to match someone else’s level and can’t do it on their own. The most effective argument against affirmative action is that it draws people to areas of study and work they may never consider otherwise. Someone may not know they like a certain subject until they are involved in it, and if it weren’t for affirmative action they wouldn’t have that opportunity. I personally don’t think it’s fair for everyone else. Some say it’s to “make up” of for slavery or oppression to minorities, but you can’t really change what happened and this is only making minorities work less and be in the same position as others. It might not be wrong, but I think it gives them the advantage when it comes to something so important and serious as their education. University of California v. Bakke proves my point. Bakke had good scores and others with lower scores got in instead of him…twice. It’s not fair to people like Bakke that work really hard and are at disadvantage because of Affirmative Action. I mean, sure it’s nice to get a little boost if you’re a minority, but it isn’t fair to the others.
ReplyDelete-Lety Buil Macarty
I definitely want to agree with Michael's comment where he quotes Mrs. Fish's "smart enough" reading. The argument that affirmative action rewards unqualified kids over qualified ones due to race or backgroud is bogus. Even Mr. Silverman's example, we see a comparison between two very qualified students. I do not think that schools should admit students SOLELY on the basis of promoting racial diversity, however I do not think that is what is happening. Of course students must be qualified to be accepted into college (granted that the standard for "qualified" can differ drastically between institutions).
ReplyDeleteThat said, does anyone here really think that the only things the college admissions staff see are our SAT scores, GPA, and our self-declared racial background? Of course many public schools focus more heavily on these things, usually because their extraordinarily large applicant pool keeps them from looking deeper into the students' backgrounds. But when looking at more competitive public schools and private schools, you can see (for better or worse) that race is not a deciding factor, but simply one of many catagories looked to for the purpose of promoting school diversity. These catagories could range from potential majors to athletic or musical talent to geographic location to community service to the sophistication of the application essay/personal statement. Every school is looking for slightly different things among its most academically qualified applicants.
I agree with Charlotte, they’re trying to make up for many years of oppression by making it easier for them to get into college. And I also agree with Eric when he said “It puts really hard working whites in a disadvantage when applying to college, because the college doesn’t want to be unfair to minorities.” Even though they’re trying to have some form of equality for minorities, they’re only making it unfair for whites. Also, I think it’s not really motivating for minorities because they know they have that advantage so they don’t work harder to get to whatever college they want to attend.
ReplyDelete-Lety Buil Macarty
I think the most effective argument in favor of affirmative action is Stanley Fish suggesting that "the playing field is already tilted in favor of those by whom and for whom it was constructed in the first place." As he suggested and others have already posted, things like SAT scores are poor representations of a students aptitude, merit, or readiness for college. Context is important: high school grades can be wrongly inflated, SAT scores may improve following a paid course, and graduating in the top 10% of a school like CHS is a far greater achievement than the same ranking in another school.
ReplyDeleteIt is an imperfect system, and maybe a fair course of action would be to allow affirmative action as long as it does not cause some kind of "undue burden" to admissions staff. Maybe that doesn't exactly make sense, but it is difficult to make such broad decisions without some kind of concrete example or context.
Regarding ALL affirmative action reasons, whether based on race, sex, economic status, or any other social category that I may have forgotten, I do not possibly see how it is in any case constitutional, practical, or even helpful to the nation as a whole. I will first quote again the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, which declares “no state shall deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” I view that this does and shall pertain to any laws or regulations that regard different treatments or levels of protection, and not just on race, but also on sex or economic status. I am not even stating that the black or Mexican or poor student is less qualified than the “privileged white male” as so many people think. This is just a clear statement that allowing different levels of protection is not equal and is a direct violation of the Constitution. That is the legal constitutional basis against ALL forms of affirmative action.
ReplyDeleteAllowing unequal levels of legal protection leads only to social tension. I noticed how many people see it is morally right to help those who are less in economic or educational status but may be just as motivated to succeed. While it is definitely not wrong to help the disadvantaged people, I believe it crosses boundaries with affirmative action. People should be allowed to help disadvantaged people as long as it does not hinder in any way the performance or earnings of other people. By that I mean that even economic affirmative action is wrong because it takes a “disadvantaged” person and gives them an “advantage”, making the originally “advantaged” person into a “disadvantaged” person when it comes to their educational needs. This is no more than a swap of standards that can not be justified because it does harm the possibilities of others. This arena of affirmative action does not help, for even if promoters of it have good intentions, it does not solve the problem of inevitable inequality of human nature and life. It is impossible to establish everybody of equal potential to have equal advantages and privileges, and in trying to solve this through affirmative action, there still exists the problem of imbalanced advantages.
Affirmative action, therefore, is constitutionally, morally, and naturally wrong and does not solve social inequalities in any way. It is a failed social program that messes with human nature and leads to social tension
The article states that "Students admitted on this basis (in favor of racial minority) are often ill-equipped to handle the schools which they’ve been admitted.” I find this statement to be completely inaccurate. Any individual applying to a competitive school, such as Harvard or Berkeley, would not be accepted unless said student could handle the academic rigor of the school. Competitive schools receive a multitude of qualified applicants. So many, in fact, that they end up rejecting a whole horde of students who would have had no problems with the academic environment. If there is a minority student who does not seem intelligent/hard-working enough to survive at Harvard/Berkeley, you can be sure that there are 100s of very capable minority students able to fill that spot.
