Supreme Court on Affirmative Action

[ism]

The Supreme Court agreed earlier in the week to hear two cases that challenge the University of Michigan's race-based policy of ensuring diversity in its undergraduate and law school programs. This is the first time in two decades since the issue has reached the top level of the judicial system. In 1978, the Bakke decision invalidated racial quotas but upheld diversity as a goal. The cases here could invalidate the use of race as a whole.

The United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the 6th District upheld the school's position in a 5-4 vote. The Supreme Court vote is expected to be just as narrow, with the deciding vote by O'Conner.

The Constitutional right to equal protection only applies directly to government institutions. However, under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, any institution that receives federal money is barred from race discrimination. A white woman is challenging the law school, and two white students are challenging the undergraduate school, all for non-acceptance, citing less-qualified minority students who got accepted.

Now the interesting part. From the New York Times (emphasis mine):

At the law school today, 74 of 1,109 students are black (6.7 percent) and 49 are Hispanic (4.4 percent). Students of Asian background are not considered "underrepresented minorities" and do not benefit from affirmative action programs at Michigan. Among undergraduate students, 8.4 percent are black and 4.7 percent are Hispanic.

Should Asians care one way or the other about affirmative action in terms of whether it harms or helps us? On one hand, if an "underrepresented" minority takes a slot that an equally or more deserving Asian would have gotten, that is harmful. On the other hand, other minorities are being helped, and we, as a minority, are in a similar fight and what helps them helps us. What makes Asians the exception? The fact that in general, we excel?

What happens if in two or three generations, Asian aptitude resembles that of the general white population? I am asserting that Asian excellence in academia is a cultural phenomenon and not inherent; in several years as Asians assimilate, this cultural reinforcement could diminish. There is a possible future where the racism that affects current underrepresented minorities will affect Asians as our aptitude is not held in such esteem. If we let affirmative action go now, will it come back to haunt us?

[Azn Retribution]

affirmative action to begin with is Bullshit.
Bullshit.
Repeat it again with me, Bullshit

Jobs and Education should always be **MERIT** based.
It shouldn't matter what color you are.
What your background is
who gives a fuck.
It just matters if you can do the job well or have the intelligence for it.

Once again Jesse Jackson and his Black KKK/Extortion Company the NAACP are proved as colossal pricks.

[SunWuKong]

Originally posted by Azn Retribution@Dec 3 2002, 03:01 PM
affirmative action to begin with is Bullshit.
Bullshit.
Repeat it again with me, Bullshit

Jobs and Education should always be **MERIT** based.
It shouldn't matter what color you are.
What your background is
who gives a fuck.
It just matters if you can do the job well or have the intelligence for it.

Once again Jesse Jackson and his Black KKK/Extortion Company the NAACP are proved as colossal pricks.

but you're assuming that without affirmative action, jobs and education would automatically be merit based. in my opinion this is a false assumption. implementation of affirmative action is not perfect, but affirmative action itself is definitely not bullshit.

[TyroneK(prettypretty)]

Originally posted by Azn Retribution@Dec 3 2002, 08:01 PM
affirmative action to begin with is Bullshit.
Bullshit.
Repeat it again with me, Bullshit

Jobs and Education should always be **MERIT** based.
It shouldn't matter what color you are.
What your background is
who gives a fuck.
It just matters if you can do the job well or have the intelligence for it.

Once again Jesse Jackson and his Black KKK/Extortion Company the NAACP are proved as colossal pricks.

I don't believe that affirmative action is not the anti-meritocratic institution that you make it out to be. Unlike a strict, open-ended quota system, which most people seem to think of, affirmative action is an effective way of helping qualified minorities and disadvantaged people gain access to the channels of social mobility that would otherwise be closed to them for non-meritocratic reasons. It's not about "so-and-so number or minorities or bust." It's about using different criteria to measure and find qualified, smart people.

