I'm against AA because of my life experience.
I went to a poor predominantly black (88%) high school. I had smart black friends and equally smart white friends. My black friends, who could not otherwise afford college, received scholarships. My white friends, who could not afford college, received no scholarships. My white friends are now stuck in relatively crappy jobs.
Just to highlight how extreme it was at my school. My friend Mike, who was white, scored a 1200 on the SAT (old score measure) 3.8gpa applied to 4 state schools, he was accepted to all but did not qualify for any scholarships. Mike is the son of single mom school teacher with 5 kids making 35k a year. He did not attend a university, while he hopes to someday too.
My other friend Dave, who was black, scored just over 900 on the SAT with a lower GPA, a low 3, applied to several schools and received a scholarship to most of them. He went to school for 2 years before dropping out.
With state undergrad institutions, I have issue with the awarding of scholarship money based on race. With grad schools, I have issues with basically every aspect. Grad school admittance and scholarship offers should be merit based.
First, why are you speaking of your black "friend" in that manner? Dropping out doesn't equate with failure. The last time I checked, students could go back to school, and most students do not finish within the prescribed four-year time frame.
As a URM, I have struggled mightily with the AA issue. I once naively believed that replacing race-based AA with economic/class-based AA would benefit the good of society. But I want to offer this Amicus Brief/Amici Curiae for Grutter v. Bollinger, (created by HYS students) for thought:http://www.law.yale.edu/documents/pdf/News_&_Events/BLSA_Amicus_Brief.pdf
Below is an excerpt from that brief:ALTERNATIVE RACE-NEUTRAL ADMISSIONS
POLICIES CRITICALLY DIMINISH THE NUMBER
OF BLACK STUDENTS AT ELITE LAW
SCHOOLS AND ARE NOT EFFECTIVE SUBSTITUTES
FOR CURRENT RACE-CONSCIOUS
As discussed above, elite law schools fulfill their
public missions by providing racially diverse academic
environments and training attorneys to improve the legal
profession and serve the public. These law schools cannot
continue to realize their missions if they are not able to
consider race as one factor in admissions decisions.
The 21 leading approaches that have been touted as viable race-neutral
alternatives to current law school admissions
policies that take race into account are not in fact
effective, workable or desirable with respect to elite law
schools. Abandoning race-conscious admissions at elite law
schools would lead to a catastrophic reversal of the incremental
progress toward greater racial inclusiveness that
these schools have made. For black students, a shift to a
color-blind or race-neutral admissions system would lead
to admissions results that are tantamount to “the inexorable
Cf. Johnson v. Transp. Agency, 480 U.S. 616,
656-57 (1987) (O’Connor, J., concurring) (quoting International
Bhd. of Teamsters v. United States, 431 U.S. 324,
342 n.23 (1977)) (discussing prima facie evidence of discrimination
under Title VII).
The race-neutral alternatives discussed below are demonstrably
inferior to raceconscious
policies in achieving racial diversity because
they cannot ensure that black students will be represented
in meaningful numbers at most, if not all, of the elite law
schools. Consequently, such alternatives would also
exclude black students from access to gateways to some of
the most prestigious positions in the legal profession.
Accordingly, the benefits gained from employing race-conscious
admissions policies are distinct from, and
greater than, those provided by race-neutral alternatives.11
11 Moreover, even if an effective race-neutral alternative could be
implemented, the mere availability of such an alternative would not
provide a justification for forgoing the use of race-conscious measures.
In fact, race-neutral alternatives cannot fairly be characterized as more
narrowly tailored than carefully crafted race-conscious policies. If race-neutral
alternatives are as effective as the policies they replace, then
these race-neutral policies “trammel” the expectations of third parties...