Affirmative Action

[kasia]

in response to the argument that affirmative action is inherently unfair and that we, as asians, were able to succeed without it and so on...

Excerpt from 'We Will Not Be Used'

Yes, my ancestors made it in this country, but they made it against the odds. In my genealogy and probably in yours, are people who went to bed hungry, who lost land to the tax collector, who worked to exhaustion and ill-health, who faced pain and relocation with the bitter stoicism we call, in Japanese, "gaman." Many who came the hard road of our ancestors didn't make it. Their bones are still in the mountains by the tunnels they blasted for the railroad, still in the fields where they stooped over the short-handled hoe, still in the graveyards of Europe, where they fought for a democracy that didn't include them. Asian success was success with a dark, painful price.

To use that success to discount the hardship facing poor and working people in this country today is a sacrilege to the memory of our ancestors. It is an insult to today's Asian-American immigrants, who work the double-triple shift, who know no leisure, who crowd two and three families to a home, who put children and old-folks alike to work at struggling family businesses or at home doing piece-work until midnight. Yes, we take pride in our success, but we should also remember the cost. The success that is our pride is not to be given over as a weapon to use against other struggling communities. I hope we will not be used to blame the poor for their poverty.

Nor should we be used to deny employment or educational opportunities to others. A recent exchange of editorials and letters in the Asian-American press reveals confusion over affirmative action. Racist anti-Asian quotas at the universities can give quotas a bad name in our community. At the same time, quotas have been the only way we've been able to walk through the door of persistently discriminatory institutions like the San Francisco fire department.

We need affirmative action because there are still employers who see an Asian face and see a person unfit for a leadership position. In every field where we have attained a measure of success, we are underrepresented in the real power positions. And yet, we are in danger of being manipulated into opposing affirmative action by those who say affirmative action hurts Asian-Americans.

What's really going on here? When university administrators have secret quotas to keep down Asian admissions, this is because Asians are seen as destroying the predominantly white character of the university. Under this mentality, we can't let in all those Asian over-achievers and maintain affirmative action for other minority groups. We can't do both because that will mean either that our universities lose their predominantly white character, or that we have to fund more and better universities. To either of those prospects, I say, "why not?" And I condemn the voices from our own community that are translating legitimate anger at ceilings on Asian admissions into unthinking opposition to affirmative action floors needed to fight racism.

In a period when rates of educational attainment for minorities and working class Americans are going down, in a period when America is lagging behind other developed nations in literacy and learning, I hope we will not be used to deny educational opportunities to the disadvantaged and to preserve success only for the privileged.

[kasia]

*bump*

she is one of the most empowering speakers...

[ChinaLama]

who's the speaker/ writer?

[Craig]

I don't think Affirmation Action as it is currently implemented is doing the job properly. I think that it helps the rich blacks that don't need a break and the limited impression of what I'm getting for the hispanics, is similar, but slightly different. I am seeing mainly the hispanics of actual spanish ancestry getting the breaks, not the ones with native american ancestry.

[kasia]

critical race theorist, professor mari matsuda wrote it.

'words that wound'...

anyhow, in response to craig's comment: i agree. however, that does not mean that i am for abolishing affirmative action altogether. why not modify it?

[ChinaLama]

it also bothers me how LIMITED most anti-affirmative action ppl's concept of "quality" is. For some reason, they think that someone who *merely* has better grades, SAT scores, or extracurricular activities is automatically "more qualified" to enter college.

I don't think so.

To be harsh about it, for example, someone with parents who pay for Kaplan classes and private tutors and is valecdictorian of the class, in my opinion, is LESS qualified than someone who's only in the top 10% or maybe even the top quarter of the class, but who has to work to help support his or her family and whose parents are not as able to help him or her out in school. Because that second person is likely to be more independent-minded and to be a more mature person than the first person, because he or she has had to deal with more in life and to overcome more adversity.

[Andrew]

Originally posted by kasia@Oct 15 2002, 07:19 AM
anyhow, in response to craig's comment: i agree. however, that does not mean that i am for abolishing affirmative action altogether. why not modify it?
The challenge is to make the categories of the beneficiaries of affirmative action coextensive with those harmed by the "badge of slavery" (in modern terms, racial discrimination) that was to be remedied by the Fourteenth Amendment. Recent Supreme Court decisions have made this exceedingly difficult by requiring race-based preferences to be narrowly tailored to a specific history of racial discrimination, and victims of racial discrimination to prove racist intent. The prevailing presumption seems to be that racism doesn't exist in America unless you see someone wearing a sheet or using the N-word.

Congress might get around this by coming up with reaching findings that racial discrimination in the United States is widespread, usually subtle, and economically harmful to the whole nation and is a compelling problem that can only be remedied with systematic race-based policies, and then enacting new affirmative action legislation based on those policies. Somehow I don't see that happening.

[kasia]

i'm not too familiar with affirmative action law, but isn't it sufficient to show that there was racism in the specific organization by pointing out statistics of those who were qualified and those who were actually hired?

[Andrew]

I think now you're talking about Title VII civil rights law, which while related in purpose, is doctrinally distinct from judicial review of affirmative action laws and policies (which is what Mari Matsuda was talking about). I'm not a specialist in this field, but I know there's a bit more complexity to bringing a Title VII action for employment discrimination -- unless the statistics are really a smoking gun (huge sample size and controlling for all other explanatory factors) a plaintiff is going to need some particularized evidence of racial animus. This is especially true today given the general direction of the Rehnquist Court on racial issues.

[kasia]

no, i'm not talking about title VII. i'm talking about the 14th A.

bleh...lemme ramble

affirmative action plan must withstand strict scrutiny

strict scrutiny = compelling state interest + narrowly tailored goal

compelling state interest, in schools, according to powell in bakke, can be diversity (this is a plurality opinion and nobody knows what it really says)

compelling state interest, in the workplace, can be to remedy past discrimination in that specific organization. past discrimination can be shown via stats.

to me, affirmative action plans are not per se unconstitutional under the current caselaw.

[kasia]

a bit more rambling :)

title VII claims are actually easier to bring...at least easier to withstand a 12(B)(6) motion, because it's easy to shift the burden. the plaintiff only needs to show that 1) he wasn't hired, 2) he was qualified, and 3) someone of a different race was hired. voila. burden shifts.

of course, in practice, it may not be that simple. but hey, that's what the law says.


edit: please correct me if i'm mistaken. i'd hate to be misinterpreting the law. misreading sucks.



<!--EDIT|kasia|Oct 15 2002, 08:17 AM-->

[Andrew]

Originally posted by kasia@Oct 15 2002, 08:11 AM
to me, affirmative action plans are not per se unconstitutional under the current caselaw.
Watch this space (http://www.umich.edu/~urel/admissions/legal/gratz/gra-cert.html).