ReplyDeleteIn response to Eric’s comment, I do not believe colleges are admitting students solely based on their ethnic background. Colleges look at a wide variety of factors such as community service, GPA, standardized test scores, athletics, etc… Whether a student is a minority applicant is just one factor that goes into the admission decision. Recently I watched a news clip about UC admission decisions for 2009-2010. The news clip quoted a woman who worked in the office of admissions at UCLA. The woman told how she had just read a gripping essay about a minority applicant that detailed the applicant’s hardships. However, the admissions counselor said she was unable to admit the student because the minority applicant was lacking in other areas such as GPA, test scores, and extracurriculars. This is just one instance demonstrating how admissions counselors’ decisions are based on many different things, and how admissions counselors will not admit minority students just because they are minorities or because they have suffered adversity.
ReplyDeleteI also disagree with Eric’s comment that colleges should “just look at [applicants] GPA and their standardized testing scores.” Students are much more than a product of how well they can perform on a single test or how many A’s they can earn in high school.
Overall, I think that affirmative action is a good idea, though there are aspects of the system that could use revision. I agree with the pro article in its suggestion that universities should "alter their criteria of application from race to socioeconomic disadvantage". While many of those that benefit from affirmative action are also those that are not well-off financially, the minority that are already capable of getting in without preference should not benefit. The real problem we have to tackle today are class barriers (although race ties heavily into this as well).
ReplyDeleteI wholeheartedly agree with Gabe's last point that we have to "tackle" class barriers as opposed to race. Studies show that socioeconomic status is a good indicator of one's success educationally and financially in the future. A high school student coming from a lower-class family has a statistically lower chance of being successful (success here is being defined as a stable job, good economic situation, etc.) than a student coming from a middle-class or high-class family. Race itself is no predictor whatsoever of one's future success. The issue at hand, though, is that white people typically make up the more of the high and middle classes and minorities (specifically blacks) make up the lower classes.
ReplyDeleteOverall, I agree with the Supreme Court rulings. I think that the Court's decision in one instance to reject affirmative action policies in one instance and protect them in another really demonstrates the complexity of affirmative action, that it's not 100% right or wrong. I agree with the ruling in Gratz v. Bollinger, because receiving points simply because of one's race doesn't seem to coincide with equal protection. When I read that a perfect SAT score receives less points than the minority points, it made me think of the whole concept of SATs being a standard, fair way to assess applicants. I totally agree with Julia, that wealthier families are able to pay for more SAT tutoring and practice than disadvantaged families, which (as the Princeton Review claims) will significantly increase your score. So, the many colleges claim to use affirmative action to "level the playing field", yet SAT scores still hold so much weight for applicants at most colleges. Some schools also claim to have abolished early decision because it put poorer students at a disadvantage, because they would need to compare financial packages at different schools before choosing. This makes enough sense, but with this type of reasoning, wouldn't SATs put poorer students at a disadvantage, too? Obviously, there are many issues with leveling the playing field of college admissions, even beyond affirmative action.
ReplyDeleteIn the second article Justice Clarence Thomas, in Adarand , espoused this view: “In my mind, government-sponsored racial discrimination based on benign prejudice is just as noxious as discrimination inspired by malicious prejudice. In each instance, it is racial discrimination, plain and simple." I can see where he is coming from and I agree. I believe that discrimination of race is the same as any other type of discrimination and although I think that it is good for schools and workplaces and so forth to have diversity, the bottom line is, discrimination is wrong. After we have tried to abolish discrimination so long ago in our country I think we are doing wrong by saying that some discrimination is okay but in most cases is not, and we are taking steps backward in our country.
ReplyDeleteWow, everyone is finding Affirmative Action ridiculous and I agree with them. I think that it was implemented for a good reason, to help out the minorities in America, but in a sense it ends up working as reverse discrimination and is not good for the equality of America.
ReplyDeleteSome people argue against affirmative action and say that it is “reverse racism” against whites. I disagree with going far enough as to call it racism, which is completely against the point affirmative action is trying to make. I'm a little divided on what I think about affirmative action because on one hand i do think it's very important to include at least some diversity in schools and universities but on the other hand i think it is unfair that someone can be more qualified than one person accepted and still not get in themselves. It's true that in a lot of areas that are underprivileged and might not have the best schools there happens to be a higher population of minorities, I'm not saying in every case, but in a lot of them. That's why i agree with the article when it said that "universities should alter their criteria of application from race to socioeconomic disadvantage." To me diversity is important, but when it comes to people working hard to reach goals that will lead them to what they want to do in life (i.e. going to medical school to be a doctor) i don't think anyone should be denied that because of the color of their skin when they're perfectly qualified.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Gabe and Troy that class barriers are the more important to break down. They are more influential than race in deciding what ends up for someone's career/life and it's astounding how much littler attention it gets compared to something like Affirmative Action, the only similarity is that race frequently ties into the classes.
