A Black Woman's View

[cassise]

I do not think people are objecting to giving people an advantage when they need one.  What I do think people (like myself) object to is giving people an advantage, just because of the color of their skin.  I live in an upper-middle class neighborhood with a good school system and no "outward" racism.  This is not to say they do not experience racism that is not "obvious."

That said, in terms of education that have received the same, and even more benefits that I have.  They have been offered a chance to attend roundtable discussions at Harvard on diversity and receive academic scholarships I never had a chance to compete for.  They have had experiences positive and negative that I have not.  All this said, I do not think they are more deserving than a white kid from a poor neighborhood and a poor school.  These people essentially enjoy the benefits of a privlidged life with all of the aa benefits of being underprivlidged.  A socioeconomic scale would change this.  If they had some tale of how they were effected they would write it in their PS and it would be considered.  If they were disadvantaged because of their economic background they would get strong consideration.  Their admission to top schools would be based on their credentials and not their skin color.

My complaint is not with aa in general, it is with unconditional aa.  I agree that minorities are underrepresented and steps need to be taken to improve these numbers.  A minority going to yale instead of Ohio State is still one minority lawyer, it is not "increasing the number of minorities in the legal profession." 

A small bonus makes sence, especailly if it is socioeconomically deserved.  What doesn't make sence is considering a 163 3.7 URM as better than a 171 3.8 white kid from queens because one is URM and the other isnt.  I appologize if I "offend" or if it comes off as complaining, I'm just looking at what would be the "best representation of peoples real background." 

Also, please do not respond with "you are white you do not get to talk."  I hate this argument.  Whites are affected by affirmative action just as much as URM's, its just we have the negative side of the equation.  It is a zero sum game and the goal should be to make it as fair as possible.

[Jwebony956]

I do not think people are objecting to giving people an advantage when they need one.  What I do think people (like myself) object to is giving people an advantage, just because of the color of their skin.  I live in an upper-middle class neighborhood with a good school system and no "outward" racism.  This is not to say they do not experience racism that is not "obvious."

That said, in terms of education that have received the same, and even more benefits that I have.  They have been offered a chance to attend roundtable discussions at Harvard on diversity and receive academic scholarships I never had a chance to compete for.  They have had experiences positive and negative that I have not.  All this said, I do not think they are more deserving than a white kid from a poor neighborhood and a poor school.  These people essentially enjoy the benefits of a privlidged life with all of the aa benefits of being underprivlidged.  A socioeconomic scale would change this.  If they had some tale of how they were effected they would write it in their PS and it would be considered.  If they were disadvantaged because of their economic background they would get strong consideration.  Their admission to top schools would be based on their credentials and not their skin color.

My complaint is not with aa in general, it is with unconditional aa.  I agree that minorities are underrepresented and steps need to be taken to improve these numbers.  A minority going to yale instead of Ohio State is still one minority lawyer, it is not "increasing the number of minorities in the legal profession." 

A small bonus makes sence, especailly if it is socioeconomically deserved.  What doesn't make sence is considering a 163 3.7 URM as better than a 171 3.8 white kid from queens because one is URM and the other isnt.  I appologize if I "offend" or if it comes off as complaining, I'm just looking at what would be the "best representation of peoples real background." 

Also, please do not respond with "you are white you do not get to talk."  I hate this argument.  Whites are affected by affirmative action just as much as URM's, its just we have the negative side of the equation.  It is a zero sum game and the goal should be to make it as fair as possible.

Who are the "they" you keep referring to?? I can only assume what you mean until you give us some kind of clarifcation.

As far as your latter statement on "WE having the negative side of the equation" you need a wake up call, because there are more "WE" represented in higher and professional education than the "THEY", which means YOUR people would NEVER---and have never been---on the negative side of anything! Until you EDUCATE yourself on your country's past and how your ancestors screwed mine and many others of African descent, I won't waste my time trying to educate you AND explain why AA on the basis of race is ONE of the many ways this country can confront and challenge racial inequality!

[mxpocc]

maybe so, but AA is undermined by the stigmatizing effect it has on the people. it's probably necessary to set examples only--but clearly something else needs to be done. clearly minorities need to receive the same kind of education from the outset, so their academic performance averages can reach that of whites.

[hammer101]

Socioeconomic status DEFINITELY should be included in the consideration of who AA should help, but I don't think we're quite to a level of progress yet where we can preclude race from the equation.  I wish we were.


Sands

I agree with this and if AA actually worked this way, you'd hear no complaints from me. The reality is, however, the overwhelming majority of AA recipients are blacks/hispanics/native amerians from middle/upper middle class backgrounds (I know you're rolling your eyes and thinking 'duh'...but you'll see the point soon). Now, while I don't pretend race isn't a factor even in a wealthy minority's life -- it'd be silly to argue otherwise -- it's important to consider the implications of AA policy. It's a flawed policy and, quite honestly, a wrong one.

If it continues the way it exists now, AA will, over the long term, create a permanent minority upper middle class -- which will lead to further social stratification in minority communities. Think about it....AA in no way benefits nor is targeted toward poor minorities. The main beneficiaries of it are blacks/hispanics/native americans living in predominantly white suburbs. The chances of these people going into minority communities and working toward lifting them out of poverty is, on average, very slim. And considering that AA was originally implemented to help those who'd never received a break in their lives and to correct years of racism, how is it achieving that goal when it helps those who have already won their share of the American dream? The inner cities are products of extreme racism....how's AA helping people from there? Or rural Mississippi or Texas? It simply isn't achieving its purpose.