We are already at a point where race-conscious remedies are analyzed at a far stricter level than the race-conscious conduct that results in racial discrimination. This necessarily deprives affirmative action of the ability to address the problem of racial discrimination in anything close to a comprehensive way. Bakke helps, but I think its days are numbered. Don't you?



<!--EDIT|Andrew|Oct 15 2002, 09:08 AM-->

[digiaks]

Affirmative Action should not be based on race, but based on income. It is being poor that does the damage. Now, inf following this type of policy we would see a higher ratio of minorities get help since they are the ones that are poor. This however will help the trailer people that are stuck in this endless poor cycle.

[Andrew]

Originally posted by digiaks@Oct 15 2002, 08:32 AM
Affirmative Action should not be based on race, but based on income. It is being poor that does the damage. Now, inf following this type of policy we would see a higher ratio of minorities get help since they are the ones that are poor. This however will help the trailer people that are stuck in this endless poor cycle.
This may be the direction we are going, more as a strategic response to the Supreme Court's race jurisprudence than anything else. But I think there is a real price to be paid for this pragmatic approach: that the federal government has to forswear the idea of systematic remedies for the still-pervasive problem of racial discrimination (as opposed to particularized remedies for individual injustices).

[kasia]

the space link didn't work for me.

isn't the argument for affirmative action that racism still exists? thus, even if we were to take into consideration all race-neutral factors, minorities would still be at a disadvantage.

or...is it the case that the names are covered so that the reviewer is unable to tell the race of the applicant?

the difficulty with debating about affirmative action, imo, is that we all have different ideas on what it is, we all have little idea of how it is actually implemented, etc. etc.

[SunWuKong]

when asian americans say that they would like to see affirmative action abolished because it is inherently racist or malevolent to asian american progress, i feel like they are either ill-informed or naive.

[deez nuts]

Affirmative action shouldn't be abolished, but there is some tweaking that needs to be done.

[bluecollarjap]

Originally posted by digiaks@Oct 15 2002, 08:32 AM
Affirmative Action should not be based on race, but based on income. It is being poor that does the damage. Now, inf following this type of policy we would see a higher ratio of minorities get help since they are the ones that are poor. This however will help the trailer people that are stuck in this endless poor cycle.
i agree with you digiak

i strongly believe with the right help and motivation one can earn a college degree. the rich has an advantage of affording the proper tutoring or parental time whereas the poor must devote more time to earning an income. i have seen affirmative action policies work the wrong way. my cuban friend has received many scholarships, grants and admissions just because of his last name. meanwhile his father is a prominent businessman. when my friend applied to a grant that asked for a specific ethnicity (i.e. mexican, puerto rican, etc) he was flat out rejected. i believe the letter said they were looking for historically needy latino students. so if it has to do with money and some sort of past guilt, why not just say so.

but then i have another concern. i earned a bs from the big u but i have not been able to find work. i live in an area where i was the only minority in my high school and the greater metro area is void of any asian people. i looked for over a year and a half for my first entry level position (i think i went on 42 interviews). all rejected, not even a second round of interviews. some interviews lasted at most 5 minutes. i'm not some idiot, my gpa was 3.7/4.0 and participated in extra work at school even a div 1 sport. i was never concerned about my race in this country but the experience of looking for work has raised some concerns.

i had to take a job below my qualifications (min GED requirement). i'm in construction now, but am in grad school so i can get a better job. When i say below my qualifications i don't feel that the job is beneath me. i'm happy to be working and i'm proud to point out things that i helped build. after grad school i hope i don’t have to take another job below my qualifications, say BS min.

by the way, since i worked and saved money, i'm not elegible for financial aide, that’s a different gripe of mine. so i'm working full time and going to classes on weekends and nights. long long day

[Andrew]

Originally posted by bluecollarjap@Oct 15 2002, 03:51 PM
but then i have another concern. &nbsp;i earned a bs from the big u but i have not been able to find work. &nbsp;i live in an area where i was the only minority in my high school and the greater metro area is void of any asian people. &nbsp;i looked for over a year and a half for my first entry level position (i think i went on 42 interviews). &nbsp;all rejected, not even a second round of interviews. &nbsp;some interviews lasted at most 5 minutes. &nbsp;i'm not some idiot, my gpa was 3.7/4.0 and participated in extra work at school even a div 1 sport. &nbsp;i was never concerned about my race in this country but the experience of looking for work has raised some concerns.

i had to take a job below my qualifications (min GED requirement). &nbsp;i'm in construction now, but am in grad school so i can get a better job. &nbsp;When i say below my qualifications i don't feel that the job is beneath me. &nbsp;i'm happy to be working and i'm proud to point out things that i helped build. &nbsp;after grad school i hope i don’t have to take another job below my qualifications, say BS min. &nbsp;

by the way, since i worked and saved money, i'm not elegible for financial aide, that’s a different gripe of mine. &nbsp;so i'm working full time and going to classes on weekends and nights. &nbsp;long long day
Sorry to hear about your struggles. But affirmative action was always conceived as a response to pervasive racial discrimination, not poverty. We have other mechanisms (welfare, Medicare, earned income credit, progressive income tax) for that, which may be failing us. The problem is that laws and policies have never quite managed to identify categories of beneficiaries of affirmative action that are coextensive with the victims of racial discrimination. There's some inevitable overcoverage (white Hispanics and, in some circumstances, elite black African immigrants), and quite a bit of undercoverage in the case of Asian Americans.

This has led to a lot of Asian Americans wondering aloud whether it would be better to scrap the whole system. But I think it's important for there to exist policies that explicitly recognize and respond to the pervasiveness of racial discrimination, even if imperfectly. What we really need, in addition to the very limited affirmative action policies that remain today, is a deeper understanding of who is affected by racial discrimination and what else can be done about it.

[SunWuKong]

Originally posted by bluecollarjap@Oct 15 2002, 10:51 AM
but then i have another concern. i earned a bs from the big u but i have not been able to find work. i live in an area where i was the only minority in my high school and the greater metro area is void of any asian people. i looked for over a year and a half for my first entry level position (i think i went on 42 interviews). all rejected, not even a second round of interviews. some interviews lasted at most 5 minutes. i'm not some idiot, my gpa was 3.7/4.0 and participated in extra work at school even a div 1 sport. i was never concerned about my race in this country but the experience of looking for work has raised some concerns.

i had to take a job below my qualifications (min GED requirement). i'm in construction now, but am in grad school so i can get a better job. When i say below my qualifications i don't feel that the job is beneath me. i'm happy to be working and i'm proud to point out things that i helped build. after grad school i hope i don’t have to take another job below my qualifications, say BS min.

by the way, since i worked and saved money, i'm not elegible for financial aide, that’s a different gripe of mine. so i'm working full time and going to classes on weekends and nights. long long day
hey bro, just remember, you are not in this boat alone. there are many many people unemployed right now. and i can understand how it would be especially more difficult since you were a fresh grad. it teaches you alot and honestly, be glad that you went through it while you were young. it would be all the more difficult to be going through it for the first time when you're in your 40s or something.

