Interesting new take on Affirmative Action
 

For years, we've seen this debate in one form or another. The Pro-AA side says that it's necessary to make up for past and current injustices. The Anti-AA side says that it's the only legalized form of discrimination that our country has going for it (which isn't exactly true, the military can discriminate pretty much at will for different reasons). Anyway, I was looking through CNN.com and found <a href="http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/01/07/amar.affirmative.action/index.html">this link.</a>

It is a very well-thought out argument from a liberal-minded lawyer with an inter-racial child. So, from the start, it gets a few more credibility points than Bubba, who's sister in law once knew a guy that dated a girl that has an online friendship with a court reporter.

The main idea is that giving minorities a leg up in the admissions process allows them to get into more competitive schools that their own accomplishments wouldn't otherwise allow. Then, they end up getting slightly lower grades than they would have gotten in the less competitive schools. Then, as a result of the lower grades, they fall into a dangerous cycle. Lower grades means lower confidence, and less apropos from the staff. Then, after graduation, they have a lower chance of passing the bar. And, even if they pass the bar, they have lower chances to get hired. An employer will more likely take the A+ student from USC before they'll take a C student from Harvard.

My problem with the whole AA debate is that you can't really argue either side without getting flamed as a racist. If you say that AA is good, then you're racist against whites. If you say it's bad, then you're racist against blacks.

I think that we should start a new cycle without AA. Someone my not be able to get into a better school to make those lesser grades, but they can get into a state school and do well. This sets up their children to do better, because they have a better start.

With the better grades they can make a firm footing for their family. And allow for upward growth. This is a deferred gratification tactic. Which i beleive in.

I am not racist, I think that there shouldn't be a check place for race or gender on any application.


Edit: it's late and my thoughts are not put together well. Sorry.

Aside from the fact that I dispute the notion that academic rigour in Harvard is going to result in a person obtaining a C in Harvard who would otherwise earn an A+ at USC, the employers of each respective school are from different slices of society.

That said, what people holding this kind of attitude seem to not realize is that the process doesn't entail scraping the bottom of the barrel in order to fill whatever seats they feel necessary. It's to help people who already make the cut on their merits.

Aww, those poor white legacy children with their shattered self-esteems! lol, they seem to be doing just fine with their Ivy League C's.

That's not what I was trying to say at all. If you'd read the story behind the link, you'd see that the author isn't trying to say they're scraping the bottom of the barrel. He's saying that students at every level of skill wind up getting into a slightly better school than they would otherwise have earned. If a school normally requires a certain level of skill, then those possessing a lower level of skill will not likely do as well in the school.

Agreed. Look where it got our "leader."

it's been a while since i've had any ivy league friends, but IIRC, a C at harvard was basically failing...

I understand that argument, as well as the point in the article.

I'm pointing out that such a view of the process is warped. Schools are not letting people with less skill into their schools. These applicants have the skill, or they wouldn't be elligable to apply. Other factors, besides skill, like class, the effects of a legacy of discrimination, furthering racial horizons on campus, and etc. are what affirmative action in schools try to address.

Now, arguably, A- students might be elevated over A+ students. But how is one to decde whether such grades are a reflection of lackluster skill level than residual effects of racism. In fact, I would suggest the opposite--that persons who overcome incredible barriers of racism, both hidden and overt, have immense levels of skill, ingenuity, and perseverence.

Of course, all of this was predicated upon your framing of the debate. I don't agree with your premises but didn't want to tear into the entire structure of your arguement.

Marinade on this: the author's argument is flawed from the outset. Law school is a trade school. No one has the skill to be an attorney before going through the process--that's the premise law school's operate under. What law school, and other graduate programs, seek is students who have the capability to learn the skill they are about the be indoctrinated into.

What they need are intelligent students, not skilled ones.

And if you are going to embark on a debate on whether grades accurately reflect one's intelligence, well you might as well open another thread because we social scientists got something for that crapola too.

I didn't specifically refer to him, I didn't want to go down the rabbit hole of bush hating ;)

Paq,
At the few graduate programs I personally know about, including the Ph.D. program I attend, a C is considered failing. (no, I'm not Ivy).

One big problem with affirmative action that I've seen is that it creates the belief that discrimination is necessary.

And you can approach this belief from two directions:

(1) affirmative action (a form of discrimination) is necessary to "balance the playing field" because discrimination in the opposite direction is inherent in society.

(2) discrimination is necessary in order to "balance the playing field" in response to affirmative action (discrimination in the opposite direction).

So in other words, the whole idea behind affirmative action is that the two forces balance each other to create "equality". But if the two forces balance each other, need each other and are dependent on each other, then what's the difference between them? Aren't they symmetrical? If one is wrong, isn't the other wrong also?

You could say, once racism is entrenched, affirmative action becomes necessary to balance racism. Or you could say, once affirmative action is entrenched, then you need racism to balance affirmative action.

In any case, you can see where this leads to. We now have a society where discrimination is seen as good and desirable. And a government that keeps track of everybody's race and ethnicity.

provably false. i certainly have the baseline ability for getting into the engineering programs at MIT, but i'm nowhere close to being as qualified as the top echelon of people who do get the slots. just because you have the baseline skills doesn't even come close to proving that you are most fit among the applicants.

how can levels of discrimination be measured? i know a black missionary family who spent the last 15 years in kenya... should their kids be given special consideration for admission? also, the bit about their presence being valuable for "furthuring racial horizons on campus" is the most demeaning thing i've read in a while. for myself, i will never EVER accept something i did not earn so that my skin color will furthur the horizons of someone else. you may as well stick these people in a damn zoo.

the most unjust thing about affirmative action is the sneering looks and hushed conversations the minorities who DID make it without a patronizing hand-up. they cannot remove themselves from the stigma. they cannot shake the suspicion that they took a more deserving person's place.

Hammer + Nail -------> Head

My opinion is that race should have no bearing on anything ever. This is the problem as i see it. Minority students are consistently put in schools that they don't belong in and arent as qualified. Pitting them against smarter white students. This only furthers the notion that they arent as smart. It is sad really that this problem hasn't been solved or well thought out.

luckily for you, you don't have to consider a lot of what I posted--given that you are as white as my wife.
I don't understand why you would think that my colored presence would demean your educational experience as a white man. but perhaps your exposure to the special hardships I've endured as a consequence of the amount of pigment in my skin will broaden your horizons, regardless of whether you feel discomfort from your priviledged position in society.