You assume that the job and school application processes would normally be truly merit-based. This is not true. People in power have always given themselves a leg up whether its due to legacy preferences, excess attention to frat and social club affiliations, family connections, whatever... In the end, the admissions and employment selection has always been more than a numbers game. Affirmative action forces admissions officers and employers to look beyond the innately biased measures that otherwise out-of-touch admissions officers would normally use to measure the academic and social merit of an applicant. They have to take a better look at what the applicant has done with the cards given to him or her. As a result, the progress we've made more meritocratic education system has happened because of affirmative action. The ability to look beyond a certain, misleading ideal of academic preparadness shaped by the outdated glory days of WASPy America has produced greater economic and academic gains because those with the persistence, ambition and capability are better able to make those qualities known and useful. Race has always determined and limited what we all will be able to learn and take advantage of. Until it stops playing such an undeserved role, we will need to take it into account to judge the true worth of applying students and employees.

In the end, I think people are usually against affirmative action because they don't quite understand what it does. In popular culture and "objective journalism," we've been subjected to so much white resentment about how they've lost complete control of the playground that most of us have started accepting all these misleading statements as fact without looking at the logic behind such sentiments. Just because some prep-school jerk thinks a black or hispanic kid from a much poorer neighborhood and a lower SAT score is not qualified to be at a certain school doesn't mean that assessment is true. You can just look at the shortcomings and biases that rule our schools and standardized testing system and realize that the outlook affirmative action has helped push schools and employers to more accurately and relativistically judge applicant potential.

-------

I feel that underrepresented minorities aren't taking spots away from deserving Asians. White people with a better hold on power, cultural capital and social graces do. They're the ones who reinforce stereotypes and deemphasize the diversity among minority populations, putting APA's in a highly selective and constraining mold. They're the ones who treat us like a distinct social group without recognizing the social and cultural barriers that influence APA's lives.

[Chris]

Originally posted by Azn Retribution@Dec 3 2002, 12:01 PM
affirmative action to begin with is Bullshit.
Bullshit.
Repeat it again with me, Bullshit

Jobs and Education should always be **MERIT** based.
It shouldn't matter what color you are.
What your background is
who gives a fuck.
It just matters if you can do the job well or have the intelligence for it.

Once again Jesse Jackson and his Black KKK/Extortion Company the NAACP are proved as colossal pricks.

I am all for affirmative action to a certain extent. Affirmative action has gotten certain people to given an oppunitity to achieve. America is still a very white based society. Minorities have fought a lot to given an equal level playing field. Growing up in even San Francisco. I know that without affirmative action they will still be a slight inbalance of standard in the city.

VB Kao says it best. "I think people are usually against affirmative action because they don't quite understand what it does. In popular culture and "objective journalism," we've been subjected to so much white resentment about how they've lost complete control of the playground that most of us have started accepting all these misleading statements as fact without looking at the logic behind such sentiments. " Well said.

[Azn Retribution]

I know what it does more then you might think
I know the full implications and what it was intended to do.
and just as you are the representitive of one side of the spectrum I am the not the other as you might. I am more of a middle ground and would prefer an alternative solution.
and I do think it does more harm then it does good.

the way it is executed is completely wrong.
and people use it for the wrong reasons or for reasons it wasn't intended for.

Your version is the "public-relations" version.

Fact is what we end up with is not as desirable as what we would have without a formal or informal quota system, mind you in place.

What we do end up with praytell?

Underqualified workers in jobs where they shouldn't be and qualified workers going on unemployed. which is similar to students.

While it does work to a certain extent.
It is VERY VERY much abused.
as you can see with the NAACP's extortion like tactics.

[TyroneK(prettypretty)]

Originally posted by Azn Retribution@Dec 3 2002, 09:37 PM
I know what it does more then you might think
I know the full implications and what it was intended to do.
and just as you are the representitive of one side of the spectrum I am the not the other as you might. I am more of a middle ground and would prefer an alternative solution.
and I do think it does more harm then it does good.

the way it is executed is completely wrong.
and people use it for the wrong reasons or for reasons it wasn't intended for.