[kimpossible]

I'm not even sure where this would factor into the argument, but my main issue with Affirmative Action is that not all white males are married to white females. My point being that the salary of white males doesn't always support whites only.

Sorry if this sounds like a stupid point. :o

[bluecollarjap]

Originally posted by SunWuKung@Oct 15 2002, 04:34 PM
hey bro, just remember, you are not in this boat alone. there are many many people unemployed right now. and i can understand how it would be especially more difficult since you were a fresh grad. it teaches you alot and honestly, be glad that you went through it while you were young. it would be all the more difficult to be going through it for the first time when you're in your 40s or something.
the thing is, i've been looking for work since 99 when i thought the job market was good. i have a physical science degree not some probono social degree. its just frustrating to see your classmates get a start on their careers and i've still to get my entry-level job. frustrating. resorting to academia is not fun either. it would be nice to eventually receive a good paycheck for my work.

[wylin]

i support whatever gets my people and my taiwanese brothers and sisters into college. same w/ my other east and southeast asian brothers and sisters.

[SunWuKong]

Originally posted by bluecollarjap@Oct 15 2002, 12:08 PM
Originally posted by SunWuKung@Oct 15 2002, 04:34 PM
hey bro, just remember, you are not in this boat alone. &nbsp;there are many many people unemployed right now. &nbsp;and i can understand how it would be especially more difficult since you were a fresh grad. &nbsp;it teaches you alot and honestly, be glad that you went through it while you were young. &nbsp;it would be all the more difficult to be going through it for the first time when you're in your 40s or something.
the thing is, i've been looking for work since 99 when i thought the job market was good. i have a physical science degree not some probono social degree. its just frustrating to see your classmates get a start on their careers and i've still to get my entry-level job. frustrating. resorting to academia is not fun either. it would be nice to eventually receive a good paycheck for my work.
aiya... what kind of jobs were you looking for? correct me if i'm wrong, but in field like physical science, don't you pretty much need a PhD?

[ChinaLama]

re: Andrew, I'm not sure if gov't affirmative action programs ever took into account income, but my high school (which was a part of a public city college) had a sort of affirmative action for lower income people; on the entrance exam to get into my school, lower-income people were allowed to come with a lower cutoff score.

[bluecollarjap]

Originally posted by SunWuKung@Oct 15 2002, 10:03 PM
Originally posted by bluecollarjap@Oct 15 2002, 12:08 PM
Originally posted by SunWuKung@Oct 15 2002, 04:34 PM
hey bro, just remember, you are not in this boat alone. there are many many people unemployed right now. and i can understand how it would be especially more difficult since you were a fresh grad. it teaches you alot and honestly, be glad that you went through it while you were young. it would be all the more difficult to be going through it for the first time when you're in your 40s or something.
the thing is, i've been looking for work since 99 when i thought the job market was good. i have a physical science degree not some probono social degree. its just frustrating to see your classmates get a start on their careers and i've still to get my entry-level job. frustrating. resorting to academia is not fun either. it would be nice to eventually receive a good paycheck for my work.
aiya... what kind of jobs were you looking for? correct me if i'm wrong, but in field like physical science, don't you pretty much need a PhD?
yeah, i started off thinking i could get some sort of lab type job, at least something in the sciences. chem lab etc. but then after about 10 or 15 interviews i decided to look broader. maybe i could use my analytical skills in the business world is what i thought. and no, no, no, was the answer. then i saw an ad in the paper for an apprentice program and bam, i have my journeyman papers after about 3 years of work. the pay is good but i realize its kinda dead end. this is what a journeyman does for the rest of his life. horizontal, stagnant, no upward mobility. i didn't think everyone needed a phd. but working on the masters first. nobody wants to sponsor a terminal masters so i'm stuck with the bill. luckily my current employers are supportive and are willing to flex my time.

[SunWuKong]

Originally posted by bluecollarjap@Oct 15 2002, 05:32 PM
Originally posted by SunWuKung@Oct 15 2002, 10:03 PM
Originally posted by bluecollarjap@Oct 15 2002, 12:08 PM
Originally posted by SunWuKung@Oct 15 2002, 04:34 PM
hey bro, just remember, you are not in this boat alone. there are many many people unemployed right now. and i can understand how it would be especially more difficult since you were a fresh grad. it teaches you alot and honestly, be glad that you went through it while you were young. it would be all the more difficult to be going through it for the first time when you're in your 40s or something.
the thing is, i've been looking for work since 99 when i thought the job market was good. i have a physical science degree not some probono social degree. its just frustrating to see your classmates get a start on their careers and i've still to get my entry-level job. frustrating. resorting to academia is not fun either. it would be nice to eventually receive a good paycheck for my work.
aiya... what kind of jobs were you looking for? correct me if i'm wrong, but in field like physical science, don't you pretty much need a PhD?
yeah, i started off thinking i could get some sort of lab type job, at least something in the sciences. chem lab etc. but then after about 10 or 15 interviews i decided to look broader. maybe i could use my analytical skills in the business world is what i thought. and no, no, no, was the answer. then i saw an ad in the paper for an apprentice program and bam, i have my journeyman papers after about 3 years of work. the pay is good but i realize its kinda dead end. this is what a journeyman does for the rest of his life. horizontal, stagnant, no upward mobility. i didn't think everyone needed a phd. but working on the masters first. nobody wants to sponsor a terminal masters so i'm stuck with the bill. luckily my current employers are supportive and are willing to flex my time.
yeah... :P your situation really doesn't have anything to do with race or income levels or anything like that. it's just that anybody in the sciences really need a PhD to do any real work.

[Andrew]

Originally posted by ChinaLama@Oct 15 2002, 10:09 PM
re: Andrew, I'm not sure if gov't affirmative action programs ever took into account income, but my high school (which was a part of a public city college) had a sort of affirmative action for lower income people; on the entrance exam to get into my school, lower-income people were allowed to come with a lower cutoff score.
I suppose such a policy would be popularly known as "affirmative action," but I would try to call it something else. Admissions preferences also exist for veterans (and sometimes their kids), alumni kids, etc. Once we label all of that "affirmative action" we really start losing sight of the fact that it's a response to systematic racial discrimination. Oh, wait, that's already happened. :(

[Andrew]

Originally posted by Hello_Hapa@Oct 15 2002, 04:46 PM
I'm not even sure where this would factor into the argument, but my main issue with Affirmative Action is that not all white males are married to white females. My point being that the salary of white males doesn't always support whites only.