You reap the benefits of your skin color every time you walk down a street, apply for a job, and engage with those alabamians you just referenced in another thread. You didn't earn any of that priviledge--it arrives at your door purely as a consequence of your ancestors.

The suspicion of my merit and ability comes from your mind--I didn't create it. You need to re-evaluate those thoughts, I don't need to "shake" anything.

and yeah, your friend from kenya will get special consideration. I'm curious what your application process entailed--there are numerous essay sections to detail special life circumstances.

his point would have accurate had he laid the blame on racists, not affirmative action.
The most unjust thing about this is that racists snear at people at all for any reason. And they will find any reason to justify their sneers. That's one of the main problems with racists, they hide under all sorts of veils.


and back to the thread, this isn't a "new" take on AA, it's an old and tired argument. And now you see a lot of peope coming out of the woodwork to throw their collective, white weight behind it.

your opening salvo smacked of the validity of a model minority's opinion.

Or they get labeled Uncle Tom's...

Provably false in my graduate school, as documented by disciplinary actions by the state licensing board against the AA babies.

Managing to get considered for admission to graduate school is hardly grounds to say you've "overcome incredible barriers of racism." However, I've seen many that have immense prowess in presenting themselves as "victims of racism."

Pardon me, but your racism is showing.

The whole point of AA is that it is trying to help minorities who are decent students or above average to try to go to college; minorities statistically live in poorer neighborhoods and make much less money. AA helps give these kids a chance that they probably wouldn't have had if they had not done well in school. It doesn't let stupid kids in, you have to have decent grades to get in college, but if AA wasn't their these kids probably who should go to college probably wouldn't because they can't afford it. So it all depends on how you look at it. AA gives less unfortunate kids a chance at a life that they probably wouldn't have had otherwise and continue their family's cycle of poverty. Also for you people who think this just pertains to minorities your wrong it also pertains to women too, who are also undercut in the working world for being who they are, women.

The main problem is that AA is deeply flawed.

1. There is a problem with admissions of "unqualified" applicants who aren't ready for the collegiate level of academia.

2. I believe it would be more productive to redirect AA funding to the k-12 level of education so that they can be better prepared and actually get into colleges on their own.

This is by no means racist or patronizing but rather pragmatic and practical. In the meantime, going to community college and then transferring to a state school or other is a great way to further a college education. And not just for minorities but for all sorts of folks who just weren't ready or couldn't cut it the first time around.

Remember, there are a lot of good state schools and it's cheaper too. Community Colleges are a great intermediary step to help prepare for that upper division and last 2 years of university. It doesn't help anyone when the kids getting in aren't prepared and get demoralized and stuff.

So back to the main part: Getting kids (of all types) to be prepared for college. It starts with the k-12.

I believe the affordabiliy issue is bunk. There are all types of financial aid, loans etc available, especially for minorities. That is the worst excuse I have ever heard: "I can't go to school cause I can't afford it" Of course you can because you can not NOT afford it. Very few people actually pay for a college education cash out. Most of us have to have financial aid, loans etc. That's why it's smarter to cut two years at the community college where it's loads cheaper. Then you only have to pay for the last two years at a state or something which is still cheaper.

People, you can afford it: defer all other gratification firts. You don't even need to work part time either. Figure it out. Responsibility, accountablility.

sheesh, thank you drakers, I totally spaced that factoid.
The largest group of beneficiaries of affirmative action programs are upwardly mobile, white women.

in the grad program i'm in right now, a C is enough to make your future in doubt....well, ok, it's enough to force most people out of the program. I just remember something to the same effect being in place for ivy league undergrads as well. I just haven't heard in a while nor have i experienced it firsthand.

Are you serious? First of all, you have to get off your parents income to get even enough loans to help pay for college. And second, not everyone wants to use debt as a solution to go to school. You are nieve at the problem at hand. Money just doesn't grow on trees in financial aid.

not to mention those points are particularly relevant. AA in education doesn't award public money to minorities, it allows them a slot in the program. They either obtain or possess the funds to pay for the courses, their tuition doesn't change as a function of race.

In the cases where graduate programs provided means for students to attend the program, the money (or job) is allotted to all the students, not just the minorities. We could point to various low level scholarships (like diversity funds = ~$1-2000 dollars, which might buy books) to refute my statement, but then we'd have to see whether that money stems from public coffers. Funds from the Ford Foundation are privately donated--so they don't count either.

But the point is that AA isn't about tuition or money, it's about access. The student still has to obtain funding from some source. The two aren't linked together at the admissions level.

I don't think that these invisible barriers of racism are as prevelant as many believe, and therefore AA merely allows inferior candidates entry. If you're capable of entering on merit alone then all AA can do is bolster what will already suffice, if it proved necessary, you beat out superior competition due to race, and thats as good and right as AA.

exactly.

a c student at any college, getting into a business school, and it's at harvard?!?!?!?!? moving on to running oil companies (not much success there)... owning/managing a baseball team and trading away sammy sosa?!?!?!!?

things like this can and do occur in our society, but the opportunities are not there for everyone.



of course your statement presumes that minority students are consistently not as qualified and don't have what it takes. but then again, if you've never seen it, you wouldn't know.



if you don't know the members of a given admissions committee, then you wouldn't know what barries, visible or invisible, that exist.


from personal experience, i'm one of a handful of african-americans in medical school at emory university. i graduated with a 3.6, had multiple acceptances into medical school. i was a part of the largest group of african-american students ever accepted to emory in 2000 with a group of 16 people (out of a class of 114)... yet people will claim that we were admitted to satisfy requirements and that we're not qualified to be at a top 20 medical school.

how long have african-americans been accepted into medical school at emory? 42 years (interestingly enough, the first african-american admitted into emory's medical school was also the first african-american admitted into the university of georgia). 42 years isn't a long time at all.

sadly, emory hasn't come close to eclipsing the number of 16 since that year.

who sits on the admissions committee/board? only one african-american

it's engendered in the history of the institution, and the barriers of acceptance are seen on the racial/ethnic make up of the admissions committee. combine that with the issues that emory university has had with admitting african-american and other minorites into it's undergraduate instituion, professorships, and other graduate school programs, and it becomes quite evident... it's a much harder struggle than you would ever imagine.

but of course, if you don't know, you don't know. and if you don't know, you can claim it doesn't exist.

Drakers,

I don't think you understand: A college education is not as out of reach as everyone seems to think it is. There is a whole host of options and choices out there. Problem is, people are just too lazy or irresponsible to use those resources. Going into to minimal debt for college is hardly a big deal. If it is, then one obviously has different priorities. It's called deferred gratification, and a college education is one of the best "investments" anyone can make.

