<p>Explain how AA “benefits Caucasian females more than any other group.”</p>
<p>The harm that AA has on whites is based on the very fact that AA is race based. AA benefits minorities who are from upper/middle class backgrounds because these minorities are often assumed to be “disadvantaged.” This is a stereotype: the minority is automatically assumed to be disadvantaged based on the color of his/her skin. By attempting to combat racism/stereotyping and help the “disadvantaged,” AA actually perpetuates stereotyping.</p>
<p>These preferences hurt poor whites and many Asians because the number of Asian applicants who meet these requirements is disproportionately high. If AA was meant to aid the “disadvantaged,” it would be based on actual disadvantage (economic status) rather than race. Being a certain race does not automatically put you in a certain economic caste. There are those who argue that AA increases “diversity” in a student body. Is it this same push for diversity that led Stanford, UC Berkeley, and Cornell to create segregated dormitories? (<a href=“http://www.stanford.edu/dept/rde/cgi-bin/drupal/housing/housing/theme-and-focus-houses”>http://www.stanford.edu/dept/rde/cgi-bin/drupal/housing/housing/theme-and-focus-houses</a> ; <a href=“http://www.housing.berkeley.edu/livingatcal/themeprograms.html”>http://www.housing.berkeley.edu/livingatcal/themeprograms.html</a> ; <a href=“Cornell Dorms Based on Race Are the Focus Of an Inquiry - The New York Times”>http://www.nytimes.com/1995/03/16/nyregion/cornell-dorms-based-on-race-are-the-focus-of-an-inquiry.html</a>)</p>
<p>Diversity in the context of college admissions means the addition of unique ideas or characteristics; therefore, the push for diversity should be based on individual characteristics, NOT race. It is idiotic to think that only minority races are able to add ideas that differ from the majority’s. This idea that only minorities are able to offer fresh perspective is, in and of itself, a form of racism.</p>
<p>AA is, inherently, racism for the sake of combating racism. It is, in and of itself, racial profiling. It assumes that only members of minority races are able to contribute unique ideas to a student body and that, to increase diversity, it should be on a race basis rather than an individualized basis. It assumes that one is disadvantaged by virtue of one’s minority race and, conversely, that one is advantaged by virtue of one’s majority race. The phrase “white privilege” is erroneous because it asserts that, by virtue of race, a group of people have privilege. It is this perception that puts these people at an immediate disadvantage.</p>
<p>A goal of a college is to admit individuals on the basis of merit and achievement; race has no bearing on one’s merit and scope of achievements and has no place in college admissions. However, AA is so pervasive that race does become an issue and, more often than not, those who are perceived as privileged due to their race, even when they are not, suffer while those who are perceived as disadvantaged due to their race, even if they are not, are given advantages. </p>
<p>"Perhaps the most tragic side effect of affirmative action is that very significant achievements of minority students can become compromised. It is often not possible to tell whether a given student genuinely deserved admission to Stanford, or whether he is there by virtue of fitting into some sort of diversity matrix. When people do start to suspect the worst – that preferences have skewed the entire class – they are accused of the very racism that justifies these preferences. It is a strange cure that generates its own disease.</p>
<p>A Stanford without affirmative action will be a Stanford in which the question of who belongs here will no longer need to be answered. It will no longer need to be answered because it will no longer need to be asked, not even sotto voce ."</p>
<p>I like ICEEs, actually. Haven’t had one in a while though.</p>