<p>
</p>
<p>Yes, the court recognized this but the decision only applies to colleges/universities that are state universities because their admission practices can be regulated. However private universities could continue to do as they please and this “20-12” practice still exists to this day. Although the point systems and ratios may differ, a substantial edge is still conceived towards minority applicants.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Every word you type proves my point. Express one idea at a time. If you’re going to go to HYPMS, you’re going to write concise, cadent sentences.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I’m glad you see the distinction. There is also a difference between “preferentially treating individuals” and vengeance. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>You seem to have a very unrealistic perception of history. It is as though you believe that, in the time that Native Americans were being denied their lives and basic rights, whites were not accumulating political and economic capital to pass onto their descendants for all time. It as if you believe that in the interm, whites were just twiddling their thumbs rather than scrambling for the wealth that continues to separate them from all minorities - including Asians.You are wrong. </p>
<p>Whites did not merely murder millions of Native Americans and murder and enslave millions of blacks, they murder millions of Native Americans and murdered and enslaved millions of blacks with the intent of amassing a wealth great enough to ensure their dominance in American society for all time. They did this at the detriment of human beings, and they did so successfully. As a consequence, Native Americans and blacks and other minorities are not only underrepresented in the upper echelons, they are, as a whole, much poorer, less educated, and less healthy than whites. Their communities start off not a few steps back but entire generations. They deserve some help because a meritocracy can’t correct itself if one group starts off with a wealth of advantages. If that help comes in the form of programs that give preference to qualified minorities (and qualified is a binary concept, not a continuum) then so be it.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>But it’s not entirely patently false. I know enough about the world to know that the higher you go the less ‘objective’ factors matter. If you’re going to have to pick a guy to be in the boardroom, you want a guy that’s not only ‘qualified’ but will ‘fit’. This little subjective criteria is the root of a lot of discrimination and the reason why Affirmative Action must exist in the absence of complete meritocracy - the kind that exists in Asia.</p>
<p>While we’re on the note of white-to-white alliances, I’d like to submit to you a little [url=<a href=“http://www.newyorker.com/archive/2005/10/10/051010crat_atlarge]article[/url”>Getting In | The New Yorker]article[/url</a>] about admissions in the early 20th century. I think you’ll find that white-to-white alliances were quite common in college admissions not very long ago.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>You see everything through race, or you wouldn’t have suggested that the quads were Affirmative Action admits. You would have looked at them as applicants and realized that they fit the profile of the typical Yale admit quick neatly. But you saw that they were black and immediately assumed that they were Affirmative Action admits.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>@lmpw: Have you even read/comprehended my arguments besides recognizing the basic philosophical side from which I base my arguments? </p>
<p>Again, this is not an argument whether students are qualified. It is whether students are as qualified as others. With significantly lower qualifications (for blacks - 345 SAT points below the average applicant which corresponds to similar disparities in similar objective standards) and in some cases, up to twice the rate of admission over the average applicant, substantiates deliberate discrimination in admission practices (See post #201 and the corresponding sources). No one is ignorant or racist or seeking some sort of dependency on a scapegoat for heeding and objecting to the immorality of these facts.</p>
<p>Stupefy, are you a sockpuppet or not well versed enough in basic debate to know that mifune’s argument is hopelessly flawed?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>As Stupefy correctly indicated, you are patently stereotyping. Asians are no less diverse than any discrete quantity of individuals.</p>
<p>American Indians deserve to be recognized as an ethnic body that was wronged in previous generations. However, any Native American student must prove that he or she deserves acceptance into an prestigious institution by raising above the given standards required for admission similar to current process for white and Asian applicants.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Admissions doesn’t work that way. If it did, the only factor in admissions would be SAT scores and GPA, with all other parts of the application being an essentially requirements.</p>
<p>Why is that so difficult to comprehend? There are people at Yale with scores that range from 2100-2400. If Yale or any university considered qualification to rest on a continuum, the distribution between the lowest quartile and highest quartile would be much smaller.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Tell me, mifune: what is the standard required for admission for a white student? The stats of the median white student or the stats of the weakest white student? And if it’s the former, does the weakest white student not deserve to be there?</p>
