NationStates Jolt Archive

...should be based on socio-economic background rather than racial background. Poor white kids should get the same bonuses poor minority kids get and rich minority kids should get the same treatment rich white kids get. The only argument for AA is that minorities are forced to grow up in bad neighborhoods and don't have access to as good of an education as white people. The fact of the matter is that there are white people in that situation and there are rich minorities that have access to good education for their children.

Yeah I'd agree with that.

Totally agree.

I'm hoping this thread doesn't turn into a long collection of posts with the text being "I agree"

Should be ended and should never have started.

If we continue it however I agree it should be reformed as you say. But I prefer it be ended

Okay then, I'll spice things up:

White people enslaved me so the government should give me all kinds of money.

White people are richer than me so AA should make me get into college more.

That should prompt some debates.

Should be ended and should never have started.

If we continue it however I agree it should be reformed as you say. But I prefer it be ended
What about smart kids that don't have a chance to do well on the ACT due to limited teaching ability in his school?
What about smart kids that can't take AP classes due to limited class selection at his school?
He deserves to enter the work force pending earning his high school diploma instead of going to college?

who was wronged worst, and first? Native Americans. Before America can call itself a "Civil Rights Leader" Dontcha think Natives should be dealt with first???

:headbang:

Dwayne

who was wronged worst, and first? Native Americans. Before America can call itself a "Civil Rights Leader" Dontcha think Natives should be dealt with first???

:headbang:

Dwayne

I thought they were Russian. Isn't that where they migrated from?

Anyway, I see your point though.

who was wronged worst, and first? Native Americans. Before America can call itself a "Civil Rights Leader" Dontcha think Natives should be dealt with first???

:headbang:

Dwayne
No. I think Americans should be dealt with based on a socio-economic basis. And I've been out to Arizona, New Mexico, etc. Native Americans have it pretty bad off in those areas. But I don't think all Native Americans should get the advantage of Affirmative Action--just the ones in the bad socio-economic conditions. Also, I think affirmative action should be more of a factor when considering Financial Aid then when considering acceptance/denial of admission.

I think AA is racist.

Accepting someone over another just because of their race is wrong.

Unfortunately, I have to disagree. I don't think affirmative action should exist regardless.

Let's say there is Person A and Person B. Person A comes from wealthy parents. Person B comes from poor parents. Why should Person B not have to be as well qualified as Person A to be accepted?

One could make the argument that the schools weren't as good in Person B's neighbourhood growing up as Person A's, however, even if it wasn't as good, do you honestly believe that this means Person B, being equally smart as Person A, would not be able to do as well? Maybe he would have to put more effort into it, that I don't doubt, however, it still doesn't change the fact if Person B really was more qualified, he would be accepted over Person A.

You have to face the fact that in general 2 rich people's child is going to be smarter and more capable than 2 poor people's child (very strong note: in GENERAL), simply because the more capable someone is the more likely they are to be wealthy in our society, and capability is partially genetic.

I'm not sure if affirmative action only applies to blacks? Or is it to all minorities? If it's to all minorities in fact, it would actually BENEFIT me, however I know damn well I wouldn't want to be accepted into a university because of my racial background, no I'd want it to be for my qualifications.

I think AA is racist.

Accepting someone over another just because of their race is wrong.
Well, from what I understand of AA is this. If there are two students who have a tied score (because they score applications), they will accept a minority student over a white student because they give the minority student the benefit of the doubt that he/she came from a rough socio-economic background so it's more impressive that he/she is where he/she is.

Unfortunately, I have to disagree. I don't think affirmative action should exist regardless.

Let's say there is Person A and Person B. Person A comes from wealthy parents. Person B comes from poor parents. Why should Person B not have to be as well qualified as Person A to be accepted?

One could make the argument that the schools weren't as good in Person B's neighbourhood growing up as Person A's, however, even if it wasn't as good, do you honestly believe that this means Person B, being equally smart as Person A, would not be able to do as well? Maybe he would have to put more effort into it, that I don't doubt, however, it still doesn't change the fact if Person B really was more qualified, he would be accepted over Person A.

You have to face the fact that in general 2 rich people's child is going to be smarter and more capable than 2 poor people's child (very strong note: in GENERAL), simply because the more capable someone is the more likely they are to be wealthy in our society, and capability is partially genetic.

