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

[snarkygirl]

twenty bucks says pattycake is white.

the point of AA is not to make up for the wrongs done to minorities by white people.  the theoretical purpose of AA is to "level the playing field," fyi, not make reparations.

[dsetterl]

Why do you end every statement with, "By the way, I'm Black?" That is lame.

I don't want people to think I'm a white, or Asian racist. Personal advice: do not attack me, attack the statements I make; attacking the person in an argument is not an effective strategy in argument, it's a fallacy. Next time, make claims for or against my arguments, not for or against me. Got that? By the way, I'm black.

I didn't know we were arguing. I was just voicing my opinion. Got it? By the way, I'm not black.

[Tetris]

I think AA helps people who are qualified but might have weaker "numbers" due to structural barriers they have overcome. Those barriers may be racism, a lack of parental guidance, poverty and all the greatness that entails (no prep school, no tutors, no $1,000 LSAT classes, lower GPA from having to work, etc). To the extent that such barriers diminish hard numbers to the point that such hard numbers are not reflective of such a person's intellectual potential, AA can actually be a good thing.

Unfortunately, AA is sometimes applied as an ethnic equalizer, which it should not be. I would contend that AA should work to help disadvantaged students who are at X mental capacity but have only demonstrated a capacity of X-Y due to structural disadvantages they have experienced. This calculation is notably "raceless."

[Freak]

Essentially, it seems like you have a real inability for practicing empathy. Essentially, you are saying that because the parents of these children were irresponsible they don't deserve help to succeed (Am I wrong?).You say that 100 years does not compute and that you are not your great-great grandfather. These children are not necessarily their parents either and should they be held accountable for their parents mistake and should they suffer? Those kids didn't ask to be born into that situation; they just were and it sucks for them.

Sorry for late reply ... busy trying to recover for people who really were hurt by somebody.

Empathy? When was the last time you donated to somebody you felt deserved help? I donated thousands when I earned less than $25k/yr. I do not waste money - even on a TV, yep no TV and my car's worth less than $3k. I have donated many thousands of dollars to those with whom I feel empathy towards.

You ask if children should suffer for their parents mistakes, no, but they do and always will. You correctly point out that kids have no choice in birth location. Still, what about those in Sudan, N. Korea, or China...? Well the vast, vast, vast, majority of those children live far, far, far worse lives than any child in the USA. Those children deserve my empathy far more than anybody in the USA.

And last I checked, empathy is not something you force on another. AA and its ilk are forced on people. How dare anybody assert that we should have empathy and then force a policy or law on somebody else? No, those people could not care less about empathy.

And COME ON- In what way did you or your parents really suffer? Does helping other succeed really cause you to suffer soooo much. I don't suffer. In fact, I feel like I could sacrifice a lot more to help others.

Well then why don't you sacrifice more?  It's not like anybody forces you to keep your money....

My parents realized that the public system provided a poor education in many ways. So guess what, they home schooled me. My mother basically sacrificed her social life and any hope of a career to teach us children for nearly 20 years. We shopped at 2nd-hand stores & Aldis. Meanwhile, they paid taxes to send other kids to public school. Public school officials harassed us to attend school. Even our neighbors harassed us because they understood that their school lost state money because we didn't attend....ya, it was quite clear that it cost the school less for us to attend that the state paid the school per student.

What I think should be done:

 I believe all you can really do is take these disadvantaged kids out of those neighborhoods and completely remove the negative environment. That will never happen because it costs too much money and people generally don't give a damn about funding public education.

No, see my parents did that. It just takes two parents and a willingness to sacrifice for your children.

Back on the PTA meetings:

If those kids parents started going to PTA meetings, I highly doubt that their performance would drastically change. We can both agree that PTA meetings alone are not the answer. We could probably conduct a poll and those parents who attend PTA meetings have a higher household salary and more-than-likely a higher education level as well in the family. Who knows though right?

Agreed, PTA meeting attendance just shows a parents investment in their children. I guess I need not redact my statement.

AS far as rural employment compared to that of the ghetto, it's because no one lives there.  You can't make blanket statements about all rural areas and tote it around like the saving answer. Rural unemployment is rising and highest in the south. I will grant that employment is rising someplace due to an increase of old folks homes and vacation places. I want to know where you are getting these statistics by the way? I looked for them and couldn't find them. I also thought education level was lowest in rural areas with most citizens only having high school educations. Did you even look at that link I sent you? It's based upon census data and is used by many states legislators to write education-based grants and bills.

I know rural areas vary, but I just used the US Census website - great site. High school graduation, at least, is higher in rural areas.

[dsetterl]

You ask if children should suffer for their parents mistakes, no, but they do and always will. You correctly point out that kids have no choice in birth location. Still, what about those in Sudan, N. Korea, or China...? Well the vast, vast, vast, majority of those children live far, far, far worse lives than any child in the USA. Those children deserve my empathy far more than anybody in the USA.

 God forbid their governments try to enact social mechanisms to create more prosperous people. You wouldn't buy into that, right?


And last I checked, empathy is not something you force on another. AA and its ilk are forced on people. How dare anybody assert that we should have empathy and then force a policy or law on somebody else? No, those people could not care less about empathy.

When I was saying empathy, I meant you can't put yourself in their shoes. I think the word you are looking for is sympathy. What good would your empathy do them?
 

Your forced sympathy logic is inherently faulty.  Sympathy, in fact, drives our judicial system and our government. The entire Civil Rights movement, womens suffrage, and the abolition of slavery ended because a wrong was acknowledged. (Pretty sure that is sympathy) We don't even have to delve into such large historical issues. Basic  law (civil and criminal) is a system based around sympathy and restoration to those for whom a wrong was committed against.  You cannot acknowledge a wrong without sympathy.