Your version is the "public-relations" version.

Fact is what we end up with is not as desirable as what we would have without a formal or informal quota system, mind you in place.

What we do end up with praytell?

Underqualified workers in jobs where they shouldn't be and qualified workers going on unemployed. which is similar to students.

While it does work to a certain extent.
It is VERY VERY much abused.
as you can see with the NAACP's extortion like tactics.

Hey, I never said it was perfect. Welcome to the world. I admit that I wish the world worked differently, but it doesn't. People are racist, smelly stinkers who don't do things the right way unless forced to by the market, by the government or both. You balance what you can. We accept some institutions (like income taxes, the tort system) that are open to abuse because they produce overall results that are better than no system at all and Americans have been unable to get our moral, intellectual and economic act together enough to consider using another alternative.

My personal experience hasn't been like yours and my opinion is based on more than the typical liberal spiel. I've seen smart kids who had to deal with a lot of socioeconomic shit get decent (but not stellar) numbers and get into prestigious places they deserve to be even though they couldn't afford to throw money away at Kaplan and Princeton Review. I've seen hard working minorities get good jobs they deserve because companies using affirmative are out looking for people of unique social backgrounds. Businesses are beginning to realize the value of diversity and

And if you're willing to admit that it works when it's done right, then it's not bullshit, is it? At least not according to the definition that I know. I just don't see the instances of abuse outweighing the real, if less entertaining, benefits it has brought to our society. I feel like it's worked in a widespread, quiet way that opponents haven't bothered to notice.

Out of curiosity, what do you find to be the NAACP's "extortion tactics?"

[Azn Retribution]

more often then not it is used the wrong way.
Extortion tactics? Sueing companies and threatning lawsuits
for not having enough of a certain race working for them.
That is what the NAACP has evolved to thanks to Jesse Jackson.
their actions as of late are insanely ludicrous.

some sort of system should be in place as
Its not perfect and in the end it always falls somewhere on the gray
but I vehemently disagree with the way affirmative action has been heading especially with the quota system. It has been heading toward pro-black and mexican disregarding the need poor white/asian etc families might need.
remember not all asians are geniuses or rich and same for the whites

I'm all for diversity but race should not be the deciding part of it.
Maybe situational but not definitely not race.
we are all human. and I will state again
that the race card is bullshit.

and as for the topic of this thread
what that means is that
Minorities(blacks/mexicans) even with significantly lower grades will be picked over whites and asians(whats new?)
when it comes to jobs/college what not.

[VV o n g B a]

what do you then think about the percentage rule? as being implemented in texas and cali (maybe elsewhere?) the plan lets all high school students in the top 5, 10 or something percentage of their class get into state colleges. nominally, this sounds fair. but it was implemented to get around the banned affirmative action laws because many high schools are minority dominated.

i personally think this is more fair than affimative action b/c low income kids then get to compete. unfortunately, it only applies to situations like college and not in the workplace.

[Azn Retribution]

how would low income kids not be able to compete?
Im talking about affirmative action being more race based these days not
situational based.

so are you saying low income kids are stupid and need help to get accepted?
because thats what these quotas are saying. they are insulting to the races they supposedly help.

Low Income kids can be just as smart as any rich kid and rich kids are usually too busy indulging themselves to get the qualities needed to suceed in life.
The money help I think is alright however the acceptance part is rigodamndiculous.

[ChinaLama]

Originally posted by Azn Retribution@Dec 3 2002, 10:42 PM
how would low income kids not be able to compete?
Im talking about affirmative action being more race based these days not
situational based.

so are you saying low income kids are stupid and need help to get accepted?
because thats what these quotas are saying. they are insulting to the races they supposedly help.