I'd put this issue into the pile of reasons why laws and policies have a hard time defining categories of beneficiaries that are coextensive with the victims of racial discrimination. Certainly being married to a white person doesn't immunize one from racism, but it may be an indication that the nonwhite spouse has found greater acceptance in white society than others of his/her race. The question then is whether public policy then acts to place a lower priority on remedying racial discrimination for the category of nonwhites with white spouses.

Too hot for me! I'll leave that for Congressional debate in my dream-Congress-of-the-future-that-actually-cares-about-addressing-pervasive-racial-discrimination.

[blkazngirl]

Affirmative action can work if the "right" person makes it work to their benefit. It was written help those that can't get ahead, use it or lose it.

This forum is tooooo hot! Keep it up.

[angel nympho]

Conceptually, this was a GREAT idea. Unfortunately, we don't live in a perfect society. Our policies and plans are never regulated the way they should be. In some cases, affirmative action makes sure the deserving person gets what they deserve, but in some cases, it does the exact opposite.

Reverse racism is still racism. And personally, I'd never want to have a job or a spot in college and wonder if I got in because of my race or because of my merit.

[ChinaLama]

But I think the way we define "merit" as race-neutral is a problem, because race influences social perception and position --> different positions --> different standards for "merit." For instance, i think a Black man with a 3.7 GPA is most likely more qualified than a White man w/ a 3.8 GPA given everything else is equal, because the Black man has had to deal with overcoming negative images of black people and not being discouraged by them. That's a pretty simplistic example but it kind of expresses what i mean when i think race should be factored into merit. i also agree that economic background should be factored into merit, perhaps more so than race.

[angel nympho]

^-- I'd hate to say that money matters, but it does when it comes to education.

Somebody from a ghetto neighborhood attending a high school where teachers barely know what they're talking about with a 3.7 GPA vs. somebody from a suburban neighborhood where teachers get paid more and are more qualified as educational instructors with a 3.7 GPA... I'd say the suburban person may actually have worked harder.

[Craig]

Originally posted by SunWuKung@Oct 15 2002, 11:03 PM
yeah... :P your situation really doesn't have anything to do with race or income levels or anything like that. it's just that anybody in the sciences really need a PhD to do any real work.

So that's why by BS degree in Computer Science is so worthless :nerd: Course I feel annoyed that I would have to get a PHD when degreeless morons are working as programmers in the computer industry that can't even touch type, but that's another potential rant topic.

[SunWuKong]

Originally posted by angel nympho@Oct 16 2002, 09:20 PM
^-- I'd hate to say that money matters, but it does when it comes to education.

Somebody from a ghetto neighborhood attending a high school where teachers barely know what they're talking about with a 3.7 GPA vs. somebody from a suburban neighborhood where teachers get paid more and are more qualified as educational instructors with a 3.7 GPA... I'd say the suburban person may actually have worked harder.
hmm i think ChinaLama was talking about college, where the black guy and the white guy are going to the same school.

correct me if i'm wrong CL.

[SunWuKong]

Originally posted by Craig@Oct 16 2002, 09:29 PM
Originally posted by SunWuKung@Oct 15 2002, 11:03 PM
yeah... &nbsp; &nbsp;:P &nbsp; your situation really doesn't have anything to do with race or income levels or anything like that. &nbsp;it's just that anybody in the sciences really need a PhD to do any real work.

So that's why by BS degree in Computer Science is so worthless :nerd: Course I feel annoyed that I would have to get a PHD when degreeless morons are working as programmers in the computer industry that can't even touch type, but that's another potential rant topic.
no actually computer scientists are really treated more like engineers. they don't do research and studies. a BS in computer science is useful, but more and more it's looking like a master's degree would really help. when you get a PhD in CS, you're likely so deep into theory that you'll be teaching.

and about those degree-less programmers, well unless they are truly very brilliant people, they've all been weeded out by the dot-com crash. :)

[angel nympho]

Originally posted by SunWuKung@Oct 17 2002, 04:28 PM
Originally posted by angel nympho@Oct 16 2002, 09:20 PM
^-- I'd hate to say that money matters, but it does when it comes to education.

Somebody from a ghetto neighborhood attending a high school where teachers barely know what they're talking about with a 3.7 GPA vs. somebody from a suburban neighborhood where teachers get paid more and are more qualified as educational instructors with a 3.7 GPA... I'd say the suburban person may actually have worked harder.
hmm i think ChinaLama was talking about college, where the black guy and the white guy are going to the same school.

correct me if i'm wrong CL.
Oh. In that case, my only comment would be that grades should be neutral to race. Grades represent a person's intellect, not the way they deal with problems. Given, I'd probably admire the black man a little more, but intellect-wise, who's to really know except the person giving the grades out?

[SunWuKong]

Originally posted by angel nympho@Oct 17 2002, 01:48 PM
Originally posted by SunWuKung@Oct 17 2002, 04:28 PM
Originally posted by angel nympho@Oct 16 2002, 09:20 PM
^-- I'd hate to say that money matters, but it does when it comes to education.

Somebody from a ghetto neighborhood attending a high school where teachers barely know what they're talking about with a 3.7 GPA vs. somebody from a suburban neighborhood where teachers get paid more and are more qualified as educational instructors with a 3.7 GPA... I'd say the suburban person may actually have worked harder.
hmm i think ChinaLama was talking about college, where the black guy and the white guy are going to the same school.

correct me if i'm wrong CL.
Oh. In that case, my only comment would be that grades should be neutral to race. Grades represent a person's intellect, not the way they deal with problems. Given, I'd probably admire the black man a little more, but intellect-wise, who's to really know except the person giving the grades out?
grades don't reflect only a person's intellect. most of the time it takes work and determination to achieve good grades. i think black men in this society are told (not literally of course) from birth that they will not be as successful as white men, or worse, they are told that they will be criminals. under discriminatory circumstances like that, and also because black families in average are poorer than white families, i would have to agree with CL that a black man with about the same GPA as a white man might be more deserving.

[angel nympho]

Originally posted by SunWuKung@Oct 17 2002, 07:02 PM
Originally posted by angel nympho@Oct 17 2002, 01:48 PM
Originally posted by SunWuKung@Oct 17 2002, 04:28 PM
Originally posted by angel nympho@Oct 16 2002, 09:20 PM
^-- I'd hate to say that money matters, but it does when it comes to education.