ReplyDeleteI believe that the issue of affirmative action is too complex to categorize as "good" or "bad". I feel there are a lot of grey areas. In relevancy to college admissions, I feel that it should be a factor too make sure you provide a diverse campus in which everyone would feel comfortable, but not give 20 points priority as the UC system was doing. In the case of employment I recently heard of companies requiring their different divisions to interview, not hire, at least one person of a minority and feel that in companies where lack of diversity is an issue, this may be a great solution. No one is required to meet a hiring quota, but could in turn find an extremely qualified candidate that is a minority, and if not, hire someone else. Doing this also does seem to be in the "public's best interest".
ReplyDeleteIn response to what everyone is saying about how it feels that affirmative action was implemented to create diversity and aid minorities but creates a less equal environment, I wonder what we all feel is truly equal. If affirmative action were taken away, what would the racial statistics look like for higher education as well as America's top paying jobs? I feel that if we did not have it we would be asking for it, but since we do we only see the disadvantages. All are understandable and I'm not sure how I feel about it myself, but one has to consider what the country would look like without it being in place at all.
ReplyDeleteGoing back and reading some more of people's comments, I really like what Shannon said in her first comment that even though one person might be more qualified than another based on grades or test scores, there are still other things schools look at that could get a less qualified (grade wise) person accepted that doesn't necessarily have to be their race. Reading her comment let me look at this argument in a different way. I think when this issue comes up all people tend to focus on are how the slightly less qualified hispanic is going to be accepted before the 4.0 GPA caucasian. The fact is a university wouldn't accept a student who is majorly under qualified just because that student is a minority, so the minority students who are accepted deserve some credit when it comes to how qualified they are. And like Shannon said, schools are also looking for extra curricular programs and what interests you and where you want to go in life. I think that's worth noting in this argument
ReplyDeleteI would have to agree with a lot of what the previous statements are saying. I somewhat feel like if someone is more qualified then they should be accepted despite their race. Being a caucasian male I am actually at a disadvantage. I can also see however why colleges are doing this in order to create diversity unfortunately. I however do not agree to the extent they are doing because it feels now like you get into college soley based on your race. I think they need to reform their system, because like the post says above, extra curricular activities are usually an indication of how well rounded a student is.
ReplyDeleteGoing back to some of the first posts, by creating affirmative action in the colleges we are giving disadvantaged students an opportunity to get a degree an advance which is really what our country is supposed to be doing. I somewhat agree with Lance is saying in that some of the minority students are getting in and do not deserve their degree because they are being given so many advantages. They should be working just as hard and are in the same classes as people who got in because of grades so in some way their degree is just as credible.
ReplyDeleteI think the supreme court needs to pick a side. In the Backe case, they ruled affirmative action in that case unconstitutional, but in other cases ruled affirmative action constitutional. I think they are unintentionally sending mixed signals to the oublic. I feel like if more concrete guidelines about who would be allowed special admissions, etc. it would be easier to analyze and decide whether or not it is all fair.
ReplyDeleteAlthough I do not fully and completely agree with the idea of affirmative action, I believe it is somewhat helpful. I feel that even though it does help to provide diversity in many places, I do not think that it should be used so heavly in college acceptance. I think that people should not be given oppportunities because of their race, it should be because of what they can do. With people getting accepted to colleges because they bring diversity, it is unfair to the other applicants who are just as qualified, if not more qualified then them. Affirmative action should be used to bring diversity but not under the conditions that it unfairly denies the well-qualified applicants.
ReplyDeleteI strongly support affirmative action, though I can understand why some people might find it unfair. I think that it is completely unfair to say the only thing that should support weather or not you get in to a school is your grade point average and sat scores. Even if it isn't race that is giving you a leg up on being accepted into school there is always something else that could give you an advantage. For example I knew someone who had a 3.8 and a okay score on the sat but they got into Yale because they did track.There were probably a lot of people who applied to Yale and had higher grade point averages and sat scores but they were beaten out by this guy. It was important to Yale that they admit students who excelled in sports as well as academics. They want diversity at their campus and I think that diversity in interests is just as important as diversity in race. It's only natural that a campus would want to let in as large a mix of cultures as possible into their school. As a student I think that part of going to school in to be exposed to people with different races and cultures and learn from them.
ReplyDeleteAs many others have stated before I believe the affirmative action blows. It is my opinion that someones race shouldn't be a mandatory question on an application not only because in some instances it's not fair but also because I know and have heard stories about people abusing that question. For instance this kid I knew was the smallest percent of indian you could possibly be and he never ever was interested into learning about his heritage, but he went to a indian reserve and got his card so that he could put it on a college application and he is now going to an Ivy League school. I'm not saying he didn't deserve it but I don't think it should have come down to that. He was so desperate and knew what it took to get into a prestigious college he in a way ended up abusing the system. I have no doubt many other people are doing the same thing and if so it actually isn't adding to the diversity at all and is ruining the reason behind affirmative action in the first place. I'm not saying your admission should be solely based on academics and numbers. I think a better plan would be take into account the numbers but let the student express what they want to express in their personal essays. If they choose to talk about their race or financial situation then great, cutos to them but it shouldn't be what the student is most worried about.
