Simple solution to it all

Colleges & Universities Massachusetts Institute of Technology
41

<p>molliebatmit,</p>

<p>you’re post is great, but has some flaw</p>

<p>what does chances/opportunities/resources…etc have to do with skin color?
Isn’t it all about socialeconomical backgrounds?
If we just look at social-economical backgrounds and use that for Affirmative Action, don’t we solve both problems: help those poor urms and prevent rich wealthy urms from getting the unfair benefit.</p>

<p>People like to draw a very illogical link between social economical background and urm…
however, unlike what many ignorant people pointed out, if we just look at social economical background, EVERYTHING is solved. </p>

<p>let’s do that stupid hypothetical case again.
(assuming everything else is similar, or whatever those people like to say discussin hypothetical cases)
AA:
urm poor: in
urm rich: in
white poor: reject
white rich: reject</p>

<p>AA with social economic background:
urm poor: in
urm rich: reject
white poor: in
white rich: reject</p>

<p>isn’t that great???</p>

42

<p>“Most people I know who dislike AA dislike it on personal grounds – that it will impede their own chances at Outcome X.”</p>

<p>Well, most of the original opponents of anti-black racism opposed it on the grounds that it impeded their own chances at Outcome X–because it was unfair and indefensible. Perhaps most of the people you know who dislike AA dislike it because it smacks of the same essential unfairness and disrespect for individual rights as all other forms of racial/ethnic favoritism.</p>

43

<p>

</p>

<p>true dat. “class” really is the new “race” and has been for quite a while. it would be nice if there were more signs of society moving away from race based affirmative action to a more class based approach; i believe the net result would be about the same minus a lot of the controversy.</p>

44

<p>I can see it now. Wealthy parents leaving their jobs at just the right time/ long enough so junior qualifies as disadvantaged. If the system can be scammed it will be and as always those at the top will have a distinct advantage.</p>

45

<p>Sure, I believe there are a lot of issues with “affirmative” action- and that it is far from perfect.</p>

<p>However, what bothers me the most about affirmative action is the manner in which the debate is framed. The term affirmative action itself bothers me. Why not call it a “racial preference” program or at least even a “diversity” program? Both would seem more straight-forward. Instead, the debate has been framed around the term “affirmative” action, automatically instilling it with good connotations. Also, another term is rarely ever used, although it is highly accurate- discrimination.</p>

<p>“Discrimination- treatment or consideration of, or making a distinction in favor of or against, a person or thing based on the group, class, or category to which that person or thing belongs rather than on individual merit: racial and religious intolerance and discrimination”</p>

<p>There is no doubt, at least in my mind, that affirmative action falls under this definition. And I’m thinking that few would dispute this definition.</p>

<p>If the American people are to debate affirmative action and its future, they should at least hear an absolutely accurate description of it, “discrimination”, once in a while- during objective introductions to the issue, on TV, on the radio, or in any other media outlet. I may be wrong, but from personal memory I say that this rarely happens.</p>

<p>One can argue that affirmative action is justified discrimination. One can say that it works to improve diversity, tolerance, or perhaps even redress historical wrongs and current prejudices. Of course I disagree with many of these reasons, but I find it dishonest not to at least openly acknowledge affirmative action to be discrimination, especially when prompted- given that most affirmative action policies care only for skin color, regardless of one’s individual socioeconomic status and circumstances. What really made me angry was Princeton’s Dean of Admission’s response to charges of racial discrimination against Asians:</p>

<p>Rapelye told roughly 30 students in Frist 308 that “the numbers don’t indicate <a href=”%5Burl%5Dhttp://www.dailyprincetonian.com/archives/2006/11/30/news/16798.shtml%5B/url%5D">discrimination</a></p>

<p>The least she could do, as a professional and hopefully, a person with a conscience, would be to openly admit to discriminating against certain groups. She could follow that concession up with explanations that it is discrimination for a good cause (ie the ends justify the means). Yet she could not even do that. She could not even acknowledge a fact, and instead insisted upon restating the opposite. Why?</p>

<p>Of those that I am aware of, it seems that a greater majority of admissions officers will not acknowledge that affirmative action is discrimination (I may be mistaken). Most that I have seen tend to dance around and dodge the key question, instead describing affirmative action as merely considering each applicant individually given all relevant circumstances including race. But in the end, that is just another way of restating that it is still discrimination. The end result is still the same. Given two identical applicants, except for race, the underrepresented one will always have an advantage. To those who disagree with me, does this not fit the definition of discrimination I provided above?</p>

46

<p>What I really don’t understand is, why race and not economic status? I’ve seen the question raised many times, but I haven’t seen it in the context of a debate and I don’t understand the pro-AA defense of this. I think that “context” should be judged by context, not by race - hence my main problem with affirmative action. Another one is that groups which have historically been disadvantaged by ideological issues such as Jews or Chinese don’t receive any benefits from affirmative action - this seems ironic to me.</p>

