<p>Why is preferential treatment for the minority by the majority inherently bad? I agree with the three reasons Justice Powell cited in Bakke as “serious problems of justice connected with the idea of preference itself,” as follows:</p>
<ol>
<li><p>“Nothing in the Constitution supports the notion that individuals may be asked to suffer otherwise impermissible burdens in order to enhance the societal standing of their ethnic groups.”</p></li>
<li><p>“…preferential programs may only reinforce common stereotypes holding that certain groups are unable to achieve success without special protection based on a factor having no relationship to individual worth.”</p></li>
<li><p>“…there is a measure of inequity in forcing innocent persons in respondent’s position to bear the burdens of redressing grievances not of their making.”</p></li>
</ol>
<p>For these reasons, preferential treatment is inherently bad. It is simply another form of racial discrimination.</p>
<p>You’re pretty quick to pull the “you’re prejudiced” trigger. Lest you make another logical error like your “if A doesn’t consider race, then A is racist” statement, stop and think.</p>
<p>The statement lookingforwhat? made contains no prejudice whatsoever. It is comical to accuse him of prejudice when he stated that “…all races are the same” (unless a belief in equality is itself prejudice.)</p>
Well, what social good does a colorblind admissions policy promote? The Supreme Court has ruled that seeking diversity within communities is a common good, so I’m curious what made the Michigan voters think otherwise.</p>
<p>
The age of consent has been increasing throughout our history. What pedophiles could legally do during the 19th century is drastically different than what they can legally do now. I think that this example has served its purpose, so I think it’s best that we drop it now, if that’s okay with you?</p>
<p>
Your response indicates that you did not understand that I was quoting the parts I considered to be understatement. I’m baffled by how you can take me considering your use of the word “sinned” to describe the way in which Whites mistreated non-Whites throughout the history of this country as me thinking that African Americans were the only non-Whites mistreated.</p>
<p>
Race is not responsible for the implementation of segregation, Racism is.</p>
<p>
No, this discussion is actually complicated. First of all, when you say, “only one meaning of ‘discrimination’ here,” you are talking about denotation. I, however, have been talking about connotation, or what the word implies. In the first portion, “f the ultimate goal is to end discrimination based on race,” “discrimination” is alluding to racism, while in the second portion, “then the solution is to stop discriminating on the basis of race,” “discrimination” is alluding to considering race in the name of diversity. In the first case “discrimination” implies exluding people because of race, while in the second “discrimination” implies including because of race. Clearly, the two outcomes of the situation are inherently different.</p>
<p>
See above. In one case you are excluding while in the other you are including.</p>
<p>
“Preferential treatment” is a vague term. Please elaborate on what you mean. Affirmative Action is no longer considered to be “preferential treatment.” Those who still refer to it as such are merely showing their disdain for it.</p>
<p>
I think you are, somewhat intentionally, misconstruing what I said. (Like when you accused me of forgetting about mistreatment of other non-Whites earlier in your post.) The “separation between the races” could refer to many things, perhaps a feeling of animosity, that would indicate that the poster is prejudiced. Besides, I have offered the poster an opportunity to clarify what he or she means by that statement.</p>
<p>Also, to say that it is the “only” thing is an ineffective use of overstatement that makes the poster out to be naive.</p>
<p>A colorblind admissions process promotes equality and a system that operates more on the basis of merit. Last time I checked, equality is a social good, as is a meritocracy. If you are more qualified than someone else, you should be rewarded.</p>
<p>Besides, the Supreme Court is far from infallible. Wasn’t it them who upheld segregation in the first place? What about the result of the Dred Scott ruling?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>There is no difference between the two outcomes. For every person you include, you must exclude another. In effect, by including a student because he is black, you are excluding a student who is asian.</p>
<p>So assuming there was affirmative action in favor of white anglican male protestants, that would be okay right? Because it isn’t excluding UMRs, it’s including whites, right?</p>