ReplyDeleteAlthough I do disagree with the program as a whole, the diversity it adds to large universities is key to the college experience. I believe though that if ethnicity wasn't a question and they chose varying grade point averages they would get cultural diversity that way, maybe not the same amount bet it would still be present.
ReplyDeleteI can understand that colleges desire diversity on their campuses, however, I feel that colleges should not accept people because they are in the minority. I think it is important to have a mix of cultures and backgrounds in schools and work places, but I believe that applicants should be accepted based on their community service, extra curricular activities, grades, SAT scores,and ability, rather than race, socioeconomic backround, and sex. So overall, I guess I am against affirmative action.
ReplyDeleteI think that while diversity is something to be proud of, it should not be forced. If a school is diverse because under-qualified students were admitted for the sole purpose of diversity, I think that it does no justice to the concept of diversity. As great as diversity is on a college campus, the fact remains that people apply to college expecting to have their successes acknowledged, not necessarily their hard work. In terms of grades and standardized test scores, the effort put in doesn't matter as long as success is achieved. People can change their grades and test scores, but no one can change their ethnicity or socioeconomic status.
ReplyDeleteI like what maggie says about diversity being key to the college experience. However it is not required to fill in your ethnicity, every application I filled out you could skip or just click you’d rather not answer. Same with your income levels. I would rather go to a college with diversity than go to a school with people just like me. I believe that applicants should be accepted based on their community service, extra curricular activities, grades, SAT scores, and ability as well as their economical class, if they had disadvantages and how hard they strive. An applicant does however have the opportunity to show this on an essay that’s why most applications ask for more than your gpa and test scores.
ReplyDeleteAffirmative action is good idea in theory; however, there is the issue of students not having control over what can be a pretty influential factor in the college admissions process. Someone mentioned a runner who got into Yale with grades that were good, but not as good as many of the other applicants. This student has worked hard enough to achieve a certain skill level that makes him desirable to schools with track teams. However, this track star was in full control in the development of his track skills. A white student who had great success but was denied in place of a less qualified minority student had no control over his ethnicity. It's the same reason why nobody should be discriminated according to race; it's wrong, and it's out of their control.
ReplyDeleteWhile applying to college, one of the essay topics was to write about how my diverse background and experinces would contribute to their goal of becoming a more inclusive university. Living in Coronado has made it hard to have a diverse background, so I had some fear that because of this, it would hinder my chances of getting accepted. I did not want that college to be hung up on the fact that I do not bring all the diversity that they want, but I wanted them to look at my academics and extracuiricular activites. As much as I agree with what Lauren said about not wanting to go to college where everyone is the same, I dont think that it is right to cheat someone out of being accepted just becuase they do not provide diversity.
ReplyDeleteI thought that the most effective argument in favor of affirmative action was that "diversity is desirable and won't always occur if left to chance." I think that in many cases diversity would not be as noticeable if affirmative action laws were not in place. A lot of students grow up in very segregated areas before going away to college and it is important to broaden the knowledge of such students when moving away from home. Without affirmative action this is much less likely to occur. While I believe this to be true, I agree with the argument against affirmative action saying that "it demeans true minority achievement; i.e. success is labeled as result of affirmative action rather than hard work and ability." I think if a student wants to attend a top college, he or she should work and study hard in high school in order to be at the level the colleges are seeking. If not, he or she may not be truly prepared for the work that lies ahead at such a school. Personally, I am split on the issue. I think that diversity is a great thing and should be promoted not only in schools but in the workplace and elsewhere. At the same time, I don't think that it is really fair that a student who is in the majority should be at a pretty decent disadvantage, when he or she worked harder and is more qualified for the university.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Brennan, who said that it is not right to put someone at an advantage or disadvantage based on something that he or she had no control over. Although there would be an argument that those of the minority groups are not in control of the disadvantage they are put at either. I believe that when it comes to getting good grades and doing well in school it comes down less to being "naturally smart" or what race you are, and more to one's work ethic. If a student works hard and puts in the necessary time needed to understand the material he or she is learning in school, success will follow close behind.
although I am pretty much against Affirmative Action, I think the most persuasive argument is the "Students starting at a disadvantage need a boost". But I think this argument works both ways. Since when are you considered at a disadvantage when you are born a minority. Now granted there are many instances where these two things are the same, but that's not to say there are no disadvantaged white kids trying to apply to schools. But I think to say that ALL minorities are at a disadvantage is very racist itself.
ReplyDeleteThe most persuasive argument I found against Affirmative Action is "It would help lead a truly color-blind society". I think if universities threw out any Affirmative Action protocol, it would come down to the simple question, "Is this student ready(smart, motivated, mature, willing) enough to enroll at this college?". And if the student is ready, then he or she is in, and if not, that's life.
My first response to the Regents of the University of California v. Bakke case is how the decision was pretty split, 5-4. I just cannot see how 4 court justices can say how reverse discrimination is constitutional. That really baffles me
I would first like to thank Mr. Silverman for providing a great learning atmosphere and "fair and balanced" perspectives of the views of government and politics. It has been an exciting year and thanks for all the insight.
ReplyDeleteAnd now I congratulate the Senator-elect of Massachusetts Scott Brown, a Repulbican, for taking back a seat that has been held by Ted Kennedy since 1952!