<p>I’m also against AA for liberal/conservative reasons, but there I can at least understand the reasoning of the other side.</p>

<p>Being relatively closed-minded I probably won’t be persuaded about preferencing race as opposed to economic status, but I’m curious to know what the argument for this is.</p>

47

<p>Economic status may enter consideration if essay mentions overcome obstacle which is economically related. Correct me if I am wrong but I understand that average Caltech student has much lower family income and also more likely a first generation college student, among top tier schools. I was told a while back that a possible reason is that those parents who don’t have college education tend to value education more which motivate their children toward study. Truly good people could standout no matter which race and what income level they belong to and as my father used to said fat cat don’t catch mouse.</p>

48

<p>I’d say most Caltech kids are solidly middle class – a few upper middle, a few lower middle. Poor kids who are smart enough to go to a top school almost always pick an Ivy because a profession like lawyer or executive or doctor provides more compensation and somewhat more security than being a scientist or engineer. (Though the number of really poor kids going to college at all is unfortunately negligible.) Rich kids, on average, don’t want to go to Caltech and become scientists or engineers because fat cat don’t catch mouse.</p>

<p>I’d guess similar trends hold at MIT, though since MIT offers more on the business end of things and is somewhat more hospitable to premeds, things might be a little different.</p>

49

<p>You can be a big shot on the internet, but if you can’t stand in front of a large group of black people and tell them to their faces that they haven’t suffered any disadvantages/hardships because of and purely because of their race - that they haven’t had to fight any harder to get to where they are (and that they don’t deserve to have that be a consideration of “context”), then you’re full of hot air. Where did we grow up? Have any of us EVER stepped out of suburbia?? It’s always just middle to upper class asian and white boys whining. Whining about how the /poor/ white boys don’t get extra consideration, how come I don’t hear any poor white boys complaining? It’s because they do. Just like race is a part of context so is socioeconomic status. There’s not a “are you poor?” box to check, but there’s such a thing as essays and short answers and interviews, and that is always a huge consideration, especially at places like MIT. But what do people have a problem with? And who has a problem? People that it seems have never driven through the slums with their windows down, that just can’t imagine why it is that the hugest demographic living below the poverty line is by FAR minorities- blacks and hispanics. Sure you got your books and your philosophy and your fancy words and old dead people ideals but what does that measure up to plain old human sympathy? We’ve all got our rigid values about morality and what’s “fair” and “just” because we can AFFORD to. You and I can afford to think the world is and should be fair because we haven’t been on the other side when the world is anything but and it just seems incredibly silly for us to sit in our ivy towers sighing wi****lly about the what-ifs with our laptops and our morning newspaper typing on the internet about what we think the fates of those who are fighting a much tougher battle should be. It’s not for us to decide. We’re self-centered people. This whole process is a self-centered process, otherwise, why would the ten white people in mollie’s class be against AA and the one black kid for? I bet all 10 white kids had great speeches prepared about fairness and the fate of humanity that wanes with every petty injustice, then why didn’t the black kid? Even the black people who happen to be AGAINST AA are so for selfish reasons. What are they? “It makes me feel bad… like I don’t deserve to be there. White people complain.” Therefore this debate is stupid. Anything anyone says stems from selfishness. Myself included probably. This probably annoys me because I am a girl and this board has something for “giving it” to girls that get into MIT for whatever reason. It may be so but it doesn’t matter. I think this is stupid and just a whole bunch of empty words because not one of you will ever have the balls to stand up and say this to the people that AA benefits, to look them in the eyes and not feel like a petty idiot with foofy frilly ideals.</p>

50

<p>The ad hominem part of your argument is dumb. My family has been on welfare and I lived in a neighborhood that you probably wouldn’t consider good. I’ve had an extraordinarily cushy life – my parents are well-educated immigrants and the poverty was the fobby kind that ends quickly when the knowledge economy smiles on you. But don’t assume everyone has lived in an entirely sheltered way and thinks about poverty only in the abstract.</p>

<p>The other thing is you make grotesque mistakes with basic logic. Yes, the vast majority of very poor people are black and Hispanic, but it doesn’t follow that a program focusing on color as a criterion will benefit any poor people. I’m not entitled to be treated better than others because most Russians (of whom I am one) live in poverty under a totalitarian regime. Their suffering is theirs and not mine. Black people who live in upscale neighborhoods might as well be living in a different country from black people who live in slums, but we give both of them the benefit of race-based affirmative action because they’re the same color.</p>

<p>All black people suffer from racism, but the race-related disadvantage accruing to poor black people is orders of magnitude more harmful than that accruing to black people in tony suburban neighborhoods. Yet affirmative action doesn’t think this is an important distinction – you can tell because most of the people benefitting are the ones who’ve suffered the small racism of rich neighborhoods and not the crushing racism of the slums which you so love to cite. (Yes, there’s small racism and big racism. Deal with it.)</p>

