<p>I disagree. The fundamental issue is which of the following one agrees with:</p>
<ol>
<li><p>“In order to get beyond racism, we must first take account of race. There is no other way. And in order to treat some persons equally, we must treat them differently.” - Justice Blackmun, Bakke</p></li>
<li><p>“The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race.” - Chief Justice Roberts, Parents Involved</p></li>
</ol>
<p>Obviously, those two statements are contradictory. If you agree with Justice Blackmun, you probably support racial preferences. If you agree with Chief Justice Roberts, you probably oppose racial preferences.</p>
<p>If you want to use your terminology, Bay, it’s better to ask “how much value?” instead of “do you think there is value?” I certainly think there is value in attending a racially-diverse institution, but I don’t place as much value on it as you do.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Justice O’Connor voted against Grutter but for Gratz, even though Michigan more-or-less presented the same argument in both cases (ie. mixed-race educational environment is valuable). You can’t argue that because she voted against Grutter, she wholeheartedly endorses the value of having a mixed-race educational environment. Her vote in Gratz shows that she believed there were limits to that value.</p>
<p>“…41 percent of participants are white; 36 percent are African-American, non-Hispanic; 18 percent are Hispanic; 3 percent are Asian, 2 percent are Native American, and 1 percent are of unknown race or ethnicity…” - According to the USDA as quoted by wiki regarding the statistics of food stamp users. </p>
<p>I know, whites trump all other ethnicities in terms of population, but not by that much! As you can see, just about every ethnicity is represented there.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>That’s incomparable, any rationally minded person would know that.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I’d be all for that, if they did the work and put the effort forth, why shouldn’t they be able to enjoy the rewards? Isn’t that the “American dream”?</p>
But will they be in the competitive part of the applicant pool that college actually look at?</p>
<p>
SATs are a (good) proxy for how competitive an applicant is.</p>
<p>
For UCs, it’s a pretty big part.</p>
<p>
You appear to not know how reading and/or statistics and/or how competitive admissions processes are run. I mentioned an SAT range because that’s where the vast majority of competitive applicants reside. Having an 800/1600 and being a first generation college student isn’t going to get you into UCB. However, having a 1150/1600 might get you into to UCB (that’s why it’s important to look at SAT score ranges).</p>
<p>Probably because non-Jewish whites have never suffered systematic discrimination of their social group. They’ve been doing most, if not all, of the discriminating themselves against others. Just a thought.</p>
<p>Care to explain? Otherwise, I’ll take your “rebuttal” as an attempt to save face in surrender.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Really? Really? You’d have no problem with a cultural takeover of historically WASP institutions like Ivy League schools by Asians, many of whom will be first or second-generation children?</p>
<p>I disagree with your statements. In Gratz, O’Connor held that the university could not automatically add points to an applicant’s file based solely on his/her race. Rather, each applicant must be considered individually. This is not evidence that O’Connor believed there were limits to the value of racial diversity. To the contrary, simply adding points based on a particular race could result in the creation of a lop-sided (less diverse) class, whereas considering each applicant individually in the context of the entire pool is more likely to result in a more diverse class. Her vote in Gratz actually reinforces her position about the importance of racial diversity.</p>
<p>The biggest problem with your interpretation is that it leaves a key question answered: if Michigan’s former affirmative action policy “could [have resulted] in the creation of a lop-sided (less diverse) class,” then why was Bollinger willing to fight Gratz all the way to the Supreme Court? Why waste the time, effort, and resources on fighting for a system that possibly couldn’t even produce the desired result?</p>
<p>I mean, why did Michigan have the policy in the first place? It was their affirmative action policy; they created it because they wanted to have a desired level of racial diversity and they thought that policy would help them achieve their intended level.</p>
<p>For you to argue now that “simply adding points…could result in the creation of a lop-sided…class” is to retcon history. No, Justice O’Connor’s siding with the majority in Gratz shows clearly that she believed there were limits to the value of racial diversity, and that the point-based system did not fall within those limits. The dissenters in Gratz, on the other hand, all thought the policy was fine. To them, the points-based system did fall within their limits.</p>
Neither have Hispanics. They still get the benefit of affirmative action.</p>
<p>
You’re right, all these non-Jewish whites (like the Irish & Italians) definitely discriminated a bunch against blacks and other groups. Stop being an idiot.</p>
<p>I think socioeconomic AA would be fair, but I understand most colleges won’t do it because they want to fill a certain quota of each minority group and race-based AA is more efficient for that purpose.
