do minorities have a clear advantage of getting in and if so, is it right?

[dgatl]

no i justed wanted to see what people thought about it, because i am half hispanic but dont use that status because i dont feel that i was discriminated against in my life, but i am just one person, others have different views , including non minorities who have been disciminated against.

ok... well i'm glad you've never been discriminated against.  people will always have different views on AA, but I think more people need to have self-confidence about their own merits

[G-Unit]

sure, if minorities want to continue to use a crutch to get ahead because they cant on their own merit, sure! what about all other immigrant groups that have made it on their own, jews, italians, russians, germans, they were discriminated against and never had government reliance, so why do minorities have to? this is an equal opportunity country, why should minorities get an advantage?
Slavery was a law which made it legal to discriminate against blacks in America. This country was built on the backs of slaves who were deprived of their constitutional rights.  Only Black Americans need a law to vote!  Please don't come with this garbage about other minorities and immigrants making it in the land of opportunity! Immigrants and children of immigrants born in the United States automatically get the right to vote. If you are a Black born in America, you need the Voting Rights Act of 1965.

Black Americans (yes we are Americans) born here in the United States of America, the land of opportunity weren't allowed to read or write!  Slavery was a law therefore it was institutionalized discrimination. In a system that is designed to discrminate, there must be laws that prevent this discrimination.  Affirmative Action just levels the playing ground so that those who would discriminate is in violation of the law.  The "crutch" is just a play on words to make those who are benefactors of Affirmative Action feel that they are not deserving of the opportunities. 

If America would tell the truth, then it would truly be the nation that it claims to be in the world. Until an honest dialogue is brought forth, there will always be these injustices and there must be ways to right the wrongs.

You may agree or disagree but take a view of history for yourself and stop jumping on the bandwagon because it makes you feel better!! 

[KingCorleone]

I love it when people say lets take a historical perspective of this or that, use a few facts that they picked up in history 101 and claim they are correct. 

AA started in the late 60's early 70's as a way to bring blacks into the parts of society that were mainly white (higher education, higher paying jobs, most governmental jobs, both state and fed ect.)  AA was basically a way of correcting the "separate but equal" policy that had been used in the past decades.  The problem with AA is that it, like large numbers of government programs, was broadened and renewed far past its intended purpose.  AA is now looked at by large numbers of its supporters as repayment for slavery.  This was never the intended purpose of AA, nor should it be.  As vile a institution as slavery was/is, it was legal, not only in the US but around the world.  (and no the US was not the last country to outlaw slavery)  The problem with extending AA as being some type of compensation for the act of slavery opens up a HUGE slippery slope. 

The main problem being, where does it stop.  If we look at slavery strictly...Do blacks deserve compensation from other countries other  than the US that had slavery?  What of the members of African nations that sold captives into slavery?  Do we hold them responsible? Looking beyond the enslaving of blacks... Does being an immigrant during the industrial revolution, being given only enough money to eat, clothe, and house yourself count as slavery?  What of all those immigrants who were stopped at there polling offices, not allowed to vote, or told that if they did not vote for x, they would not have a job?  I could go on and on with the questions but I won't.   

The previous poster argues that "This country was built on the backs of slaves who were deprived of their constitutional rights."  While this is a powerful argument, it is totally false.  I would assume that what the poster really wanted to refer to was the Declaration of Independence, which states that all men are created equal, since slaves had no constitutional rights to be violated.  However the poster himself points out that slavery was legal.  The problem with AA is that it has been twisted from its original purpose into what the previous poster wants it to be, payment.  AA should be abolished as the reason for its existence, to help those who were hindered by the "separate but equal" policy are of the aging population that is not helped out by the program.

[M2]

What does this have to do with waitlists?

[hotsauce]

King Corleone,

Your arguement is ignorant at worst and just plain false at best. First, affirmative action was not just a way of correcting separate but equal, but rather, it was a way to prevent discrimination against minorities. If you examine the history of the United States, a discriminatory trend against blacks is constant: the 3/5ths compromise, the institution of slavery itself, the Dred Scott decision, the existance of laws preventing blacks from voting, the existance of laws preventing blacks from gaining wealth through bank loans, the existance of laws preventing blacks from attending institutions of higher education, and the legal sanction of slavery. Thus Lyndon Johnson and progressiver republicans and democrats concluded that althought there have been sporadic periods of discrimation against asians and other minorities, none had been so pervasive as that against blacks. On this much, I hope we agree.

The question then becomes, what is the correct way to combat discrimiation against minorities, particularly blacks and women? Two options were advanced. The first one was equal opportunity. The problem with this approach, however, is that it requires the assumption that the system is automatically fair and only individuals acting on their own can discriminate. When an individual discriminates against blacks, the system then can provide relief through the courts on a case by case basis. Indeed this is the view that most conservatives hold; yet, anyone with common sense can comprehend that this approach is naive. Its naive because individuals aren't the only ones that can discriminate; systems discriminate as well. The institution of slavery on down to segregation was a systematic mechanism of discrimination. Therefore, affirmative action was developed as a means to combat discrimination before it begins in systems. The idea was that the only way to combat discrimination is to take "affirmative action" before it begins.

Your next questions amused me. Where does it stop and what about other coutries, you ask. First, it stops when the effects of discrimination have dissipated. Note that I didn't say that it stops when discrimination stops - indeed that could be forever. Second, other countries are irrelevant to the discussion about what the United States should do. Finally, as I already pointed out, other minorities had it rather easy with regard to discrimination as compared to blacks; yet, most of them do still get affirmative action.

This post is getting lengthy, so I'll respond to your conclusion and end. You argue that "AA should be ablished as the reason for its existance, to help those hindered by the separate but equal policy are of the aging population that is not helped by the program." Are you so naive as to believe that the only people that are suffering from the effect of segregation are those who experienced it directly? Perhaps you believe that only those who were slaves were effected by slavery and not the subsequent generations? For a person who speaks so confidently about historical analysis, you seem to forget that history is cumulative. The effects of one moment in history have a deep influence on the next. Indeed, if the aforementioned are your arguements, you should rethink your opposition to aff action.

[Ivy_Hopeful]

Good Luck at Emory! Don't suffer this thread into the hateboard based on different views of AA it exists/it doesn't exist it is a double-edged sword.
IVY_Hopeful

[psr13]

Atually, not only blacks have needed a law that gave them the right to vote. Women needed it to. Technically we're a minority, but we get nothing for it. In California I'm a minority. Why do I not get minority status. Even when there are more hispanics here than whites we still won't be considered minorities. My family came here not to long ago and have accomplished things. We didn't use affirmative action or anything like it. Guess what my family did. They worked hard. They worked hard for everything they got in life. Others should not get a pass when they can accomplish it on their own.

[CaliToD.C.]

The discussion of AA has now become irrelavent. There are few law schools whose minority student body is proportional to their percentage of U.S. population. I actually think that if you're not for AA then your immoral and cruel hearted. Why would you disagree with government polices that are intended to uplift some of its citizens out of poverty and help put them on an equal playing feild with the majority? Especially when it was the same government that created these conditions.

[Tobias Beecher]

The discussion of AA is has now become irrelavent. There are few law schools whose minority student body is proportional to their percentage of U.S. population. I actually think that if you're not for AA then your immoral and cruel hearted. Why would you disagree with government polices that are intended to uplift some of its citizens out of poverty and on equal playing feild with the majority? Especially when it was the same government that created these conditions.

Good point.

[hotsauce]

psr13, stop crying. Women benefit more from affirmative action than blacks do. And thats a fact.