<p>Even though people tend to have their minds made up on this, I would like to throw in my two cents. </p>
<p>My first thought is that I don’t understand why people say AA means that minorities will have to live with the knowledge that they (we) got in because of AA. Where does that come from? Granted, there are some people who always second guess themselves and can’t take compliments, rewards, etc, at face value, but I don’t see how that’s a standard. People can claim that certain other people won awards for whatever reason, but at the end of the day, I should think that one knows if he or she earned something. Plenty of people have tried to tell me that I won awards because of my race, but I don’t buy it. I know exactly what I bring to the table and it’s irrefutable.</p>
<p>Something else I don’t understand about that is, when it comes to affirmative action or college admissions, people always want to jump on race. I think we’ve established that there are other affirmative action policies in place (such as legacy, athletic, etc.). I won’t beat that dead horse, except to say that those categories are just examples of how a university builds the class it wants–which is its prerogative. (And really, if someone thinks the practices of a university aren’t good, why would he or she go? If the university is undermined by those practices, it should follow by that same line of thinking that it’s clearly not being run in the fashion of a “top university,” so why care? Unless the brand name really is all that matters.) I often wonder why no one questions how other awards are given out. If someone wins a writing award, why does no one jump on the fact that maybe the judges wanted someone who was a sophomore to win, as opposed to the “best” writer? That might be a bad example. Let’s consider high schools where one of the graduation speakers is “historically” a student body officer. People generally don’t consider that the speaker is speaking because he or she is in an elected position; the assumption is that the speaker earned it regardless.</p>
<p>Now, if we don’t question every award, why should we question college admissions? Furthermore, how many people question their own awards, as opposed to just questioning the accolades of others? Along those lines, many people do NOT care why they won;they just care that they did win. The Texas Longhorns don’t care why they’re getting to go to a championship game; they’re just happy they’re going.</p>
<p>As far as the bias of overrepresentation, why is it never brought up that overrepresentation can also be in one’s benefit? If the powers that be must choose a winner based on people will similar stats, they may see an Asian name or a traditionally caucasian name and feel comfortable that that person is intelligent, qualified, etc., as opposed to someone with a traditionally hispanic or “black” name. When one sees a list of winner, typically one isn’t surprised to see names from the former category. This benefit that’s attributed being in the over-represented group is very real–at least as real as the harm that is felt by the over-represented groups. It’s sort of like the notion of white privilege that someone brought up a few pages back.</p>
<p>All this said, I think each side has valid points. It’s the same with politics. Most of us are doing what we believe is better. The other side isn’t wrong–they just have different beliefs about what is best. Life is complicated and to simplify an issue into right and wrong is much more difficult than the way in which we’re trying to do so. I hope I didn’t offend anyone because I do see that most everyone posting has a basis for an argument. I also hope that this two cents didn’t turn into an entire dollar. XD</p>
<p>The fact that many of you have beliefs that you’re willing to stand for and defend does you all credit. :)</p>