I'm not sure if affirmative action only applies to blacks? Or is it to all minorities? If it's to all minorities in fact, it would actually BENEFIT me, however I know damn well I wouldn't want to be accepted into a university because of my racial background, no I'd want it to be for my qualifications.

It is applied to all minorities, but let me explain why Person A and B aren't equally smart. If you go to a school that isn't as good, but get the same scores on tests and such as a person who went to one of the best high schools in the nation, then you are smarter then him. Person A had a ton of advantages walking into that test, but when A and B walked out, B, despite all his advantages, scored the same. It's like taking two basketball teams. Team A has an awesome coach and practiced a lot more and for a lot longer. Team B didn't practice much as a team and didn't have a good coach. They played each other and tied. Which team had the better players? If team B can tie team A when they are at an obvious disadvantage, I'd say team B is the better team.

Well, from what I understand of AA is this. If there are two students who have a tied score (because they score applications), they will accept a minority student over a white student because they give the minority student the benefit of the doubt that he/she came from a rough socio-economic background so it's more impressive that he/she is where he/she is.

That's racist.

Well, from what I understand of AA is this. If there are two students who have a tied score (because they score applications), they will accept a minority student over a white student because they give the minority student the benefit of the doubt that he/she came from a rough socio-economic background so it's more impressive that he/she is where he/she is.

More often than not though, the minority student could have lesser credentials and still be chosen because they have to fulfill demographic standards because of AA.

I think AA as it is now, is racist and people are taking advantage of it. It's kind of like people hope to be shoe-ins because they're minorities.

I like the idea of transforming it into the socio-economic struggle that it really is. Good idea Opal Isle.

That's racist.
Exactly. But if they looked at the two students' socio-economic backgrounds and one came from an obviously deprived school/neighborhood/family, then it'd make sense to pick that one over the other.

AA shouldn't be a racist tool to fix racism.

AA should be a socialist tool to fix the short fallings of capitalism which have hit a higher percentage of minorities than whites.

What about smart kids that don't have a chance to do well on the ACT due to limited teaching ability in his school?
What about smart kids that can't take AP classes due to limited class selection at his school?
He deserves to enter the work force pending earning his high school diploma instead of going to college?

NO he could go to a different school end the government monopoly on education and he can then go to a different school or a combo of schools and get his courses and better teachers etc. and go to college if he wishes

Exactly. But if they looked at the two students' socio-economic backgrounds and one came from an obviously deprived school/neighborhood/family, then it'd make sense to pick that one over the other.

While I see your point, the fact still exists that they both scored the same.

While it's true that if person B did attend a poorer school he'd have to work harder, that doesn't mean he should automatically win a tie between a white applicant.

I am as conservative as as they come and I firmly believe affirmitive action is rascist as is. we need to have it based on income to make it fair. Not all minority students are disadvantaged. almost all poor students are disadvantaged. that is why.
" i dream of a day when my little children, will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character"

NO he could go to a different school end the government monopoly on education and he can then go to a different school or a combo of schools and get his courses and better teachers etc. and go to college if he wishes
Socio-economic background. That means rich vs poor. That means the poor kid doesn't exactly have the choice to pick and choose his high school like the rich kid did. And even if he could pick, the rich kid still has the oppurtunity to go to elitist private schools that the poor kid couldn't afford.

While I see your point, the fact still exists that they both scored the same.

While it's true that if person B did attend a poorer school he'd have to work harder, that doesn't mean he should automatically win a tie between a white applicant.
You notice I left out race, but you automatically stuck it back in.

In my ideal system of AA, a white kid could beat out a minority kid even. Besides, as far as I know, AA as it is used today is only for breaking ties (except when they didn't break enough ties to meet the quota)

Socio-economic background. That means rich vs poor. That means the poor kid doesn't exactly have the choice to pick and choose his high school like the rich kid did. And even if he could pick, the rich kid still has the oppurtunity to go to elitist private schools that the poor kid couldn't afford.

I don't think that should give him a "Congrats, you automatically win a tie" card.