Now back to the issues. Affirmitive action,by it's advocates, justifies to them the discrimination and the victimization of their race, nationality or socio-economic class. The articles provided by Mr. Silverman that advocate for this action look back a lot to the times where desegregation was a public policy that could not be easily enforced upon the South, in paticular Southern universities. So the logical thing the Federal government could do is provide federal grants to universities however with strings attatched. And slowly but surely they excepted the quotas the federal government demanded for blacks and more minorities groups over time became part of this loop hole that provided revenue for the school not just from the government but from associations that award grants based on nationality or race. If you want to find the motive for anything most of the time, follow the money.
However, affirmitive action didn't necessarily start in the Civil Rights movement, but during FDR's New Deal and of course Johnson's "Great Society" or the "War on Poverty". Less than 20% of the US population up until FDR had a college education, if not even high school. During FDR, there were programs and grants available for low-earning families to get educated and under Truman the GI Bill came in to foot the bill to educate military servicemen coming home. These grants are still around today. Why do universities especially want to know your tax statement, because they want to know how much they can get out of you.
So affirmitive action has become quite inter-twined within our universities not because there is sympathy to a race or a class, but for the wrong reasons: money.
I agree with maggie how colleges want diversity, and if they didn't ask about ethnicity, they could just take other varying criteria, such as GPA, Majors, Minors, Hometown, and many other criteria that would offer colleges diversity. They defiantly do not need to ask about race to ensure diversity.
ReplyDeleteNow not to say that there are no good intentioned people who think by adding a diverse racial demographics it adds variety to the school and shows a schools tolerance to all people. But if you really want a better higher education experience, get race out of the way and see that a black,white, brown, pink, orange man is not judged as by that, but judged as a MAN!!
ReplyDeletePersonally, being a current college applicant waiting to hear back from schools, I strongly disagree with affirmative action. I think that it is unfair that minorities with a slightly worse gpa would get chosen over someone who has a better gpa and SAT scores. I agree with Hilary's comment that affirmative action is racist against the non minority. I do think that it is fair that the harder working student would get accepted over someone who works less hard, and the best way to view how hard someone works is through their grades. I'm not trying to say that the less-privilidged minority applicant doesnt work hard, because it's easy to assume that they face many challenges and difficulties within their lifetime. But who's to judge that the non-minority applicant hasn't worked just as hard or even harder? Affirmative Action is an unfair way for students to be accepted to college.
ReplyDeleteThe way I see it, like many people above me have commented, affirmative action is reverse discrimination. As important as diversity is, like Brennan said, it should not be forced.
ReplyDeleteReading some of the blog posts above, it is interesting to hear some of the posts that are for or against affirmative action. Annie's post, for instance was really interesting and there were a few points that I totally agree with. I think that it is important for colleges to have diversity. But I don't feel that colleges accepting many diverse students is that big of a problem. Diversity is going to be everywhere you go and its not like its something that can be contained. Diversity is not only in your race, its also in your religion, beliefs, heritage, experiences, etc and affirmative action is not the right way to fulfill a quota of diverse students.
ReplyDeleteTroy made a point from the article "Students admitted" that there are plenty of students out there that fitt the profile of a minority or a social-class whom have high credentials and are not appointed to universities based on race. And Michael Silverblatt made a good statement back from Mrs. Fish that you only need to be smart enough. So if this is the case that we really judge based off the credentials and merit of the candidate in his group, why do we need quotas if that is the case.
ReplyDeleteThe reason is because there is an expectation by society that the minority is going to need more help and thus they lower the expectations for certain demographics. It is seen in national test scores where they find a lot of minorities scoring lower than the white/asian population. Instead of trying to raise the bar of success and bringing up minorities to higher levels, our education systems allows them to "slide". You wonder why our society finds it hard to compete against education systems in Europe and Asia? Because we dumb our students down, this includes minorities, the poor, whites, etc.; we have lower success levels so that low achieving students can "pass" instead of giving them an incentive to work hard. I'm sorry this may offend some, but the facts are that the way we are sensitive to other's self-esteem, especially to race and class, forces our students to be soft and the least competitive.
I got a little side-track on my attack on the American education system so allow me to make this fine point: If Universities are really excepting people based on race and class, why then have a MLK memorial? Why then prohibit the Jim Crow signs? Affirmitive action takes a bigger issue to the table than just acceptance of a university, it degrades a college candidate, with all his/ her success and virtues, to nothing more than a choice in picking your favorite color.
I am not a white man, but a MAN! I have seen enough to know when quotas are used to discriminate, not end discrimination.
From reading many of these pros and cons of affirmative action I found some of the most effective arguments against it were “there's no association between skin color and intelligence/discipline/etc. So why do we keep drawing attention to it?” And another that talked about “minority doctors, lawyers, business leaders, etc. Too often, their achievements are demeaned by people who believe preferential treatment got them to their current positions. Minorities must then work twice as hard to earn respect.” The argument against affirmative action that I agreed with the most was in the first reading when Shelby Steele said “But I think the unkindest cut is to bestow on children like my own an undeserved advantage while neglecting the development of those disadvantaged children in the poorer sections of my city who will most likely never be in a position to benefit from a preference.”