Somebody from a ghetto neighborhood attending a high school where teachers barely know what they're talking about with a 3.7 GPA vs. somebody from a suburban neighborhood where teachers get paid more and are more qualified as educational instructors with a 3.7 GPA... I'd say the suburban person may actually have worked harder.
hmm i think ChinaLama was talking about college, where the black guy and the white guy are going to the same school.

correct me if i'm wrong CL.
Oh. In that case, my only comment would be that grades should be neutral to race. Grades represent a person's intellect, not the way they deal with problems. Given, I'd probably admire the black man a little more, but intellect-wise, who's to really know except the person giving the grades out?
grades don't reflect only a person's intellect. most of the time it takes work and determination to achieve good grades. i think black men in this society are told (not literally of course) from birth that they will not be as successful as white men, or worse, they are told that they will be criminals. under discriminatory circumstances like that, and also because black families in average are poorer than white families, i would have to agree with CL that a black man with about the same GPA as a white man might be more deserving.
Well I'd say that the black man would probably get more of my admiration for being determined, but when somebody's grading something, hopefully they're not looking at the name on the paper. Being black doesn't mean you get lower grades. At least I don't think it does.

[SunWuKong]

Originally posted by angel nympho@Oct 17 2002, 02:05 PM
Originally posted by SunWuKung@Oct 17 2002, 07:02 PM
Originally posted by angel nympho@Oct 17 2002, 01:48 PM
Originally posted by SunWuKung@Oct 17 2002, 04:28 PM
Originally posted by angel nympho@Oct 16 2002, 09:20 PM
^-- I'd hate to say that money matters, but it does when it comes to education.

Somebody from a ghetto neighborhood attending a high school where teachers barely know what they're talking about with a 3.7 GPA vs. somebody from a suburban neighborhood where teachers get paid more and are more qualified as educational instructors with a 3.7 GPA... I'd say the suburban person may actually have worked harder.
hmm i think ChinaLama was talking about college, where the black guy and the white guy are going to the same school.

correct me if i'm wrong CL.
Oh. In that case, my only comment would be that grades should be neutral to race. Grades represent a person's intellect, not the way they deal with problems. Given, I'd probably admire the black man a little more, but intellect-wise, who's to really know except the person giving the grades out?
grades don't reflect only a person's intellect. most of the time it takes work and determination to achieve good grades. i think black men in this society are told (not literally of course) from birth that they will not be as successful as white men, or worse, they are told that they will be criminals. under discriminatory circumstances like that, and also because black families in average are poorer than white families, i would have to agree with CL that a black man with about the same GPA as a white man might be more deserving.
Well I'd say that the black man would probably get more of my admiration for being determined, but when somebody's grading something, hopefully they're not looking at the name on the paper. Being black doesn't mean you get lower grades. At least I don't think it does.
oh no, i agree, i hope black people don't get higher grades because they're black. but CL's point was that with the same grade, a black person could be considered more qualified, by virtue that he might have had to work harder for that same grade.

[angel nympho]

Originally posted by SunWuKung@Oct 17 2002, 07:08 PM
Originally posted by angel nympho@Oct 17 2002, 02:05 PM
Originally posted by SunWuKung@Oct 17 2002, 07:02 PM
Originally posted by angel nympho@Oct 17 2002, 01:48 PM
Originally posted by SunWuKung@Oct 17 2002, 04:28 PM
Originally posted by angel nympho@Oct 16 2002, 09:20 PM
^-- I'd hate to say that money matters, but it does when it comes to education.

Somebody from a ghetto neighborhood attending a high school where teachers barely know what they're talking about with a 3.7 GPA vs. somebody from a suburban neighborhood where teachers get paid more and are more qualified as educational instructors with a 3.7 GPA... I'd say the suburban person may actually have worked harder.
hmm i think ChinaLama was talking about college, where the black guy and the white guy are going to the same school.

correct me if i'm wrong CL.
Oh. In that case, my only comment would be that grades should be neutral to race. Grades represent a person's intellect, not the way they deal with problems. Given, I'd probably admire the black man a little more, but intellect-wise, who's to really know except the person giving the grades out?
grades don't reflect only a person's intellect. most of the time it takes work and determination to achieve good grades. i think black men in this society are told (not literally of course) from birth that they will not be as successful as white men, or worse, they are told that they will be criminals. under discriminatory circumstances like that, and also because black families in average are poorer than white families, i would have to agree with CL that a black man with about the same GPA as a white man might be more deserving.
Well I'd say that the black man would probably get more of my admiration for being determined, but when somebody's grading something, hopefully they're not looking at the name on the paper. Being black doesn't mean you get lower grades. At least I don't think it does.
oh no, i agree, i hope black people don't get higher grades because they're black. but CL's point was that with the same grade, a black person could be considered more qualified, by virtue that he might have had to work harder for that same grade.
Oh. Okay, I agree that they may have qualities in them that are more admirable. A black man getting where he is after overcoming the odds against him is definately more worldly than a suburban white boy who didn't have much else to do but study. Life experience is a definate quality that is highly looked upon. ...But life experience doesn't have much to do with intellect, I don't think.

[loserbutt]

does Affirmative action even apply to asians? last I heard when AA was dropped in the University of California system Asian enrollments surged...

[angel nympho]

Originally posted by loserbutt@Oct 21 2002, 04:12 AM
does Affirmative action even apply to asians? last I heard when AA was dropped in the University of California system Asian enrollments surged...
I don't think it does.

[ChinaLama]

Originally posted by angel nympho@Oct 17 2002, 07:10 PM
Originally posted by SunWuKung@Oct 17 2002, 07:08 PM
Originally posted by angel nympho@Oct 17 2002, 02:05 PM
Originally posted by SunWuKung@Oct 17 2002, 07:02 PM
Originally posted by angel nympho@Oct 17 2002, 01:48 PM
Originally posted by SunWuKung@Oct 17 2002, 04:28 PM
Originally posted by angel nympho@Oct 16 2002, 09:20 PM
^-- I'd hate to say that money matters, but it does when it comes to education.