I am as conservative as as they come and I firmly believe affirmitive action is rascist as is. we need to have it based on income to make it fair. Not all minority students are disadvantaged. almost all poor students are disadvantaged. that is why.
" i dream of a day when my little children, will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character"
And to emphasize the "not all minority students are disadvantaged"

You think Condi Rice and Colin Powell's children need AA?

I don't think that should give him a "Congrats, you automatically win a tie" card.
If person B scored the same scores on tests as person A despite going to a worse school, it almost definitely means he is smart and/or he tried harder and would make a better college student.

should not aa serve disadvantaged needy people instead of minorties? I know many minority citizens that are not disadvantaged but I have never known a person in poverty who was not disadvantaged. this is not an issue of genetics it is an issue of availability of resources and the leveling of the playing field of the economic system just a little bit for education's sake. that is why it should be done on economic numbers not what people look like. It is rascist to assume that all minority's need help. it is obvious that all the poor people need help. where have I gone wrong on this?

for the first time I believe i am on opal isle's side. wow.

I don't think that should give him a "Congrats, you automatically win a tie" card.

You have to have *some* way to determine who wins a tie. Would you prefer the flip of a coin? Or a method that would increase the overall learning experience of the rest of the students at the school?

I'm usually very biased against AA, because it has a long history of being misused (ie. less qualified applicants getting things just because of their race, gender, etc.) However, if there is an actual qualification tie, I think that the best way to go about it would be to do whatever increases the diversity at your school, thus increasing the learning experience for those that attend. Of course, this would have to go both ways. If most of the people at your school are rich kids, and a rich kid and poor kid tie, then the poor kid should get the tie. But if most of the people come from disadvantaged backgrounds, and a rich kid applies and ties, the rich person should get the tie.

I think this thread is hard to disagree with though...

If person B scored the same scores on tests as person A despite going to a worse school, it almost definitely means he is smart and/or he tried harder and would make a better college student.

Agreed, but I don't think it should give him the right to auto-win a tie.

By the way...you don't have to have racial diversity to have ethnic diversity. Ever heard of a wigger?

Agreed, but I don't think it should give him the right to auto-win a tie.
I think what actually happens in the case of a tie is that they look over everything again and see if there is anything to determine who would be better to have at their school. I'm not positive, but I think how AA works now it's pretty much last on their list of things to look at, but it does break ties.

my own father came close to being beaten out of getting a position in NYPD because he "tied a minority". the minority was a guy he knew. a middle class regular african american. the african american scored far below what my father scored but because of the aa program in place under nypd at the time the scores came out dead even. that was wrong. ( my dad got in any way) and so did the other guy. goes to show how stupid that aa system is. for my further feelings see previous posts.

my own father came close to being beaten out of getting a position in NYPD because he "tied a minority". the minority was a guy he knew. a middle class regular african american. the african american scored far below what my father scored but because of the aa program in place under nypd at the time the scores came out dead even. that was wrong. ( my dad got in any way) and so did the other guy. goes to show how stupid that aa system is. for my further feelings see previous posts.
The system changes though and it is different in some places than others. That situation I would have to disagree with, even if it was based on socio-economics.

I don't think that we should speculate on who is "really" smarter or more qualified based on what advantages or disadvantages we think or assume a person had. There has to be an objective process for evaluating college applicants, otherwise you will end up with more inequality and unfairness than before.

I do wish that everyone would have the same opportunities to succeed in the world but I can't think of any practical solution, and penalizing those who take advantage of their abundant opportunities is not it.

i have a good friend also who is of mixed race decent. she is middle class . should she get special treatment over a white kid in a poor rural farm community whos family can barely feed itself with the little money they have? she doesnt think so.

Neither do I.

my own father came close to being beaten out of getting a position in NYPD because he "tied a minority". the minority was a guy he knew. a middle class regular african american. the african american scored far below what my father scored but because of the aa program in place under nypd at the time the scores came out dead even. that was wrong. ( my dad got in any way) and so did the other guy. goes to show how stupid that aa system is. for my further feelings see previous posts.

I think the supposition we are going on here is that the applicants have to be completely equal in other ways. In your father's case, he didn't "tie a minority," the minority's score got bumped up because he was a minority. This is not the same thing. I'm against that as well.