ReplyDeleteThe most effective arguments in favor of was when the situation put a new perspective on the goals of affirmative action. “Colleges go out of their way to make sure that their student bodies contain athletes, political activists, and musicians so that each student brings something different to the community. Affirmative action assures that members of all ethnic groups are present within a college.”
In my opinion I don’t agree with affirmative action. With the whole college craze that we’re all in at this point in our lives I think the last thing people want to receive is a rejection from the school you’ve had your heart set on since you were eight because you’re a white male and they were looking for a black female. Sorry, looks like you were just born at a bad time? One would argue that’s not “faire” while the other would say that slavery wasn’t faire. I understand that the playing field is “tilted” but what about tilting the acceptance system? It gives an undeserved advantage to someone who doesn’t need it while another member in the community might, even if they’re white. There are a lot of pros and cons to affirmative action but at this point in the process I side with the cons.
In response to what Eddie said earlier about other factors determining your acceptance to schools, I agree. I believe that just saying yes or no based on numbers is ridiculous. All that’s doing is giving you the valedictorians from every high school and that’s definitely not diverse. In addition to numbers it shouldn’t also be your race. It should be a mixture of many varying factors that help you achieve a goal like going to college. Getting something handed to you more easily because of your racial background is not how the process should work. If you put the time and effort into reaching a goal then you should be able to succeed without a third factor, hanging off to the side, of what your ethnic background is. I also really like what Charlotte said however, that “affirmative action as a way of maintaining diversity is better than nothing at all, at least until the time when race isn't as much of an issue and this diversity maintains itself.” Hopefully we’re all still around by the time diversity is able to maintain itself and I do see that as being one pro of affirmative action.
ReplyDeleteI think that affirmative action is unfair to many students and should not be allowed on the premise that it is unconstitutional. There are many hard working students who deserve to be accepted to colleges and jobs, but are not due to their race. Everyone controls how hard they work, but no one can control their race. When colleges use affirmative action, it is discrimination and should be seen as such. just because someone is a minority does not mean that they should be allowed in a college more than a more intelligent majority member. Schools will still obtain a diverse campus if they do not use affirmative action because not all whites are the smartest.
ReplyDeleteI agree with what troy said when he was talking about how the status of someone's class in society can determine their success in life. It is generally seen that individuals from the lower class do not have a large success rate. Many may say because they do not have the ability to pay for college and school materials, however affirmative action has been in place for some time now and they have yet to have a success rate. People raised in a upper or middle class home usually have a hardworking lifestyle, and good morals, and i think that is why we should not have affirmative action.
ReplyDeleteOn most political issues I often times find myself understanding and feeling there is legitimacy to both sides of the issue. The kind of thing where an eloquent and articulate argument could make me sway a little. However when it comes to affirmative action, I see it as pretty clear cut. If we ever want to move closer towards equality we need to stop treating minorities like they are inferior to us, and stop worrying about seeming racist if what we are doing isn't. By having higher standards for white people basically its saying you expect more from them- in my estimation a slap in the face to everyone else. Only by measuring everybody by the same stick can we move forward in this gradual process of equality and peace between all races. Giving certain people an advantage over another is just a way to foster hostility and anger at one another. I really don't see any argument as valid for affirmative action, even the "push for diversity" claim is garbage in my opinion. Colleges aren't there to make people feel good and make it a world tour of races at campuses. They exist solely to educate the best and the brightest, and may the best human win- no matter their color.
ReplyDeleteFrom a constitutional perspectiv it also appears invalid. To make separate rules and leanings for different races there must be- in the words of Professor Silverman " A REALLY REALLY REALLY GOOD REASON". I truly do not see making up for slavery and trying to seem open-minded as a REALLY REALLY REALLY good reason. I think this once again comes back to the enormous issue in western culture of politcial correctness, a cancer that eats away at logic and reason. People are either afraid to offend people and reject them, or want to appear like mr. friendly and inclusive, and this is done under the guise of "diversity". Garbage
ReplyDeleteI have to agree to what Nick says, even though I'm part of minority. Affirmative action ruins the equality that America as a whole is trying to achieve. I think that affirmative action is kind of belittling monorities saying that we could not beat the majority out there. Furthermore, affirmative action is also "babying" minorities in an unhealthy way. Minorities should fight for their rights at their own terms without special treatment. Without affirmative action, the odds of each minority or majority student in getting into college presents a good competition, not in a political sense but on merit basis.
ReplyDeleteRegarding what Mr. Silverman said about the two students, I think that it is okay for the female to be admitted over the white male, but not because of race. I believe that it is easier for a student to excel at La Jolla High School than it is for the same student studying in South Central Los Angeles. So the student from south-central should be admitted over the student from La Jolla, but not because of race or gender.I think that race should not have any influence whatsoever in the process of college admissions or jobs. I agree with the Bakke v. University of California decision because I think that Affirmative Action was created to protect against discrimination, not to institute it. That being said, I think that people tend to make Affirmative Action into much larger an issue than it is. Yes, it may be slightly unfair, but that's just the way the world works.
