<p>^^^ or even worse. Kill them and drive them westward, then kill them some more when you start to go westward. Deny them citizenship until the 1930s, even though theyre the real naturalized citizens.</p>
<p>Complain that they don't compete on the same level as "everyone else".
<p>To fix the problems caused by America's past, we need to stop applying racism (as in affirmative action/reverse racism). We need to step in and fix inner city schools. Fixing inner city schools is fixing the underlying problem. Affirmative action is putting a band-aid on the problem. </p>
<p>Affirmative action also hurts Asians. Asians are considered "over represented" at colleges, and therefore colleges are forced to reject otherwise well-qualified Asian applicants. In fact, bubbling "Asian" on your college app is equivalent to subtracting 200 points from your SAT score. Of course, you are also given the opportunity to deny your Asian side if you are mixed. Or, you can simply choose not to state your race. </p>
<p>Were Asians discriminated against in America's past? Of course. See the Chinese Exclusion Act. Just about every minority group in America was discriminated against, and minorities are still being discriminated against in America today. See LGBT and Muslims. So is affirmative action supposed to "right" the "wrongs" that Asians suffered? </p>
<p>We can also switch to socioeconomic affirmative action. A person from a lower class family who has clearly worked hard (relatively decent GPA, SAT, and ECs) should have a leg up in college admissions versus the upper class kid who went to a private school that charges 20k/year. </p>
<p>Currently, we are on the system of racial affirmative action. Why? Because of the politicians. If the politicians implemented socioeconomic affirmative action, then they'll only appease the lower-income voters. So what about the lower-income voters? You think they are the ones giving millions of dollars to campaigns? The politicians therefore went for racial affirmative action. The politicians don't only want the lower-class Hispanics and blacks - they want the whole spectrum - from the lower-class to the upper-class. </p>
<p>In fact, 72% of blacks favor affirmative action, while 21% oppose it, according to a Gallup poll. Do you honestly think for a minute that the politicians are going to do what's fair and end racial affirmative action, and lose 72% of the black vote?</p>
<p>In addition, racial affirmative action is ineffective. Blacks placed in more competitive law schools have a significantly harder time passing the bar than blacks that ended up in less competitive law schools. So how did some blacks land in those more elite law schools in the first place? Answer: affirmative action. </p>
<p>*1) Some people justify racial affirmative action by saying that it reverses a long-running trend of discrimination against minorities in America. Fact: racial affirmative action is nothing more than a band-aid approach to the actual problem - poor inner-city schools. </p>
<p>2) Racial affirmative action benefits some racial groups, while discriminating against other people/racial groups, such as whites and Asians. So in the future, should whites and Asians stand up and demand affirmative action for whites and Asians on the basis that whites and Asians have been discriminated against in America's past? </p>
<p>3) There is another alternative to racial affirmative action (apart from fixing inner-city schools). We can implement socioeconomic affirmative action. By all means, the kid from a lower-income bracket family should be at least given a shot to go to an elite college versus the kid from a higher-income bracket family. Just think about it. The kid that's from a higher-income bracket family likely goes to a good public or even private school. The kid likely has access to boatloads of SAT and test prep material, and possibly even SAT tutoring. On the other hand, the lower-income bracket kid likely does not have as much access. </p>
<p>However, socioeconomic action is never going to fly with politicians. Socioeconomic affirmative action disenfranchises the upper-class blacks and Hispanics - the ones that can give $ to campaigns/politicians. Racial affirmative action exists because politicians want to capture the whole spectrum of blacks and Hispanics. </p>
<p>4) Racial affirmative action does not help blacks (or any favored minority) succeed academically.*</p>
