Repeal SP1 and SP2 Rally at all UC campuses tommorrow: What's your view on affirmative action?

SendTrash

Platinum Member
Apr 18, 2000
2,581
0
76
There is going to be a massive rally centered at UCLA, but will be a UC wide event. The UC Regents are going to be meeting at UCLA James West Alumni Center and there is a planned massive protest to get them to repeal SP1&2. Location: Westwood Plaza 11am-4pm March 14, 2001.
SP1&2 stand for Standing Policy 1 and 2, and are UC Regent policies that ended the use of Affirmative action in UC admissions and faculty hiring. It was apporved by the Regents in 1995.

What are your views on affirmative action?
 

SendTrash

Platinum Member
Apr 18, 2000
2,581
0
76


<< they're meeting in covel actually... >>


changed to James Alumni center... not Covel Commons anymore
 

carmann

Golden Member
Jan 28, 2001
1,764
0
71
Just Say No To Affirmative Action!

Do you really think minorities etc. should receive &quot;special treatment&quot;? If you want to get technical, I can be considered a &quot;double minority&quot; and I don't want any special treatment.
 

Imported

Lifer
Sep 2, 2000
14,679
23
81
I agree on the no AA. It'll piss me off if I don't get into UCLA cause my spot (Hopefully) will be reserved for someone who didn't go through what I'm doing. I'm half Chinese also..
 

Raspewtin

Diamond Member
Nov 16, 1999
3,634
0
0
I dislike Affirmative Action. I find the concept insulting to successful minorities. When I was UCLA the damage the program was causing was obvious. These type of programs should purely be economic (helping the poorer students receive extra opportunities).
 

SendTrash

Platinum Member
Apr 18, 2000
2,581
0
76
before we bad mouth more about Affirmative action. Read the following myths:

Myth #1: Affirmative action uses quotas.
Fact: Quotas are illegal!!! In 1978, the Supreme Court in University of California v. Bukke ruled quotas unconstitutional. The Court went on to say that campus diversity &quot;clearly is a constitutionally permissible goal of an institution of higher education.&quot; It is also stated that race is only one of many factors that could be considered during the college admissions process. Admissions officials still consider GPA, SAT, personal statements, and extracurricular activities.

Myth #2: Affirmative action is &quot;reverse discrimaination.&quot;
Fact: Reverse discrimination cannot be perpetuated by people who are not in posititons of power to begin with!!! White men make up 96% of CEOs, %85 of tenured professors, 89% of U.S. Senators and 100% of U.S. Presidents! Barriers of institutions of power continue to place a bigger burden on women and minorities. Affirmative action combats this institutionalized racism. The fact is it is harder to renovate a school in a ghettoized segrated community than it is to build a new school in the suburbs largely populated by whites. Many of the predominantly minority schools lack access to AP courses, honors course, encouraging counselors, and better educational resources. In fact, according to the Califorina Department of Education, in 1997-1998, Inglewood Unified School District (98.5% African American and Latino) spent $5,250 per pupil while Beverly Hills Unified School District (7.7% African American and Latino) spent $7,050. In other words, 25% less money is spent on students of color. Affirmative action does not discriminate; rather it equalizes the playing field.

Myth #3: Repealing SP-1 and SP-2 is useless because of Proposition 209.
Fact: Under SP-1, up to 75% of students will be admitted on basis of GPA and SAT alone! However, access to GPA &quot;boosters&quot; like AP course are unequal, and numerous studies show that standardized tests are culturally and linguistically biased. Getting rid of SP-1 would pave the way toward a more holistic admissions process. Moreover, repealing SP-1 would be a powerful symbolic gesture. The University would be taking an unambiguous stand in support of diversity and equal access. It would send a message to the top minority applicants in the country that the University welcomes their presence. Indeed, just the passage of SP-1 in 1995 decreased the percentage of underrepresented minority applications, three years before its implementation. Repealing SP-1 would show the University does not believe in segregation.

Myth #4: Affirmative action admits &quot;unqualified&quot; minorities who, because they cannot compete effectively, end up dropping out.
Fact: Under UC academic standards, every student at the UC is qualified! People of color make up more than 50% of the California population. The belief that only a small percentage of theses minorities can succeed at a UC is racist. The fact that many communities of color are still underrpresented only goes to expose the barriers set up by institutionalized racism. Opponents of affirmative action talk about the drop out rate of minorities at select institutions. Yet Shape of River (1998), a decade long study of 45,000 students conducted by the former presidents of Priceton and Harvard, showed that dropout rates for underrepresented minorities were HIGH at less competitivite colleges and LOW at higly competitive colleges. Clearly, many minority students flourish in environments that consist of students with relatively higher standards. We must also keep in mind that the top private universities in the nation like Yale and Standford still use affirmative action.
 

