<p>And that is exactly the point. Disadvantaged includes, but is not limited to, poverty. The black physician to whom I referred was hardly wealthy, but he also was not poor. Was he disadvantaged? Absolutely. He was disadvantaged by being black. There was no affirmative action to help him, so he was one of the very few black doctors of his generation. </p>
<p>A URM with AA is still disadvantaged compared to to a member of the majority who is “burdened” by AA. All affirmative action does is make the comparison less unequal.</p>
<p>I do not know whether AA will be around for a long time. That is a political issue that could go either way. I am quite sure that the disadvantage of being black will be with us for many years. In my opinion, as long as we have that, we should have AA.</p>
<p>I am focussing on black people because they have been the largest minority group, and the one with which I am most familiar. I suspect all of the above applies to Hispanics, native americans…</p>
<p>I have not found the original quote, but this discussion reminds me of the phrase “born on third base and thinks he hit a triple”</p>
<p>There’s a problem with the story about the black doctor. Back then, pre-affirmative action, society was still reeling from past attitudes about race. They might have changed as blacks became more integrated into society, but somewhat haven’t, because affirmative action supports the idea that inferior candidates with disadvantaged backgrounds should be held to a lower standard. It’s an endless loop that won’t begin to recover until those reaping the benefits of AA speak out against it.</p>
<p>“The US used to be racist, so back then the attitude that no black could be a doctor was a manifestation of this racism. Now, in our enlightened age, the attitude that no black could be a doctor is just a reflection of affirmative action.”</p>
<p>Perhaps both are simple racism? Now that it is less socially acceptable, the “no blacks doctors” claim is buried under rhetoric about affirmative action?</p>
<p>Let me ask this of those who are fine with URMs in medicine, but only if they are “qualified”. If you concede that some are qualified, then what is your basis for denigrating the abilities of someone about whom all you know is that she is a black physician? You say you do not know anything about how qualified she may be, but, since she is black, you assume she is not qualified. How is this different than what my elderly colleague described?</p>
<p>If I understand the argument, it goes like this</p>
<p>"1. Due to AA, some black doctors got into medical school with lesser grades and test scores than white students who got into medical school.</p>
<ol>
<li>Those blacks who had lower grades end up being less competent physicians (asserted without evidence)</li>
</ol>
<p>Then the racist leap:</p>
<p>Since SOME black doctors were beneficiaries of AA, then ALL black doctors are incompetent. All I need to know about a doctor to suspect her qualifications is that she is black.</p>
<p>Beautiful. The racist attitudes might have changed as blacks became more integrated into society, but the attitudes have not changed because of AA. Had there been no AA, then the attitudes would have changed. </p>
<p>Of course the greater integration of blacks into society was to a significant extent due to AA. </p>
<p>So the way to counter racism was to encourage integration, but not to use one of the most effective tools.</p>
<p>Sit in the back of the bus and wait your turn.</p>
<p>I just think this is all biased. I think I read in a book somewhere that only 25% of all applicants accepted into a certain ivy league college are not “hooked”. I also think you can not adhere to affirmative action if you want to. It is voluntary to list your race, and you can talk about many things in your essay if you really wanted to do that. I just think some people do that to “prove” to others that they’re “equal”- when there’s no such thing as equal.</p>
<p>I never said all black physicians are inferior. We’re talking about the general attitude, not whether it’s justified or not.</p>
<p>And yes, by saying that blacks need help (AA) you’re essentially sending the message that they aren’t as good as others, even if they are equal. </p>
<p>You won’t get better at running if I give you a head start every time we race. Gradually you should start closer to me. Otherwise you’ll be perpetually be focused on meeting your handicap, and to all observers, it will appear that you’re not as good as me.</p>
<p>In reality though, if you’re racing a black guy with a head start you’re going to get burned even worse than you would have if you started on an equal footing. </p>
Again, it is illogical for you to use the word black synonymously with disadvantaged. Let’s see what this should imply:
Black = disadvantaged.
Disadvantaged = black.
Thus, a white man who is disadvantaged = black.