Besides, not all colleges ar $40,000 a year. There are plenty of state schools (good ones too) that are under $10,000. Are you telling me it is too difficult to visit a schools admissions office and financial aid office to see what kind of offer one can get?

I buy my clothes at Goodwill, take the bus, don't own any DVDs, CDs, XBOx etc, drink Bud Light cans at home instead of going to a bar, cook all my meals at home, clip coupons etc, went to a community college ($150 tuition for a semester), borrowed my books from the library, qualified for a Pell grant, then my grades were good enough to start getting more grants, scholarships and then transferred to a 4-year State University ( a good one too) where I am doing well and got a good financial aid package including grants, loans and scholarships. At most, I will only owe $8-9000 after I graduate. Not a bad investment at all. I know people who have that as a balance on their credit card bills cause they bought stupid shit and couldn't live beneath their means. Their priorities were different.

So, before you start accusing me of being naive, do some research first and you'll see that it's not as hard as everyone makes it out to be (it's not super easy either) but if people started taking personal responsibility and accountablility they too could succeed.

Smooth,
The question of affordablilty is one that people often make to accuse the system of being racist or at the very least affordability restricts college access to minorities. That's one of the arguments. I was just refuting that aspect of the issue.

Quote: drakers
but if AA wasn't their these kids probably who should go to college
probably wouldn't because they can't afford it.

Regardless,

AA just doesn't work right. The problem is at the k-12 level. Not necessarily the college level, that would be my main point.

It's unforuntate that something as simple as AA can be dismantled, reverse engineered, analyzed and critiqued to such degree and with such troubling results.

AA is really simple.

Think of it this way. When your car needs an alignment or the steering column is otherwise broken, it can drift in one direction. To compensate and ensure the car travels along a straight line, you must counter the drift by steering in the opposite direction of the drift. This tactic successfully negates the drifting, producing the desired result: a straight line. That it requires compensation to produce what is, under ideal mechanics, the desired result, is simply a matter of life - if your car drifts, you must compensate the steering.

That is AA, right there. Society is racist and gender discriminatory. AA is a means of compensation to artificially produce the desired, ideal, result: parity between races and sexes. You might argue that society is not racist and therefore does not require an artificial method of stabalization, but if you made that argument you would simply be wrong: there is empirical evidence that society is discriminatory. As such, there are really two options: AA or Something Else. If you have an idea of what this Something Else is that can steer society back on course, by all means share it. If you have no idea what Something Else might be, you really need to accept AA and the faults that it includes by nature.

Of particular absurdity is this concept that AA itself is harmful to the very people it has been put in place to protect. Smooth addressed this issue best: any harm that you perceive towards someone who could have or has benefitted from AA is simply an aspect of your own mind, not an inherent attribute of AA itself. Since that is the case, it can be dismissed as the imaginary problem that it is.

And lastly, to those that claim AA is, itself, discriminatory - yes indeed it is. That is the counter steering affect you perceive. Of course AA is not what anyone could call a perfect solution. Rather, AA is the necessary reaction to discrmination. If you have the perfect solution, or even just a better reaction to discrmination, by all means let us know. But assuredly, you are entirely incorrect to claim that there is either no need for a reaction or that there simply is no discrimination. Racism exists, ignoring it will not make it go away and doing nothing about the consequences of it is to accept it and encourage it (if you never counter steered your car, you would eventually turn around, never getting where you want to go).

Two wrongs don't make a right.

If someone steals from you, it isn't ok for you to then steal from me. Compensation in this case is flawed.

Instead of AA, fix the problem at its base level.

K-12 education. Fix the k-12 education. Then, on college admissions, get rid of race and gender categories, and issue everyone a number thereby producing an application that is impossible to discriminate against. I would get rid of all preferential treatment including alumni offspring status, legacies, donor offspring, athletes etc.

Exactly. And this means that in order for your car to stay on the road, it has to be permanently damaged. As soon as the underlying problem fixes itself, you careen off the road, because you're compensating for something that is no longer there.

So AA requires racism in order to stay "on the road", or in order to keep the level playing field.

As long as AA exists, then racists are justified in saying, "Racism is fine, because it balances all those discriminatory AA programs. We need a level playing field, and as long as AA is in force, there won't be one unless racism balances the programs." It's a vicious cycle, with racists on one side of the fence justifying themselves by accusing the racists on the other side of the fence. Back and forth, over and over.

So your car's steering mechanism continues to go ever more haywire, so that eventually you're steering off at a 90 degree angle to compensate.

And you have an institutionally racist society, inside and out, where the idea that racism is good to counter racism is practically inborn.

How long can you trust a government like that? A government that keeps close tabs on the race and ethnicity of all its workers? How long before someone decides that one race (e.g. Jews) have so much unfair advantage that they deserve to lose some of their constitutional rights in order to "compensate" for the damaged steering mechanism of that metaphorical car?

I completely understand your argument, but I think this is a dangerous road you're going down.

Nonsense. This is only a problem if we accept the delusion that there is no racism by virtue of the supposed (but nonexistent) complete offset of racism due to AA. AA does not cure racism and as such, the affects of racism are still apparent. The only way for AA to contribute to the increase the "original" racism is if AA is ignored and racism is ignored. That is either so unlikely as to be moot or simply not possible at all.

As for the possible exuse from a racist, claiming that it is now THEY who must offset the adverse affects of AA, that is purely delusional. AA is instituted and can be insitutionally adapted. Racism is not and does not alter or otherwise adjust itself based on a list of rules and regulations. Racism is a self-propogated aspect of society, AA is a self-instituted aspect of society. The former is a deep-rooted effect which causes (or necessitates, anyway) the peripheral latter.

There is nothing dangerous about pointing out the road we are on. In fact, it is dangerous to deny we are on it. As long as people fight the concept of AA, we are in trouble because to do so is to deny racism, which then requires more AA. The goal is to decrease racism and thereby decrease the necessity of AA.

Disagreeing with AA is not denying racism.

There are people who are not racist and don't deny racism who disagree with the concept of practicing discrimination against one group to alleviate discrimination against another group. Especially when the first group is not guilty of gender or racial discrimination. It's making the sons pay for the sins of the fathers.

It would probably be better for all concerned if the admissions folks had no idea what race and gender the candidates are. Our ultimate goal is to end sexism and racism in our society and I believe AA will do more harm than good.