SendTrash

Platinum Member
Apr 18, 2000
2,581
0
76
Raspewtin, what damage are you taking about?

It was affirmative action that ended the racial segragation at UCLA. It brought in minorities that fought for classes such as ethic studies. Struggles such as the fight for Chicano studies and the hunger strikes lead to the creation of the Cesear Chavez Studies Center.

Without diversity on campus there would be no ethnic studies. No way to study and research communities. To study how to create programs to create as someone here said &quot;successful minorities&quot; (but by that term I am not sure what is meant). Diversity is key to education.
Did you know that there is a rule in UCLA, and other UCs that if a class has an enrollment of less than 10 people, the class will get canceled? With SP1, it is a racist policy that could lead (as seen with evidence of decreasing number of admits, only 40 black men accepted in 2001!! WTF) these classes may soon disappear.

With SP-2, faculty diversity is affected. And a professor's heritage will affect the communities and areas they research in, the classes that they teach, the education that is offered. SP-2 is effectively a slap in the face of relavent education, of ethnic studies!
 

SendTrash

Platinum Member
Apr 18, 2000
2,581
0
76
Are there any supporters? This is an issue that is greater than us. It affects future students. The movement for racial diversity is doing this for the High School students, for our children...

Affirmative Action only lasted 30 years.. how can you expect that to &quot;fix&quot; 200+ years of racial segration, or racial and gender discrimination? Of instituitionized barriers (Jim Crow laws, Anti Miscegenation laws, Slavery!....)

With current census data that shows that the highest group of people in the state of California is the Latinos/Chicanos (the only state in the US to have a majority not white) and the fastest growing group in California is Asian, the UC (public univeristies) should reflect this community! It should support these huge numbers of ethnic people, not decrease their numbers being admitted.
 

Supradude

Golden Member
Nov 3, 2000
1,727
0
0
so THAT's what i saw walking by royce around 7:30's tonight... ha ha... i was wondering what the hoopla was about :eek:
 

hans007

Lifer
Feb 1, 2000
20,212
18
81
It is ridiculous. Affirmative action is a sham, a crutch and supposed quick fix to a problem that has deeper roots. the only fix is to fix it at the start and fix the horrible schools some people have to go to.

Lots of minorities that have had disadvantages which is basically all of them succeed fine. UCLA is what 42% asian right now, with asians accounting for less than 10% of the population in california and 4% in the nation. Asians came here poor (hell i did), came here as immigrants (which is why most of them are poor), . People from India come to mind, people from persian backgrounds, jewish people were persecuted immigrants, and they are doing fine. Japanese people were put in camps. Jewish people have had their share. Chinese people have had to go through a lot of stuff. Hell i'm from the philippines, america really exploited that country for ulterior motives, but we get no extra love. There are african immigrants who have done the same thing, just like my nigerian american roomate whose parents immigrated here. But these groups didnt get where they are by whining about it..... CONSTANTLY.

My roomate is actually a good example. He still gets to be classified as black and under affirmative action would get special consideration even though his family wasnt even subject to the 200 years of yada yada that you state. Under your plan, we should give special consdiration to asian basketball players even if they are worse than the ones we have just because we dont have any. And while we are at it, my compsci classes have like 10% girls, why dont you give special consideration for girls in compsci, hell that wouldnt be fair to guys that deserve it but it sure would be cool for those girls. (hell i would say i'd like it, but its still unfair) The worst thing is that asians are covered as a blanket demographic. There are tons of filipinos, camdoians, laoations, samoans etc that have the same disadvantages as other &quot;historically disadvantaged&quot; minorities, but they dont even count as a disadvantaged minority since every just says they are asian. Hell i am filipino/chinese, and it probably could have helped me, but i didnt need it and its still wrong. First off i know that filipinos could care less as a racial group the number of japanese people go to ucla. It does not give filipinos any comfort that there are tons of chinese here. But I still can't sympathize with those filipinos because they aren't here because they didnt out compete others who applied which is why they aren't here. This is what makes affirmative action wrong, not only is it racist by helping a certain race that is disadvantaged, it even is racist among disadvantaged races since it only helps certain disadvantaged races.