<p>That’s because affirmative action is a program that benefits mostly white politicians. It gives unneeded help largely to people who have already gotten into the upper middle class to make us feel egalitarian. It makes us feel better about not doing enough for people from the actual slums, the vast majority of whom aren’t candidates for MIT because they weren’t candidates for eighth grade. We can just count black people and wave around a high percentage – look, diversity!</p>

<p>The cheap diversity of counting colors is racist, selfish, and short-sighted. Help belongs in the kindergartens where it can change lives, not at top universities, where minorities (all of whom would have gone to top 20 schools under race-blind admissions) play the role of avatars for their races, helping to absolve us of racial guilt. </p>

<p>But the best argument is this. If we stopped covering up the problem with thinly veiled quotas, then we would have to face every day the fact that we’re doing such a crappy job helping minority kids reach their potential that only a negligible number can get into MIT without admissions adjustments.</p>

<p>No, no, that would be too hard.</p>

51

<p>Who said anyone was starch against education and support at a lower level?? Your argument is that because we cannot fix EVERYTHING and we can’t as human beings, a problemed race, give help wherever help is most needed, then let’s throw up our hands and not help at all? AA might be a misguided type of help, sure, a bunch of people going, well, we screwed up there a bit, let’s do something now. Sure, it might make some people that you don’t like feel a little better about themselves, but the people that it IS helping aren’t rejecting the help. They’re not the ones going “Well, looks like we’re AVATARS for our race, **** AA!” No, it’s the white and asian people. That’s why this argument is ugly. Because, once again, it’s not the people whom it affects the most that are standing on soap boxes complaining about the policies, it’s the people that suffer small inconveniences at the expense of those who ARE benefited. Sure, once we’ve solved the problem at a more basic level (and don’t think people aren’t working on it like it’s a new idea or something), then let’s refine the things we do as last ditch efforts, such as AA, such as support groups, such as scholarships for minorities that irritate some other people and might not hit at the heart of the problem, but those solutions aren’t HERE yet. And if you cared beyond winning internet arguments, you’d get out and help us work toward it.</p>

<p>And don’t think I’m talking just to you, I’m talking to everyone. Before we get rid of one lifeline, let’s secure another.</p>

52

<p>inverse- how can Caltech have a high percentage of low-income kids? Are low income kids naturally smarter and better achievers? </p>

<p>Caltech is a “meritocracy”, remember?</p>

53

<p>It’s one thing to consider a person’s situation in “context,” but who’s to say that that has to have anything to do with race? Do you know for a fact that “poor white boys” get as much consideration as “poor <insert race=”" here=“”> boys"? If you do, then please, stop me now. </insert></p>

<p>But for now, let’s just eliminate the middle- and upper-class from the argument, and focus on two poor kids. (Before you say, “I don’t see any poor white kids complaining,” just stop. Just because they’re not complaining doesn’t mean that it doesn’t happen, nor does it mean that it is fair.) Both of them grew up in the slums, both of them are extremely disadvantaged, but both of them worked hard in high school and overcame obstacles etc., and now they are both applying to college. Ah, but wait. One of them is white, and the other is black. If both of them have similar credentials and are on the cusp of admission, but the college in question needs to make a choice between them, one would think that there would be a real dilemma. But, oh, here comes AA (or at least what AA has become) to the rescue! Assuming that all indicators are calibrated as they are in today’s society, the problem is easily solved, as the black student is offered admission while the white student is not. And why? Not because the black student was disadvantaged (for so was the white student), not because he had undergone hardships (for so had the white student), but simply because of the set of pigments that he was born with. So you say that “internet big shots” need to grow some balls and confront the people that AA benefits? I’d like to see you go up to that poor white kid (and believe me, they DO exist) and tell him the real reason why he wasn’t admitted. Not because he wasn’t qualified, not because he hadn’t worked hard, but because he just wasn’t the right color? Please. And you can call me idealistic, and say that I have no clue what I’m talking about because I’ve never been in that situation, and yadayadayada, but in the end, AA as it is practiced today is inherently unfair, and anyone who denies that needs to look at some of the cold hard facts that Ben has so eloquently presented. Even some of the people that AA benefits believe that the practice is unfair. Heck, URMs from my school that are applying to college adamantly try to deny that they will be given the upper-hand in the admissions process because deep down, they know that it isn’t fair to everyone else. Of course, it does benefit them so they would never try to effect any change in policy, but just the fact that they recognize its flaws is indicative of how blatantly unjust the practice really is. So pardon me if I sound preachy and idealistic, but if that’s what one has to sound like to disagree with a fundamentally flawed concept, then so be it. Now if you’ll excuse me, I apparently have to go groom my foofy frilly ideals and grow some male reproductive organs.</p>

