Affirmative Action Reform

[Should progressive steps be taking by institutions in order to increase enrollemnt of low-income students so they can be in a postion to change the conditions in their communities?]

Should progressive steps be taking by institutions in order to increase enrollemnt of low-income students so they can be in a postion to change the conditions in their communities?

Yes

No

[CaliToD.C.]

I came up with this topic in response to a post on BLSD but decided not to post it there out of respect of the rules of the board. I personnaly think race based affrimative action has become increasingly irrelevant and is in dire need for reform. Affrimative action was desinged to promote diversity and provide disadvantaged minorities the opportunity to attain an education and pull themselves out of poverty. AA has become adversely effective in the sense that his has given many minorities the opportunity to attend college, but the wrong ones. Many of the students of color that get into universities through race based programs are students who come from families of privelege and therefore are less diserving of that admissions boost. Think about it, one of the fundamental reasons behind affirmative action is to promote diversity within the classroom, but there is little to no diversity coming from a student of color who has been raised in white environments their entire life and share the exact same values as upper-class whites do. I'm sure many students are aware of this and use this to their advantage by lacing their personal statements with comments about "minority issues" and "helping the Black cause" just to get the adcoms off on their application when in all reality they have NO intention on doing *&^% for the minority community.These upper-class minorities were able to enjoy the luxuries of being raised in a affluent household where money was never an issue and they recieved the best quality education, but they persist to claim a racial disadvantage when applying to schools. This is unfair to all the other applicants who actually do come from skaky backgrounds and disadvantaged communities who really do have intentions on hepling  to solve the ills of society and who would bring far greater diversity to the classroom.

Say this I propose to redefine the current meaninf of AA in a way that is more affective at addressing its intital purpose. I think AA SHOULD be economic based instead of race based. This would make AA far less discriminatory against all applicants and remove the negative stigma that ALL minorities must face when they enter college. This would be much more effective at helping peolpe who have been raised in neighborhoods of poverty lift themselves up and bring their communities with them. This solution would help end the continued occurence of higher education constantly being occupied by the elite groups of society, be them white or people of color.

[Ladyday]

Touche, I agree with you, to a certain degree (99%  ). I think that AA should be reformed as well, to recognize those whites that are economically disadvantaged, and so that those students of color who come from similiar backgrounds as their white counterparts are judged on the same criteria. However, in terms of the way AA is today, I don't think that # of students of color that come from rich families is any more significant than those who are legacy admits.

[CaliToD.C.]

Oh hell yeah! That legacy *&^% and all them other back door programs need to be abolished hella quick! Or at least be brought to the light because nobody ever speaks on them.

[ryanjm]

I agree. The whole "rich black kid" thing is what most white people female dog about when they talk about URM's getting preferential treatment. I'm all for people that grew up in a bad environment w/o any money getting a little help, but for URMs that had no money problems and grew up middle-class it's stupid.

[The Name's Dali]

I agree with you 100% Pharoah Rich

[the REAL desi]

Oh hell yeah! That legacy sh*t and all them other back door programs need to be abolished hella quick! Or at least be brought to the light because nobody ever speaks on them.

i believe most schools will admit the fact that being a legacy will help in admissions

[shai]

As much as admissions standards aren't perfect and may need some adjustments, let's not be too quick to cry out for the 'legacy' deal to be abolished.
without these so-called legacies, the cost of running my college would skyrocket. These legacies not only tend to pay full tuition, but their parents/relatives tend to contribute a lot to the college's endowment and other needed programs on campus. Without these legacies, my college tuition, as well as that of peer schools like williams/amherst would easily top $60k.

It's so easy to blame and dismiss some admissions practices, but w/o 'legacies' my ass wouldn't have the 95% discount i've had at a college where it costs nearly $40k/yr to attend.

Oh hell yeah! That legacy sh*t and all them other back door programs need to be abolished hella quick! Or at least be brought to the light because nobody ever speaks on them.

[Everyman]

Great post Pharoah!

In any case, on legacies.  I can't stand them, I hate them.  Maybe it's because I'm the product of a factory worker and a hairdresser (neither of which even sniffed a college campus), but when I saw the "Have any relatives attended Umich.." when I applied for undergrad, I was pissed.  At the same time, I think fully private (*no* gov money at all) institutions should be able to.  It's their school, let them do what they want. 

I think that socioeconomic AA would be best as well, too.  Not only b/c it would allow some poor non-URMs in, but also because it would increase URM representation just as a result of certain economic realities.  URMs are more likely to have less $$ in America, consequently they'd be more likely to benefit from these programs.

But when seriously considered, people say that it's "just pushing class warfare"

[Ella Mae]

I think any program that attempts to address systemic inequalities needs to take into account the intersectional nature of marginalization.  Its not just race, or just class, or just gender, or just ability, etc.  Those who are the most disadvantaged are the ones that usually face multiple systemic barriers.  Building any AA program that only focuses on one aspect is going to inevitably distort the admissions and let some undeserving people in while letting others who really need the support slip through the cracks once again.  Programs need to be designed to be able to see more than one factor.

[CaliToD.C.]

The whole point of AA was to give minorities the opportunity to raise out of horrendous social conditions and possibly uplift their group. Everyone who get admitted to college is deserving and qualified eventhough there might be someone out there more so, so I think that is the weakest argument against AA. If AA is reformed to target the economically disadvantaged, which dispproportionately happen to be people of color, the supreme court will have a difficult time trying to underscore its practices and have a hard time finding constitutional language that deems it discriminatory.