AA "haters"

[redemption]

I don't disagree with what you've said here.  But SC made a blanket statement labeling any people who are against AA as racists when that's not necessarily true.  I would say that most (and all of the ones on XOXO) are resentful because they feel like some black guy took their spot at Harvard or Yale, but I know that this is not true of everyone.

Just to share, my father grew up in an extremely poor county in a Bible Belt state.  His high school didn't even offer biology or chemistry courses.  Education was a joke.  Luckily he had enough of a drive to get out of his hometown that he managed to get into a regional university, where he majored in both biology and chemistry.  It bugs me to think that under the current AA system, the son of a wealthy black lawyer would get a boost when someone in my father's former position would not get any boost.

I like to think I'm not racist in any way.  I don't deny that racism still is alive and well.  But I just think that a SES based AA system would still have the desired effect of increasing diversity without doing so by making distinctions among the races.

I read SC as meaning most, not all - but it's fair to underline that distinction.

SES is an important factor in the divergence between the outcomes/opportunities facing some Americans and others. It is not the whole story, however. Even after accounting for SES and educational achievement, there remains a divergence between the opportunities and outcomes that blacks and other Americans face. How do we explain this divergence? How do we redress it, if at all?

There is a widespread assumption that SES should be an alternative criterion, rather than a complementary one, to race/ethnicity in admissions systems. Why is that?

There seems to be a sense that merit should be narrowly and specifically defined to considerations of GPA and LSAT scores. Why is that? Why is "distance travelled" not a more accurate measure of merit? Everything has come easily to me in life - my background was comfortable, my grades were easily earned, I put a trivial amount of effort into my LSAT: how is it that a normative concept ("merit") should be more closely associated with me than with someone whose numbers are lower but whose journey - based on racial discrimination, poverty or both - has been tougher?

As I say, there may be fora where these topics can be properly worked out in intelligent and pragmatic debate, but this board is not among them.

[HK]

Making assumptions about people being racist, or only self-interested is not right.

When you make that accusation, it would basically be the same as me discrediting an argument made by JohnGalt by just telling him he is a URM and is obviously only interested in self-advancement. Maybe some people here will try that, and that is just as bad. I just think that a group of future lawyers should be able to debate/discuss affirmitave action w/o name-calling and assuming they know more than they do about the person they are debating with. Clearly that is not possible at this point. For most people who argue it in this forum, it is just too emotional.

[SCgrad]

The fact is those who hate "AA" really just hate "diversity" and use bashing AA as a way to say that without thinking of themselves as a racist.  Can one of you haters please explain AA to the board, just to verify you aren't talking out of your collective asses?

I really hate when people make emotional appeals instead of actually taking on the topic at hand.  I personally feel like AA is illogical and creates more resentment than opportunity.  But I don't go around arguing with people about it because hardly anyone on either side of the issue is able to argue in a calm, rational way without resorting to bull comments like yours.  But continue the moral superiority rant, it's great.

Nah - SC's right.

Most of the people who start threads and argue against AA are thinly-veiled racists who couldn't debate their way out of a paper bag. Most of the remainder are venting their personal bitterness and disappointment at their own chances of making it into the school of their choice.

As an aside: I note that your post is also an emotional appeal and doesn't actually take on the topic at hand.

I don't disagree with what you've said here.  But SC made a blanket statement labeling any people who are against AA as racists when that's not necessarily true.  I would say that most (and all of the ones on XOXO) are resentful because they feel like some black guy took their spot at Harvard or Yale, but I know that this is not true of everyone.

Just to share, my father grew up in an extremely poor county in a Bible Belt state.  His high school didn't even offer biology or chemistry courses.  Education was a joke.  Luckily he had enough of a drive to get out of his hometown that he managed to get into a regional university, where he majored in both biology and chemistry.  It bugs me to think that under the current AA system, the son of a wealthy black lawyer would get a boost when someone in my father's former position would not get any boost.

I like to think I'm not racist in any way.  I don't deny that racism still is alive and well.  But I just think that a SES based AA system would still have the desired effect of increasing diversity without doing so by making distinctions among the races.

do you actually know this?

yes, my post was pretty flame-ish, but I did notice the part that wasn't (someone please explain AA to me!) was left unanswered. 