Reverse discrimination displaces asians, jewish people, white people, whatever people who deserve to be here, based on soley the race of another person, who wouldn't be here otherwise. anyone with half a brain can figure that out. You cant be fair when you take race into account. I'll even do it with math

If z = total
and y = &quot;disadvantaged minorities&quot;
and x = others

x+y=z

affirmative action makes reverse discrimination

(x-1)+(y+1)=z

x is not just white people. note for all your mentally impaired people x-1 is less than x. I think the reason all these protestors never bring the asians that have made it, jewish, and persians in to account for their argument is that it their whole argument would fall apart. White people for the most part aren't racist. Sure some may buy into some stereo types, but its just like some black people thinking that white people are racist, and that is the same thing. But its apparently ok for &quot;disadvantaged minorities&quot; to use stereo types against white people (hmm the regents are mostly white, therefore they are racist is the thought that has been implied for the last couple weeks) , but not the other way around. Both are wrong, but one seems to be right and is still wrong. Man really i think your average non racist white person really gets screwed every time they talk about this stuff

People make this retarded argument that a lot of people who dont get in here, would do fine here. That all great and all, but there are a limited number of spots for students, which is why its selective anyways. If there was an unlimited number of spots at UCLA we could let everyone in and really i could care less. It is reverse descrimination. You let in some one , and someone else who normally would have gotten in wouldn't. YOu cant add disadvantaged minorities without taking away the others. Minorities who have managed to earn spots here that are no longer considered disadvanteged i.e. asians and persians and indians, will lose for the fact that they aren't &quot;disadvantaged&quot; . Mayve they aren't disadvantaged any more because they worked their asses off. You cant punish people for becoming prosperous. People work all their lives to get their and then they get penalized. Thats horrible in itself, destroys all the values for why we even bother working towards a better life.

Man and those fools kept chanting &quot;Regents racist&quot; or something because it was catchy. *grumble race card bullshit* Man they made such fools of themselves, and then they tried to take over royce AGAIN. i mean they are already being led like lemmings to believe something that is illogical and they even go about protesting it in the most uncivilized way. Last week they vandalized parts of the outside of the libraray by spray painting crap about repealing it again. Yeah i'm sure that doesnt discredit your group.

Affirmative action is a crutch. If some minorities claim they NEED affirmative action to succeed when other minorities have worked through or had the talent to work through it, they are saying they have some handicap because of their race. It devalues you as a whole to have a handicap. A disadvantaged minority will never earn respect by having this special preference, and by having had it for the past 30 years, has lowered society's value of even a college graduating disadvantaged minority. That is reality. I mean really , if you know someone got an unfair advantage and won a race you wouldn't think they were as good a runner. Yeah people complain there are stereo types and stuff to work through. Every race has stereo types to work against. YOu know how to fix that? You prove that its not true. You dont make a law that says you cant say &quot;asians are sneaky people who will send all our secrets back to china&quot;. You build trust and make people belive that you aren't sneaky bastards. I think of it this way. If i ran a store and someone said because they were latino or black that they should be able to buy something that cost a dollar for 90 cents , i'd say hell no. Because i dont care how you earned that dollar, if you had to dig ditches for it, or someone gave it to you , both your dollars are equal. To say a socalled disadvantaged minority 's dollar is worth more is asinine since their dollar is worth like $1.10 since 90 cents of theirs is worth a dollar of someone else's money.


There is certainly a difference between &quot;unqualified&quot; and &quot;less qualified&quot;. There are probably tons of people who could easily get a degree at ucla but that doesn't mean that are people who aren't better than them at that who deserve it more. like if you had a barrel full of apples , you could probably eat all of them and they all qualify as apples, but maybe you want the best and consider the best bigger and only want the BIGGEST ones. Also we might as well face reality. The whole racial demographics problem at colleges is an economic and cultral problem. Rich people get in for the reason of being more educated. Yes thats right generally rich people are more educated because they have more resources from being rich. I'm not saying they are smarter, but hey a person that is musically talented still wont know classical piano if they dont teach that at their school The solution is to fix it so that people who arent as wealthy have the same chance to be educated from that start and fix the schools. Poor white people have just as much a disadvantage as a poor latino. So do poor asians. Its what you make of what you have. Lots of asian kids i knew in high school would scrap together all the money they had to go get tutored, and their parents would verbally abuse or even beat them if they got bad grades. Maybe if disadvantaged minorities went as far as beating their kids so that they'd get bettter grades and SAT scores they'd get better grades and scores. Who knows. Sure that sounds bad, but it sure as hell helped some asian kids i've known get motivated to look like much better students. I think really in the end its a cultural and economic problem.

