Affirmative Action vs. Quote systems (which are illegal in the United States) Quotas are not legal in the United States. No employer, university, or other entity may create a set number required for each race. http://labor-employment-law.lawyers.com/employment-discrimination/Affirmative-Action.html (To some posters) Where does it say that minority applicants (gender, race, ethnicity, particular religion, particular disabilities or etc.) are less qualified that the appropriate standard, especially in the medical field (or other scientific fields), law field, or engineering? Affirmative Action was only born out of institutional discrimination practices that stood for many years, yet it was sort of an equalizing law with kinks. A rule of action to force employers or institutions "to not discriminate" against qualified groups of minorities or classes of people. At this point in history, I do not think it would hurt very much to abolish it, since most protected minority groups have made greater gains and strides in the mainstream community. While, I do think it is somewhat effete for its purpose. On the same token, where does it say that all or most minorities/protected classes benefited from Affirmative Action? I'm sure you can point to certain cases, but to determine that is a national occurrence or standard is plain ignorant. Sort of like someone (or a vicious critic) saying that Barack Obama and Michelle Obama benefited from Affirmative Action throughout their careers. It's a very presumptuous quote for you have to know everything about them and what happen in their lives and careers, yet found out both were amongst the best in their classes. Most people in my life (like myself), I can say they haven't necessarily benefited from Affirmative Action, given the context of their situations. I never known anyone who was a near-failing student or woefully under qualified get into a job or position that they did not deserve. Since, we are on the subject, does anyone want to talk about the unemployed population among overqualified, seasoned, or educated minorities (especially African American- males and females and Hispanic men/women overall, since there seems to be the perception that it is another "black/minority" entitlement), while women across the board for the same jobs/career are still making less than men. http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/01/us/01race.html http://www.jobbankusa.com/News/Hiring/hiring100803a.html http://www.bls.gov/web/empsit/cpseea17.pdf http://www.thegrio.com/politics/bla...-persistent-african-american-unemployment.php http://www.epi.org/publication/bp306-class-of-2011/ http://newsone.com/business/news-one-staff/unemployment-rate-blacks-15-percent-2011/ http://www.nber.org/digest/sep03/w9873.html http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/forum/2010-05-11-column11_ST1_N.htm http://www.blackcollegewire.org/index.php?option=com_ywp_blog&task=view&id=5908&Itemid=36 http://clinton2.nara.gov/WH/EOP/OP/html/aa/aa04.html Blatant discrimination is a continuing problem in the labor market. Perhaps the most convincing evidence comes from "audit" studies, in which white and minority (or male and female) job seekers are given similar resumes and sent to the same set of firms to apply for a job. These studies often find that employers are less likely to interview or offer a job to minority applicants and to female applicants. (32) Less direct evidence on discrimination comes from comparisons of earnings of blacks and whites, or males and females. (33) Even after adjusting for characteristics that affect earnings (such as years of education and work experience), these studies typically find that blacks and women are paid less than their white male counterparts. The average income for Hispanic women with college degrees is less than the average for white men with high school degrees. (34)
Computer Science major with a very successful career and own my own business. Have helped countless members of this bbs off the board with making money via internet marketing. Macalu can vouch for the advice I gave him and books I recommended. As a UH grad, what have you done? Other than **** on people's religion?
So the best part about being a white male is that you don't even have to apply to college to reap the benefits of affirmative action! Must be nice, you lazy bums. :grin: It all smells like socialism for white males to me. I for one welcome it. Socialism is dead. Long live socialism!
Not neccessarily, there's like maybe 100 million white guys in this country, so there's a pretty big variance in those incomes. This is as good as it's been or probably ever will get for minorities in U.S.
sure Yes, yes. Not necessarily; it is a highly imperfect analogy, but isn't it much more fun painting everything with a broad brush. Just like affirmative action doesn't result in all minority applicants being accepted, white privilege doesn't mean that all whites are getting more money. Yet the same angry white guys, who are so firmly against affirmative action, have no problems reaping benefits based on the basis of their race/skin color. As an additional privilege of being beneficiaries of historic and continuing positive discrimination, they get to avoid cognitive dissonance and act aggrieved based on an active/passive distinction. Despite all the rumblings of Rush and co., it still pays to be White in America. Of course it is not just all angry white guys, it is also white women and model minorities such as Indians and East Asians who feel like they are getting shafted. These two groups, women and Asians, can be separated because the causes of their problems is slightly different. Though they can and do overlap (ex. Asian female). I think that discrimination against Asian applicants in admissions is unfortunate, but rectifying that particular inequity is not necessarily mutually exclusive to any affirmative action program for African Americans/Hispanics. Affirmative action should probably be modified to incorporate some sort of income based affirmative action, but even a hybrid system or an income only system will have their problems and fringe cases that will seem to defeat the purpose.
