Why I don't agree with AA

[Somewhere]

http://www.oddee.com/item_95061.aspx

If both of these girls grow up exactly the same way and have exactly the same grades and LSAT than one will have a huge advantage over the other in terms of UG/Grad admissions and job prospects

I don't like discussing AA that much on the forums because it usually starts a flame and people aren't going to be persuaded from what they initially believe... but just had to post this after I stumbled on the article

Throwing out that they can both check the same box.

Do you think both girls will have the exact same life experiences?

[TimMitchell]

The problem with you libs is that you are always mocking instead of taking on the argument itself.

The biggest irony is that after your post none of them took on the argument like you criticized.

I get the broader point you're making, but in this individual case, it seems weird that this would bother you, since admissions offices would treat them exactly the same for AA purposes - it's not like your AA status is determined by sending a picture.

But anyway, it seems like the most typical anti-AA argument (and it seems like this might be the argument you're implicitly making - if you're not, sorry) goes something like: "if we're supposed to use AA to make up for slavery, discrimination, socio-economic differences, etc , then why should the rich black kid with a 163 get in over the poor white kid with 172?"  It just doesn't seem like this idea of remedying past wrongs, making up for current differences, etc is the justification law schools are giving for AA in 2008 - from what I remember when looking at law school admissions websites, they talk about "diversity" as something that benefits everyone, and benefits law school and the legal profession as a whole, not something that is meant to make life fairer for that twin with the darker skin. 

It seems like the "its not fair to similarly situated or worse off white kids" argument makes up a huge part of the anti-AA arguments, but it's an attack on one of the weaker justifications for AA, and that justification doesn't really seem to be used by pro-AA people as much anymore anyway.

But even forgetting what I just said, I agree with Somewhere - you seem to be implying (again, if you're not, sorry) that since they are twins, growing up in the same house, leading pretty similar lives, etc, it's not fair that one is at a huge disadvantage when it comes to college/grad school admissions.  But just because they are going to have similar lives in many ways, doesn't mean the color of their skin won't affect their lives substantially.

Ah, finally I well thought out arguement on the other side of the AA discussion!

As for the bolded part of your quote, that is not the point I was making but I do disagree with people who stick up with AA to correct past social ills such as slavery. Jews have been slaves for centuries as well. On top of that, almost all Europeans races have been forced into systematic slavery at one time or another. Finally, in Russia the serf system was practically the same as slavary and was abolished around the same time as American slavery. However, that wasn't what I was implying.

For your last paragraph, that is the brunt of the point I was trying to make. Although the color of their skin guarantees that they won't have the exact same experience growing up, is it neccessarily true that the black girl will be faced with more adversary than the white girl? What if they grow up in a poor, black neighboorhood. I did, and I can tell you that racism swings both ways. If you are a white person do you feel comforatble walking down the streets of a poor black neighboorhood? When I did I had things said to me that are just as bad as what you would expect would happen to a black person walking down the streets of Savanah in 1890.

[t...]

The problem with you libs is that you are always mocking instead of taking on the argument itself.

The biggest irony is that after your post none of them took on the argument like you criticized.

Try reading, oh I don't know, the entire AA forum.

Newbies always pop in here thinking they have some damning or definitive argument regarding affirmative action - something new and novel to say. They create a new thread, and then get annoyed when other posters don't rehash their arguments for the millionth time.

It doesn't work that way. Read the forum first, champ.

[TimMitchell]

The problem with you libs is that you are always mocking instead of taking on the argument itself.

The biggest irony is that after your post none of them took on the argument like you criticized.

Try reading, oh I don't know, the entire AA forum.

Newbies always pop in here thinking they have some damning or definitive argument regarding affirmative action - something new and novel to say. They create a new thread, and then get annoyed when other posters don't rehash their arguments for the millionth time.

It doesn't work that way. Read the forum first, champ.

uugggh... I wasen't suggesting that they should repost or rehash old stuff, I was just pointing out the irony that you criticized them for mocking instead of taking on the arguement and they next few posts just continued with mocking.

I have read the old posts. If that specific article was posted somewhere else, than sorry for the repost, but I doubt it was. I wasn't annoyed that the arguments weren't rehased just pointing out a little slice of irony.

[t...]

The problem with you libs is that you are always mocking instead of taking on the argument itself.

The biggest irony is that after your post none of them took on the argument like you criticized.

Try reading, oh I don't know, the entire AA forum.

Newbies always pop in here thinking they have some damning or definitive argument regarding affirmative action - something new and novel to say. They create a new thread, and then get annoyed when other posters don't rehash their arguments for the millionth time.

It doesn't work that way. Read the forum first, champ.

uugggh... I wasen't suggesting that they should repost or rehash old stuff, I was just pointing out the irony that you criticized them for mocking instead of taking on the arguement and they next few posts just continued with mocking.