Somebody from a ghetto neighborhood attending a high school where teachers barely know what they're talking about with a 3.7 GPA vs. somebody from a suburban neighborhood where teachers get paid more and are more qualified as educational instructors with a 3.7 GPA... I'd say the suburban person may actually have worked harder.
hmm i think ChinaLama was talking about college, where the black guy and the white guy are going to the same school.

correct me if i'm wrong CL.
Oh. In that case, my only comment would be that grades should be neutral to race. Grades represent a person's intellect, not the way they deal with problems. Given, I'd probably admire the black man a little more, but intellect-wise, who's to really know except the person giving the grades out?
grades don't reflect only a person's intellect. most of the time it takes work and determination to achieve good grades. i think black men in this society are told (not literally of course) from birth that they will not be as successful as white men, or worse, they are told that they will be criminals. under discriminatory circumstances like that, and also because black families in average are poorer than white families, i would have to agree with CL that a black man with about the same GPA as a white man might be more deserving.
Well I'd say that the black man would probably get more of my admiration for being determined, but when somebody's grading something, hopefully they're not looking at the name on the paper. Being black doesn't mean you get lower grades. At least I don't think it does.
oh no, i agree, i hope black people don't get higher grades because they're black. but CL's point was that with the same grade, a black person could be considered more qualified, by virtue that he might have had to work harder for that same grade.
Oh. Okay, I agree that they may have qualities in them that are more admirable. A black man getting where he is after overcoming the odds against him is definately more worldly than a suburban white boy who didn't have much else to do but study. Life experience is a definate quality that is highly looked upon. ...But life experience doesn't have much to do with intellect, I don't think.
hmm well i think life experience DOES reflect intellect. Maybe not in the raw number-crunching book sense, but in the well-rounded overall sense. Like you'd have to be smarter not to fall for stereotypes and negative thinking, or you'd have to be smarter (or rather wiser) to see the big picture while your friends are out partying, etc. and that's the sense that really counts-- no school or workplace is looking for people solely cuz of good grades and good scores. A lot of other things figure into what makes for a good student or a good worker, so I think affirmative action can help sort that out.

Also, I think AA does apply to some Asians, like those who are considered 'disadvantaged" (like Vietnamese of Filipino-Americans). But i heard one problem w/ the rubric of "Asian American" is some under-served Asian American groups get ignored because of the perception that cuz some Asian American groups are relatively successful, that therefore all Asians are successful.

[loserbutt]

which is why I am against it. it'll never be amended to help asians, simple fact, we simply do not have the numbers to constitute a large enough voting block to get their attention. until then I prefer giving no one an advantage above me in the job market based on race or ethnicity

[achtungbaby]

Sorry to make such a late contribution to this thread.

I need to brush on this topic but here goes:

I read Matsuda's chapter on "We Will Not Be Used" and think her argument, while very impassioned and eloquent, was very unconvincing for affirmative action in higher education. The arguments of critical race theorists are typically more on rhetoric and story-telling, but even more so.

What our community needs, in regards to higher education, is an affirmative action that is class-based, one that recognizes the poverty rate amongst Southeast Asians (the highest among *all* races)...

[angel nympho]

Originally posted by ChinaLama@Oct 21 2002, 04:42 AM
Originally posted by angel nympho@Oct 17 2002, 07:10 PM
Originally posted by SunWuKung@Oct 17 2002, 07:08 PM
Originally posted by angel nympho@Oct 17 2002, 02:05 PM
Originally posted by SunWuKung@Oct 17 2002, 07:02 PM
Originally posted by angel nympho@Oct 17 2002, 01:48 PM
Originally posted by SunWuKung@Oct 17 2002, 04:28 PM
Originally posted by angel nympho@Oct 16 2002, 09:20 PM
^-- I'd hate to say that money matters, but it does when it comes to education.

Somebody from a ghetto neighborhood attending a high school where teachers barely know what they're talking about with a 3.7 GPA vs. somebody from a suburban neighborhood where teachers get paid more and are more qualified as educational instructors with a 3.7 GPA... I'd say the suburban person may actually have worked harder.
hmm i think ChinaLama was talking about college, where the black guy and the white guy are going to the same school.

correct me if i'm wrong CL.
Oh. In that case, my only comment would be that grades should be neutral to race. Grades represent a person's intellect, not the way they deal with problems. Given, I'd probably admire the black man a little more, but intellect-wise, who's to really know except the person giving the grades out?
grades don't reflect only a person's intellect. most of the time it takes work and determination to achieve good grades. i think black men in this society are told (not literally of course) from birth that they will not be as successful as white men, or worse, they are told that they will be criminals. under discriminatory circumstances like that, and also because black families in average are poorer than white families, i would have to agree with CL that a black man with about the same GPA as a white man might be more deserving.
Well I'd say that the black man would probably get more of my admiration for being determined, but when somebody's grading something, hopefully they're not looking at the name on the paper. Being black doesn't mean you get lower grades. At least I don't think it does.
oh no, i agree, i hope black people don't get higher grades because they're black. but CL's point was that with the same grade, a black person could be considered more qualified, by virtue that he might have had to work harder for that same grade.
Oh. Okay, I agree that they may have qualities in them that are more admirable. A black man getting where he is after overcoming the odds against him is definately more worldly than a suburban white boy who didn't have much else to do but study. Life experience is a definate quality that is highly looked upon. ...But life experience doesn't have much to do with intellect, I don't think.
hmm well i think life experience DOES reflect intellect. Maybe not in the raw number-crunching book sense, but in the well-rounded overall sense. Like you'd have to be smarter not to fall for stereotypes and negative thinking, or you'd have to be smarter (or rather wiser) to see the big picture while your friends are out partying, etc. and that's the sense that really counts-- no school or workplace is looking for people solely cuz of good grades and good scores. A lot of other things figure into what makes for a good student or a good worker, so I think affirmative action can help sort that out.

Also, I think AA does apply to some Asians, like those who are considered 'disadvantaged" (like Vietnamese of Filipino-Americans). But i heard one problem w/ the rubric of "Asian American" is some under-served Asian American groups get ignored because of the perception that cuz some Asian American groups are relatively successful, that therefore all Asians are successful.
There's a difference between being book smart and being life smart. I was referring to book smart when I said intellect. I was talking about the ability to learn and retain information. =)

[loserbutt]

how is that fair to the people who bust their asses studying and getting those high marks?

[SunWuKong]

Originally posted by loserbutt@Oct 21 2002, 12:04 AM
which is why I am against it. it'll never be amended to help asians, simple fact, we simply do not have the numbers to constitute a large enough voting block to get their attention. until then I prefer giving no one an advantage above me in the job market based on race or ethnicity
and that is why you should support affirmative action. yes, there are many flaws in how it is implemented, but it must not go away, it is there because there is currently an advantage given to white people. it is there to combat this advantage. non-whites are currently paid less for doing the same jobs, and they are ignored for being put into higher positions of power.