<p>Answer this question, please.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The argument under consideration is that individuals not as qualified in objective and subjective qualities as others are receiving admission due to skin color. Class sizes are not unlimited.</p>
<p>There are whites who were admitted on the basis of legacy, athletic recruitment, and state representation (which counts as half the number of points towards admission as racial identity). Athletic recruitment is more justified than racial recruitment since athletes actually enhance the talents associated with the atmosphere of a campus environment. However, race only designates an individual’s differences at the superficial layer and does not automatically confer any unique talents at the onset of birth.</p>
<p>Members are just watching me skewer your wordy arguments with real logic, mifune. You might want to answer my question. It’s a big question, because there’s only one answer and its antithetical to one of the foundations of your argument. </p>
<p>Here it is again:</p>
<p>Tell me, mifune: what is the standard required for admission for a white student? The stats of the median white student or the stats of the weakest white student? And if it’s the former, does the weakest white student not deserve to be there?</p>
<p>…on to once against ripping your arguments into shreds.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I like how you conveniently ignored legacy status, which makes up some 10% of admits, larger than the black population at every elite university.</p>
<p>Your argument regarding athletic recruiment is ludicrous because it doesn’t even make sense. Athletic recruitment enhances what talents associated with the atmosphere of a campus? And if so, why shouldn’t schools recruit hip-hop dancers and artists formerlly as well? That would “enhance the talents associated with the atmosphere of a campus environment”, too becaus people breakdance and do art on campus.</p>
<p>In reality, sports add almost nothing to any top five university save Stanford. They’re a money drain. No one cares or goes to Harvard basketball games, or even Harvard football games. School spirit at top 5 universities is based on the prestige and history of the universities in question, not their athletic prowress. Thus, athletic recruitment is actually less justifiable than Affirmative Action because no one cares or even notices sports at top 5 universities and it costs a lot of money.</p>
<p>Your argument fails.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>It instead confers unique experiences and a subsequent unique perspective.</p>
<p>Because being black or Asian in America is a rarer and different experience from being white in America.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>In fact, you base your argument on both preferential treatment and vengeance. Preferential treatment in the sense that minorities are provided with a predetermined amount of points towards their applications and vengeance in that, in your view, racial minorities deserve to avenge decades/centuries-old grievances by having a distinct advantage before even being considered for their academic and personal merit and what distinct talents that they can provide to the campus environment.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Yes the first sentence of your post is undeniably true. However, in today’s liberalized society, these benefits are reversed to favor them in processes involving both objective and subjective merit.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Yes, you properly qualify your statement to suggest that white-to-white alliances were common until the affirmative action scene came to dominate American college admissions. Now, however, it is quite different.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>As amciw stated previously, these four Nigerians were qualified yet not ‘supremely qualified’ as typical Asian and white minorities since they must overcome this point gap by achieving to a greater degree than their black, Hispanic, and Native American counterparts.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Wait a second. So American Indian students have to do MORE than white or Asian students to prove that they’re significantly qualified for their spot (because admissions is not “deserved” or even “earned,” not nearly so much as “given”)?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>This is undeniably true. There are a TON of atheletes at Yale, at least 20% of the population and they are blatantly and very apparently not as intelligent as the general population at Yale. In fact my roommate, a Hockey recruit, did not even have to write essays to get into Yale and I think his test scores were below 2000, but he is a good hockey player.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Nobody knows the answer to this question save the admission’s committe at said university, which differs in its admission’s practices from those of another college. We are speaking about relative differences in the overall quality of the applicant pool at schools that practice affirmative action. For instance, at MIT, blacks receive admission into at 2-1 rate in comparison to whites and Asians, despite an average SAT that is lower by 345 points (and invariably correlates to lower objective statistics in other categories).</p>
<p>[Statistics</a> on Reverse Discrimination](<a href=“http://www.asianam.org/statistics%20reverse.htm]Statistics”>http://www.asianam.org/statistics%20reverse.htm)</p>
