<p>1) Chris, do you think white privilege exists in Southern California? Whites might be 30% of the population.
2) Isn’t affirmative action wrong simply because it discriminates against asians?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Most white people, even in the upper class, don’t have access to this. I agree with you that it would be hypocritical to say that the sort of thing is ok while decrying Affirmative action. I think the people here criticizing affirmative action would also get rid of legacy admission and are critical of athletic recruitment.</p>
<p>Most of these white-dominated sports (rowing, etc.) exist only at elite prep schools, which are generally in the northeast.</p>
<p>Tennis…</p>
<p>Squash… (or is this an Indian sport?)</p>
<p>Most anything with snow and/or ice… </p>
<p>Throwing heavy objects like the shot,discus, hammer, javelin…</p>
<p>Power lifting…</p>
<p>Swimming…</p>
<p>In fact when you get past football, basketball and to a lesser extent baseball and track, minorities are just that. These are, admittedly, the highest profile sports.</p>
<p>Don’t most high schools have swimming and track and field teams?</p>
<p>I think in all aspects my high school is “average” by State of Georgia standards, which for all I know could mean “below average” in other states. Even we had a swimming and track and field team.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I suppose you just found one. Review prior posts, you’re really only deviating to points that were previously covered.</p>
<p>@ NBAChris - Please tell me you were intentionally being satirical about white sports! Most athletes in track and field, football and basketball that I’ve seen are minorities. Or at the very least they make up for a sizable minority. I don’t see how you concieve that we’d accept more asians had universities gone race blind, do they really make up for a minority large enough to take that many college opportunities? Could you honestly point me in the way of one instance in which an Asian was on the negative end of the affirmative action? </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Yes!</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>NBA is probably referring to the Princeton study (Eppenshade I think) that found that if admissions were race-blind that more Asians would get in.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Well, my remark, was supposed to have gone something to the tune of “asians wouldn’t take more alum spots than whites would get had the system gone completely impartial to race as compared to the current system in which whites are losing spots to other minorities because of the affirmative action. So not having the affirmative action would benefit whites and asians rather than whites just losing the same spots to asians that they would have otherwise lost to blacks and hispanics.”</p>
<p>How is it unfair, and how am I “only deviating to points…previously covered”?</p>
<p>Unlike others, I’m not arguing that private universities can do whatever they want, end of discussion. I’m saying that if they want to use racial classification as a factor in admissions, then they can’t accept any federal funding; that is, they have to finance their desired level of racial diversity out of their own pockets. It’s akin to a parent telling his child, “If you want it, you pay for it.”</p>
<br>
<br>
<p>Not so much that AA takes away a slot from an Asian and grants it to a URM. It’s the negative AA against Asians that keeps the bar higher compared to everyone else. When race ceased to be a criterion, look how the numbers went in UC.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Since using race as a factor in admissions has been upheld as permissible by the U.S. Supreme Court, why should private colleges be denied federal funding for engaging in a legal admissions practice?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>At least for now, Grutter hasn’t been overruled. So in the present, private colleges shouldn’t be denied federal funding so long as their use of racial classification is in compliance with Grutter as opposed to Gratz.</p>
<p>If you will recall, I claimed that “I’ve yet to meet anyone who claims that my proposal…is unfair:” (emphasis added). Androctonus stated that my proposal is unfair but didn’t give me clear reasons why.</p>
<p>If you don’t like it, tell me why it’s unfair. I’m not saying that they can’t use racial classification. I’m merely suggesting that if it’s worth so much to them, why don’t they pay for it?</p>
<p>
MIT has affirmative action, Caltech does not.</p>
<p>Caltech is 40% White, 39% Asian, 5% Hispanic, <1% Black. others international or unreported
MIT is 36% White, 26% Asian, 15% Hispanic, 9% Black, 1% Native American. others international or unreported</p>
<p>Who do you think is affected more by affirmative action, Asians or Whites?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Several academics point out that affirmative action and negative action are distinct concepts. The former involves preferentially treating “underrepresented” minorities relative to whites, the key being that had it not been for the affirmative action, the minorities would likely not have been accepted. The latter, by contrast, involves treating Asians worse than whites, the key being that had it not been for the negative action, the Asians would likely have been accepted. See research from Jerry Kang and William Kidder for more information. Additionally, Espenshade found evidence of negative action in his 2005 paper with Chung. He quantified the disadvantage as “a loss equivalent to 50 points [on the SAT, relative to non-athlete non-legacy whites].”</p>
<p>Kang and Kidder emphasize that it’s possible to end negative action but keep affirmative action. In my opinion, however, the only way to end negative action necessarily ends affirmative action, as well: dump the use of racial classification as a factor in admissions.</p>
<p>As an adopted and affluent black jewish kid, I do not believe that Affirmative Action should merely be dealt out on a racial basis. Just because I am black does not mean I am currently a victim of racism. The fact remains that even though my skin color is black, I am affluent and will most likely lead a successful life.</p>
<p>I do however believe in the concept of affirmative action for all groups. If someone is disadvantaged and they have no control over the disadvantage, then they should receive a boost in their chances for admission for fairness sake.</p>
<p>A poor white kid from the appallachian mountains should receive some form of AA. The poor Vietnamese immigrant should receive affirmative action.</p>
<p>Our society consigns inner city youth to failing schools with low quality resources/teachers. Those children who are predominantly black/hispanic should receive some sort of boost in their admissions not, because of the color of their skin, but simply because society screwed them over. </p>
<p>Some have pointed out that AA is discrimination, but I feel if we divorce AA from race and only focus on income/opportunities then it will be more fair.Kids like me should not receive AA no matter what.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Because it is a nonsensical pie-in-the-sky idea, unless you are talking about proposing federal legislation to make it so.</p>
<p>Unless? Well, that’s the thing: it is proposing federal legislation to make it so. That’s why I’ve been emphasizing that it’s a proposal.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>What about water polo? Golf? Tennis? Sailing? Swimming? Lacrosse?</p>
<p>There’s so much more to college athletics than just the popular NCAA sports.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Really, are you this clueless? Why don’t you investigate issues first before parroting right-wing talking points? You’ve had this problem of uadulterated ignorance before with the ACORN issue.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Ok, then I don’t see why anyone needs to argue whether it is <em>unfair</em> or not. <em>Fairness</em> is not a criteria for the passage of proposed federal legislation, but “Constiutionality” is. Using race as a factor in admissions has already been held to be Constitutional.</p>
<p>bachris has made a valid point. There is more to sport than football, basketball, baseball, and track and field. Outside these areas URM’s are just that.</p>
<p>If it weren’t for the potential money to be made in football, how many large and athletically gifted minorities would devote their careers to throwing the shot or hammer?</p>
<p>When you are relatively poor, money talks very loud indeed.</p>