Low Income kids can be just as smart as any rich kid and rich kids are usually too busy indulging themselves to get the qualities needed to suceed in life.
The money help I think is alright however the acceptance part is rigodamndiculous.

given an equally smart and hard-working poor kid and rich kid, the rich kid will have higher grades cuz he has less chores to take care of and access to more resources.

so i do believe in affirmative action that takes into account 'disadvantaged" backgrounds. I kind of agree with race-based aff action too but anything i've wanted to say has been covered already.

re: VVongba, I don't know if i like the automatic top 10% rule. I'll say that someone in the top 50% of my school, for instance, is probably smarter and more qualified based on academic merit to enter a top state U than someone in the top 10% of a shitty hs. Different schools have different competition and different student bodies. I think the 10% rule isn't terrible, but it's by no means an excellent rule. Plus it may fill up a lot of state spots that could have instead attracted more qualified out-of-staters. also, i don't believe grades are the best metric b/c schools are so different fr each other; i think a better metric would be standardized tests even tho there are also problems w/ that.

[TyroneK(prettypretty)]

Affirmative action doesn't (or shouldn't) work according to a quota system. It's generally unconstitutional for the state to use strict quotas. From what I've read, private employers and schools have found that once you do the recruiting, a certain level of applicants comes out and counteracts most discrepancies in number-based qualifications. Businesses have gone forward in diversity recruitment and affirmative action because they realize that it does not necessarily hinder their economic position or internal office dynamic. I don't doubt that it has in some cases, but I think the bad is simply more visible and colorful (pardon the pun) than the positive legacy.

Affirmative action is also not something that has stuck only to race. It has transformed the way colleges and employers work by forcing them to become more geographically diverse. It has helped fight past gender inequality as well. Like I said before, I don't think people realize how much affirmative action has actually helped them.

Because APA's are not recognized as a disadvantaged group, they don't get the benefit of a lot of affirmative programs. I think that's wrong, but I don't see that as a reason to take affirmative action away. It's a reason for us as APA's to start raising hell and get our problems noticed, recognized and remedied. We don't benefit by dragging down the poorest members of society who are in a better position to understand our needs. That only gets us a marginally higher trophy spot on the status quo's totem pole. We solve the problem by making ourselves heard and targeting the real culprits. We shouldn't aim to harm the social mobility of black and hispanics. We should learn from them. It took them hundreds of years to get where they are. Soon, the APA population will be in similar straits as more immigrants come in and the balance between "desirable", educated immigrants and poor immigrants looking for any opportunity they can find gets more and more skewed to the latter group.

As much as I wish I lived in a world where we're all considered human and race doesn't matter, it does not. Race matters. Whether we like it or not, it plays an integral part in who we are and how other people view and treat us. To not make it a deciding factor in any kind of effort to correct societal inequities without taking race into account just doesn't cut it. Making the business world and academic sphere more diverse implicitly means bringing in race. You can't get around it.

And to all you budding Marxists out there, Americans are too stuck in their capitalist delirium to want to want a system that works by class or income criteria, so that only leaves one avenue. I wish it could be more directly class-based in its approach, but that's the political reality we live in. Communism and populism are dead. Anything that sounds like them might as well be radioactive feces to the average voter or puppet politician.

-------------

WongBa: I think that top 5-10% rule is okay if the top 5-10% are really determined to go to the designated universities and are not headed to greener pastures like private and Ivy League universities. In the end, are poorer & minority kids who for some reason or another stuck in the slightly lower 10-20th %ile going to get a better chance of going to a university they're generally qualified for? I'm skeptical.

[VV o n g B a]

Originally posted by Azn Retribution@Dec 3 2002, 10:42 PM
how would low income kids not be able to compete?
Im talking about affirmative action being more race based these days not
situational based.

so are you saying low income kids are stupid and need help to get accepted?
because thats what these quotas are saying. they are insulting to the races they supposedly help.

