AA -- Bad for Everyone, Except Unqualified URM's

[Kirk Lazarus]

Seriously, I dont think it exists the way people thing it does or to the extent.

Also, the whole system is tilted against minorities since the beginning of time and in this one area, just few are getting a slight bump.  I dont see why there is an uproar.

And, no one bitches about legacy admits to the extent they female dog about AA.

How's this: certain American families give back the land, money, and resources it either stole or appropriated, pay for the free labor and we call it even.  We'll get rid of legacy admits, criminalize ALL forms of intoxicants instead of just the ones minorities tend to use, equalize the sentencing for "white" collar and other crimes, and strictly prohibit all forms of racial profiling.  How's that for a good start to a level playing field?

Well it isn't just legacies. There's being able to go to private high schools or feeder schools that are segregated de facto. There's growing up an always being nourished. There's going through life without being discriminated on the basis of your race. There's the social networks that are greater, on average, to white than there are to blacks. There's the access to parents and mentors.

And so you're right. There's a lot more complexity beneath the surface. But you have to understand that all the other benefits such as legacies, growing up in affluent neighborhoods, access to good public schools are perceived to be race-neutral even if they are not in reality. Race is a complex subject in America.

And in theory I agree with the anti-affirmative action people. Their theory is a persuasive account. There's lots of "unfair" advantages in life that everyone should be willing to live with. You got ahead because your dad is Bill Gates? Great genes. Good for you! You got ahead because you went to Choate Boarding School? Must've been raised by a good family. Good for you! You won the lottery? Great day to play the numbers. Good for you! See, people are willing to put up with individuals getting ahead based on luck just as easy as they'll put up with someone getting ahead on their own talents and initiative. But when someone gets ahead because of their race? Well damnit, that's just as bad as someone being denied opportunity because of their race. And in America we don't tolerate that.

So while simplistic, their account does have some persuasive value. I'm just not sure their account is a accurate assessment of the social realities in this country quite yet.

[Pacavelli]

Seriously, I dont think it exists the way people thing it does or to the extent.

Also, the whole system is tilted against minorities since the beginning of time and in this one area, just few are getting a slight bump.  I dont see why there is an uproar.

And, no one bitches about legacy admits to the extent they female dog about AA.

How's this: certain American families give back the land, money, and resources it either stole or appropriated, pay for the free labor and we call it even.  We'll get rid of legacy admits, criminalize ALL forms of intoxicants instead of just the ones minorities tend to use, equalize the sentencing for "white" collar and other crimes, and strictly prohibit all forms of racial profiling.  How's that for a good start to a level playing field?

Well it isn't just legacies. There's being able to go to private high schools or feeder schools that are segregated de facto. There's growing up an always being nourished. There's going through life without being discriminated on the basis of your race. There's the social networks that are greater, on average, to white than there are to blacks. There's the access to parents and mentors.

And so you're right. There's a lot more complexity beneath the surface. But you have to understand that all the other benefits such as legacies, growing up in affluent neighborhoods, access to good public schools are perceived to be race-neutral even if they are not in reality. Race is a complex subject in America.

And in theory I agree with the anti-affirmative action people. Their theory is a persuasive account. There's lots of "unfair" advantages in life that everyone should be willing to live with. You got ahead because your dad is Bill Gates? Great genes. Good for you! You got ahead because you went to Choate Boarding School? Must've been raised by a good family. Good for you! You won the lottery? Great day to play the numbers. Good for you! See, people are willing to put up with individuals getting ahead based on luck just as easy as they'll put up with someone getting ahead on their own talents and initiative. But when someone gets ahead because of their race? Well damnit, that's just as bad as someone being denied opportunity because of their race. And in America we don't tolerate that.

So while simplistic, their account does have some persuasive value. I'm just not sure their account is a accurate assessment of the social realities in this country quite yet.

Preach, talk to em!  My people never got their 40 acres and a mule, so the least you can give me is a little consideration to what this country has done to me.  It's hard when your high schools are broken down, with inadequate resources.  It's hard when you don't have the money to buy SAT, LSAT, MCAT prep materials, to prepare for your aspirations to attend college or professional school.  It's hard when the people, who resememble the people, who has historically ran this country - feel that you don't deserve a damn thing more than what this society bestows upon you.  Oh man it's hard.

[dsetterl]

This is why I am for AA

http://blogs.suntimes.com/mitchell/2008/06/study_shows_blacks_more_likely_1.html

This is just not my reality.

[meggo]

I really agree with all the posts on this page. AA isn't about discrimination (otherwise quite frankly, the Arab-American population should be heavily admitted) it's about leveling opportunity. Yes, there are whites who come from disadvantaged socio-economic situations. There is absolutely no denying that. But looking at population as a whole (and history), when you have an entire community with lower income, higher rates of violence and incarceration and alcohol/drug abuse, and people who are able to overcome that, then yes, they should be rewarded.  For the groups that have been historically marginalized, the problems of that marginalization STILL exists to this day. Anyone who thinks otherwise is lying to themselves. I'm not just talking about African Americans, but look at the American Indian (and First Nations) communities. The problems that exist within those communities to this day are a direct result of events which took place over a 100 years ago.