No civilized government should be in the business of restricting people's fundamental civil rights based on their race. I think we all believe that.

Now you might not think that the right to be admitted to college based solely on your record is a "fundamental civil right." Reasonable people might disagree there.

But where do you draw the line? What rights are inviolable, and what rights can the government mess with at will? When does the government start to restrict your right to privacy based on your race, your right to free speech based on your race, your right to bear arms based on your race? Or your gender? Or your sexual preference?

This "level the playing field" argument that Manx is making, taken to its logical conclusion, can be used to rationalize all sorts of injustices that no civilized society should tolerate.

Wow, you don't have much tolerance on your part. Most minorities go to schools who have little money to lure good teachers to their schools, their is a cycle out there that is continually repeating itself, which is poverty. How will blacks or any other minority be at any equal level with us white people if they continue to go to schools that are crappy. If the republicans would get off their asses and look at the real problem this wouldn't be a topic to talk about. The real problem is that Bush created the "No Child left behind" which is more like "No child that goes to private schools should be left behind" (sarcasm done), but federal money should be helping our schools more to help solve our inner-city school problems, in the big cities.

I'm sure I will be lambasted for these comments, so begin as you please!! :D

You may disagree with it, but until you come up with an alternative that works just as well, you have no business working for the removal of it.
Sorry, but this is nonsense. Racism is not something that happened years ago. It exists today in every human being on the planet in varying degrees. It's a part of human nature to accept that which is similar to yourself and reject that which differs.
This is primarily impractical, particularly when applied to job applicants. There is not going to be any hiring without a face to face interview. Beyond that, it is yet another method of ignoring the reality that racism and discrimination exists.
Well, you are wrong.

Yes it is.

an aside to the central argument in this thread:

it is a wonder that harvard has to spend any money on marketing ever, because you have comercials for it floating out of films (good will hunting) and new stories...

in the current academic job market, harvard is not that different from any number of other schools in that you do not have a particular concentration of good faculty there as over against other places---partly as a function of harvard's particular tenure system, partly as a result of the distribution of endowments across universities in general. fac migrates where the cash is, frankly. it is quite the paradigm of an oppositional culture. o yes it is.

i really detest the whole legacy thing. the motivations are obvious: alumni families can buy lowered admissions standards for their kids by playing the possibility of future donations to the university. universities are interested in the money. families are interested in cultural capital.

the lowering of admissions standards for legacies is a routine bit of class-based privilege--one that i rarely hear conservatives whining about (tho the one thing bush said his entire first administration i agreed with was an offhand remark about this subject)....conservatives in the main have no problem with class privelege--they just prefer to privatize it. the worldview you run into in conservative media-land militates against being able to even raise the matter--because wealth is associated with higher virtue, the results of wealth in skewing processes like admissions to university can only be understood as following logically from the wealthy possessing higher virtue than the rest of us.

i assume the same foul tracing of market ideology applies at some level in their understanding of obvious, systemic inequalities in public education that follow from tying funding for schools to local property taxes--if the right was serious at any level at all about eliminating discrimination, they would start by flattening funding to public schools. but they dont--they want private schools, so the problem of class can be exacerbated on the one hand, while pundits on tv and radio can say, at the same time, that the problms are being addressed on the other.

given this, that the same ideology would work so hard to fashion arguments against affirmative action is surreal.

anyway--on the question of the "c" being understood as failing in the ivies: i do not know where this idea comes from, but at the undergrad level it is simply false.
at the graduate level, things are otherwise. but you can get bounced out of grad school for fucking things up with your committee just as easily. in many ways, grad school is a kind of extended lesson in deference-formation, in developing new and improved ways of instrumentalize social relations, etc. that is not all it is, of course...but this is a non-trivial element of it.


end digression

It doesn't work that way. One certainly can fight for the removal of such a solution, even when there isn't an equally efficient solution, when the solution in question is unconscionable and repugnant. When the means aren't justified by the end.

AA's a macro-perspective solution that has too many micro-level injustices to be acceptable. It's wrong to assume that a given hirer will be racist, even when some are.

No, it really isn't. Perhaps you'd like to outline why you think the two positions cannot be separated.

And it will always be a part of human nature. Just like stealing, lying, and cheating, etc. But we don't have the government allow stealing from innocent people to make up for the fact that stealing is a fact of life in our society.

The best solution is simply to remove race as a category for everything.

Now before you freak out, don't you make me get my big badassed book of Frederick Douglass quotes out on you....

The solution in question is no more unconscionable or repugnant than the problem that it, to some degree, remedies. So unless you do have an alternate solution, to propose that AA be removed is to welcome an increase in repugnance. Hence, it does work that way.
Everything is imperfect, even more so when you are speaking of an initiative implemented on a large scale by a large organization such as the government. I'm open to improvements to AA that do not limit its effectiveness and I'm open to entirely different methods of dealing with the general discrimination that society contains. I am not open to removing any protections against discrimination simply because those protections may or may not contain various degrees of imperfection.
Yes it is. And in this thread I have already demonstrated the linked nature of AA and discrmination.

We have other, also imperfect, solutions to stealing, lying cheating, etc. AA is our imperfect solution to discrimination.

Come up with something better. We are constantly altering the legal system to improve it. I don't see many people suggesting we abolish the legal system because there are occassionally some innocent people convicted. So why do you want to remove the only institutionalized protection against discrimination?

There have been many alternatives suggested by many people of many races. One possibility is affirmative action based solely on economic status, race neutral. Would this satisfy you?

No, it's a bit more repugnant when wrongdoing is backed by law. Whatever the motivation. It is wrong to require preferences based on skin color. Even if other people do it too. Two wrongs really don't cancel each other out. There would be a decrease repugnance, because one wrong would have ceased.

It's not a matter of imperfection. It's a matter of immorality. It's not a valid way to deal with the problem.

Yes it is. And in this thread I have already demonstrated the linked nature of AA and discrmination.[/QUOTE]

Show me why one can't believe that racism exists and also believe that AA is wrong. That's the claim I'm disagreeing with.

As a replacement for AA, it would not satisfy me or, more importantly, the problem. As something we should implement to address an altogether different problem, the one of class discrimination, yes, it would satisfy me. But as is the case with AA, you'd see a lot of rich people complaining about being "discriminated" against because they are rich. To which I wouldn't shed a tear.