If we apply your logic that the government should not enforce sympathy or enact statutes that promote public sympathy, then why have any public agencies or institutions? Who cares about FEMA,the Red Cross, food banks, and agencies that help Migrant workers attain medical heath and legal aid. It is the duty of the government to help its citizens prosper. Prospering citizens equals a prospering country.

Furthermore, I still want to know how you suffered.

[Freak]

The law enforces sympathy? Since when? The law enforces justice - corrects wrongs, forces wrongdoers (criminals and tortfeasors) to pay for their misdeeds.

The law has nothing, absolutely nothing, to do with sympathy.

And I thought you asked (yep you did) how my parents suffered. They suffered so I didn't have to.

And sure, I understand or have empathy for others. I understand why a hungry man steals food, I understand why parents sits on the couch watching TV rather than helping their children with homework, I understand why a poor man drinks himself into a stupor, I understand why a father or mother abandons their children and spouse, I understand. But I also understand the consequences and have little sympathy for them and tons for their children. But I certainly understand. Life is hard work, especially for a parent.

I have sympathy for those parents doing their best, and I know it and see their efforts. Those parents I donate to because I know they'll use my money wisely.

The government, on the other hand, donates money to people regardless of their efforts. Why should a hardworking person, with a family to support, pay for a bum's children when that hardworking person has a hard enough time supporting his own children? I would have absolutely no problem if the government gave tax credits for donations based on income (instead of deductions).

[dsetterl]

sym·pa·thy   
–noun
1.   harmony of or agreement in feeling, as between persons or on the part of one person with respect to another.
2.   the harmony of feeling naturally existing between persons of like tastes or opinion or of congenial dispositions.
3.   the fact or power of sharing the feelings of another, esp. in sorrow or trouble; fellow feeling, compassion, or commiseration.


I would say the law has been sympathetic since the dawn of man. So, when a court rules in favor of plaintiff or defendant, they are not in "harmony of or agreement in feeling?" They absolutely are in agreement of feeling. Basic law is sympathetic to the rights and needs of an individual and society. That is how law evolved. What is acknowledgment of a wrong but mere sympathy to those harmed? The law can only be punitive and compensatory in nature with sympathy for those harmed.

Enough theories, back to it.

Is your mother's sacrifice of "social life" equal to sacrificing her life to work in a dangerous factory to feed you? I don't see how they mesh. She didn't have to have a paying job to support you. Sure you didn't have nice things but her not being able to work is a luxury not afforded to all.

 I do not want to discuss your mother anymore because I do not want to belittle her dedication to you. She sounds like a very caring and awesome person. I would agree that these kinds of parents are needed, but I just do not think it is enough. Even the most dedicated parents in lower income neighborhoods cannot help their kids with homework, afford computers or after school activities, or a car or transportation to take them to these places.

 You seem to see AA as some sort of punitive damages. Let me ask you a question: Do you consider paying taxes to fix roads that you don't drive on fair or punitive in nature. You don't. Why not? You don't consider them a punishment because better roads are better for society. Better roads can prevent accidents and damage to your car or save your life. It is without a doubt that residents of poor neighborhoods commit more crime and damage to themselves and others. Lets liken them to a bad road. What can we do to fix this road? AA is a mechanism to try to fix this damaged road. It offers those with less opportunity a chance of success and gives an opportunity to succeed. Its up to them to decide what to do with the opportunity. I understand that you can argue a loss of job opportunity or scholarship or place in school. But I would argue that you have had an enormous amount of opportunities and mechanisms to allow for your success.

[ssas]

People think Asians have less social skills than Caucasians. Therefore, I will suffer during admissions because people are more likely to think I'm an antisocial nerd. I should get AA because I face discrimination.

People think Asians have small penises. Therefore, I will suffer penis envy and have self-esteem issues throughout my life causing me to perform a lower level. I should get AA because I face discrimination.

Asians are systematically shorter than Caucasians, in both the US and in Asia. People perceive height to be highly advantageous and studies have shown a correlation between height and intelligence. Therefore, I will suffer self-esteem issues and am at a disadvantage. I should be compensated with AA.

My ancestors (well, not even my ancestors but the ancestors of my racial brothers) were economically exploited to build the railroads so I am disadvantaged by this economic slavery. Therefore, I should be paid reparations and given AA to compensate for my disadvantage.

Because I am an immigrant, I am less likely to integrate into mainstream American society so I am less likely to exhibit the values that American adcoms are likely to value. Therefore, I should get AA to compensate for this inequality.

I have just made arguments analogous to common arguments for AA by URMs. How many of them would be instantly rejected by adcoms? Why am I not getting some help in admissions? Oh wait, it's because my "race" is too "successful." Thank you, America.

I don't want AA for Asians, for the record.

[mbw]

No ABA-accredited law school in the US utilizes a strict system of affirmative action, e.g., "quotas", in it's application process.  All schools look to creating a diverse student body, with students from various backgrounds, ages, ethnicities, yadda, yadda, yadda, and for public/state law schools, the Grutter decision upheld this as in the public interest.  For private law schools, well, they can pretty much choose who they want, as long as it follows ABA guidelines (which also requires the goal of a diverse student body.)  For all that you want to make it strictly a "numbers game", applying to law school has never followed that formula, and there is no reason it should.  If you want to make your application stand out from the other 10,000 privileged Wonder-Bread 3.5/166 candidates, then actually do something to make yourself stand out, rather complaining that others actually add diversity, for whatever reason.

[Freak]

Sorry frybread, you are wrong. If you're in lawschool, count the minority students of each race. An Asian friend of mine did where he attended and convinced me of the quota in 2007. Sad that I won't detail more because I'm scared of repercussions, but it's true. If you promise not to quote me, I'll tell you everything and delete it 5 minutes later.