[SOldBear]

Caught this in the news today.

My idea: the so-called "affirmative action" is a form of race discrimination. All forms of race discrimination should be banned.

If there is an "affirmative action" in college admission, there should be one in Olympics as well.
__________________________________________________________________________________

UC argues in favor of race-conscious admissions

By TERENCE CHEA, Associated Press
Posted: 08/14/2012 10:33:25 AM PDT
Updated: 08/14/2012 10:33:26 AM PDT

SAN FRANCISCO -- University of California leaders weighed in on the U.S. Supreme Court case over the use of affirmative action in college admissions Monday, arguing that it's necessary to consider race to ensure student diversity on selective campuses.

UC President Mark Yudof and 10 campus chancellors filed a "friend of the court" brief to the Supreme Court, which is scheduled to hear a challenge to the University of Texas' consideration of race in undergraduate admissions.

The university leaders point to UC's struggles to create diverse student bodies in the 16 years since California voters banned affirmative action in public hiring, contracting and university admissions.

After the passage of Proposition 209 in November 1996, the proportion of underrepresented minorities declined significantly at the system's most competitive campuses, particularly UC Berkeley and UCLA, as well as its elite graduate schools, according to the brief.

"In a highly selective institution, implementing race-neutral policies leads to a substantial decline in the proportion of entering students who are African American, American Indian and Latino," threatening its ability to train a diverse set of leaders, the administrators wrote in the brief.

The Obama administration and California Attorney General Kamala Harris also submitted legal briefs supporting the University of Texas admissions policy on Monday.

"A diverse student body better prepares students for an increasingly diverse workforce and society," Harris wrote in her amicus brief.

In February, the Supreme Court agreed to hear the University of Texas case, setting the stage for its first ruling on affirmative action in higher education since 2003. Oral arguments are scheduled for Oct. 10.

Abigail Fisher, a white student who was not admitted to the university in 2008, is challenging the Texas admissions policy as a violation of her civil and constitutional rights.

After California banned affirmative action, voters in Arizona, Michigan, Nebraska, Oklahoma, Washington state and Nebraska approved similar bans with similar results.
__________________________________________________________________________________

[Basset]

"Affirmative Action" has no agreed upon meaning, so it is hard to engage in a debate over the term. In the Fisher case, the question IS whether the U of Texas' admissions policy -- which was based upon a U of Michigan Law School policy upheld by the Supreme Court 5-4 in 2003 (Grutter v. Bollinger) -Is constitutional in light of a Texas state law that required U Texas to admit the top 10% of graduating h.s. seniors. Undisputed that Abigail Fisher didn't make the top 10% of her high school class. Undisputed that the U Texas admissions policy is not a quota and does not give any particular "points" to candidates of any particular race.

I recommend that people actually read the Fiifth Circuit Court of Appeals Fisher decision that is going up on appeal. Much better than relying upon journalists to tell you what the case is about. Link to the decision here. The Fifth Circuit is not particularly known for being politically liberal, and 2 of the 3 judges on the court panel are Reagan appointees. They unanimously upheld the U of T plan. Judge Garza suggested in a concurrence that the Grutter decision may be wrongly decided, but agreed U of T's program lawfully followed that decision.

Now we will see if the Supreme Court overrules Grutter -- 9 years after deciding it.

[kswier]

Affirmative action is often talked about in the context of race. However, couldn't affirmative action could also include helping those who come from lower socio-economic backgrounds?

In my mind, the best form of 'affirmative action' is improving school systems in low income neighbourhoods.

[ihasa]

All forms of race discrimination should be banned.

But how about race discrimination in the past, which still has its effects in the present?

My only beef with affirmative action is that it's a band-aid type of solution to the problems that need to be addressed, and increasing the social mobility of historically 'disadvantaged' minorities by empowering their communities would be much better. I suspect affirmative action benefits AA kids who are already from relatively well off middle class families, which would not directly affect the communities which are most in need of help, yet the policy give the impression that 'something is being done'.

That said, in a USA which is becoming more and more enraptured with Social Darwinism, I think affirmative action is probably the best thing that you're going to get.

---

Last edited by ihasa; 08-15-2012 at 05:26 AM.

[les3547]

In my mind, the best form of 'affirmative action' is improving school systems in low income neighbourhoods.

I couldn't agree more.