Ok, let’s not get into a debate about whether or not college admissions should be a meritocracy. We’re talking about Affirmative Action here. If you want to be taken seriously in this discussion, try to on topic. Also, I’m pretty sure that you conveniently made up that a “meritocracy” is considered to be a social good.</p>
<p>How does a colorblind admissions policy promote equality? As I have pointed out before, it is possible to treat everyone the same and still be unfair, as is the case with most laws concerning gender differences.</p>
<p>
I think it is very interesting that this argument always comes up in Affirmative Action discussions. These people seemed to be so intent on questioning the merits of certain group’s admission into colleges that they forget about their own group. In every ethnic group there will be people with lesser qualifications who get in over people from that same ethnic group with higher qualifications.</p>
<p>
No one is saying, or even implying, that the Supreme Court is infallible. However, their ruling that seeking diversity of all kinds is a societal good is definitely a decision that will be applauded in history.</p>
<p>
No they are different. In one case you are excluding entire groups of people, whereas in the second you are not excluding anyone. Also, I find it interesting that your example includes an African American “getting in over” an Asian. Why can’t it be an African American “getting in over” a Hispanic, an African American “getting in over” a White, or, I know this is pretty crazy, an African American “getting in over” another African American?</p>
<p>
Your example does not make sense because WASPs have never been excluded from college admissions. Also, you’re example is implying that Affirmative Action can only benefit one group at a time, which is incorrect. Affirmative Action works to promote racial, gender, geographic, etc. diversity.</p>
<p>You gave “sins against non-whites” and “singled out because they looked different” as examples of understatement. The only way I can see the former being understated is if “non-whites” is not strong enough. Please explain how you think these statements are understated.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>If race were not considered, would there be de jure segregation based on race? I don’t think so.</p>
<p>So, why is it not possible that “…the solution is to stop discriminating on the basis of race” refers to racism? How come it must allude to “diversity”?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>When an applicant receives the equivalent of 240 additional SAT points for being of a certain race, I’d consider that preferential treatment.</p>
<p>If affirmative action is no longer considered to be preferential treatment, then why do affirmative action’s most vocal supporters oppose civil rights initiatives that ban preferential treatment?</p>
<p>Discrimination ‘against’ and discrimination ‘in favor of’ are two sides of the same coin.</p>
<p>Let’s take an outcome as an example and assume that race was responsible for the outcome.</p>
<p>John is included into a club, but James is excluded from it. Thus, John received the benefits of discrimination ‘in favor of,’ but James was discriminated ‘against.’</p>
<p>Here we have one outcome where both discrimination ‘in favor of’ and discrimination ‘against’ occurred. If one person was discriminated ‘in favor of,’ then another person must have been discriminated ‘against.’ It’s the same thing.</p>
I thought that it was pretty clear by now but sure I’ll spell it out. “Sins,” to me, is not a strong enough word to convey the degree of the mistreatment non-Whites suffered. “Singled-out” does not convey the violence and hatred that non-Whites suffered.</p>
<p>
I’m honestly outraged right now that you would blatantly misconstrue the meaning of my post like that. I said that, “Race is not responsible for the implementation of segregation, Racism is.” Wow and even bolded Racism. What are you trying to pull by blatantly misquoting me like that?</p>
<p>
Because it does not fit. Why would you use racism in order to promote diversity?</p>
<p>
You’re talking about semantics now. If you’re reading a news story, the use of the term “preferential treatment” merely indicates the author’s bias.</p>
<p>
Your analogy is way too simple for this complex issue. You don’t even bother to explain how race was a factor.</p>
<p>^several logical fallacies JP. First, the idea of overhauling the college admissions system into a meritocracy is both undesired by the public and bad for the nation. In order for a pure meritocracy to exist an absolute standard of what is merit would have to be forged. This standard would inherently favor those currently in the majority and balance against the minority. That is why holistic admissions allows for the context of achievement and fit within a school to be considered and is universally better regarded. </p>