Do you think black people are advantaged in society due to AA?  Please explain how this could be the case when with the huge seperation in average wealth and income between blacks and whites?
Unless you argue that white people are just better than black people (which by definition, is racist) how can you say AA "gives black people an advantage" on the whole?  If this were true, wouldn't blacks have higher incomes? 
If you want to argue that AA hurts black people, go for it.  There are plenty of legitimate arguments on this topic of the subject.  But AA doesn't "hurt white people."  Thinking that is f-ing retarded (sorry, I couldn't get through all this without a little flame).

note- I have made this argument several times, and nobody has ever actually answered my questions, I don't expect any of you to, either.  the two underlined questions are the ones I would love an answer to.  I will try and keep an open mind to any ridiculously stupid explanations.  Just give me something...

[philibusters]

This has been an interesting debate for the most part-though I'm a little confused what people are debating-it seems more like people are making random points.

[Gary Glitter]

check out the table

http://www.answers.com/topic/iq-and-the-wealth-of-nations

thoughts?

[plaintext]

does it say half the world is retarded?  I can hear the chants in small countries like Equatorial Guinea... "Get Joe out of here, he's bringing down the average IQ!"

[Gary Glitter]

equatorial guinea coming DFL with a strong and impressive showing of FIFTY NINE

i thought 70 or so was moron status - what is 59? does this mean that the average adult person in equatorial guinea has the cognitive ability of a five year old? sounds like my kind of place....

[plaintext]

in a rather perverse manner, it gives credence to the equator effect.

it's better to be dumb and in a tropical environment than smart and freezing your ass off.  i guess when you're snowed in there's nothing better to do than take IQ tests 

[Gary Glitter]

then at least ostensibly those in south korea have the best of both worlds, the high IQ of 106 and the semi-tropical weather to boot

too bad they live in a trembling fear of nuclear annihilation at the hands of their cozy-yet-draconian neighbors to the north - clearly the average IQ in north korea must be very low - i'm guessing somewhere in the 59 range


maybe north korea is best case scenario? warmish weather low IQs and potential nuclear technology wrapped up in one happy little bundle?

[SCgrad]

do you actually know this?

yes, my post was pretty flame-ish, but I did notice the part that wasn't (someone please explain AA to me!) was left unanswered. 

Do you think black people are advantaged in society due to AA?  Please explain how this could be the case when with the huge seperation in average wealth and income between blacks and whites?
Unless you argue that white people are just better than black people (which by definition, is racist) how can you say AA "gives black people an advantage" on the whole?  If this were true, wouldn't blacks have higher incomes? 
If you want to argue that AA hurts black people, go for it.  There are plenty of legitimate arguments on this topic of the subject.  But AA doesn't "hurt white people."  Thinking that is f-ing retarded (sorry, I couldn't get through all this without a little flame).

note- I have made this argument several times, and nobody has ever actually answered my questions, I don't expect any of you to, either.  the two underlined questions are the ones I would love an answer to.  I will try and keep an open mind to any ridiculously stupid explanations.  Just give me something...

I don't think black people are advantaged in society due to AA.  And you are misconstruing what I said.  I never even came close to saying what you've got in quotes there either.  Did you even read my post?  There is no question that if there are a set number of admits or positions or whatever at a certain firm, and someone who otherwise wouldn't have gotten admitted or hired or whatever does so, then someone who would've otherwise been admitted won't be.  This is completely beside the point though.

Anyway, certainly you can agree with me that since black people are so much poorer in society and have lower average incomes (points I am not disputing, just reiterating), an income based system will still mainly benefit the black community.

my post was not entirely directed at you, but the general message that comes from the "haters".  If I was quoting YOU, I would have said that you said those things.

and, actually, yes, I agree with everything you said.  you didn't say what I put in quotes (I wasn't quoting you), your second point is completely beside the point (proves nothing), and an income based system would more likely benifit individual blacks than whites. 

this is only sorta directed at you.


 Did you know that there is not a single law school that takes family income into consideration when making decisions?  Not a single one!  Did you know that?  I didn't.  Did you know that the percentage of blacks in law schools is now higher than the percentage in the overall population?  Yeah, I didn't know that either.  Blacks must be getting some sort of huge advantage for these things to be true.

and i still haven't received my explanation of what AA is, and you have now admitted that blacks are not advantaged due to AA.  Boost?  I would bet a month's pay the vast majority of AA supporters would love to trade the "AA boost" for equal treatment in society.