<p>In closing, Asians and whites should rally against affirmative action. Affirmative action is an injustice "designed" to amend previous injustices. And perhaps when Asians are in power one day in the United States, when there is an Asian-American President, when there are more Asian representatives and senators and justices, we can lay affirmative action in the grave, for once and for all. Will we see an Asian-American President in our lifetimes? Perhaps. America has come a long way since the days of the Jim Crow South. In 50 years, we have elected our first African-American President. Perhaps in another 50, we will elect our first Asian-American President. Or perhaps there will not be an Asian-American President in the next 50 years ... where is our Malcolm X? John Brown? MLK? Nope - we're the meek minority. Still ... I hold my hopes for our first Asian-American President. I know the mere thought of an Asian-American President scares the crap out of the more conservative folk romping about the CC forums ... who the hell wants a "commie" for President? But still, maybe once the old conservative generation has died off, an Asian-American will ascend to the Oval Office.</p>
<p>^ excellent post. A lot of the underrepresented minorities that get in through AA live in upper/middle class families and aren't actually disadvantaged in any way. And there's always those people who's great great grandfather was black/native american/hispanic so they just pretend that's their race on college apps.</p>
<p>Hahaha :). Your post made me laugh, which is great, especially after typing such a long and rather depressing post about the fallacies of affirmative action :). </p>
<p>I've got nothing against the people who take advantage of AA. Hell, if AA existed in favor of Asians, I wouldn't think twice before bubbling "Asian" on my college app. I do, however, dislike the sleazy politicians who refuse to even comment on AA because AA is what keeps them in office. Sandra Day O'Connor may have said we won't need AA "25 years from now," but I think AA is going to be around to stay because no politicians has the gall to kick AA to the curb. Except for Ron Paul (maybe).</p>
<p>Oh, boy, another post.
Let me just get my thoughts in before this gets locked.
First off, I disagree and agree with IceQube on different things.
Affirmative Action as it stands right now is absolutely laughable. Affirmative Action as a system can be a great educational tool.
AA is used, in theory, to help disadvantaged students because of race or socioeconomic status. Fact is, the disadvantaged part doesn't play a role anymore. You're poor, you got grades, ECs, SAT scores, acceptance! And so on. There are plenty of URMs who have not been disadvantaged because of their race, and poor students who haven't been disadvantaged because of the economic situation.
What needs to happen is for colleges to use affirmative action for disadvantaged black students, or disadvantaged poor students, not just URM or poor students. IceQube's point on politics is in theory correct but when it comes to reality, a little vague. Poor, Hispanic and African American voters, by and far, support Democrats. Politicians who get URM/poor voters tend to support AA, because no politicians on a national level will attempt to support racial AA to get African American voters.
IceQube apparently believes that we only have racial AA. Colleges do tell us that they take race, gender, economic status, and so forth into account. I find socioeconomic affirmative action as pointless as racial affirmative action if it is input in the current system. Case by case, and hey, we got a ball game. Both are equally repulsive and useful in my mind. There is no reason one should be supported over the other. Both help some groups and discriminate against others. Both acknowledge harsh realities some of us ignore.
I probably have more problems with socioeconomic AA than racial AA, but as it stands, the current systems fail the American people. Ok, lock this thread then, mods.</p>
<p>Yeah. I meant that I don't try to lazily take advantage of AA like other Hispanics in my school (low stats, no effort because they think being Hispanic is enough). I worked hard and I got a full tuition scholarship largely based on my race and scores. Kinda hard not to take advantage of that!</p>
<p>IceQube: the reason that we still have AA is because the program is improperly implemented.
Ron Paul, on multiple times, has said that he believes AA should be up to the individual states and colleges. He personally doesn't agree with it. And don't expect him to do anything PROactive.
Your analysis on the politicians is generally incorrect on a national level, but it varies on the state level. Republicans, even if they talk about racial quotas and minimum seats for African Americans, won't win squat. 95% of African Americans, 2/3s of Hispanics, and over 70% for the poorest bracket of Americans (about 60 and 55% for the next two lowest). I doubt AA had anything to do with anything.</p>
<p>The presence of affirmative action in college admissions has little to do with politicians. There aren't any laws that require that private colleges and universities practice affirmative action. And initiatives have in fact prohibited affirmative action in public college admissions in Michigan and California.</p>
<p>Socioeconomic affirmative action is already in place in many schools: many colleges give preference to first generation college students, and I know that at least Amherst gives preference to low-income (I don't know about others).</p>