<p>Second, the idea of “more qualified” does not exist in the context of holistic admissions. That idea was invented by the arrogant who want to believe that their 2300 SAT score makes them more deserving than someone with a 2100. </p>
<p>And finally, the idea that you should be “rewarded” for your false sense of “more qualified” is flawed. Admission to a college is not, and has never been said to be, a reward for anything you have done. Colleges with holistic admissions are not obligated to take any student, only to build the best incoming class for their goals and vision. In this way, those who are accepted were the “most qualified” and those who are rejected were not. </p>
<p>To fabrizio, you can’t completely rule out intent and effect out of your analogy. If I form a club, and i intentionally decide that i’m going to exclude James from entry, that is obviously wrong. But if I form a club, and decide that i definitely want to push to include John because i think he’d fit in well with the group, and because their are only 8 spots, James ends up among the many who don’t get in the club. I did not seek to do harm to James and at no time did i ever single james out. The intent and outcome was helping the group. As the organizer of the group I have no obligation to include any individual member, only to make the group the best way i think it can be.</p>
<p>@Newjack…are you being serious? You are definitely making me question whether you are or not.</p>
<p>Quote:
The giving of preferential treatment is the only thing separating races today. </p>
<p>Your Response: “What!? Wow, way to come out and let the world know you are prejudiced against African Americans/Hispanics/etc. If you are not admitting that you are prejudiced, please clarify what you mean by that statement.”</p>
<p>And then you comment on these quotes…</p>
<p>Quote:
If race were not considered, would there be de jure segregation based on race? I don’t think so. </p>
<p>Your Response: “I’m honestly outraged right now that you would blatantly misconstrue the meaning of my post like that. I said that, “Race is not responsible for the implementation of segregation, Racism is.” Wow and even bolded Racism. What are you trying to pull by blatantly misquoting me like that?”</p>
<p>Quote:
So, why is it not possible that “…the solution is to stop discriminating on the basis of race” refers to racism? How come it must allude to “diversity”? </p>
<p>Your Response: “Because it does not fit. Why would you use racism in order to promote diversity”</p>
<p>Here is the merriam webster definition of racism: a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race.</p>
<p>So…are you saying that there are differences between races? And if you are, I would like to know what these differences are. Cause last time I checked a little genetic engineering was all that separated races from each other. (And no {as I am thankful to have been cleared up by another poster} I am obviously in no way racist…I’m not even white…)</p>
<p>Edit: @Tyler Merit is not only grades/scores but also involvement in activities and accomplishments in the context of what was available to someone. The arbitrary things such as location, gender, and race are what I would argue should not be considered.</p>
<p>As someone who can only be described “very, very white,” I’d like to point out that section of your post and politely remind you that white people are not the only people capable of being racist. I would also like to say that we are (justifiably, in my opinion) bothered when someone makes the implication that all whites are, in some way, racist. Because, you know, that implication is in itself racist (or at least discriminatory). In any case, that one clause just lost you at least one person’s backing.</p>
<p>@zamzam, ok I’m sorry…but I in no way implied that white people are racist. That would completely go against everything I was trying to say. I was actually trying to point out to newjack that it’s not only white people who are angered by affirmative action (it demeans others) and to point out the irony in him accusing me of being rascist. Again I am very sorry, I in no way harbory any resentment against anyone for superficial reaoans.</p>
<p>Quote:
The giving of preferential treatment is the only thing separating races today. </p>
<p>Your Response: “What!? Wow, way to come out and let the world know you are prejudiced against African Americans/Hispanics/etc. If you are not admitting that you are prejudiced, please clarify what you mean by that statement.”</p>
<p>I was confused, so I posted in response, and now you replied.</p>
<p>Quote:
So…are you saying that there are differences between races? And if you are, I would like to know what these differences are. </p>
<p>Your Response: "I’m honestly not sure what makes you think that’s what I’m saying. Please elaborate.</p>
<p>Also, what “separation” were you referring to? I took it to mean that you were talking about animosity and tension."</p>