I have read the old posts. If that specific article was posted somewhere else, than sorry for the repost, but I doubt it was. I wasn't annoyed that the arguments weren't rehased just pointing out a little slice of irony.

The egg's on your face here.

What are the odds that I was in any way serious with that post (re: mocking)?

[mbw]

The problem with you libs is that you are always mocking instead of taking on the argument itself.

The biggest irony is that after your post none of them took on the argument like you criticized.

Try reading, oh I don't know, the entire AA forum.

Newbies always pop in here thinking they have some damning or definitive argument regarding affirmative action - something new and novel to say. They create a new thread, and then get annoyed when other posters don't rehash their arguments for the millionth time.

It doesn't work that way. Read the forum first, champ.

uugggh... I wasen't suggesting that they should repost or rehash old stuff, I was just pointing out the irony that you criticized them for mocking instead of taking on the arguement and they next few posts just continued with mocking.

I have read the old posts. If that specific article was posted somewhere else, than sorry for the repost, but I doubt it was. I wasn't annoyed that the arguments weren't rehased just pointing out a little slice of irony.

What, you think life as a poor white boy in teh Hood wasn't addressed in that thread?  Did you skip over 90% of it?

[jack24]

When do you guys think AA will disappear?  10, 25, 50 years?  What measurable changes will have to be made before our society no longer has a need for AA?

[Matthies]

The problem with you libs is that you are always mocking instead of taking on the argument itself.

The biggest irony is that after your post none of them took on the argument like you criticized.

I get the broader point you're making, but in this individual case, it seems weird that this would bother you, since admissions offices would treat them exactly the same for AA purposes - it's not like your AA status is determined by sending a picture.

But anyway, it seems like the most typical anti-AA argument (and it seems like this might be the argument you're implicitly making - if you're not, sorry) goes something like: "if we're supposed to use AA to make up for slavery, discrimination, socio-economic differences, etc , then why should the rich black kid with a 163 get in over the poor white kid with 172?"  It just doesn't seem like this idea of remedying past wrongs, making up for current differences, etc is the justification law schools are giving for AA in 2008 - from what I remember when looking at law school admissions websites, they talk about "diversity" as something that benefits everyone, and benefits law school and the legal profession as a whole, not something that is meant to make life fairer for that twin with the darker skin. 

It seems like the "its not fair to similarly situated or worse off white kids" argument makes up a huge part of the anti-AA arguments, but it's an attack on one of the weaker justifications for AA, and that justification doesn't really seem to be used by pro-AA people as much anymore anyway.

But even forgetting what I just said, I agree with Somewhere - you seem to be implying (again, if you're not, sorry) that since they are twins, growing up in the same house, leading pretty similar lives, etc, it's not fair that one is at a huge disadvantage when it comes to college/grad school admissions.  But just because they are going to have similar lives in many ways, doesn't mean the color of their skin won't affect their lives substantially.

When I did I had things said to me that are just as bad as what you would expect would happen to a black person walking down the streets of Savanah in 1890.

Hmmm, said, maybe. But the likelihood of you getting kidnapped, lynched, then the case brought against your African American killers, being tried by a black judge, with an all black jury and ending in an acquittal with the judge patting the black sherrif on the back with a smile, is, I dunno, slightly less than the same thing happening to a black person in 1890 Savanna.

I’m really tired of this poor white argument anyway, you people are the biggest recipients of AA, its called student loans, and it means I have to sit next to you socially climbing povs in class. Great, what a wonderful society we live in, we encourage and reward people for being POOR and WHITE. Huh? If you have been in the US for more than two generations, are white, and are still poor, you did something wrong. Buy a 7-11 and become middle class in one generation like the Indians do. Taking my tax money to educate your poor white offspring is AA, its wealth redistribution, its punishing me for being successful to pull your sprogs out of poverty. That’s what pisses me off about this whole system, there are poor whites taking my spots at top schools because they can borrow the money to go there instead of having to pay for it themselves the way it used to be. You people should know your class, you’re supposed to work for us, not go to school with us. YOU WHITE POORS ARE TAKING MY SPOTS!

[TimMitchell]

When do you guys think AA will disappear?  10, 25, 50 years?  What measurable changes will have to be made before our society no longer has a need for AA?

That's a great question. I don't think it'll be ending for a long, long time. Although, the changes AA set out to accomplish are here so the system should be abandoned.

Anyway, like other posters have said, this post wasn't meant to rehash what has been said in other posts. I just wanted to post an article I found interesting

[Matthies]

EDIT: In my above post when I said "Indians" I meant dot not feather, I would not want to offend anyone with my remarks, so I thought I should be culturally sensitive and point out which one of those people I was refering too.