Delimiting based on economic status does not address race or gender discrimination except via proxy. A proxy solution is no solution at all. AA is here to teach us that we are discriminatory. By only going through the proxy of the disparaties in economic status, itself a problem produced by racism, is to ignore the real problem.

I see. Even if it equalized the overall socioeconomic status of the races, it still wouldn't be enough. Certain races would still need a leg up at the expense of other races.

Noted.

It's wrongdoing to convict an innocent man. It is not wrong to require preferences based on skin color to deal with the issue of discrimination based on skin color. This is not an issue of two wrongs, it is an issue of equalization. Decreasing AA will result in an increase in discrimination. AA is something we can adaptively control. Racism is something we cannot legislate out of existence if we so choose. AA is not repugnant. Racism is repugnant. You need to stop confusing the two.
When there are no other ways of dealing with it, the only option that is available is the option that must be taken. It would be more immoral to remove this method of checking racism, thereby allowing racism to flourish.
Because by fighting to remove AA you are fighting to increase racism. As I have already posted. Go back and read my first couple of posts in this thread if you want more information.

Please. If that's what you think I said, you need some assistance with reading comprehension.

That some races are in much lower economic status levels than other races is NOT a product of race. It is a product of RACISM.

Adding an economic adjustment to these CLASSES is not going to address the issue of RACISM, it will only address the issue of wealth. Focusing on the economics means you want to hide the racism. You won't be addressing the racism, only the symptoms of racism. Racism continues, but you get to pretend it doesn't exist. Until you wake up one day and all the black people live in secure gated communities and all the white people live in secure gated communities, and never the two races mingle. With a perfect economic adjustment, we would end up with a bunch of races that all have the same money but never hire another race. The racial divides in this country would continue to exist.

You want to address the economic disparity? Good. So do I. But don't confuse it with the racial divide and racism.

That's a very interesting response, Manx. So you're saying that even if AA by income equalized the socioeconomic status of the races, then that still won't be enough. Some races will still need a leg up at the expense of other races. Because otherwise whites and blacks will be living in separate gated communities.

Right?

now you're just making stuff up.

no. the suspicion of your merit comes from the truth. you see, AA paints minorities into a corner. this time it isn't igorance, or bigotry, or hate that drives suspicion. this time it's the TRUTH that a minority isn't necessarily equal with his peers that drives such thought. the dignity of all minorities is demolished when it is the truth that vindicates suspicion... the right is no longer on your side.

Wrong. Try again.

I'm not being flip, I'm seriously trying to understand what you're saying. But if you don't want me to, then fine.

Since you show interest, it would probably be beneficial for you to understand. You repeated your analysis of my statement, almost word for word. That is why I suggest trying harder to understand.

But I will give it a third try:

Remove income from the equation. Income disparity that is broken down along racial lines is a symptom of racism. There is no value in treating symptoms and ignoring causes. AA is not about giving one race a "leg up", it is about demonstrating to society that your car is oversteering and until that problem is fixed, we will need to counter steer.

Raveneye,
I think what Manx is trying to say is that the two issues (socio-economic & race) while related, are separate in his AA statement.

In his argument,the institution is racist, separate from income status in and of itself. So for him (Manx, correct me if I'm wrong in interpreting your position), it's two issues. Getting rid of one does not necessarily fix the other.

EX: A socio-economic neutral application would not resolve racism.

EX: Racism exists outside of the socio-economic sphere.

Raveneye,
I think what Manx is trying to say is that the two issues (socio-economic & race) while related, are separate in his AA statement.

In his argument,the institution is racist, separate from income status in and of itself. So for him (Manx, correct me if I'm wrong in interpreting your position), it's two issues. Getting rid of one does not necessarily fix the other.

EX: A socio-economic neutral application would not resolve racism.

EX: Racism exists outside of the socio-economic sphere.

So, while he agrees with your position on socio-economic parity as one component of a separate issue, he disagrees with you that it would resolve the institutionalized racism that he believes exists.

OK, let's take this one step at a time.

"Remove income from the equation" plus

"We still need to counter steer"

directly implies that we still need racial AA preferences even if incomes are all equalized among the races.

In other words, it's a simple logical question. Which of these two statements would you agree with, Manx:

(1) If the mean incomes of all the races were equalized, race-based AA preferences will still be necessary.

(2) If the mean incomes of all the races were equalized, race-based AA preferences will no longer be necessary.

Do you agree with either one of these?

I'm trying to explicitly imply it. I've tried 3 times to explicitly imply it by using 3 different methods of saying it.

Because income disparity is not the problem. Racism is the problem. Income disparity is born of racism. Address the problem of racism and by default you are addressing the symptom of income disparity. Consider it a bonus, but the ultimate goal is to address racism.

In regards to 1 or 2 - the answer is 1.

Pretty much exactly. Though I would clarify that income disparity between races is predominantly due to racism. So in the utopia of a non-racist society, there is basically no income disparity between races. But in the utopian society of non-disparate income between races, there is still racism.

Not necessarily, unless you think that all people in charge of hiring are racists. If you don't believe that, then there will be many circumstances in which AA is, indeed, racism. Circumstances where AA will take a specific situation in which there was no favoritism towards a particular race and turn it into favoritism towards a particular race. Racism. That's the second wrong I'm talking about.

Even assuming that racism absolutely will increase with the removal of AA, that's not proof that AA opponents don't believe racism exists. I'm not particularly interested in looking through your other posts to find an explanation for your leaps.

Well (1) is almost exactly what I stated the first time, and you denied that it was true.


OK so now it's clear. Even if all the races had identical socioeconomic status, you believe that some races still:

(1) need preferential admission to college,
(2) need to be preferentially hired and promoted,
(3) etc.,

even though those being preferentially treated have the same socioeconomic status on average as those who are not being preferentially treated.

SO here's the next question: in this scenario where all the races have equal socioeconomic status yet AA is still necessary, how do you decide which race(s) deserve the preference?

Keep in mind that, as you pointed out earlier, every human being on the planet is racist.

Ha. If you're not going to read my other posts, how exactly can you claim I am making a leap?

Ya know, I had a whole response written to the other portions of your post, but then I read the portion quoted here and it became clear that I was wasting my time. If you are not going to read the posts I make in a thread, you shouldn't be responding to them with the nonsense that you have come up with.

#1 is not even close to what you said the first time. Which was this:

Certain races would still need a leg up at the expense of other races

I take exception to the phrase "a leg up" and to the phrase "at the expense of". Neither of those two phrases are contained or implied in #1, which was this:

If the mean incomes of all the races were equalized, race-based AA preferences will still be necessary.