Well I guess that’s true - I think culture has a lot to do with it. African immigrants are generally a successful minority, whereas African-Americans have much higher rates of poverty. Cultural differences also explain why low-income first generation Asians are generally more successful than other low-income groups. So what you’re saying is we should keep race-based AA over socioeconomic AA to account for cultural differences?</p>
<p>Objection to affirmative action isn’t necessarily fueled by secret racism. Everything which opposes the liberal view on things isn’t fueled by skin color. That’s YOUR mental block. Some people just feel it’s unfair to base admission on skin color. Period.</p>
<p>Every time I’ve heard a person talks with disgust of the Asian takeover or trying to scare others with the proposition, it’s always a liberal that’s saying it.</p>
<p>Hispanics have never been discriminated against? While they may never have been systematically subjugated like blacks, they have faced discrimination as a visible minority, whether it is displaced Mexicans in the west or marginalized Puerto Ricans in the east . And visible minority is the key term here. Jesus Ramirez can’t just change his name to Jim Ramelle and just blend in. </p>
<p>I agree that using this standard, Asians should also benefit from affirmative action as a visible minority with a history of discrimination. However, this is not an entirely apt comparison because many Asian immigrants are already well-off middle-class people when they immigrate.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Their forefathers did and created a society where their progeny would be favoured. You don’t have to have personally owned a slave to benefit from racial stratification decades later.</p>
<p>The last time the WASP establishment was threatened with losing dominance over elite universities, they gamed the system real bad. I’m just going by history here.</p>
<p>But if you’re right and anti-AAers are just like totally race-blind, be prepared for the Yellow Peril then. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Well, every time I’ve heard a person talk with disgust of the Asian takeover or trying to scare others with the proposition, it’s always a conservative that’s saying it.</p>
<p>Personal anecdotes… Don’t you have anything substantial to add to the discussion?</p>
<p>It is racist comment, and I am sure other people will denounce this kind of behaviour. As I suspect that liberals have double standrads in racist behaviour. They only cry if somebody is saying anything against balcks but they ignore if people show boorish behavious agaisnt hard working Chinese who enter college based on merits?</p>
<p>I was being sarcastic. Anybody who even remotely visits these forums would know that I wouldn’t say such things except in jest. I mean, just look at the context of the rest of my posts in the thread! </p>
<p>Be a little more cautious before whipping out your 6-shooter of self-righteous indignation.</p>
<p>I do not care but what you mean or you are being sacrcastic. I find your words extremely offensive to utter. And I feel you show restraint in your language and treat people the way you wanted to be treated. The comment is filty and despicable. You can defend AA but please do not put down ever other race to show your hubris.</p>
<p>If “hav[ing] faced discrimination as a visible minority” is a sufficient condition for being designated beneficiaries of racial preferences, then American Chinese and Japanese should receive them at least to the same extent as Hispanics do. I don’t think I need to remind you of the Chinese Exclusion Act, the various pogroms that took place against Chinese immigrants, and the “Gentleman’s Agreement” that de facto closed off Japanese immigration. So why don’t they? Why do Chinese, and for that matter Asians as a whole, receive “negative action” instead?</p>
<p>Don’t forget that Hispanic itself is an extremely broad term. Jesus Ramirez may, in fact, be able to change his name to Jim Ramelle and just blend in if he’s a descendant of a family that rarely intermarried with indigenous people or blacks. And that’s no mere possibility; it’s very probable that most of the Hispanics who benefited from racial preferences are such descendants, since affirmative action always benefits the elites within the designated beneficiary groups.</p>
<p>If you’re going to make a point about his argument, make it. Don’t try and derail the debate with rebukes. His comment had merit. Many opponents of AA imagine that a meritocratic admissions system would favor whites. It would not. In fact, if elite colleges scrapped legacy status and athletic recruiting they would all look like Berkeley.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I’m not sure that’s an argument you’re prepared to make. History isn’t on your side.</p>
<p>I see time repeatedly that people take very offensive if anyone utter a word against Afro American community. They will oppose that person and bring that person hell down to that person. I agree with them that these kinds of comments should be opposed. However, these same people make no bone and do not care about if anyone utters a word against Asian? The worst part is the people who consider themselves enlightened and are liberals and most of thtime make these comments? </p>
<p>Why people practice these double standards against Asians?</p>
<p>Most objectors of Affirmative Action are against admission based on skin color because it doesn’t favor them. Or at least they don’t think it favors them. Affirmative Action caps Asian enrollment and helps sustain archaic admissions practices like legacy consideration and athletic recruitment. If you get rid of Affirmative Action legacy consideration and athletic recruitment white enrollment would fall quite sharply. Remember that most of the sports Ivies recruit for - like crew, fencing, sailing, swimming, squash, tennis, golf, and hockey - do not favor minorities. They favor upper-middle class whites, which is why Ivies can afford to recruit without scholarships. Most of the athletes they recruit don’t need them.</p>
<p>In some Ivies, varsity athletes make up some 10-20% of admits. At some top LACs, that number is 30%. At many top schools, legacies make up some 5-10% of admits. Whites make up the majority of athletes and legacies. There’s some overlap between legacies and athletes but not that much.</p>
<p>Whites definitely get a boost. All individual whites don’t get a boost, but whites as a group are subject to a boost as a group.</p>
<p>I am an chineseparent and I feel that nbachris does not need to fear and show his ignorance by putting chinese people down. If I make a blank statement that AA people can not compete against chinese people, it will be very offensive statement and not true at all. He has a right to his opinion but not utter stupid words “yellow peril” I will take offense if you label all chinese with the smae brush stroke. </p>
<p>As far the argument, I agree with the statement. </p>