Repealing sp1 and sp2 i know doesnt do anything because of prop 209. BUT its still a wrong thing to do , because it endorses an institution that is flawed from that start.

sorry this is horribly unorganized, but i'm just kinda ranting, and well i'm a compsci major anyways. You have fired me up as well as those other retards writing pro AA in viewpoint in daily bruin. I've got like 8 pages on paper that i've written, and when i have time you will see my daily bruin article. Bwhahaha, i just looked at sendtrash's page and he's a filipino compsci major too. Man thats ironic. And man can he write a lot better than I.

One more thing. Favoring someone/something over someone else for just their race is racist. A lot of black people as an example seem to much rather have another black person admitted than a white person even if that white person was more qualified. That my friends is racism. I like the way asian girls look compared to other girls. I'm attracted to them more. Makes me racist too. I guess thats not to the degree of negative racism, most people associate racism, with but its a preference based on race. But i'm not gonna want some asian guy in here who is a moron just because he's asian. Just like i dont want unqualified minority in here either. We dont want people to judge a persons mind based on race, i really think its ok to judge someone's attractiveness due to race since i do it all the time. But their mind is a seperate thing from their body. The reason for this whole mind thing is if i talk to someone of any race and he's an idiot he's still an idiot and i will not talk to that person much longer. And i dont like to deal with incompetance but its hard to screen for incompetance. The admissions board tries to screen out people who are not as qualified thus getting best qualified. but hey they have limited resources. Hell maybe we should just have me interview everyone. That would be great.


 

SendTrash

Platinum Member
Apr 18, 2000
2,581
0
76
hans007,
I agree with you that the problem are the high schools, the middle schools, the elementary schools. The problem lies in the crap that students have to deal with through the K-12. But how do you fix it? The idea of Affirmative Action is greater than taking away acceptance letters from white and giving it to blacks. It is about empowering the disempowered. By that I mean that education is the key to &quot;fixing&quot; so many problems. If you give someone from a disadvantaged community a college education, they will be the teachers, the leaders, the community organizers of tommorrow! They will return to their community and reshape it. They will get elected into government and create laws that service their community (ex. increase school funding)

If schools were equal, we wouldn't need Affirmative Action, but they aren't and its an reality we have to face.

You also make the point that Asians are &quot;model minorities&quot; in that they have so called &quot;succeeded&quot; in this nation. I have read articles and learned about the very thing you are taking about. About how model minority&quot; group, such as Asian-Americans and European Jews, are meant to be a &quot;role model&quot; for a minority group like African-Americans. I just have to say in short, its a load of bs. It is a stereotype to credit the Civil Rights movement, but trying to pit one minority group against another. Here is a link and other link or better yet do a web search and learn more about the issue. Look at the statistics, not just personal experience (not to be offensive, but the world is much larger than yourself)

Also just a few quick thoughts the Asian myths, aren't you pissed off that in the view of the government all Chinese, Japanese, Koreans and etc are all lumped under &quot;Asian&quot;. Pilipinos fought to be a separate item on the forms (we even have f/p/ph ilipinos category on the 2000 census, **wtf is philino**, anways). It is this myth that Asians are doing fine that has lead to a severe lack of resources, studies and laws in support of the Asian community.

Instead of dividing the cause, you should realize that their struggle is everyone's struggle. We cannot accept racism and discrimination. There are problems and struggles. Affirmative action may not be the best solution, but it does serve to bring down barriers, to &quot;level the playing field&quot; How can we expect politicians and current leaders to service the interest of the people if they don't listen to the disadvantage and those without resources to make their voices heard. Here at UCLA and other campuses, students are the future leaders. You have to make a choice of where you stand for future generations, you have to make a stand on how you want the world to be. I stand for supporting the education system in the state, of returning funding to the once envy of the nation (in the 1960s California was #1 in spending on education and schools, but now is 49 place, what replaced funding for schools is toward building prisons.. kinda has to let you know where politicians want people to go to).