[loserbutt]

but in affirmative action we are not "non-whites"

[ChinaLama]

Originally posted by angel nympho@Oct 21 2002, 06:27 AM

There's a difference between being book smart and being life smart. I was referring to book smart when I said intellect. I was talking about the ability to learn and retain information. =)

In response to losebutt's comments 2 up, I don't think there is a 100% correlation between studying hard and high grades. For instance, if someone comes from a poor family and has to work to support his family, then he just doesn't have as much time to study, and he may have to study when he's tired. I think you can argue he actually studies "harder" than someone who merely puts in more total time into studying, because he's had to study under some stress. But his grades may not be as good, because he may be tired from work. However, if the difference is small, like say 3 pts out of 100, even 5 pts out of 100, i think it could be argued the person w/ the lower score deserves entry into a university MORE than the person w/ the higher score, cuz he had to sacrifice more of his health and more of his fun time to get to where he was.
I'd argue that someone who's more life-smart is probably more book-smart, too, or has the potential to be. the people who have the best grades or the best scores don't necessarily have the most book-smarts. maybe they just had more time to study, etc. Of course some people are just LAZY and use being poor or being black as an excuse not to study, but I think people who benefit from affirmative action are ones who, even given limited time or limited resources, were able to make as much of their resources as possible. So, if they were given better opportunities, (say maybe full scholarship to a prestigious university), then they would show that they are in fact more book-smart by attaining higher grades or higher marks.

I recognize this argument is flawed, because a lot of people after entering college do HORRIBLY. But that could also be because of social pressure or whatever. It doesn't mean we have to eliminate the chances for the ones who DO prove affirmative action right.

[SunWuKong]

Originally posted by loserbutt@Oct 21 2002, 12:12 PM
but in affirmative action we are not "non-whites"
well, like i said before, there are problems with its implementation. but i don't think it should be gotten rid of.

[angel nympho]

Originally posted by ChinaLama@Oct 21 2002, 05:37 PM
Originally posted by angel nympho@Oct 21 2002, 06:27 AM

There's a difference between being book smart and being life smart. &nbsp;I was referring to book smart when I said intellect. &nbsp;I was talking about the ability to learn and retain information. &nbsp;=)

In response to losebutt's comments 2 up, I don't think there is a 100% correlation between studying hard and high grades. For instance, if someone comes from a poor family and has to work to support his family, then he just doesn't have as much time to study, and he may have to study when he's tired. I think you can argue he actually studies "harder" than someone who merely puts in more total time into studying, because he's had to study under some stress. But his grades may not be as good, because he may be tired from work. However, if the difference is small, like say 3 pts out of 100, even 5 pts out of 100, i think it could be argued the person w/ the lower score deserves entry into a university MORE than the person w/ the higher score, cuz he had to sacrifice more of his health and more of his fun time to get to where he was.
I'd argue that someone who's more life-smart is probably more book-smart, too, or has the potential to be. the people who have the best grades or the best scores don't necessarily have the most book-smarts. maybe they just had more time to study, etc. Of course some people are just LAZY and use being poor or being black as an excuse not to study, but I think people who benefit from affirmative action are ones who, even given limited time or limited resources, were able to make as much of their resources as possible. So, if they were given better opportunities, (say maybe full scholarship to a prestigious university), then they would show that they are in fact more book-smart by attaining higher grades or higher marks.

I recognize this argument is flawed, because a lot of people after entering college do HORRIBLY. But that could also be because of social pressure or whatever. It doesn't mean we have to eliminate the chances for the ones who DO prove affirmative action right.
I have no idea. I'd just like to see us living in a world where we won't NEED affirmative action. :cry:

[loserbutt]

I don't think it will ever be mended to be more fair. think about it. there are two groups. one is white republicans who think that it is reverse discrimination. the other are blacks and hispanics who feel it necessary to compensate for discrimination. basically, there is no group out there advocating the poor or other minorities in this argument. so basically it ends up being the possible results are a preservation of the status quo or the total repeal of it.

now of course I would all be in favor of a system giving preference to poor people and those who have had to overcome extraordinary circumstances. but that will never happen because the blacks don't like such changes and neither do rich republicans

[SunWuKong]

Originally posted by loserbutt@Oct 21 2002, 10:38 PM
I don't think it will ever be mended to be more fair. think about it. there are two groups. one is white republicans who think that it is reverse discrimination. the other are blacks and hispanics who feel it necessary to compensate for discrimination. basically, there is no group out there advocating the poor or other minorities in this argument. so basically it ends up being the possible results are a preservation of the status quo or the total repeal of it.

now of course I would all be in favor of a system giving preference to poor people and those who have had to overcome extraordinary circumstances. but that will never happen because the blacks don't like such changes and neither do rich republicans
that is very true. asian people in this country don't fit very nicely into the "minority" category like blacks and hispanics. so one might argue that no implementation of affirmative action would benefit asian americans.

but the thing about eliminating affirmative action altogether is that it is assuming that racism does not exist or is irrelevant. i firmly believe that even rich black people will encounter racism simply because they're black.

and yes, i also would like a system that gives preference to poor people (but not in replacement of affirmative action altogether).

[loserbutt]

notice either way we are screwed, just with a total repeal we are not quite as screwed

[SunWuKong]

Originally posted by loserbutt@Oct 22 2002, 12:55 PM
notice either way we are screwed, just with a total repeal we are not quite as screwed
well, that i don't necessarily agree with, because i don't necessarily agree that there's not one implementation of affirmative action that wouldn't screw asians over. if anything, i think we need to combat the model minority myth, and to let the public know that we're not born over-achievers that don't need any help.

[loserbutt]

ok. why not replace it? with a poor people system the people it is meant to help- poor inner city minority kids- are helped. AA is meant to help poor inner city minority kids. where am I going wrong?

[SunWuKong]

Originally posted by loserbutt@Oct 22 2002, 08:43 PM
ok. why not replace it? with a poor people system the people it is meant to help- poor inner city minority kids- are helped. AA is meant to help poor inner city minority kids. where am I going wrong?
correct me if i'm wrong, but i think that affirmative action concentrates more on race than class. it is there to prevent people from not hiring someone because of race, and not to promote people to hire someone because of race.

[Hanuman]

Originally posted by SunWuKung@Oct 23 2002, 04:26 PM
Originally posted by loserbutt@Oct 22 2002, 08:43 PM
ok. why not replace it? with a poor people system the people it is meant to help- poor inner city minority kids- are helped. AA is meant to help poor inner city minority kids. where am I going wrong?
correct me if i'm wrong, but i think that affirmative action concentrates more on race than class. it is there to prevent people from not hiring someone because of race, and not to promote people to hire someone because of race.
I agree, I think that by focusing too much on Affirmative action as it relates to higher education, we may be blurring the lines.

People with limited income have the option of seeking financial aid, regardless of race.

Affirmative action is a little more broad and affects the more then just the education system For example, employment laws, where it is now illegal to deny an individual employment based solely on a persons race, disability, gender etc (incidently I think there are only a few states that include sexual orientation, but many companies include this as part of their own internal rules).