<p>My view (once again) is that all races should be treated as though there is only one race. I believe that you disagree with this and argue that races should be treated differently. And thus I am asking you; Why should races be treated differently? What does this do besides cause a problem where there should not be one? If colleges take the lead in promoting equality in college and beyond couldn’t that help to end racism once and for all?</p>
<p>I don’t know about racist, but whites as a whole retain the power to maintain the status quo and define the norms by which others are judged. </p>
<p>I’d also point out, that it is also (according to your reasoning) that when people assert that URMs are less intelligent or score lower because of some innate inferiority based on their race, rather than recognize how marginalization affects those that do not fit the norm or look different, that could be seen as racists. </p>
<p>Thus, a race-blind admissions stance (ignoring those who have and continue to face different and often oppressive social realities because they look different) assumes that the majority setting the norms are superior based on race/ethnic rather than on environmental, social, political, and economic factors. Thus, not considering ethnicity, like not considering socioeconomic class, gender, parents education, citizenship, et al., is creating/reinforcing the norms in society (currently non-URM males).</p>
<p>There are differences with respect to cultural and social norming that make some people part of the majority or the minority. It is not biology that separates individuals from one another, but social networks and economic systems that result in the definition of societal norm that create much of inequity and marginalization in American society (whether with respect to gender, sexual orientation, race, ethnicity, income, et al.) and creates a gender/class/ethnicity/race based system.</p>
<p>I did not even quote you. I asserted that race is responsible for the implementation of segregation and after you responded, I stated that if race were not considered, then there would be no de jure segregation based on race. Ultimately, race is responsible for racism itself is based on race.</p>
<p>The original wording of the Chief Justice’s concluding sentence in Parents Involved is “The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race.” Your understanding of his statement assumes that there are two types of discrimination - ‘against’ and ‘for.’ My understanding assumes that there’s only one type of discrimination.</p>
<p>No, I am not talking about semantics. You stated that affirmative action is no longer considered to be preferential treatment. If that’s truly the case, then why are so many affirmative action supporters, including yourself, against civil rights initiatives that ban preferential treatment? I mean, if affirmative action and preferential treatment are distinct concepts, then banning preferential treatment should have no effect on affirmative action.</p>
<p>Whenever you discriminate against someone on the basis of race, you’re discriminating in favor of another on the basis of race.</p>
<p>Asserting that “under-represented” minorities are innately inferior is undoubtedly racist. There is no “could be seen” here.</p>
<p>A race-blind admissions system does not in any way assume that whites are innately superior. All a race-blind admissions system does is not consider race. I fail to see how not considering race is tantamount to believing that whites are innately superior.</p>
<p>That is what happens when the majority implies that they believe they are inherently superior to URMs and uses their power to maintain the norms (which usually benefit themselves). The difference is not biological distinction, but cultural, social, and economic (which is defined by the majority) and manifests itself as wanting to deny oppression/marginaliztion faced in society as a whole that does discriminate based on race/ethnicity.</p>
<p>Thus, the non-URM majority is discriminating based on ethnicity/race, as it sets the norms. Thus, the majority are discriminatory because it delineates social and societal distinction that do affect perceptions and ideas like race-blind admissions practices, as if the marginalization that affects one for at least the first 17 years of life due-to-appearance will be somehow negated and that everyone is the same (as defined, again, by those in power). That scenario serves to further marginalize minorities and favor non-minorities based on a social/cultural norm created by the majority. </p>
<p>It, thus, not biology that separates different ethnic/racial groups, but the political structure that does so.</p>
<p>Preferential treatment and affirmative action are distinct. The latter attempts to redistribute some of the power from those who have been preferential for most of the history of the United States. As such, they are distinct, but related.</p>