ReplyDeleteTo an extent I agree with the issue of affirmative action. However, i do agree that this type of action should be deemed as unconstitutional because it guarantees acceptance and oppurtunity only to those of race regardless of work ethic or intellectual capacity. Being accepted to a college should solely be based off of how a student meets the requirement of the campus's guidelines regardless of their skin color.
ReplyDeleteThe only way that affirmative action seems acceptable to some is that it does preserve diversity within institutions to some extent. But preserving diversity of an institution should not be at the cost of denying a students right of receiving the education of their intent. I agree with Abel's comment that Affirmative Action entirely depletes the virtues of American equality.
ReplyDeleteWell for the sake of arguement i thought i should include some of the reasons why affirmative action is a good thing:
ReplyDeleteMinority students often have a bad start due to financial or welfare reasons. Many minorities live in less than desirable conditions such as the ghetto. The minority parents also find it hard to find work especially in this economy, leading to students working to help their parents pay the rent and living costs. With affirmative action, this would allow minority students a "boost" in their college pursuits.
From on of the articles it said that "Affirmative action is needed to compensate minorities for centuries of slavery or oppression". I guess this is true for African Americans. They toiled hard in the white men's fields for no pay so a little bonus would hurt. Similarly, compensation is needed for Latin Americans workers out there who worked minum wage for long hours.
I would like to say that it was way harder to say good things about affirmative action. Although it does help minorities, it seems to have more cons than pros.
As an athlete, I really liked what Brennan had toaay about the runner who got into Yale. Yes, it is a factor that is not at all academic, but it's something that was influenced by the student's hard work, not something outside of the student's control like race or gender. I just don't think factors outside the student's (or job applicant's) control should be considered, for better or for worse.
ReplyDeleteI disagree with affirmative action because T do not think it is fair that a student is chosen over another just because of their race. Although a diverse background may be important in college, I believe academics should come first.
ReplyDeleteThis issue is obviously extremely controversial and for good reason. I feel there is not correct answer that everyone can agree on. To me affirmative action seems like an easy way for our society to claim that it is becoming more "diverse". I don't think letting a less qualified applicant into a school above a more accomplished one helps diversity at all. Pushing supposedly diverse people who are not at the standards of the job or school through does not help them or anyone. We all learn differently and if one does not meet certain criteria (perhaps unimportant except in society's views) then they will fail or simply stumble through.
ReplyDeleteHowever through reading the articles, the fact of percentages of students that benefit from affirmative action in poverty, struck me. Affirmative action is more acceptable in my eyes if it is due to economic status, as Mr. Silverman brought up. This is something that is extremely, if not impossible, to control, and can be a definite handicap on a student. I, living in Coronado my whole life, have noticed that I am extremely blessed and have access to things such as good tutors and a very strong high school. A student growing up in a poor neighborhood will not have the same access to tutors for things like the SAT and school. This gives me a extreme advantage.
Over all I cannot see affirmative action going away as it has helped our society in some regards, but it is definitely a flawed system.
I definately agree with most of my peers before me when I say that I do not wholely support Affirmative Action. I do agree in diversity and its aid in any academic environment, but i do not think that "handicaps" are the correct way to go about it. College acceptance should be based off of achievement and academia, not things one has no control over, such as ethnicity.
ReplyDeleteOther forms of college aid can rely on finacial situations, but they shouldnt specify to a certain ethnicity. If this is about socio-economic status and how it limits your opportunities, then aid and "handicaps" should be givin based on your family size and income, not on your race.
One quote that caught my eye, from one of the pro-affirmative action articles was the quote that stated: “Colleges go out of their way to make sure that their student bodies contain athletes, political activists, and musicians so that each student brings something different to the community. Affirmative action assures that members of all ethnic groups are present within a college.” It think this quote is very interesting, and brings an interesting topic into the argument of affirmative action. When most people think about how colleges are extremely selective with their athletes, and other diverse types of students that they want on their campus, such as musicians and political activists, no one really puts up a fuss. But when the element of colleges selecting students based on their racial backgrounds comes into conversation, many people divert to calling it "reverse racism." Although choosing students based on their athletic skills and unique talents, and their racial background are very different, they are both done with a common goal in mind: achieving a diverse campus in which students can experience the diversity of the real world.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis is Colton
ReplyDeleteMy thoughts are mixed. I feel that it is good in that it allows people who may not have gotten a certain position a chance for success, while on the other hand it does create jobs where people are not fully qualified.What I dont like is that affirmative action was created to make the playing field even where in reality it makes it so that people who arnt white dont have to work as hard just because they arnt white. I was taught that all people are equal so I think it is fair to say that he or she who works the hardest and who is most qualified should get the position regaurdless of skin color. I also kinda agree with lance only not that super hardcore
On the subject of Affirmative Action, I believe it is unequal because it favors minorities in admission to universities or employment for government and business, and eliminates the chances of a white American for those positions. I question the policy, is it appropriate to favor a minority for a position, when a white citizen has the same qualifications and opportunity? Is it fair to deny a person of the white race to another of a minority, just because of their sex, religion, race, and ethnicity? I find the answers of these questions: No! I believe that to treat everyone the same and get the point across that the white race is not superior to minorities, all people need to be valued and treated with the same respect and standards, this includes minorities and the white race. We will never be able to successfully accept everyone as equal as long as we give a group of people more opportunities and acknowledgements, than to other groups. With this being said my viewpoint of Affirmative Action is unequal and unfair.
