Affirmative Action is for people not smart enough to get in without it

[Xony]

people, I'm not bashing AA just for the sake of bashing AA.  What I am saying is that it is a non-effective way to achieve whatever equality it tried to achieve.  It aint working, so it's time to think of something else.  It is insulting, I would imagine, to a minority person to be told that they can enter a job/school/whatever only bcs they are a minority..but had they been white, they'd be not good enough.  It's racist against the  majority too.  I had to give up my spot in an elite high school bcs I am white - but some other person who performed worse than me and had a bit more melanin in their skin got in.   It isn't my fault that some person's parents had to work 3 jobs to make ends meet...why should my future suffer bcs of it?  It's the gov't fault...for having horrible welfare laws, pathetic minimum wages, taxing the poor and giving bill gates a tax break!  basicly, it's all the republican's fault 

[strouse]

AA is demeaning and an insult to those it pretends to help.  (if you don't feel insulted, you should)

[DJ-C]

The minimum wage laws are pathetic, they should be abolished.  They do a great job of creating unemployment (see Economics 101.)  The welfare state is horrible, and needs to be drastically reduced.  Bill Gates deserves a bigger tax break (we should encourage great inventors, not punish them) and so do the poor.  This country was founded on the basic idea of individual rights, and we should be working towards that ideal, not against it.  People need to take responsibility, not pass the buck.  And that's exactly what AA does -- it passes the buck.  It says that certain people aren't capable of being responsible for their own lives.  It is highly insulting to suggest that URMs cannot succeed without handouts.

[strouse]

I wonder why race has to be used at all?  Wouldn't it be better to just exclude the question entirely?  With no interviews, there is complete equality in Apps.

[yrbadluck]

I wonder why race has to be used at all?  Wouldn't it be better to just exclude the question entirely?  With no interviews, there is complete equality in Apps.

actually,  the same system of privilege would present itself in a "non-racialized" app system.   where you live, the schools you attended, issues of legacy, etc.  plus lower standarized test scores are typically reflective of years of preparation and resources not intelligence.  thats why people complain that URM's dont have the scores to get in. 

[Jay the Great]

Oh, man! You sure outed me!! I totally spent every night in college drinking and I slept through ALLLL of my classes (and all of my exams!) to graduate in the top 10% of my class. Phi Beta Kappa inducted me because of an error in their files!! All those awards I got? I don't know where they came from!! And the applications for the fellowships I was awarded must have filled THEMSELVES out. You're right, I haven't done a damn thing in my life, but (how lucky is this!?) 50+% of the country thinks I'm less than human, so Harvard Law, here I come!!!!!!

Is that the reason you haven't been accepted to any law schools?

[NJHandyGirl]

why don't we see AA in the rap or hip hop music business?  why dont' we have AA in the NBA or football?  Those fields seem pretty dominated by african american people.  shouldn't we use the same arguement you have below to improve the diversity in these fields as well?

Or should it be best man gets picked for the job regardless of his race?

I wasn't going to respond to this thread because quite frankly the entire discussion is getting old. However, this post caught my interest as, the poster is talking about the performers. Who are the owners of the NBA teams or football teams--predominantly non-URM; who owns the record companies--predominantly non-URM. The movie 8-mile, made it seem like Eminem "saved" rap music.

I am not a big fan of AA either. However, AA and programs like it are simply in place because of the lack of a level playing field. It is not just apparent in school or the workplace, it is also apparent in the housing industry and others. When I looked for an apartment in an upscale area of Long Island, despite my 6-figure income and stellar credit, there were times I would arrive to see a place and was not let in to see it. Then, when I decided to buy a house, instead of deal with those attitudes, I had a non-URM realtor take me only to "ghetto" type areas. Houses across from projects and vacant lots. I've never seen a project in my life! I ended up buying a house in a "tony" suburban of NJ, with a quarter acre lot. It made me want to take pictures and send them to all of the jerks I met during the process.

So, whether you like AA or not, programs such as it are necessary in order to prevent the type of discrimination which could be caused, simply by having the wrong person (with the wrong attitude) in charge of the hiring process, or the admissions process or the landlord process.

[I hear America singing]

I find it humorous (and slightly pathetic on my part) that most of the people who can defend AA have chosen to leave this thread alone, because they realize that it would simply devolve into a whining fest.

Enjoy yourselves, gentlemen.

[zenbiddie]

I still think that AA is only effective/appropriate in the earlier tiers of education.  Give children opportunities/health care/good educations...when they are young if you want to truly address inequities.  Who needs more resource an at risk child or a grad student?  A minority in a position to apply to grad school is the exception, they'll find their way regardless of any preferential treatment.  If our goal is too address the problem, give the benefits where they can make a difference.  AA in higher education cheapens the achievements of people of color.  Whether it is valid or not URMs are assumed in many higher education arenas and professions to have had a "leg up."  Does that really help?  Regardless of feelings or politics, as long as AA rewards a minority of the minority....it doesn't work.  Give the advantages to children/family foundations instead of patting ourselves on the back or complaining when a few people receive a perceived benefit that at best maintains the status quo.

as i stated in a different thread, AA is like a band-aid on gangrene.  it fails to solve the problem (eliminating inequity) and only exacerbates societal tensions.  the concept has outlived its usefulness.  i agree that if the goal is to level the playing field after centuries of systemic oppression then investment in the proper education of children is a critical part of the solution.  quotas and such need not be utilized to properly educate children. 

after all the children are properly educated and workforce ready, i wonder if parity in pay will be an issue.

[BoscoBreaux]

The minimum wage laws are pathetic, they should be abolished.  They do a great job of creating unemployment (see Economics 101.)  The welfare state is horrible, and needs to be drastically reduced.  Bill Gates deserves a bigger tax break (we should encourage great inventors, not punish them) and so do the poor.  This country was founded on the basic idea of individual rights, and we should be working towards that ideal, not against it.  People need to take responsibility, not pass the buck.  And that's exactly what AA does -- it passes the buck.  It says that certain people aren't capable of being responsible for their own lives.  It is highly insulting to suggest that URMs cannot succeed without handouts.

Your theory regarding minimum wage increases is interesting--too bad it is wrong. Every time in US history minimum wage was increased, unemployment decreased. The last time miniumum wage was increased, in fact, the largest economic expanision in US history resulted. Any more Rupublican myths left to be dispelled? How about the "raise taxes raise unemployment" myth? The truth is, whether the Government or Enron spends money, it has the exact same effect on the economy--consumption. Whether the government spends the tax proceeds or Enron does, it all has the same effect, except that the Government almost ALWAYS spends/consumes, whereas corporations often times don't--other than hiring Arthur Anderson to concoct more tax evasion schemes involving Cayman Islands banks.  Your economic policies should not be couched with such bad theory--just say you believe some wealthy persons are good and everyone else bad and dispense with the pretense.
The notion that somehow tax policy should "reward" inventors is curious, since many of the rich persons I see, Anna Nicole Smith for one, and the countless "trust fund babies" I know, have invented nothing, but receive the same benefit. (It is the same argument as saying race should matter on an applilcation because of the effects of poverty, and then see Bill Cosby's son--hardly underprivileged--get accepted to Harvard on affirmative action gounds.)