Affirmative action affects more than just african americans. Plus the rationale is simply to increase diversity at universities which is an inherent educational benefit.
Really? Things haven't changed for everyone else in 250 years? Please post for me the median incomes of blacks vs whites for the last fifty years and show me what's changed.
I have read academic journals in regards to Affirmative Action so I'll just try to remember what I had read. The study was based on if AA was gone and acceptance was based on merit. Caucasians: There was only a slight increase in acceptance. African Americans: Significant decrease in acceptance. Hispanics: Slight decrease in acceptance. Asians: Significant increase in acceptance. Not sure when the study was done.
...and merit is not fair because??? if the goal is to give hand outs to help blacks and hispanics since they can't score as high on tests, then just call it what it is -- a charity hand out based on skin color
They should give you charity for being unable to read. Just in case you don't fully understand. For the record, I didn't voice my own opinion on the topic. I merely provided some statistics.
There's a real life case study with California public universities, which were prohibited from using affirmative action for admission purposes in 1996. Asian admission skyrocketed, white admission remained about the same, and black/hispanic admission fell.
I wish people would stop bringing up AA as a "reparation" policy. It's unhelpful, gets people riled up, and leads to meaningless comparisons about who was most repressed or which group most deserves AA. The Supreme Court itself has said that AA is only legitimate as a means to increase diversity not as a way to right past wrongs. Of course, in reality the concept has been subsumed into AA as a whole, but there's a reason why AA also applies to white women, and increasingly all white students vis-a-vis asian students.
We should have AA for top executives at fortune 500 companies, we should have AA in pro sports as well.
Well, the Supreme Court heard the arguments for Fisher v. University of Texas II today. Here is a basic summary of how I feel arguments went: Spoiler In favor of overturning affirmative action, at least at UT (4): Roberts, Alito, Thomas, Scalia Mildly in favor of overturning (1): Kennedy In favor of remanding to district court for stricter scrutiny (1): Breyer, Kennedy? In favor of upholding UT's affirmative action measures and in general (2): Ginsburg, Sotomayor Recused: Kagan
I wonder how Thomas felt about Scalia's remark that blacks are better served attending less prestigious programs with slower curricula. I would pay to see video footage of Thomas' face for the entire segment. :grin::grin::grin: Funny how a former chief editor of Harvard Law Review doesn't have the same hang up about being presumed to have benefited from AA. I wonder why that is.
Poor little Abigail is proving time and again why she wasn't accepted to UT: she's an entitled brat who thinks she's owed something because her parents attended Texas. Ultimately, she wasn't smart enough to attend UT, which had a lower acceptance rate than Harvard the year she applied, and it will be a shame if Affirmative Action is struck down because of this case. ProPublica had a nice feature on Fisher and her lawsuit: A Colorblind Constitution: What Abigail Fisher's Affirmative Action Case is Really About Abigail Fisher wasn't fit for admission to UT and even turned down their offer of the CAP Program, which would've given her the chance to attend the Austin campus after at least a year at UTSA. She believed that was beneath her and is now the poster child for a lawsuit that, with every appearance it makes in the national consciousness, shows why she was never worthy of being a Longhorn in the first place.
I'm going with a 4-4 to remand the case back for a second time as idiotic as that is. Kennedy doesn't like affirmative action but I'm not sure he wants to be the one to kill it entirely. He hinted at that during the arguments yesterday. They'll probably demand even more scrutiny. The funny thing is that the 5th circuit court is just as conservative as the Supreme Court and the circuit court has now upheld this twice. This is becoming ridiculous at this point and the arguments against affirmative action have become rather incoherent. Its a bunch of stogy old white men complaining that diversity doesnt matter since UT proved repeatedly that the original Hopwood decision made UT much less diverse (even after the 10% rule) and even that only works as long as Texas maintains de-facto segregated schools. Or in Scalia and Alito's case they flat out said that beneficiaries of affirmative action were better off in lower tier schools even though the university proved that minorities admitted outside of the top 10% rule performed better than minority students in the 10% pool.
Hmm... this is one of the Justices deciding this case... http://www.chron.com/local/education/campus-chronicles/article/Scalia-Black-students-do-better-at-6686884.php
Why do AA has to limit Asian student admissions? Why not treat Asian students as white students? That's my biggest complain about AA. AA penalize Asian students for performing better than white students, as if there will be too few white students at university campuses across the nation.
I'm asian (well indian but for admission purposes I'm "asian") and I definitely never felt penalized. AA doesn't penalize asians. For purposes of admissions, we're treated as white students. Quota systems were ruled unconstitutional years ago. In fact the 2003, affirmative action cases ruled that point based systems in Michigan were also unconstitutional. Affirmative action in this country is already watered down to the point where race can only be a very small factor. Affirmative action doesn't work in a way to give negative points to a certain racial group. In UT's case only serves as a tiebreaker within a much larger holistic application process. Admissions will always have a certain level of qualitative judgement and in many cases it can feel like a crapshoot. But to blame AA for that is incorrect if you ask me. I even went to a high school with a large asian population. The only possibly valid complaint is that the top 10% was a problem in my school because it was so competitive. But honestly the flip side to that argument is that my school afforded students opportunities that you couldn't get at other schools which gave you a huge leg up (for example being able to take a full load of AP/IB classes from really good teachers) and having extra-curricular opportunities that you couldn't get from other schools. So even if you didn't make the top 10%, you had a better than average shot to make the general pool because your resume ended up being much better than the average student because of all of the extra opportunities that were afforded to you by the school.
You would be wrong. Asians require higher GPA and higher test score to get in top tier schools when compared to whites. This is due to the fact Asians are represented at a higher percentage in these schools than in general population. If Asians are treated as Whites, more Asians would be admitted and fewer white students would be admitted, all this has nothing to do with admitting AA and Latino students. AA in college admissions as it stands is basically to discriminate against Asians in favor of Whites.