<p>Also, let me indicate something: In light of statistics that substantiate such discriminatory practices, you always maintain complete silence regarding them and instead revert to arguments that personally attack. Your legitimacy as a debater is already absent by expounding ad hominem arguments, thus I have no reason to debate with you any longer because you have already violated the main principle of any debate and that is to attack arguments not the individual. You say my arguments are torn apart when they are not. They are rooted in moral, ethical, and statistical verification, all three aspects in which you misinterpret to either attack me personally or do not respond to at all.</p>
<p>“an average SAT that is lower by 345 points”</p>
<p>Just to be clear; is this an extrapolation of the 10 plus year old data?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Unique experiences and perspectives are not derived from checking a minority box on an application. They come from personal existence that is independent of the color of one’s skin. Although I am a Caucasian, I have spent one-third of my life living in countries outside of the United States, have temporarily lived on six different continents, and speak several languages. You, however, suggest that because of the color of my skin, I and many other white individuals have no unique experiences. In fact, you can find a unique experience in nearly every event, regardless of its triviality, depending on how one views that event. The color of one’s skin may to some degree correlate to a different perspective but IT DOES NOT FUNDAMENTALLY CAUSE unique experiences.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>You should have told me that you didn’t understand the concept of vengeance. Allow me to help you understand vengeance. Vengeance is is a harmful action against a person or group as a response to a (real or perceived) grievance. The goal of revenge usually consists of forcing the perceived wrongdoer to suffer the same or greater pain than that which was originally inflicted.</p>
<p>If minorities wanted vengeance they would call for the extermination of whites, not Affirmative Action. But more importantly, Affirmative Action isn’t vengeance because minorities didn’t start Affirmative Action initiatives (which aren’t law, by the way). They don’t force it on employeers or educational institutions. They don’t hold them hostage with claims of racism or threats to riot. The institutions chose to operate under Affirmative Action, which is to say that they don’t discriminate on the basis of sex, color, religion, etc. That manifests itself as initiatives to prove their claim by seeking out minorities.</p>
<p>I don’t believe that minorities deserve ‘vengeance’. I believe that they deserve a chance at equality. As it stands, whites have amassed a lot of political and economic capital through unfair means which gives them a huge advantage as a whole over everyone else - even Asians. If we’re going to have some semblance of equality we have to work toward given minorities a boost. White America didn’t allow Native Americans and blacks to build the kind of capital that would have made Affirmative Action unnecessary. It actively denied minorities economic and social mobility for centuries by killing them, enslaving them, and forcin them to the fringes of society by law until the late 1960’s. Consequently, there’s hardly an adult minority generation whose parents weren’t affected by systematic discrimination. The vast students applying today are not far from the discrimination of the past at all. It affects their parents, and what affects their parents affects them. They deserve some help as a result. Why do you deny/ignore this inconvient but obvious fact?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I’m sure most African-Americans and Native Americans would gladly trade you their small, in most cases useless Affirmative Action boost for the lives of their ancestors and the chance to have centuries of wealth and work behind their family. Are you willing to trade?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Only 200 universities and colleges are anything close to competitive. Maybe 50 are legimiately competitive. The other 2000 colleges are literally open admissions. Thus your claim that affirmative action has come to ‘dominate American college admissions’ is highly fallacious.</p>
<p>Fail.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>There’s no such thing as “supremely qualified”. But if it does exist, believe me, the majority of Yalies are not “supremely qualified”. Some quarter barely broke 2100 and the median student that took the ACT got a 32, 33 tops.</p>
<p>I’m pretty sure National Merit Finalist is more elite or “supremely qualified” than a 33 ACT, which doesn’t even convert to a 2300 SAT.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Yes and given that MIT is a private institution, no external policy has altered its admission practices.</p>
<p>Dbate, shhhhhhhhhhh, Yale’s hockey team is SICK. Have you gone to any games?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>In a system without AA, Native Americans would need to compete at the same level (exceed the bare standard required for admission) as their white and Asian counterparts.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>lol because blacks and Asians are treated exactly like everyone else! Your person has nothing to do with how you’re treated because people make decisions regarding how they’re going to treat you before you even open your mouth. </p>
<p>But a part of white privilege is never knowing that minorities are treated differently than whites.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Nice strawman. I never suggested such a thing. If you were a white guy living in an all black area or an Asian country you would certainly have unique experiences because people would treat you differently. Likewise, black and Asian students live in white society and consequently have unique experiences. Or sometimes, they don’t, which also results in unique experiences. Take your pick!</p>