Low Income kids can be just as smart as any rich kid and rich kids are usually too busy indulging themselves to get the qualities needed to suceed in life.
The money help I think is alright however the acceptance part is rigodamndiculous.

yes, in many cases i believe low income kids need help, but i certainly don't they are stupid. there are certain habits you develop depending on where you live and who you hang out with. in many cases, its not cool to do too well in school. the kids i hung out with considered good grades a part of coolness. everybody studied and everybody took as many AP classes as they could fit. i knew kids in the same school however that thought differently. i think i was lucky that it turned out this way. part of my study ethic came from wanting to fit in. i believe it could easily have gone the other way however. if i felt considerable pressure from friends NOT to do well, i might well have caved in. in low income neighborhoods this pressure is greater. given the improper environment, those who would otherwise do well, won't. single parent families also hurt because the parent has to pull double duty making money and raising the kid properly. no man is an island.

rich kids may overindulge themselves, but rich families provide opportunities and connections a poor family couldn't dream of. i like to use george bush as an example... he was a fuckup in college, borderline alcoholic, and used cocaine. but based on his family connections, he got into prestigious schools one after another and cleaned his act up eventually. he went on to become CEO of an oil company, governor and president with significant help from his family and family friends. tell me of a poor family that could offer a similar story.

[VV o n g B a]

Originally posted by ChinaLama@Dec 3 2002, 10:59 PM

given an equally smart and hard-working poor kid and rich kid, the rich kid will have higher grades cuz he has less chores to take care of and access to more resources.

so i do believe in affirmative action that takes into account 'disadvantaged" backgrounds. I kind of agree with race-based aff action too but anything i've wanted to say has been covered already.

re: VVongba, I don't know if i like the automatic top 10% rule. I'll say that someone in the top 50% of my school, for instance, is probably smarter and more qualified based on academic merit to enter a top state U than someone in the top 10% of a shitty hs. Different schools have different competition and different student bodies. I think the 10% rule isn't terrible, but it's by no means an excellent rule. Plus it may fill up a lot of state spots that could have instead attracted more qualified out-of-staters. also, i don't believe grades are the best metric b/c schools are so different fr each other; i think a better metric would be standardized tests even tho there are also problems w/ that.

i agree, the percentage rule isn't "excellent" but i feel its more targeted than a flat out race based rule because I don't think race is the root issue. its economics.

and yea, it does suck if u're a guy stuck right outside of the percentage... not much i can say there.

[SunWuKong]

Originally posted by VBKao@Dec 3 2002, 06:06 PM
Because APA's are not recognized as a disadvantaged group, they don't get the benefit of a lot of affirmative programs. I think that's wrong, but I don't see that as a reason to take affirmative action away. It's a reason for us as APA's to start raising hell and get our problems noticed, recognized and remedied. We don't benefit by dragging down the poorest members of society who are in a better position to understand our needs. That only gets us a marginally higher trophy spot on the status quo's totem pole. We solve the problem by making ourselves heard and targeting the real culprits. We shouldn't aim to harm the social mobility of black and hispanics. We should learn from them. It took them hundreds of years to get where they are. Soon, the APA population will be in similar straits as more immigrants come in and the balance between "desirable", educated immigrants and poor immigrants looking for any opportunity they can find gets more and more skewed to the latter group.

actually, current asian immigrants tend to be skilled professionals, doctors, etc etc. so it would probably be skewered toward "desirable" immigrants.

but concerning whether or not affirmative action helps asian americans. immigration trends in the past shows that there are two types of asian immigrants. those that came to the US looking for better opportunities, and those that escaped from unlivable situations in their home countries. the first group tends to do well in the states, but the latter group tends to perform at around the black and hispanic average, that is, well below the white average.

there's also the matter of the glass ceiling. it's a fact that asian individuals and women with the same reponsibilities on the job as a white male actually gets paid less than the white male.

Azn Retribution: i agree that race should not be a deciding factor, but without affirmative action, race would be a negative deciding factor for women and minorities. affirmative action, while not perfect, is the corrective action against that.