In education, the theory is that people of different ethnicities may have less access to programs and funds (such as tutors and prep courses) and are therefore disadvantaged. In this instance it is true that we can circumvent a lot of this by basing assistance on income not race. There are other factors however, that are not income related. For instance standardized testing in general favors people with a certain background. They base questions on the median background (white) and although they try to formulate questions that are unbiased across the board, you still have to take into account that a person that grew up in a household where both parents my speak little or no english may have different responses for certain questions. In this instance standardized questions are a little unfair, and affirmative action may be the answer to leveling the field.

So this is often where you get the argument that someone who is less qualified, who is a minority might get a job over a white person who is more qualified, and this seems unfair. Again the argument here is that the minority isn't really less qualified, but because he is a minority he seems to be less qualified. Example, Joe's moved up throught the company fairly rapidly and he's been promoted often, he plays golf with his boss every weekend and on business trips they often fish together. He soon gets the supervisor position. Tawee is hard working and dedicated, but he doesn't get invited to play golf, nor does he ever get invited to fish, his boss assumes that it's not something he'd be interested in (hell asians don't fish. The only Asians that play golf are Vijay Singh and Tiger Woods, but Tiger's not really Asian, he's black). He eventually makes supervisor position after a few more years in then Joe. Management position opens up, who seems more qualified? Joe, is it merrit? This why we need to level the playing field.

The only problem is that it's obviously not a perfect system, this is not always the way it works out and on top of that, to really determine if this is the case, you'd have to examine each on a case by case basis, which is obviously impractical. We definately need Affirmative Action, but it seriously needs to be revamped.

Sorry about the long ass post.

[AliBabaIncorporated]

don't apologize for long-ass posts, it's a bulletin board. we're not politicians in a soundbite TV debate. :D

Originally posted by Tawee@Oct 27 2002, 06:57 AM
For instance standardized testing in general favors people with a certain background. &nbsp;They base questions on the median background (white) and although they try to formulate questions that are unbiased across the board, you still have to take into account that a person that grew up in a household where both parents my speak little or no english may have different responses for certain questions. &nbsp;In this instance standardized questions are a little unfair, and affirmative action may be the answer to leveling the field.
That's a bit of an unusual theory, seeing as two obvious beneficiaries of Affirmative Action at the university level are blacks, who are native English speakers, and in California, Filipinos, who have the second highest proportion of parents who speak English to their kids among all primarily immigrant groups from the Asian continent (I believe Indians are the only group to have a higher percentage). And affirmative action seems like a very extreme solution. Because percentages are out of balance, the government must step in to mandate them into balance?

Originally posted by Tawee@Oct 27 2002, 06:57 AM
Example, Joe's moved up throught the company fairly rapidly and he's been promoted often, he plays golf with his boss every weekend and on business trips they often fish together. &nbsp;He soon gets the supervisor position. &nbsp;Tawee is hard working and dedicated, but he doesn't get invited to play golf, nor does he ever get invited to fish, his boss assumes that it's not something he'd be interested in (hell asians don't fish. &nbsp;The only Asians that play golf are Vijay Singh and Tiger Woods, but Tiger's not really Asian, he's black). &nbsp;He eventually makes supervisor position after a few more years in then Joe. &nbsp;Management position opens up, who seems more qualified? &nbsp;Joe, is it merrit? &nbsp;This why we need to level the playing field.
And so who exactly is to blame for the fact that Tawee's boss assumes him to be uninterested in those things? The Man? Racist media stereotypes (actually I thought this would work to our advantage anyway, since one of the few things most Americans seem to know about Japanese businessmen, and by extension apply to Asian-Americans, is that they are crazy about golf)? Or Tawee for never coming in on Monday morning, and, running into his boss in the elevator, and, knowing that socializing with the boss on a sports trip is a key to advancement, expressing his interest in fishing or golf:

T: "Good Morning, Mr. Boss!"
B: "Good morning, Tawee. How was your weekend?"
T: "It was pretty fun, my friends and I spent the whole weekend (up at the lake in a boat/at the driving range.)"
B: "You like (fishing/golf)? I never knew!"

etc. It seems to be more of a problem of learning to socialize with white people. Once again, let's look at simple solutions before demanding the government step in.

[Hanuman]

Good points.
That's a bit of an unusual theory, seeing as two obvious beneficiaries of Affirmative Action at the university level are blacks, who are native English speakers, and in California, Filipinos, who have the second highest proportion of parents who speak English to their kids among all primarily immigrant groups from the Asian continent (I believe Indians are the only group to have a higher percentage). And affirmative action seems like a very extreme solution. Because percentages are out of balance, the government must step in to mandate them into balance

Language is only one aspect of cultural bias -

see - http://tc.unl.edu/cci861/webpages/pfeller/pfeller4.htm
Excerpts:
Published norm-referenced tests (PNRTs) provide global information on a student’s achievement relative to the national norm. While Blacks and most other minorities have made gains in standardized test scores, they still score below whites as a group, indicating cultural bias. Opponents of the use of PNRTs claim that items draw on general White cultural experiences and values (Merrow, 2000). Inferences about what test results mean must be made cautiously when students lack information and skills because of restricted opportunity (Salvia & Ysseldyke, 1995). Also, when using instruments designed for the general population with another culture, the tests may be measuring what the student knows about the dominant culture rather than what the test was intended to measure (Anderson & Canter, 2000). “Test results, therefore, may be valid for one purpose, but not for another; test results may also be valid for members of one group, but not for another. In other words, the meaning attached to the same test score may vary across groups of individuals (e.g., racial/ethnic, gender, or socioeconomic groups)” (Kranzler, Miller, & Jordan, 1999, p. 2).

It seems to be more of a problem of learning to socialize with white people. Once again, let's look at simple solutions before demanding the government step in.

And yes, this can be avoided if the individual makes the extra effort, but why should it be necessary too? Even if this individual did make the effort, there may be underlying prejudices that may prevent the boss from bonding with a non-white. People tend to seek the company of people most similar to themselves.

some facts about minorities in the workplace -
http://clinton2.nara.gov/WH/EOP/OP/html/aa/aa04.html
results of 'Random Testing" are really interesting.



Sidenote, I used Tawee for the example here, but this didn't happen to me, I actually enjoy golf and fishing :)

[AliBabaIncorporated]

Originally posted by Tawee@Oct 27 2002, 09:20 AM
While Blacks and most other minorities have made gains in standardized test scores, they still score below whites as a group, indicating cultural bias.
so basically, the authors believe a priori that any discrepancy in test scores which can't be explained due to differences in education must be necessarily due to cultural bias. That seems like something of a leap of faith. There are other factors, possibly, that are not under consideration.