So AA doesn't help those who need the help most. And while, again, race remains a factor in anyone's life who isn't white, I think those from relatively well-off backgrounds are equipped with the economic tools to combat discrimination.

[YoungIke]

Just a little history, I grew up in PD County (outside of DC) which is one of the most affluent black counties in the country, I believe second to Dekalb County, GA.  Prince Georges County is also the most crime ridden county in the state of MD with a murder rate that is depressing. The residents of PG County received wealth due to AA and all the jobs created by the new deal. However recently with the change in administration and big government going out the window, people are loosing jobs and the situation is bad. This is what will also happen in Law School if you get rid of AA.
I am not an advocate for AA but something needs to be done. The biggest problem is the school system. If there is not a change at the root of the problem, and then we will continue to need affirmative action. I still don't understand how my county is the most affluent black county and the second most affluent county in the state of Maryland yet has the smallest education budget next to Baltimore City. Actually I do, there is a thing that we have called busing due to the Brown vs. Board decision. Busing is when you take kids from low income black neighborhoods and bus them into to high income white schools. This did not work because all the white people move (white flight) and Afro-Americans moved into those neighborhoods.  This means that today low income disadvantaged blacks now are bused to schools in high income black areas. The state has stripped funding from the schools due to low test scores which means it doesn’t matter what your income you still attend poor schools. To make things more complicated it is hard for the high income blacks to drive there kids out to better white schools because the poor blacks who are being bused in are usually family members and you don’t want to leave them behind or be looked at as uppity and not caring about anyone but yourself. That is deep-seated in us since the time when every black person was poor and struggling. 

If you really want to end AA tell your children to become teachers in minority communities. Start programs to educate minorities on Law school, med school and other great careers at young ages, and take an active roll in the development of minority communities. Due to the strong sense of community that African-Americans have there is no way to leave one behind, without affecting the whole bunch. However when you help one regardless of economic status you are usually helping us all, with the exception of Clarence Thomas and a few others.

[CocoPuff]

What reading over this board has taught me is that whatever the problems are that make it necessary for AA to be in place, AA is not doing anything to fix them. It's not doing anything about poverty or the education discrepancy. So, like YoungIke said, the only way to fix things is to take an active role in it. But it's easier said than done, especially when you have been blessed with the ability to go to Law School and do something else for a lot of $$$. From what I've seen, most minorities who beat the odds grab their families, take off running, and never look back. Because we don't help each other, we'll always be in the same position and it's sad.

[hammer101]

What reading over this board has taught me is that whatever the problems are that make it necessary for AA to be in place, AA is not doing anything to fix them. It's not doing anything about poverty or the education discrepancy.

This is the crux of the problem and why I oppose AA. In general, if something doesn't work, you either stop doing it or try something new....you don't blindly cling to a failing program. I don't have the answer but AA isn't it.

[ricefigaro]

   Thought and print on AA is disproportionately expended on higher education. At this level we are focusing on a very few number of individuals, yet the problems AA tries to address are national. It's wierd that you try to solve such national problems by attempting to empower so few people. Let's start younger and reach more kids.

 

[alphadog24]

Alright, so today I was looking at lawschoolnumbers.com and I have to admit, I began to see why some people get so angry about the AA issue. How is it possible that a minority with a 3.3/161 can get into Harvard, Columbia, Georgetown and Stanford while a non-urm gets rejected with a 3.8/175? All I can say is that, although this IS unfair, it's the only solution the government has come up with to fix the obvious discrepancies. Whites and Minorities are not equal in this country so until we find some way to fix that (good luck), this is the only alternative. Although it's not a perfect system, what would you suggest we do?

Why cant black kids just go to the schools they are qualified for? If someone got a 157, why cant they just go to the 157 school? Why should they get into Columbia? I can give you many reasons why I think they should'nt, but im curious to know what you think about this. Are these people at Tier 3 and Tier 4 not real lawyers? If the real problem is not having enough lawyers in the legal profession, then having them go to Columbia instead of Cooley is not increasing that number, it is just putting them in a pond in which they are not equiped to swim in.

[CocoPuff]

Alright, so today I was looking at lawschoolnumbers.com and I have to admit, I began to see why some people get so angry about the AA issue. How is it possible that a minority with a 3.3/161 can get into Harvard, Columbia, Georgetown and Stanford while a non-urm gets rejected with a 3.8/175? All I can say is that, although this IS unfair, it's the only solution the government has come up with to fix the obvious discrepancies. Whites and Minorities are not equal in this country so until we find some way to fix that (good luck), this is the only alternative. Although it's not a perfect system, what would you suggest we do?

Why cant black kids just go to the schools they are qualified for? If someone got a 157, why cant they just go to the 157 school? Why should they get into Columbia? I can give you many reasons why I think they should'nt, but im curious to know what you think about this. Are these people at Tier 3 and Tier 4 not real lawyers? If the real problem is not having enough lawyers in the legal profession, then having them go to Columbia instead of Cooley is not increasing that number, it is just putting them in a pond in which they are not equiped to swim in.

Of course Black/Latin kids CAN go to the schools they are qualified for, but why go to Cooley if you can get into Columbia? For those who grew up poor, Columbia means the possibility of a better job and more money for you,as well as a chance to get yourself and your family out of the poverty cycle.

Minority students are not always placed in schools for which they are unqualified. Being able to take a $1,200 LSAT prep course, spend a semester in a foreign country or volunteer/ take an unpaid internship makes an applicant more qualified, but there are many minorities who can't do this. If you have the money, you can MAKE yourself more qualified for law school. This process gives those who don't have the funds or resources to make themselves as qualified as some others the ability to be comptetitive where they wouldn't be otherwise.