That said, in a USA which is becoming more and more enraptured with Social Darwinism, I think affirmative action is probably the best thing that you're going to get.

I don't think that's quite the situation. We have a faction on the far right that has become more organized, complete with its own propaganda er' "news" channel which, along with far right prophets like Limbaugh and Beck, convince people it is a good thing to dismantle government, pay no taxes, hate opponents, and turn our country into an every-man-for-himself state (which is why we all need to carry guns). Add to that our steep decline in educational quality over the last forty years, and it's left us with a large population of politically (and generally) ignorant voters who quite eagerly listen to spin and treat it as the truth. That's why you can inadvertently mention Obama while talking to your normally kind, helpful, openminded neighbor or father-in-law, and next thing you know he's gone into the most hateful, mouth-frothing rant you've ever encountered (with every single statement in the rant based on false information).

So yes we have a particularly nasty and now more-organized faction, but I'd estimate it is about a third of the country. Another third of us are solidly behind progressive politics, and another third is independents, some of whom are willing to accept far right extremist stuff in one of the political parties if they think some greater benefit (like more jobs) might derive from electing a party's leader.

The "enrapturing" you mention may or may not be on the rise, I can't tell for sure. Sometimes people will dabble with a philosophy, while others (like Independents) tolerate its extremes to see if it has merit. Two developments might change things for the better. One is if more idiocy, incompetency and failures from the far right clearly show how daft their philosophy is (I don't believe a great many people see just how much of the mess we are in now is due to far right philosophy); and the other possibility for hope is, if Obama can get reelected, get a bipartisan congress (by ousting some of the extremists), and be more successful with Progressive ideas (since nothing convinces like success). And then if we can elect Hillary in 2016, soon we'll be nearly as cool as Canada!

[ihasa]

I hope you're right. Next election could be a bit of a watershed moment. The wind seems to be blowing back in Obama's direction.

But that nasty third of the population aren't going to go away, and will always be dragging the debate off to the right. Can't you just give them a few states and let them have their own devolved government?

[SOldBear]

But how about race discrimination in the past, which still has its effects in the present?

Frankly, I'm sick and tired of people playing this card.

How do you determine the effects of past discrimination?

In Olympics, is race a factor? When sport teams recruit, is race a factor? During congress election, is race a factor? Why should race be factor in college admission?

Just for the record, back in the early 1980s, I was a victim of the affirmative action for college admission. At the time, I was making $300/month to support my under-aged brother and myself, yet managed to go to school full-time and maintain a GPA of 4.0 (out of possible 4.0) at a community college. I was as poor as poor could be. I thought if anyone was to be given a break when applying to college (as a transfer student), that person would be like me. I soon found out that it was not the case. On the contrary, I was discriminated against just because my race was "over-represented" at the universities I applied to. I ended up at a "second- or third-" tier university, and graduated top class after 3 semesters with a GPA of 3.87. I received absolutely no special assistance.

I'm not against giving disadvantaged people a break. But that's not what the current "affirmative action" is doing.

[les3547]

Can't you just give them a few states and let them have their own devolved government?

Lol. I think they actually want that.

[les3547]

Frankly, I'm sick and tired of people playing this card. How do you determine the effects of past discrimination?

I don't think it is relevant if you or I are sick of it, it's only about what is true. We'd love to forget about slavery, and pretend it has nothing to do with the state of things in inner cities. But if you trace it back, you can see descendants of slaves have been kept down both by racist people and policies, as well as by their own damaged self esteem (which has been passed on from generation to generation).

I'll concede one point, the one Ihasa made, which is that Affirmative Action is pretty much token help. Where the help is really needed is from 1-12 grades; if we did a good job there, then there would be no need for special consideration at the college level. Rather than complain about your missed/delayed opportunity (though it sounds like you did okay to me), why not channel your energies into pushing for a more robust education system for inner city and other poverty area schools? A well-educated population makes us all richer, safer and less likely to elect dumb people into office.

[GeneV]

I don't think it is relevant if you or I are sick of it, it's only about what is true. We'd love to forget about slavery, and pretend it has nothing to do with the state of things in inner cities. But if you trace it back, you can see descendants of slaves have been kept down both by racist people and policies, as well as by their own damaged self esteem (which has been passed on from generation to generation).