[deedeeleigh]

I really agree with all the posts on this page. AA isn't about discrimination (otherwise quite frankly, the Arab-American population should be heavily admitted) it's about leveling opportunity.

Is there some documented information that Arab American's are underrepresented in law school? They're not, I don't think, at my school. While there are still very few blacks.

I don't think AA in law school admissions is about leveling the playing field--it's about a group that is truly underrepresented. If it has a side effect of helping to level the playing field, that's great.  My only problem with AA is that it's a band-aid, and there's not enough being done to address the underlying problems.  Which certainly doesn't mean the band-aid should be ripped off, just that more should be done. 

[meggo]

My point wasn't that Arab-Americans were underrepresented, and their income and issues as an ethnic group are certainly different than African Americans, but I would say they are one of, if not, the most racially discriminated against group in the US and Canada, perhaps the UK as well.

deedeeleigh, I don't think what you say contradicts what I'm saying. I think they go hand in hand to be honest. And I agree, underlying issues need to be addressed and one of the best ways to address those issues is to increase professional education levels in the African American community.

[deedeeleigh]

meggo, I see what you're saying now, and yes I think we agree on the rationale for AA in general.  It would be hard to separate the income issues from the reason URMs are underrepresented to begin with.  Though I'd disagree that Arab Americans are the most discriminated against group, that might just be that I've always lived in large cities and have seen far worse discrimination against other groups.

[Freak]

I really agree with all the posts on this page. AA isn't about discrimination (otherwise quite frankly, the Arab-American population should be heavily admitted) it's about leveling opportunity. Yes, there are whites who come from disadvantaged socio-economic situations. There is absolutely no denying that. But looking at population as a whole (and history), when you have an entire community with lower income, higher rates of violence and incarceration and alcohol/drug abuse, and people who are able to overcome that, then yes, they should be rewarded.  For the groups that have been historically marginalized, the problems of that marginalization STILL exists to this day. Anyone who thinks otherwise is lying to themselves. I'm not just talking about African Americans, but look at the American Indian (and First Nations) communities. The problems that exist within those communities to this day are a direct result of events which took place over a 100 years ago.

Direct result and 100 years ago does not compute, sorry, or was that just hyperbole?

     At this point in history, the only real (indirect) relation to success and history is how your parents raised and provided for you. If they did a bad job (didn't ensure you received an education and nurturing), you have a serious disadvantage and it's up to you to raise your children so they have a better chance.

     Frankly, if your parents neglected you, odds are you won't succeed (financially/professionally) in American life. If you do succeed, then odds are you neglected your children in the process, unless you succeeded before having them, because you had to work so hard to get there.

     Look at a community's single parent family ratio and you'll see a close correlation to its children's' success rate.

     AA etcetera are waste of time, energy and resources, instead, spend it convincing and training families to raise and nurture their children.

     Family on public aid? Well guess what, you get to attend parenting classes which teach you how to budget among other things. Maybe learn to teach children that water is better for them than soda, that they do not need $50 shoes. Maybe parents will learn that they do not need painted nails, a Coach purse or a $5000 car, unless they can also afford health insurance, a mortgage, and time off work to spend with their children.

[meggo]

I don't know why 'direct result' and '100 years ago' doesn't compute. In the case of First Nations people, 100 years ago - force them into residential schooling where they are made to speak english only, dress and act in a western manner, and any expressions of their heritage is expressly forbidden. Add on top of that consistent sexual and physical abuse. Today - a group which is still in great poverty, marginalized, with large substance abuse problems, and a youth population many who understandably feel no connection to 'white' society and lack linguistic links to their First Nations history.

I think there are quite a few examples of parents not raising their kids, and their kids go on to be successful and vice versa. The biggest indicator of economic success is level of education, imo.

[Freak]

I don't know why 'direct result' and '100 years ago' doesn't compute. In the case of First Nations people, 100 years ago - force them into residential schooling where they are made to speak english only, dress and act in a western manner, and any expressions of their heritage is expressly forbidden. Add on top of that consistent sexual and physical abuse. Today - a group which is still in great poverty, marginalized, with large substance abuse problems, and a youth population many who understandably feel no connection to 'white' society and lack linguistic links to their First Nations history.

I think there are quite a few examples of parents not raising their kids, and their kids go on to be successful and vice versa. The biggest indicator of economic success is level of education, imo.

First - you apparently do not know the difference between the words "direct" and "indirect." I hit you and as a direct result you have a bloody nose. Indirectly, you contracted a deadly disease and died from the blood transfusion you received because of the blood running down your face. In between the face strike and the transfusion, something else could have happened to prevent your death. E.g. you could have gone to a different place for the transfusion.

Who do you think most influences a child's choice to obtain a good education? Parents, good thing too, because they have the responsibility. I know exceptions happen and even a 10% exception rate does equal millions of success stories, so yes, quite a few people do succeed despite parental neglect.

It's still the single largest success factor and thus where communities should focus.