And race is not the only way that this type of discrimination is used. In the postal service (and maybe other government offices, I don't know), veterans are hired over anyone else. If a veteran passes the test with a 70, that person is automatically bumped up to the level of the people who make 100. While I am all for taking care of our veterans, this is blatant discrimination, and not only against the rest of the people. By assuming that you have to *help* someone in this way, you are assuming that they couldn't make it on their own. If I were in that situation, I would find it highly insulting. I hope your dad's minority buddy did.

as a conservative ( and newly affirmed republican) i support it based on economic status and definatly not on race. that reminds me too much of that seperate but equal bull of old times. I am no rascist so i do not support institutionalized rascism. I have met many minority's with better lots in life than many poor non-minorities and other poor minorities. It should be based on economic status only. I even agree with opal isle. this opinion crosses many boundaries.

as a conservative ( and newly affirmed republican) i support it based on economic status and definatly not on race. that reminds me too much of that seperate but equal bull of old times. I am no rascist so i do not support institutionalized rascism. I have met many minority's with better lots in life than many poor non-minorities and other poor minorities. It should be based on economic status only. I even agree with opal isle. this opinion crosses many boundaries.
I don't know why you keep saying "as a conservative"

By the way, this is pretty liberal...basing AA on socio-economic background that is...

you bet my dad's pal was insulted. as is my best friend, he is chinese. He thinks it is terrible that he might be favored over someone who is poor and non-minority and ver very angry that people assume he needs help. he does not. and we all know it. again, economic status is the key here.

interesting, guess where i first got the idea planted in my head that it should be done by economics. FOX NEWS........ON THE O'REILLY FACTOR. he said that is how he would want it done. I thought it was a beautiful idea.how liberal is that?

I think AA is racist.

Accepting someone over another just because of their race is wrong.
Okay, HOW do you make the system work? What reforms would you like to see?

Okay, HOW do you make the system work? What reforms would you like to see?
Read the first post numbnuts.

interesting, guess where i first got the idea planted in my head that it should be done by economics. FOX NEWS........ON THE O'REILLY FACTOR. he said that is how he would want it done. I thought it was a beautiful idea.how liberal is that?
Bill steals my ideas all the time.

the number one cable news show anchor in the world steals my ideas too! I like that show.

the number one cable news show anchor in the world steals my ideas too! I like that show.
Well...you're conservative...and he has a conservative slant...so it's more like you guys share ideas.

However, any time O'Reilly shows a hint of liberalness, it's because he's been talking to me.

Unless he starts talking about communism being achievable. Then he's been talking to someone that doesn't know what they're talking about or Letila--but I repeat myself...

Did it ever occur to you people that whites might have an automatic advantage, since the system was created and owned by whites?

Did it ever occur to you people that whites might have an automatic advantage, since the system was created and owned by whites?
...the cotton gin was invented by a black guy...

Read the first post numbnuts.

I read the first post. I really don't think you truly understood my question.

Enjoy your thread.

I read the first post. I really don't think you truly understood my question.

Enjoy your thread.
Yea, I guess we're not on the same page...so unless you care to explain, go away so I can enjoy my thread.

so what if whites created a system? That was another time, another era, it is not the 1700's where people can be slaves. it is not the 1920's where blacks had to sit in the back of movie theaters and drink out of seperate water fountains. it is not the 60's where radical overhauls were in effect and blatent rascism was allowed by society. It is 2004 and the major thing dividing oppurtunity in society is no longer race. It is now wealth. We have to face this reality. even if it hurts to change. we must. or else we would be dishonering the very people who fought so hard for earlier changes by stopping the progression of equality that they sent into motion.

so what if whites created a system? That was another time, another era, it is not the 1700's where people can be slaves. it is not the 1920's where blacks had to sit in the back of movie theaters and drink out of seperate water fountains. it is not the 60's where radical overhauls were in effect and blatent rascism was allowed by society. It is 2004 and the major thing dividing oppurtunity in society is no longer race. It is now wealth. We have to face this reality. even if it hurts to change. we must. or else we would be dishonering the very people who fought so hard for earlier changes by stopping the progression of equality that they sent into motion.
That's not to say that racism isn't a problem today...because it still is, just no where near as bad as it was...

And also, the whole issue surround homosexuals is kind of big as far as civil liberties are concerned...