The fundamental area that you are wrong is that you are unable to differentiate between those two statements, which are quite clearly very distinct.

The secondary area that you are not comprehending is that AA is beneficial to ALL races in that it decreases the negative affects of racism. Hence, there is no race that suffers an "expense", as you claim.
Yes.
Population density.

As an aside, it is telling that in almost all discusions of AA, even though the majority of beneficiaires are based on gender, the topic of race is dominant.

I'm not responding to your other posts, I'm responding to this post. And I don't believe there is an explanation in your other posts. Prove me wrong. I'm not going hunting for something that may or may not be there.

Or give up. I can live with either choice of yours.

Now that's an interesting observation. I'd like to see if the posters' responses would be similar if the topic of AA was solely about gender.

The bottom line is there would be no need for AA if racism AND sexism did not exist. Obviously, someone recognizes that a problem exists which has a detrimental effect on the society as a whole. The remedy may not be palatable to certain segments of that society, but one must remember that the illness itself was not palatable to certain segments of society. Some people were sickened and weakened by others' actions, they need to be treated for being made ill.

Manx, way to hang in there...

First of all, Affirmative Action programs do not use Federal Money (except for a bit channeled in grants that states may or may not use - insignificant).

Second, 90% of the slots aren't taken from general university population for AA, the goal is to create additional slots for these qualified individuals. People getting shut out of schools because of AA is a myth. You didn't get in the school because of what you brought to the table - the slot wasn't taken from you. AA is a great excuse for your buddys and to get sympathy from your family and girlfriend, but the slot wouldn't have been there for you if AA didn't exist either. Like a reserved parking spot you can't use anyway.

Third, there is no such thing as reverse discrimination. Please stop saying that. (Gasp!) Discrimination is the action of using authority and power to manipulate those without authority or power into even lesser positions. By definition the reverse cannot exist. Racism is the belief system that causes the action of discrimination. You can have reverse racism, but that just means the black person doesn't like you because you were a racist to begin with, which is pretty fair. These definitions are not interchangable if we are going to understand each other and be consistant.

To repeat, unless your government carte blanche kicked enough white people out of schools and boardrooms and replaced with minorities to a level that EXCEEDS overall population demographics, there is no reverse discrimination. You're safe from being a victim. There is no "White Man's Burden" you all seem to wear on your sleeve. Quit trying to sell it.

If you really need proof that racism is alive and well today, look at the the faculty of your schools, the presidents of your universities, the Board of Directors at your companies. Then look at our prisons. I know - it's not your fault. Fine. Your off the hook. But there is a real problem with our society and the "why" of this mess that somebody has to address. As Manx was patiently repeating - money doesn't solve the problem. We have to create opportunities within our social structure that don't currently exist to lift up the possibilities and the idea of a young woman or minority so they can have the same conviction you had growing up that if they work hard, society has a place waiting for them. When you have seen that everyday of your life on TV, in the neighborhoods you grew up in, the schools you got to go to... you are blind to the value of having real possibility to believe in.

If your father, and your brother were sitting in jail, it's a short road for you to get there too. Believe it.

Anyway - I'm tired and out.

Perhaps you can be more specific. Are you saying that the race with the lowest population density is the race that receives AA preferences?

Which race(s) would that be?

The only reason I'm even referring to race is that race has been your perspective all along. AA favoring women is much harder to defend (if anything) than AA by race, given that women in the U.S. outnumber AND outperform men in just about every university in the country.

If anybody here wants to defend AA by gender, go ahead. My responses here have been entirely reactive.

Just to summarize my position at this point.

(1) The purpose of AA is to equalize the socioeconomic status of different groups in society, primarily racial minorities but also women.

(2) The purpose of AA has never been to eliminate racism or sexism, nor is it even capable of doing so.

(3) Racism and sexism will never be eliminated from human society.

(4) AA is a form of government legitimized racism and sexism.

(5) A non-racist and non-sexist response to inequities in socioeconomic status is more just and fair than the reverse.

(6) One such response would be a race and gender-neutral AA based solely on socioeconomic status, coupled with more aggressive enforcement of anti-discrimination law.

The purpose of AA is to give a particular race or gender assistance. If it doesn't provide any assistance, then it is not doing anything. Assistance is the "action" in "affirmative action." A synonym for assistance is "leg up".

If there is only a finite number of positions (students accepted or jobs offered by a company) then members of the group that is not receiving assistance is placed at an immediate disadvantage; i.e. their probability goes down of getting approved for that limited number of openings (at Harvard or at Microsoft, etc.). Thus they are at a disadvantage, because not receiving the job or spot in the university is an immediate disadvantage.

Now you may argue that overall, AA is just, and that's fine, but that's a completely different point. The fact is that in any instance in which AA actually performs an action, it increases the probability of socioeconomic advancement of one group, and decreases the probability of socioeconomic advancement of another group.

If it did not do that, then what would it ever accomplish?

What am I making up? Everyone can look at my photos to determine if I look like a minority (and I am), and I've looked at yours (and you certainly look white to me). And then you said this:

So what exactly am I making up? My presence on your campus would expand your racial horizons. How does that demean your educational experience?

You accept things you didn't earn all day long just by virtue of your whiteness.
Your attitude comes across as sanctimonious, especially when you rail against all the things about AA illustrating to you my unworthiness of being where I am. I think those kinds of comments are very telling of your character.

lol, surprise, surprise, many white males are opposed to programs that help minority races and women!
The very groups they've held political, economic, and social power over for extremely long times.
...and then deny that their opposition stems from their race or gender ;)

Another pertinent point that needs to be made in any discussion of AA: "race" per se is nonexistent. Researchers in the field of human evolution have rejected the entire concept of "race" as applied to human biology.

That doesn't mean that people don't discriminate based on what they believe are racial differences. But the fact is that the construct "race" has no biological basis. Rather human beings occupy a broad biological continuum with absolutely no evidence of any lines of division anywhere. The genetic differences that people psychologically associate with "race" are caused by just a few genetic loci that control trivial, superficial traits like melanin production. These loci are shared by the entire human population, and any person could have gotten any of these alleles from anywhere on the planet.

I can dig up over a dozen research articles on this if anybody is interested.

But the point I'm making here is that, if race is meaningless biologically, then "racial diversity" also is of questionable meaning. How can you have a diverse racial presence if separate races do not exist? What "racial diversity" really means, in the context of biological differences, is just a diverse mixture of genetic alleles controlling trivial, superficial physical traits. Those alleles could come from anywhere on the planet, they aren't owned by any particular "race."

