check out the tablehttp://www.answers.com/topic/iq-and-the-wealth-of-nationsthoughts?
I'm very against AA, but I love diversity. There goes that assumption.
I don't think AA and diversity need necessarily be connected at all, actually. In fact, I prefer that the ideas are kept separate altogether.
Addressing imbalances in the American workplace.You see, the reason I don't like the word "diversity" is because it is almost always taken in a limited context. People hear "diversity" and they think, "oh, that means they want more colored people on campus". Diversity for the sake of having more people of a certain type around is bogus. It shouldn't be a goal/end of affirmative action.In this sense, "diversity" is taken to mean that certain ethnic groups must be exposed to different ethnic groups. For what purpose? What is the benefit of having different people meet? Okay, I can think of one: you learn about others. However, for me, AA is about addressing larger social issues; for instance, non-white representation in the field of law. AA is about providing slight advantages to traditionally disadvantaged groups in order to equal the playing field. AA is about fixing the future by learning from the past and adjusting the present.You can't have "forcibly exposing people to new races/cultures" as a valid goal of affirmative action. In that case, HBCUs would be disbanded*. It's simply not a legitimate reason for AA to exist. When it comes to universities, I can only see two reasons for AA to exist:1. As a potential boost for those who are historically disadvantaged to be able to attend that institution. This is different from "diversity" in that the end goal is not to have a kaleidoscope of races on your campus, but rather to provide a method of access for those who would normally not be able to attend (because of sociohistorical reasons). 2. As a means to redress areas of economic or social concern in America's diverse communities. Back to my law example. Why do we need more black lawyers? Because it is likely that, if there are more black lawyers, there will be better access to legal advice in most black communities, and more black kids will want to grow up and be lawyers: lawyers breed more lawyers as role models often do. Access to legal support and poverty are major issues in many black communities -- there is a dearth of black lawyers, and a variety of socioeconomic factors conspire to keep many intelligent young black people out of university, especially at the graduate level. That's just one example. You can see how point 2 builds on point 1. Point 2, as far as I'm concerned, is the overriding goal of affirmative action. But for sections of point 2 to work, point 1 must occur. In a sense, we are trying to make America's workforce more "diverse". But it is not the notion of diversity itself that fuels affirmative action. It is, rather, a byproduct of affirmative action. If any of this doesn't make sense, please let me know. I'm really tired, so I may have left out bits and pieces. *said very tongue-in-cheek!!!
Your reasoning is good, it seems to see dual reasons for AA- one to bring urm lawyers into the profession and two to bring the profession to urm communities. Actually I see only the second of those as the goal of AA, having more urm lawyers is the means toward bringing the profession to urm commununities. You kind of say that, but it your reasoning became a little circular when it appeared that part of the goal of bringing the profession/institution to the urm communities was to create more urm lawyers "Because it is likely that, if there are more black lawyers, there will be better access to legal advice in most black communities, and more black kids will want to grow up and be lawyers: lawyers breed more lawyers as role models often do."To be its more a means ends relationship, the means is more urm lawyers, the goal to bring the institution to urm communities.