ReplyDeleteMy viewpoint comes from the websites that have made appropriate reasons why Affirmative Action is skewed in terms of equality. I agree with the reason that affirmative actions leads to reverse discrimination. If Affirmative action is designed to end discrimination of people with different race, religion, sex, etc., then why must a white student who has worked just as hard as say an African American student, who has a lower GPA and test scores, be denied an education? If the answer is just because the white students has the majority race over the student of a minority, to me, that does not seem remotely fair. With that being said I also agree that Affirmative Action lowers the standards to push students to work harder. Affirmative Action is also hypocritical in the sense that it wants to encourage equality, but denies a student because of their race, like in the case of the white student v. minority student in the acceptance of college.
However, I do believe that the other viewpoint, in favor of Affirmative Action, is valid. The one reason I find was more affective is that it “draws people to areas of study and work they many never considered otherwise, as said in the website, http://www.balancedpolitics.org/affirmative_action.htm. Affirmative Action is welcome to the people who believe that because of their race they are not able to accomplish their dreams of becoming a doctor, lawyer, or even the President of the United States, because of they are a person of the minority. Affirmative Action has helped this people to become ambitious and throw away the common misconception that they are not good enough. Many of these people are granted their wish of becoming better in life and furthering their education and careers. But, my overall viewpoint is that Affirmative Action should not be allowed, and therefore taken away from schools, the government, and businesses.
I believe with the point brought up by Mr. Silverman and Kevin S., if Affirmative Action deals with economic status of a person, it becomes appropriate. I agree with the point kevin made, "This (affirmative action) is something that is extremely, if not impossible, to control, and can be a definite handicap on a student. I have met student who are not as fortunate and able to access the opportunities we have here at CHS. Many of them because whether their family cannot afford college, or maybe their school is not the most affluent, they are unable to attend the school of their choice (mostly 4-year) and go to a cc. Like Kevin, I have lived my whole life in Coronado, and throughout my education here I have been able to access to things in order to help my needs, such as tutoring in my math subjects, SAT/ACT tutoring, and college help with my counselor at CHS. I feel that most of take for granted what many students in our nation dream of having at their schools and in their life. Affirmative Action can take care of the people who cannot afford or get help, like most of us have here at CHS, to further their education and therefore, gain a professional career they can use to support them. In the case of a person's economic status, I do think Affirmative Action is necessary and appropriate.
ReplyDeleteOn the other hand, I do really agree with Colton's statement. It is hard for me to really understand the position and prejudices that many minorities face in their lives. Affirmative action might simply be a way of evening out the scales. These minorities could be just as smart and have just as much potential as a higher scoring white student, they simply just did not have the resources to express such on their college application.
ReplyDeleteIn response to what Lance said I would have to say that I strongly disagree. I don't think that it is realistic to say that with affirmative action unqualified students will get in to universities where they are not qualified. Affirmative action implies that colleges should accept minority students who are qualified for that school. I think that it is very unlikely that a university would accept someone who was completely unqualified. It is perfectly understandble that if two students are equally qualifiedthe one who is a minorty would be the one to get admitted.
ReplyDeleteI think it is important to allow an equal opportunity for all people to attend university or higher-education. However, higher education is about education, an area where race or any other defining factor besides one's educational experience and qualifications is irrelevant. I believe strongly that institutions can be biased and only allow members of a majority race or people they see "appropriate" to attend their school, and affirmative action can be helpful in making sure that there is no bias and that candidates are accepted because of their qualification and no other factor. However, if affirmative action begins to place an unfair roadblock to a student well-suited to attend a school simply because of their status as a majority race or whatever, the system is not working. Ideally a system that evaluates the admission processes of an institution and assures that these processes are soley concerned with academics and are not influenced by race or other factors would be a good way to assure fairness. The case against UC by Bakke stands out to me as an example of affirmative action gone too far.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Nick that if I were a member of a minority and was only accepted to a school because of this, I would feel a little offended and even patronised. I think it is important for one to know that one is going somewhere because they are genuinely suited to go there - not because one has a convenient race or sexual orientation, &c.
ReplyDeleteI think that the question Anna points out of the arguments against affirmitive action, which states why we still profile people and thier intelligence according to their ethinicity, etc. is a very valid point. It is true that today in many places there is still much discrimination. With a growing number of new American citizens and more applicants to college I think that the admissions workers should take into account more than just ethnicity and race into account. The hard work theory as mentioned by Brennan is something to be thought about seriously. Education at a university/college level is just what it says it is in the title, a higher level education. Schooling is a learning process where factors of race and ethnicity should not be. Those who work hardest and merit the benefit and privelage of attending a certain institue should be admitted. Of course there is the argument of people being in a situation that wouldn't allow them to be able to have a chance at attending such places, but I think if there's a will there's a way. Today there are so many opportunities, and I think everyone has the capability and equal opportunity.
ReplyDelete