But as far as equality...this is AA thing is a big issue.l

Did it ever occur to you people that whites might have an automatic advantage, since the system was created and owned by whites?

Did it ever occur to you that slavery ended over 100 years ago and the civil rights movement about 40? Affirmative action as a way to provide racial equivalence has run its course and is now more a deterrent to equality than a help.

That's not to say that racism isn't a problem today...because it still is, just no where near as bad as it was...

And also, the whole issue surround homosexuals is kind of big as far as civil liberties are concerned...

But as far as equality...this is AA thing is a big issue.l

sure. But it is not a blanket problem. not all minority people are faced with severe adversity. all poor people are.please, do not get me started on homosexuals. that is off topic. please do not get on that topic. I love agreeing with people for once.

Did it ever occur to you that slavery ended over 100 years ago and the civil rights movement about 40? Affirmative action as a way to provide racial equivalence has run its course and is now more a deterrent to equality than a help.

By the way, I didn't mean to say here that the civil rights movement is over, I just meant that legal equality according to race has been on the books that long. But the last sentence I definitely believe.

Dear me... it's bed time.

Ok, I have a question about having it economicly.

What is considered poor, and up's AA ratings?
Think hard about this one, because you don't want to have a guy too 'rich' to get AA points, but can't afford to get into college by himself/herself.

Also, does Title IX count as a form of AA to debate? That'd also get this thread off the I agree because of...

I wasn't necessarily talking about specifics...

Leave that question up to an economist.

Fine, but would Title IX count as AA as far as the topic goes?

Fine, but would Title IX count as AA as far as the topic goes?
I know very little about Title IX. Educate me.

Title IX basicly is that womens and mens teams in college/school activitys have to be equal and exist.

Naturaly no one cares if there is mens volleyball, soft ball, and the like, but because not alot of women take up sports like rafting, colleges give free full scholarships to women who say they will join that group. What this causes is for men who are overqualified in sports such as tennis or baseball and the like to only be able to get partial scholarships, as the school pays for all of these full womens scholarships.

There is another side, but I don't care for it. Find someone who does.

EDIT: interestingly enough, this dosn't seem to apply to football.

Title IX basicly is that womens and mens teams in college/school activitys have to be equal and exist.

Naturaly noone cares if there is mens volleyball, but because not alot of women take up sports like rafting, colleges give free full scholarships to women who say they will join that group. What this causes is for men who are overqualified in sports such as tennis or baseball and the like to only be able to get partial scholarships, as the school pays for all of these full womens scholarships.

There is another side, but I don't care for it. Find someone who does.
Does Title IX effect college admissions? Or non-athletic scholarships?

yes, like I said, they will give out full scholarships to women who wouldn't normaly make it, but do because they say they'll take the sport.

It affects men in ALL scholarships, as they have to pay for these freebies.

yes, like I said, they will give out full scholarships to women who wouldn't normaly make it, but do because they say they'll take the sport.

It affects men in ALL scholarships, as they have to pay for these freebies.
Title IX has a role in deciding who does and does not get Academic scholarships?

Title IX has a role in deciding who does and does not get admitted?

Yea, it does, take for example, a women who is 7 points under getting a partial, and a man who is 4 points above the requirement for a full this year.

The women gets offered a full if she will take baseball.
She accepts, happily of course.

The man, gets shifted down to a partial, to keep the Full/partal quota happy.

Or you could say the man would have gotten a partial, and got kicked out entirely to pay for the new equipment they need for her.

Those are athletic scholarships.

Even so, it affects scholarships.

But that nessarary isn't true, if the game was something that required alot of equipment, like hockey, a partal ACADEMIC may be declined, or a full ACADEMIC partialized, to pay for it.

And the women don't have to go for an althetic to be offerd this, they just have to agree to play hockey.

Even so, it affects scholarships.

But that nessarary isn't true, if the game was something that required alot of equipment, like hockey, a partal ACADEMIC may be declined, or a full ACADEMIC partialized, to pay for it.

And the women don't have to go for an althetic to be offerd this, they just have to agree to play hockey.
The only way it effects academic scholarships is that it effects how many can be offered, not who does/does not get offered the scholarship, so I think Title IX is a completely different thread.