So racial diversity is really just diversity in some superficial human traits that somebody recently decided are important. Those traits don't translate necessarily into any other kind of diversity. That includes cultural diversity, religious diversity, linguistic diversity, socioeconomic diversity, geographic diversity, intellectual diversity, political diversity, or any other kind of diversity that one might want to have on a college campus or working environment.

So, for example, you could achieve a full, complete "racial diversity" by sampling 100% from middle-class, English-only-speaking, Protestant, Republican, SUV-driving, Jeopardy lovers who like Maroon 5 and video games all entirely living now in Bloomington Indiana. That group, however, wouldn't be the best you could put together if what you were looking for was cultural diversity.

There are many many many more similarities than there are differences among the so-called "races". There are many many many differences within each so-called "race" than there are differences between them.

We need to look beyond the superficial if we're ever going to treat each other like we're all from one human race.

What somebody's skin color or gender is should not be relevant in evaluating the arguments they are making.

But for the record, you should realize that there are many women and non-white people who are opposed to AA quotas, for many reasons.

raveneye, while i don't disagree with your sentiments about the biology of race (i in fact agree with you), but it still stands that people make differences based on what they see, i.e. phenotype.

while the philosophical argument of what race is or isn't, or does it even exist, is a great topic... it does nothing to answer the question of necessity of affirmative action programs. if anything, it says that race doesn't exist, and thus affirmative action programs shouldn't exist... but women and minorities will continue to be shunned and exlcuded from certain arenas.

i said it earlier in the thread, and i'll say it again:

the simple fact that a man like george w. bush can graduate with a c average, attend business school at harvard, become governor after many failed business ventures (oil, getting rid of sammy sosa), and then become president shows, in my eyes, that affirmative action programs are indeed necessary. getting into a post graduate school with a c average?!?!?!?!?! i don't think anyone can argue that it was anything but privelege that helped him get into business school at harvard.

i have a hard time imaging that a woman or a historically underrepresented minority could get into business school at harvard after having a c average in an undergraduate institution. should an affirmative action program change that. no. what it should do is allow people who have the credentials a seat at the table.

what many people seem to think is that affirmative action programs allow people who aren't qualified in the least bit, a position/seat at an institution. this is hardly the case. rather, people who tend to be ignored are now looked at.

are all administrators/board of directors/human resource managers/those in charge of hiring/admission committee members racist?!? i wouldn't think so. but are there things that may cloud their judgement/taint their view? sure.


for instance, the university of chicago and mit had a study using resumes, those with unique names/names typically associated with African-American names, and names that seemed to be culturally/racially neutral... the outcome was that even though the resumes were the same, people in positions of power tended to choose the resumes with culturally/racially neutral names (1/10 name neutral resumes received a response versus 1/15 of racially/culturally associate names)...

http://www.nber.org/digest/sep03/w9873.html
http://boston.bizjournals.com/kansas...s7.html?page=1
http://www.collegian.psu.edu/archive...03dnews-01.asp
http://www.imdiversity.com/Villages/...rimination.asp

were those in charge of hiring racist? were the decisions unconscious?

the study's aim was to see whether or not there was a difference with just a name... and it seems quite clear that there is a difference, at least with hiring employment.

one can only imagine what occurs with admissions to college/universities.

edit: here's the paper in pdf format: http://papers.nber.org/papers/w9873.pdf

I think that kind of racial diversity would still have some value, in that it would give some useful exposure to other races that would clear up preconceived notions and embedded stereotypes much more effectively than just saying, "All black people are not alike" or what have you.

But it's not of anywhere near enough value to justify affirmative action.

Certainly this is true, as I said clearly in the post you are responding to. My comments on the biology of race were specifically within the context of the questionable value of the goal of "racial diversity" not discrimination per se.

So in other words, I am saying that AA used for the purpose of promoting "racial diversity" is of very dubious value, since in practical terms it comes down to little more than diversity in nose width and skin melanin production.

I would say it is relevant to the question of the necessity of AA, if the purpose of any particular AA implementation is to capture something that is biologically imaginary.

If the purpose of an AA implementation is to increase the socioeconomic status of a disadvantaged group, I would say that is a good and worthwhile purpose, regardless of the reasons the group is disadvantaged (e.g. because of biologically imaginary traits). I am questioning, however, whether AA as currently used is the best (fairest, most beneficial in the long term) way to do this.

AA was started in 1965, when George W. Bush was only 19 years old. It certainly didn't prevent money and influence from getting him pretty much whatever he wanted. I don't see your logic here.

And that is still happening, 40 years after AA was started.

Well I don't know about Harvard, but that is certainly happening not uncommonly in schools all over the country, due to AA or similar "diversity" initiatives in some schools.

I served for 7 years on the Graduate Admissions Committee of a major university, and I can tell you from personal experience that you are wrong here. We admitted people routinely who self-identified as "black" whom we never would have admitted if they were white. About half of those students dropped out within a year.

Everybody is biased in one way or another. Like Manx said, we all feel more comfortable around familiar faces. On the other hand, some people I've noticed feel competitively threatened by people they identify as the "same race". Which way the bias goes depends on who is there at the helm making these decisions. The committee that I was on was very sympathetic to minorities, except for one Chinese professor who was very negative toward Chinese applicants. Other committees that I've seen have not been sympathetic to minority applicants.

I'm sure that's rampant, but my purpose here has never been to deny that. I'm just questioning whether AA as currently implemented is the best way of dealing with it. I have thought about this a lot and I believe as of now that it is not.

I'm open to argument, however, with anybody of any gender or race :)

Without delving too much into my personal position on AA, which is most likely skewed due to my being a white male, I had another question. Could someone explain the descrepancies in bar pass rate described in the article. Assuming that he was speaking of similarly talented students who attent an elite and non-elite school, why would the non-elite school student actually do better on the bar? Assuming that they both had equal abilities, and the elite school is supposed to be superior, can the difference be explained soley on the negative self-efficacy feelings of recieving C's rather than A's?
For the record, even if AA's only significant contribution is to eliminate the "legacy bias" then that to me is grounds to keep it in place. It is tough to hear stories about white male students with markedly superior grades being passed over for minority students with somewhat less stellar grades. However, since they may not have attended the same school (i.e. different grading or racial prejudice), and given the recently questioned racial bias in standardized tests, maybe it's not as bad a thing as it's made out to be.

