University Of Texas Conservative Students Hold Affirmative Action Bake Sale

Maybe I just don't understand affirmative action. In terms of college admission, my understanding is that it puts in place different admission standards for students based on race, reasoning that this levels the playing field in some sense due to socio-economic inequalities.

So, how is this bake sale so much more offensive than that? Is it the presumption that people of certain races will tend to have less money to spend for cookies? What makes this any less true or more demeaning than the presumption that people of a certain race will tend to have less credentials to be admitted into a school?

Note I'm not arguing one way or the other about affirmative action. I'm just trying to understand the difference in reaction from liberals.

 

That's not what it does. The admission standards are the same. If two students were equally qualified, a minority student would generally get preference. Besides, affirmative action was already mostly killed in college admissions - that's why Texas switched to the top 10% rules and the like.

 

Beyond, the purpose of AA is to recognize that a group has been treated unfairly and as a result has not had the same opportunities as the majority. The purpose is to try to lift these groups up and give them additional opportunity to improve their lives. Getting a cookie discount does no such thing. It's just there for shock value.

 

Exactly what I was wondering.
If you're telling me I get more opportunities than white people then they are flat out wrong.
I despise AA as a practice, but I understand the reasoning behind it. I think there is a better way to execute that goal than AA but it is what it is.

 

Not in Texas.
Top 10% rule accounts for like 75% of the freshman class in UT.
The other 25% is from holistic review.

 

Actually, in the modern day, AA legally cannot be justified as a form of reparation and I think that for the most part, few people involved in making admissions decisions really view AA as such. If you'll notice, every place that still practices AA will couch it in terms of "diverse learning environments," "different viewpoints," "varied experiences," and the like. This is how colleges justify giving white students, at least those at top universities, a leg up over similarly situated Asian students, and, in turn, giving underrepresented minorities a leg up over similarly situated whites.

But, you are right. A bake sale with prices decided by race has at best a very tenuous correlation to AA.

 

I could probably research this myself, but maybe someone here can give me a quick summary. How did the top 10% rule ever pass in Texas?

Not even saying I disagree with it. It just seems like something that would be difficult to pass in present day Texas. Was there some catalyst back in the day that made it politically popular? Maybe it was becoming standard in most states? Was there something at the federal level that preceded it?

Or perhaps I'm just underestimating the Texas government's aspiration to help the poor and disenfranchised.

 

I am not a Texan and haven't really done any hard research, so take my words with a grain of salt. The 10% rule is entirely a state-based initiative and is actually part of pattern of states individually replacing and/or banning AA (e.g. California). The 10% rule is actually meant to undercut AA. So, if you frame the issue to voters/legislators as a choice between a fairly merit based approach and AA, is it really that difficult to see why this approach was adopted? Given that most opponents of AA think that white students are generally academically superior to certain minorities, they would obviously prefer that at least some portion of the incoming class be free from AA's influence. However, people may not have thought this through carefully because of residential patterns making it far easier to get 10% in certain schools.

 

Democrats still had control of the Texas House of Representatives in 1997 and the margin in the Senate was pretty narrow (and rural Republicans supported the top 10% rule because it helped rural Texans get admission to UT and A&M). Also Bob Bullock (a Democrat) was still Lieutenant Governor so he helped push the bill's passage through the Texas Senate.

The combination of Democrats and rural Republicans was enough to pass it. Also Bush wasn't a crazy ideologue as governor and had a really good relationship with Lt. Gov. Bullock so they worked together on this. You're right that today it would never pass. 1997 was a really different era for Texas politics.

 

Cool! Thanks for the info.

 

Obviously, you do not understand how AA truly works. As you have alleged that you are part of the wealthy 1%, it makes since that you would oppose AA.

History has shown that AA helped to create equal opportunities for all races, not only minorities. Without AA, society would be even more segregated than it already is and the "have nots" would largely be minorities, not because they aren't qualified, but because of the wealthy 1%, who would employ their wealthy friends, without giving everyone qualified a fair shot.

I'm thankful that people look out for others and aren't so financially selfish and sociologically naive to assume that race does not play a factor into opportunity.

These university students are using shock value to suggest a one-sided view of something that has been incredibly successful. They think they're clever, but this has been done before. Moer than anything, it's disgusting. Guess I should expect it from that area of politics though. Same fringe group, different day.

We can do better.

 

I got to tell you - the persecution of thigh-intensive white girls, their asian friend, and Mario Lopez has gone on TOO LONG at UT.

Down with AA

hashtag mothaf's.

 

It's a racist policy. If you want to help poor people, then putting in discriminatory policies based on race are not the way to do it. If your objective is to help rich black and hispanics, then AA is great.

You didn't offer any hard evidence of how it's been successful, by the way...

 

Waiting for the hard evidence. Thanks.

 

Speaking of lack of hard evidence - This is an exceedingly limp-dicked response from your usual adamantium standards. Neither funny nor trenchant, nor trenchantly funny. WTF?

Sorry, texxx, but you're slipping.

I may have to make certain "allowances" based on past performance - and I"m unclear, at this point, if you even deserve such a preference.

 

Free brownies for Native American Women...

 

In some instances it has had the adverse effects. See the Gratz v. Bollinger case. IIRC minority admissions actually went down despite giving free "points" for under-represented ethic groups.

 

Points for delivering a traditional SamFisher post: trying to be cute and inject a smart-sounding word like adamantium (http://freethesaurus.net/ FTW)

Neg rep for being incoherent and off topic.

 

The historical benefit of AA is ambiguous, as it's really difficult to isolate its effects. Therefore, it is difficult to say whether it has been a net positive or net negative to American society in general or as to specific groups. It is certainly a stretch to call it "incredibly successful."

Nevertheless, even supposing that AA has been beneficial, the real question is when to stop. Times change. At what point are you just giving groups of people an unwarranted advantage? Personally, I think we've reached a stage where we can move from race to income as the basis for "equalizing."

As much as I hate to agree with bigtexxx, he is right that the biggest beneficiaries of AA in the modern day are mid-to-upper class URM households (and white women, but that's a different issue). How do you justify giving these people an advantage over the kids of a working class Asian immigrant or the kids of white trailer trash? When did Asians stop being a minority?