I'm a senior in high school right now. Any time I was allowed to, I would leave the race section blank or "Prefer Not to Answer" for obvious reasons. If we just completely ignore the race factor, the whites and especially the Asians would benefit. Of course those who are less fortunate in terms of income have a big disadvantage. But I truly believe that is the flaw of the American education. American education is a game - some people (wealthier) have more help (SAT prep, private tutors) and more advantages than others. Is it fair? Absolutely not. Would UT be like UCLA if race made no difference whether or not you get accepted? I will be dorming at either San Jacinto or UT Towers because even I don't want to be with the predominantly Asian dorm, Jester. I am Korean-American, and I would definitely not enjoy going to a school that is over 90% Asian. I do not know where I stand on this topic. At one hand, you have many qualified Asians who do not get into UT. In reality, they may have been smart and/or hardworking, but there were just too many other Asians who had beat them. Same with these white kids who are suing the school. On the other hand, you want to encourage diversity, and there are kids who are at a disadvantage in our education system.
I believe its time to end race-based Affirmative action and strengthen Socio-economic Affirmative action. People who come from underprivileged backgrounds and have demonstrated that despite that they were able to overcome through hard work and self-motivation do deserve a spot. That effort is impressive and demonstrates great character - something that indeed should be considered as a qualification. Doesn't matter if you are black, white, or hispanic, but show that you have strength to overcome, and that should be strongly taken into account versus just one's pure test taking skills.
Exactly. That is what affirmative action was designed to do in the first place. If you base it on income, it would do the exact same thing it does now.
I agree with the idea. But what is the fine line between evening the playing field for the underprivileged and making it unfair for the wealthy kids?
So, if I'm born into a rich family, but I got the shallow end of the gene pool when it comes to smarts, I should be automatically denied entry over somebody who is equally qualified intellectually but came from a less well-off background to fill a quota? That seems to be punishing somebody for no good reason. I don't think it is a good idea to mandate this. We already have soft factors involved in admissions standards, no reason to legislate it. Let the admissions councils use those criterion as they see fit.
Uhh... what? Is that some kind of check box I missed on my applications all those years ago? "Screw it, I'll just pay my way in?" Maybe for the uber wealthy, whose daddies have buildings named after them on campus...
I think he means that in order for ya'll to get the same test scores, the one born in the less fortunate situation had to overcome more and work harder to get that test score. You have to admit that environment plays a huge role on how you do in our education system. A wealthy kid may not have to try as hard to get an 1800 on his SAT, while the other kid had to work real hard to get an 1800. Though this may be better than the affirmative action based off of race, there are still problems with it IMO. How can you measure the amount of hardship a student had to overcome? Wealthy students can also experience hardship and tragedy. And I'm not talking about spoiled kids not getting what they want. Wealthy kids can experience hardship such as a parent dying or parents going through divorce.
Come to think of it... I go to Memorial... many of my friends... who are uber wealthy... partied all high school years... got in to UT even though they arent even in the first quarter. Maybe you just missed the check box?
Maybe they got their mom to change their ethnicity to Hispanic. And also were probably captain of the Lacrosse/Polo teams. That's gotta count for something, right?
Kind of a disturbing response. You have to realize that determining whether somebody pissed away opportunity or exceeded potential is not exactly as easy as reading a tax return. Like I said, we've already got admissions committees who handle this very subject and have been for many years. There's really no reason to mandate anything to them. Edit: And then on top of that, you have the cost barrier with FAFSA that is already tilted in one direction. Which is something I do agree with, while admissions standards shouldn't be overly affected by socio-economic background, financial aid most definitely should. So, in essence, we've already got quite a few of these systems built that way. And I must say, I'm glad it is, because without it, I never would've been able to afford college.