Obviously this is faulty logic. I think the disadvantage of being black should be accounted for, definitely. I don’t think you should automatically assume that you’re disadvantaged simply because you’re black. Or conversely, automatically assume you’re wealthy because you’re white. If you agree with this, then you have to agree with the fact that AA is actually a system that is inherently racist.</p>
<p>About the argument between the Hispanic and the Asian:
It may be funny to you but it’s actually hurting our community. I mean look at these boards here and you’ll realize that many Asians feel like they’re being shafted. That’s a fact and you can’t argue that. Do you think this creates any racial stereotypes? Absolutely. Do you think any Asians hold prejudices about the academic ability of URMs? Absolutely. But the reason Asians don’t get accounted for is because they’re even MORE of a minority than blacks. With only about 8% of the population here, who cares if a few of them hold these views, right?</p>
<p>
Here is your faulty logic:
Some black physicians are qualified.
Corollary, not all black physicians are qualified.
Corollary, some black physicians are qualified.
Therefore, everyone should assume that ALL black physicians are qualified.
First, I’d like to say that all black doctors are qualified. They passed all the exams and got accredited, right? But again, the question isn’t, “is the doctor qualified,” the question is, “were there other applicants MORE qualified for the position.” I’d say yes, sometimes. But that doesn’t mean I judge people based on this knowledge. It means I know that they may or may not have been as qualified for the position as someone else. But the end outcome is the same in that people will hold preconceived notions about a person because of his or her race.</p>
<p>I never said that- you’re twisting my words. Regardless of race, in some socioeconomic backgrounds, people have less opportunities. You don’t have to disclose this information. But if someone has less opportunities than someone else, I think that could be taken into account. Diversity is an amazing thing- it shows us we’re not all that different. I think schools should take into account socioeconomic backgrounds, to fill up their classes. I think some schools should focus on diversity- race and socioeconomic. I think it is a lot better to have a large representation from all around the world, rather than just from, lets say, an overwhelming majority from private schools in state of New York. I really do not think that most adcoms would actually just pick someone with “lower credentials” just because they are a minority. I think that the OP’s view of people “benefited” from Affirmative Action might have came from this forum and the general attitude here. In big name schools over thousands of URMs apply to big name schools, and a small percentage- is selected. But there are less URMs applying than non-URMs, that is why they are “under represented”. I would think the percentages of URMs and non-URMs selected from each of their “piles” is similar. </p>
<p>
That analogy is faulty. What if I cannot afford shoes? What if you had a track coach and I didn’t? There are so many other things that go into this.</p>
<p>My general consensus is that people will never really know until they are actually in the adcom’s shoes, and they read the thousands of applications. I mean, just trust them, most of them know what they’re doing.</p>
<p>that is faulty logic. Just because A=B doesn’t mean B=A. </p>
<p>For example, we can say all oranges are colored orange, so Orange=orange color. But we can’t say all things that have an orange color is an Orange.</p>
<p>u§ername:
Did you even read what I wrote? That example was blatently illogical because I was summarizing the logic people use to support AA. At least I know my argument was perceived as intended.</p>
<p>Ah, I see what you mean. I guess I did misinterpret what the poster was saying. However, I still believe this is the logic with which AA operates.</p>
<p>Affirmative action is incredibly condescending to minorities. Any minority with any dignity should be against it. </p>
<p>Second, does anyone ever question why is it important that all races perform equally in education/income? This notion is racist in itself and collectivist in nature. As long as everybody have equal rights, it’s nobody else’s business what they choose to do with their opportunities.</p>
<p>As a minority, AA is not condescending to me. Who are to tell me it should be? Why should you care what any minority thinks about AA? Why should minorities care what you think, period, once you make a statement like that? I suppose you judge all minorities by the standard that they are less people because AA exists.</p>
<p>“You do not take a person, who for years, has been hobbled by chains and liberate him, bring him up to the starting line of a race and then say ‘you are free to compete with all the others,’ and still believe that you have been completely fair.”
-Lyndon B. Johnson</p>