I agree, Les, but I'll add that it almost diminishes the effect to talk about the effect in terms of slavery by making it seem remote in time. Grossly and intentionally disproportionate education continued until the late 1960s and beyond in much of the country. The physical part was the easiest to see. Back where I grew up, old school buildings became black schools. New, well-equipped (often air-conditioned) schools usually went to the districts with predominately white kids. This was the obvious part, but the teaching was another matter. I remember my mother being assigned to teach at a "black" school and coming back in tears at where these kids were in their learning.

It was only after civil rights laws, lawsuits and busing of the '60s and into the '70s that this began to change. It happened in our lifetime and affected the education of baby boomers working today. I'm sure its effects continue rather significantly with their children and grandchildren.

[les3547]

I agree, Les, but I'll add that it almost diminishes the effect to talk about the effect in terms of slavery by making it seem remote in time. Grossly and intentionally disproportionate education continued until the late 1960s and beyond in much of the country. The physical part was the easiest to see. Back where I grew up, old school buildings became black schools. New, well-equipped (often air-conditioned) schools usually went to the districts with predominately white kids. This was the obvious part, but the teaching was another matter. I remember my mother being assigned to teach at a "black" school and coming back in tears at where these kids were in their learning.

It was only after civil rights laws, lawsuits and busing of the '60s and into the '70s that this began to change. It happened in our lifetime and affected the education of baby boomers working today. I'm sure its effects continue rather significantly with their children and grandchildren.

Excellent points. I only bring up slavery because I've often heard people say it was so long ago, and therefore there's been time to get over it. Slavery is what ingrained racism into our culture; and even though after slaves were relieved of the title "slave," in peoples' minds the stigma remained along with the self-image stuff that goes with it. Jim Crow laws were around when I was a kid too. There were separate water fountains, rest rooms, and swimming pools, for example. But you are right about the education disparity. If all the post-slavery racism remained after slavery was abolished, but we'd invested in a quality education for Black children, today I predict we'd have proportionally just as many Blacks ready for college as Whites, and no higher proportion of Blacks in prison.

[seacapt]

Affirmative Action , Equal Opportunity is an oxymoron.

[Blue]

Excellent points. I only bring up slavery because I've often heard people say it was so long ago, and therefore there's been time to get over it. Slavery is what ingrained racism into our culture; and even though after slaves were relieved of the title "slave," in peoples' minds the stigma remained along with the self-image stuff that goes with it. Jim Crow laws were around when I was a kid too. There were separate water fountains, rest rooms, and swimming pools, for example. But you are right about the education disparity. If all the post-slavery racism remained after slavery was abolished, but we'd invested in a quality education for Black children, today I predict we'd have proportionally just as many Blacks ready for college as Whites, and no higher proportion of Blacks in prison.

We still have dozens of HBCU and 1890 Universities. Many of our students that enter the public ones aren't very well prepared for h.s. much less college. I can't say about the private and independent ones like Howard and Xavier.

[Nesster]

One of the points Malcom Gadwell makes in his book Outliers
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outliers_(book)
is that once past some basic threshold of IQ, IQ alone does not correlate with success. Ditto for early academic success in high school. So places like Harvard have a huge pool of basically qualified applicants... so how to choose? Were the 'standard' measures of 'excellence' or 'qualification' applied, would only the children of the wealthiest and the best educated families - where the family had encouraged and expected lots of extra curricular activities etc - be justly selected?

However, keeping in mind that past a certain point, all applicants regardless of background have about an equal chance of succeeding and even becoming the best of the best in their field of study, does it not make sense to apply 'non standard' criteria as well? Take some odd balls, take some less priviledged kids, go for at least a measure of diversity.

The same holds for business or other occupations. Those who argue against affirmative action as the 'lowering of standards' may be right in individual cases - but then, they will be wrong in many cases where the 'better qualified' caucasian person ends up not thriving. Again, it is a matter of personal development + basic qualifications + opportunity to excel that determines who ultimately succeeds and who doesn't.

[GeneV]

One of the points Malcom Gadwell makes in his book Outliers
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outliers_(book)
is that once past some basic threshold of IQ, IQ alone does not correlate with success. Ditto for early academic success in high school. So places like Harvard have a huge pool of basically qualified applicants...

True. Were George W. Bush and John Kerry really the best applicants for their respective Ivy League schools (their transcripts leave room for doubt), or was there already a sort of "affirmative action" at work?