What about those inner-city students who are just outside the 10%? They are probably much less likely to get into a decent school than those who are just outside the 10% in the suburbs.
I am a middle age white dude, so it is not like I have ever experienced racism fist hand but ... I think that AA is still needed in some form. For you to say that it is not need IMO is racist (or ignorant) on your part. Blacks were slaves in this for two hundred years before they were freed. After being freed, blacks were separate but "equal" for another 100 years. Now after 40 years since the Civil Rights Act was passed, you think the problem is fixed??? The problem will be fixed when it is no longer a problem. When universities find with AA in place that who they admit is no different than who they would have without AA, AA will no longer be needed. Dropping AA at that point will not be contentious issue.
What about the poor white kids in the inner city. They might be in the minority, but that is not their fault. Who is looking out for them. At least minorities have various college funds directed towards them (UNCF). What does the poor white kid have?
Here's my story My Dad's parents came to the states from Poland--long after formalized slavery was abolished. Conventional wisdom says that after slavery was abolished, share cropping became the new form of slavery for blacks. They essentially became indentured servents for life in a system that never allowed them to get out of debt. What many history books fail to mention is that share cropping wasn't just for blacks; it was for anyone that was poor. My grandparents were share croppers. My dad left school in FOURTH grade--never to return---just so he could pick cotton in the hopes of putting food on the table. My dad--and his brothers and sister--have told me time and again about how hungry they always were. I've heard them b**** about how tough the times were for them, but I've never heard them blame anyone. Who are they gonna blame? The share-crop land owners had numbers similar to slave owners. Less than a third of the families in the south had slaves during the peak of slave ownership, and if you average in the families in the more populous north, it made it less than 10% of all US families who owned slaves. That doesn't make slavery--or share cropping--any less wrong, but it sure sends a red flag up over the discussions of reparations. Who is going to pay for reparations? Slave owner descendents? Descendents of those who fought against slavery? Share crop land owner descendents? No, we'll all have to pay. I come from a disadvantaged family who were part of the "new" slaves. You won't hear me b****ing about it, but I'll be damned if I'm gonna sit quietly by while my "equal" rights are slowly eroded by "affirmative action." Likewise, I'll be damned if I EVER pay for any reparations.
I agree with you there. I think that affirmative action needs to focus more on the poverty issue than the race issue.
You won't hear me b****ing about it, but I'll be damned if I'm gonna sit quietly by while my "equal" rights are slowly eroded by "affirmative action." The problem is that we do all sit quietly by and let minority & inner-city students get crappy educations in elementary and secondary schools.
Read your own posts, fella. Anytime the topic involves something about white people, your posts from the very beginning are hateful, spiteful, and often profane. Oh...and you might not want to act as though you have a corner on the intelligence market...especially if you reread your post that started this whole thread.
First, thank you to Supermac for posting the scale used on the admissions requirement. While I still believe in affirmative action, I think this point scale system is very flawed. I don't think any factor (race, athletics, and particularly Provost's discretion) should be given such weight. The problem I have with the 10% rule, however, is that it ignores disparity within schools. While Kingwood is hardly an example of a school with disadvantaged kids, I knew students who were not able to devote as much time to their studies as others because they were working to help pay the mortgage on the family home. These same kids also didn't have the money to pay for tutoring if they're having trouble with their studies. I imagine there are inner city schools where this is an even bigger problem. Also, this kind of system discriminates against small schools (in particular, rural ones). If you go to a 3000+ student HS, you have a much greater chance of being in the top 10 than you do if you go to a HS with 200 students. I fully believe that hard work is necessary to succeed academically, but does anyone really think that those who have benefited from affirmative action are lazy? I can tell you that Michigan Law wouldn't even look at the students who benefited from affirmative action if they didn't have the basic qualifications (great grades, great LSAT scores, great leadership/experience). The purpose of affirmative action is to give a little boost to those whose life experiences have provided additional roadblocks to their success. Unfortunately, Michigan's crappy application process may have irreparably damaged the spirit of affirmative action
The problem with that is that it isn't exactly fair to turn down a kid from Klein high to take somebody from an inner city school, simply based upon geography. No system any of us could devise will make the admissions process totally fair until we fix what is wrong with the inner city schools.
amen brother!!! telling someone they can't attend a university because of the color of their skin and affording people in low-income situations with greater opportunities to go to college are quite different...from a constitutional viewpoint, anyway. damn that pesky constitution! always getting in the way, huh?
Because there's no edit, I'll have to add this in a new post. We continue to see African Americans and Hispanics on average score lower on standardized tests than whites (even the poor ones) and Asians. As I've said before, I don't think anyone believes (and there are no studies indicating) that these groups are somehow on average less intelligent and less academically disciplined than whites and Asians. Some fact feel that standardized tests are somehow biased against African Americans and Hispanics - not being an education expert, I have no idea whether this has merit or not. B Whatever the case, I agree with Cohen that this test score disparity is the real issue that needs addressing. Until we solve this, I have no problem admitting the African American with the 165 LSAT score over the white with the 168 LSAT score because (to use RIET's thinking) the former is performing better when compared to his peers.
i know you don't intend it this way, sub...but do you see how inherently racist that statement is. "oh..we know you can't compete with those white boys...we know you're not as smart as them...so we'll let you in even though their scores are higher...how could we possibly expect YOU and people like you to compete with them?" that's the message inherent in that statement...and since i went to law school with black guys who performed better than i did in school, i don't buy it.
