University Of Texas Conservative Students Hold Affirmative Action Bake Sale

Companies discriminate based on race every single day and college education is one of the few metrics they can objectively measure entry-level candidates by. That also makes it one of the few means by which minorities can fairly be considered for professional jobs, which is why you'll still find resistance against banning AA outright.

 

perhaps that's true but AA is not the answer or the fix.

 

I am against AA (yes, I'm White), but this is a stupid way to address the issue.

And it's also counterproductive.

 

Actually, affirmative action as fully defined and understood has been as close to a fix as there is. Managers and senior employees still discriminate, and people like you still post racial IQ maps every chance you can get. Residential migration and corporate employment have shown patterns of racial bias for the entire half century since affirmative action was first codified; but the only thing you focus on is the portion of blacks and hispanics who get into college over whites who will still get more entry-level interviews, offers, higher salaries, referrals and promotions over their entire careers.

 

Eff you brah, I still hate AA. It's the reason why black people were enslaved. The founders knew that in the future white people would be unfairly discriminated against. In fact we would be in a completely post racial society if not for AA.

 

In the last fifty years conservatives have yet to propose an answer or a fix. How long should we wait for their plan?

 

Blech, can't edit. Go ahead; take the last word on this one, and have a good weekend.

 

How about you force blacks to make the brownies with no pay and just kill 90% of all the natives....then see who complains.

 

I hate getting into oppression olympics, but Asians as a whole haven't exactly had a cakewalk throughout US history either. What is the rationale for a policy that not only doesn't help them, but even puts them at a disadvantage relative to the majority population, let alone other minorities?

 

For the same reasons white men don't get affirmative action in situations in which they're over represented. If you have a company or university in which 2% of the people are x race, or even x gender for that matter, though they're a much higher percentage of the community then why shouldn't there be affirmative action? I don't think it's a great remedy but if you're not going to provide everyone the same quality education at the lower levels with the same opportunities to succeed then it rings hollow to b**** about affirmative action without providing an effective remedy. It's another case, much like abortion, in which there's all this effort to b**** and "win" the argument but no ideas on how to actually solve a serious problem and get rid of an insufficient, contentious remedy.

 

See, now you're switching justifications. The assertion that any given company or university should reflect the community they represent is a logically distinct justification than AA as a form of reparation. But if that is the case, why aren't black owned businesses forced to hire non-blacks? Should elite private schools in white communities be able to turn away black applicants once they reach the community quota? What exactly is the "community" for an elite university or a national/multinational company?

Once you remove the historical element from AA's justification, there's no reason not to use income as opposed to race as a basis for equalization. It would achieve almost the same outcome, but wouldn't shortchange those most hurt by AA in it's current form: poor whites and Asians.

 

If AA were reparations for slavery it would only apply to descendants of slavery which it clearly does not. In fact white students and men could very well be beneficiaries of affirmative action ironically enough.

It's a shell game you want to play where context doesn't matter. You want to pretend that the kid in River Oaks that goes to private school is in competition with the kid in Fifth Ward that goes to some crap public school. They're not competing any more than our racing skills are in competition when I'm driving a corvette and you're driving am Hyundai. That's not a competition.

Income and race have a pretty close correlation in the medians, all you have to do is look at the data first of all. Secondly, the reason for AA is racism and the lack of opportunity as a result of that. How are the opportunities of poor white people affected by racism? They're not. This why the socioeconomic argument rings hollow. If private citizen Barack Obama tried to buy a brownie, he'd get charged the black rate no matter how rich he is or the fact his mother is white. The same applies to him in all aspects of society, he's black and in this country that carries a built in cost from the day you're born.

 

Where did I say that some inner city kid is on equal footing with some rich suburbian kid? That's exactly the kind of thing that AA based on income would address.

To justify basing AA on race instead of income, you're bringing up yet a third rationale: modern day racism. Like the historical racism argument, there's no way to differentiate between minority groups except in terms of degree of racism experienced. That's when things get dicey and people start getting offended. Does being Asian American not have a cost? Asians don't face racism in Amerikkka?

 

Because nobody cares about Asians.

The average American thinks the term "Racism" is strictly a White vs. Black thing.

That's reality.

Remind me again why we absolutely must have 5% of a college's population to be X race just because X also happens to be 5% of the country's population?

 

AA is a race based program because of racism and it's effects which are lack of opportunities resulting in poverty. How does that pertain to poor white children? It doesn't. Second of all, how does AA for poor kids change the argument that AA benefits students who can't compete? It doesn't.

There's a really simple way to to show the historical effects of racism and it's by wealth and income. If Asians overall have a higher median income than whites then obviously they're not affected by racism in the same ways nor as drastically so why would we design a law to counter effects that don't exist? That makes no sense.

If you're so interested in helping poor white kids, which frankly I'm interested in helping all poor kids regardless of their race, you'd stop trying to win the AA argument and support the creation of a solution that helps all poor kids and that's improving everyone's primary and secondary education. Ironically, the people who will suffer most from tearing down AA are the same middle class white kids who sue in court to overturn AA. They're the ones who'll get trampled by Asian students in admissions to the best schools.

We could have AA for a thousand years and it wouldn't begin to be a "reparation" for what's happened in this country. Let's be serious about that.

 

You ask why we should have that and I ask why we don't have that?

I don't like AA but I'm not in favor of ditching it without a better solution. So let's find a better answer. I care more about the results than the winning of anything.

 

The answer in college admissions is a truly race neutral policy. When the admissions committee gets the applications, all identifying information (name, SSN, race, income, etc) is removed. All applications are assigned an application number to identify the application.

That way, the only things that are considered in class rank, courses taken, SAT or ACT score and extracurricular activities. The best however many get in.

 

I'm in agreement with this.

 

And schools would be 80% Asian.

 

If they want to do AA, let them assign what ever percentage of African American and Latino American they deem acceptable. Then admit Asian and
White Americans based solely on merits. That should be fair. Why should White Americans get an advantage over Asian Americans when it comes to higher education?