Are you kidding me? You asked a question or made a point (at this time, I don't even remember what you did) and I explained to you that I already answered/addressed it in a previous post in this thread. You may not "believe" that I have done so, but there's not much more I could do about your belief beyond telling you to go read the posts I have made in this thread or repeating myself.

As for giving up? Hardly. I cannot control your ability to take the 1 minute that is necessary to read context.

I'm done with this entirely tangenital portion of this discussion. Read what I posted, or don't. It's your decision.

It all depends on context. Are we speaking of a specific field of study? A specific field of business? Which races have the lowest population densities in those fields? Those are the races that require preference.

Biology is ignorant of psychology. If you want to eliminate the concept of race because some biologists claim it doesn't exist, you're more than welcome. You are of course wrong, but that much would be obvious by walking down the street. To humor you for a brief moment, however, the claim that races do not exist on a biological level is questionable. The evidence that demonstrates such a claim to be false is apparent in the field of medicine which shows that some races are more suseptible to certain health problems than others. But again, biologically defined race is entirely irrelevent. We're talking about psychology. Psychologically, race exists and racism exists.
Nonsense. Racial diversity is not superficial and it quite clearly is not some "recently decided" important aspect of society. Racial diversity is extremely important for racial tolerance. One need only look back through history to recognize that many decisions have been based on race. They had this thing called slavery for centuries and centuries.

I'm all for cultural diversity. But I don't see how one can ignore racial diversity as a driving factor in cultural diversity. On average, a white male in his 30's has FAR more in common with the average white male in his 30's than he does with the average black woman in her 30's.

Nonsense. You focused this discussion on race. You responded to my initial post, which is very clearly about discrimination in general. My observation is accurate.
I don't even know what that means. But I guess I can raise my hand and state that my posts here have also been entirely reactive.
"leg up" implies an advantage that is extraordinary. AA is designed to restore balance. Hence, "leg up" is not accurate. Someone who receives AA is not receiving something that is not already afforded to someone who cannot receive AA.
Not really, that is actually my entire point.
This is the secondary aspect of AA which you, incorrectly, define as the primary aspect.

I gave in. I took the minute.

The answer, predictably, was not there. Not the first time I've been disappointed in this way, hence my lazy cynicism.

Try again. Or don't.

I spent 2 minutes going back to remind myself what it is you were asking. This is it:
And from that I went back further to triple check that I had addressed that in my posts prior. I see that I did.

I leave it to you to take the time to find it on your own, as I see clearly that I addressed that topic specifically in atleast two different posts.

The information is there. Have at it or ignore it.

This is silly.

It isn't. Variations of the leap you made are, but that's it.

I suppose we're done.

I certainly hope you are.

Regardless of whether one agrees with Manx' points, he's at least added something of substance to the discussion. I don't find your posts amusing or engaging, FoolThemAll.

I wasn't trying to be amusing. Manx won't/can't address my arguments addressing his claim and instead points me toward his earlier posts. His earlier posts contained no additional hidden wisdom. The leap was not explained, it was merely repeated. It was redundant.

I don't consider it substance when it isn't defended/explained adequately.

It's just an afternoon discussion for me--not a formal debate.
Lighten up, dude.

If he didn't answer your questions adequately, move on; don't bog down the discussion a bunch of other people were having because you want to make an issue of one of his minor points.

I was prepared to do just that when you replied.

I pursued the 'minor point' because it was a somewhat insulting and particularly ill-conceived point. If it's just an afternoon debate for you, surely you could pass by this 'bogged-down' portion of the discussion.

Did you read the article linked in the original post in this thread? Its title is "Race-Based Affirmative Action."

Hence, race based affirmative action is the subject of this thread. I did not start this subject, I responded to it.

If you were referring to gender-based AA, then it certainly was not obvious from your post.

My comment was accurate.

You were responding to me, not the article.

My post was not specific to race.

You comment was inaccurate.

OK, then it seems we have come to this wayside in the discussion.

If a race-neutral form of AA was implemented that, over time, basically equalized the socioeconomic status of the different "races," than according you we would still need AA in order to provide preference to "races" that have the lowest population density in those "fields."

So this leads to two very fundamental questions: How many "races" is one required to recognize in order to implement this AA? For example, are Aleuts a different race from, say Aztecs? From Missosukis? Are Egyptians different from Moroccans and from Haitians?

What if members of a particular "race" have never applied to a particular job in a particular company?

What if members of a particular "race" don't live near a particular company? Is the government required to keep detailed records of the race of individuals in different locales so that they can check whether they are being hired at the appropriate rate by local companies?

Are all "races" then subject to preference, if they are underrepresented in a particular field? If a small business in Atlanta has primarily "blacks" on their payroll (many exist), are they then required to institute AA in favor of "whites"?

If you go back and read my first post, you will see that I was not responding to you at all. I was responding to the idea of "race based affirmative action" which the article was specifically focused on.

You are simply wrong here.

You questioned people's motives by bringing up the subject of "race" in this thread. In fact, "race" was inherent in the original article.

Your first post was ignored. The primary discussion in this thread was mine. Which was not exclusive to race. I am not wrong here.
As my discussion, which was the primary discussion of this thread, was not based on the article, and as my discussion was consistently responded to specific to race, my observation was entirely appropriate.
You want to nit pick it to death? Sorry, no, I'm not going to let you. All of those are good questions - but only questions that need to be addressed once everyone, you, are onboard with AA. But you are obviously not and instead intend your ultra-detailed questions pertainining to absolute specifics to be a means of dismissal.

I'm done discussing this into nonsensical circles with you because my next sentence would probably get me banned.

That problem lies not in race, so why address on such terms?

Indeed. I don't doubt that at that at a fair number of institutions racism is still a impediment. The problem with AA is that it is too broad of a solution. Not only will it create the notion that this colored fellow achieved what I did through lowered standards as per AA, but it also will also work to help minority fellows into college where racism in admissions is negligable or nonexistant. There are far better solutions to this problem than a broad reaching beast of policy, that seems to be more or less a political tool for rallying support.

If it isn't race related, what is it ? Please read this 2003 AJC.com news coverage:
And this:
Why the enthusiasm to eliminate affirmative action when there is nothing
of equivalent potential proposed to level the playing field ?

I'd been wondering whose picture you had in your avatar. So with trembling fingers, I clicked on your link.

To my surprise, I like your man, Jackson. Here's a quote from him, accessed by your link:

It isn't because you're black that you have a poor educational background. It's economic.