54

<p>

</p>

<p>You forget fat cat don’t catch mouse. Logically it follows that who does catch mouse is…</p>

55

<p>Long post later, but pebbles is just flat wrong about how minority beneficiaries of AA don’t complain about being token instances of diversity and the general superficiality of AA. They do. I’ve heard them do it, and a lot of famous ones have done it in print, if you were to grow eyes and read a little. I love how you speak for other people, or rather mystically unspeak for them, revealing to us all the many things none of them complain about.</p>

56

<p>Well said.</p>

57

<p>Pebbles, I don’t think there’s any shortage of support for affirmative action in academia or politics in general. If there weren’t plenty of people defending it, we wouldn’t have the policy.</p>

<p>Your argument as I understand it is that race is a proxy for economic disadvantage. You seem to grant Ben’s objection that it isn’t a great proxy, since most (not all, but most) of those who benefit don’t really need it. There are other objections that can be made - I’m a Russian Jew who’s dad grew up in a one-room house in a communist society where his college admission was essentially prohibited and he was arrested for reading philosophy. I don’t enjoy the benefits of AA, neither do my Chinese friends whom it was at one time illegal to employ. And demographically whites are still the majority living under the poverty line (maybe not in terms of the poverty/not poverty ratio, but at least in total numbers). You just don’t see them as much because they tend not to live in the big California cities.</p>

<p>Maybe AA is still better than nothing, or maybe not - this seems to be just a question of balance between social equality and academic competition. But why use race as a proxy for economic status, if we can just use economic status? Yes, economic status already has some influence - but why look at race when using economic status exclusively would have the greatest benefit to the most disadvantaged African Americans? The effect of this is to give aid to the middle- and upper-class African Americans (among others, of course), instead of the more disadvantaged poor whites (again, among others). If one values racial equality as an end in itself, then this makes sense - but if one values racial equality as a means of improving social equality (which I think most uninterested people would), then there is no advantage to using race as a proxy for economic (or otherwise academic) disadvantage.</p>

58

<p>Again, everyone can’t be happy all the time, someone, somewhere out there, will always be “wronged”. And will complain, and will write on admissions forums about it. If it’s not you, then it’s someone else. You raise some perfectly valid points, and I’m no staunch advocate of AA, I just find it stupid and hypocritical to get all flamingly self-righteous about the ONE minor misdeed that benefits a group that doesn’t include you. If you’re really so concerned about the underpriviledged, get involved! Meet some folks, hear some stories, some anonymous words in a nice text box isn’t going to convince you of the things that actually matter beyond getting into college X or university Y (yeah, imagine, college admisions at the Ivies not being that important). No matter what your personal motivations are, you can’t help but admit that the majority of AA opponents are really just a bunch of whiners and need no encouraging whatsoever. Also, let’s not start sticking our hands down each other’s pants for simply being on the same sides in an issue, please.</p>

<p>Anyways, I’m sorry I indulged you. It was a judgment lapse, like I thought for a second this was going to get anywhere unlike EVERY OTHER TIME this comes up. Honestly though, you are really no better in making a difference than those old white men sitting around a round table- smoking their cigars and thinking AA will fix everything- that you so despise. Only your round table is CC and your old men are the poor cronies who don’t have an original thought of their own and read nothing but what they want to read out of the “debate”.</p>

<p>And I congratulate those who either do not care about the issue or can see the ups and downs of both sides.</p>

<p>This will be the last I say about this. Whoever wants the last word can get it. I’m going back to my vapid one-liner internet personality.</p>

59

<p>Actually, in response to Daniel, I don’t know why we don’t use socioeconomic status solely as a judgment of context. Like, I’m not the one making the policies, but it probably has a little something to do with the fact that it can be very easily misrepresented (intentionally) or misinterpreted (unintentionally) whereas race is something a little harder to fake. I can seeing it being very hard to determine in some cases with assets and property and income and all that. I know some very poor people with some real estate that prevented them from getting adequate financial aid. If that extended to admissions I can see there being a whole new bundle of problems (a whole new group of people whining). I don’t know, that’s just my best guess. It would be better if you can work out the kinks in that but there is probably a very good reason that it’s not the primary form of AA. The system we have now is better than nothing, though, in my opinion (clearly clearly).</p>

60

<p>The main reason that’s not the primary form of AA is that the number of black people admitted under that policy would be 1/6 of what it is now. That’s not my guess – MIT flatly says it’s the reason in the Supreme Court brief cited earlier in this thread. </p>

<p>That outcome would be unacceptable because it’s important for college populations to be “representative” racially, nevermind that virtually everyone comes from the same upper-middle class suburban culture. And if you think that’s a solution that’s better than nothing, I have a tasty bag of bugs for you.</p>