SP-1 and SP-2 are shame. The Regents knew that it was going to decrease the number of minority acceptances (they even set up a million dollar outreach program that hasn't done anything). Now they are paying for their mistake. You have to ask, how much do the Regents and politicains really listen to the voices of the people when every educator, school board, students, and community leader spoke out in opposition to SP-1 and SP-2 and Prop 209.
 

SendTrash

Platinum Member
Apr 18, 2000
2,581
0
76
BTW student activism works. We got the Regents to vote on the issue of SP-1 and SP-2 next May. Not discussion, not lip service, but voting.
 

ElFenix

Elite Member
Super Moderator
Mar 20, 2000
102,389
8,547
126
well, that would be a rarity. activism working, i mean. its usually just a bunch of kids who are way too idealistic for their own good trying to shout out reality. its annoying. there was this one activist here, carl villareal, who wrote that volunteerism was wrong because it was taking focus away from activism. why do something yourself when you could get the gov't to do it for you? ward connerly made a speech here, they used the largest auditorium in the law school. villareal's org, the Anti-Racist Organizing Committee (AROC, which is funny because they were supporting a program that uses race as a measure of a person), made it public that they should show up at 6:30. so everyone else showed up at 6:15 to get a seat. as a result, not all of AROC supporters were allowed in the auditorium, which they claimed was unfair. those who got in were not allowed to bring their signs, so that other people could see too. again, they claimed it was unfair. initially, the questions were to be written on cards and then given to ward. after some more whining they got the question format changed to an open one. during the speech they opened copies of the Daily Texan. when questioning was opened, Connerly answered some questions from non-AROC members, which AROC got really mad about, claiming that it was thier question time. instead of intelligent dialogue, which they claimed they were after, they shouted things like &quot;you're the puppet of the white man!&quot;
 

Russ

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
21,093
3
0
If all colleges and universities did was true affirmative action, it would be a good thing, not the disaster that it has become.

By definition, AA is simply reaching out to the minority community and making sure that they are aware of opportunities, and then ensuring that they are provided equal access to those opportunities. NOBODY can argue that this is bad. It is what we should do as a society.

In reality, though, that is NOT what was happening. The system became set-asides, percentages and, yes QUOTAS. They just labeled it carefully enough to cover their tracks from a legal standpoint.

Russ, NCNE
 

hans007

Lifer
Feb 1, 2000
20,212
18
81
First off i'm mad since i wrote a big response and IE crashed but i'm writing it again.

Anyways i think that there is obviously a problem. The problem is that wealthy people have an advantage in the admissions process because of schools. The admissions process is biased towards people who are more educated, and being wealthy can help you out a lot there. Also i think there is a cultural barrier where a lot of minority kids dont think they have a shot from the beginning and are really negative about it. A lot of underprivlidged kids aren't dont value good grades, and learning , and studying for tests scores nearly as much as whites and the so called model minorities. Maybe its parenting or the media or whatever , i dont know. I dont think affirmative action is the answer because i dont like how its based on race. Race is innate you cant change it. When you are biased against a person based on race or gender that is the worst thing because they cant do anything about it. If you are biased against a person who is poor or lazy or whatever, they have there is hope that they can someday be rich or work hard or whatever. Which is why i think an admissions process where rich people have an advantage in becoming educated. And a certain level of education is required to suceed so they are entitled to admission because they are educated. Adding affirmative action would promote letting in more students who are less educated. Yes most of these students would be disadvantaged minorities, but they would be less educated and thus less qualified. I'm sure if these less educated minorities (which is why they are not getting in post sp1/sp2) were accepted (which is what happened before sp1 / sp2) they would do fine, but thats not the point becaue other people were MORE qualified and more deserving. You want the most qualified students and race shouldn't count as a measurement of level of qualification. the more educated ones would be mostly white and &quot;model minorities&quot; which is why everyone says that the admissions process is racist, though its not, society is or was racist. Society i think with optimism is getting less racist, but racism in the past it has put a lot of minorities into these poorer demographics that have less education (because of the school problem) and have so much negativity (probably from other stereotypes) as to what they can do that they have a huge disadvantage come admissions time. But the admissions process is not racist, it takes in the most educated students. The way of measuring education too is at fault, but there is only so much money to gather information on how educated a person is. Anyways i am digressing.

I think a much better solution is to make people see the importance of education (which i'd think would raise test scores, grades, etc in time to bring them into line with the other races) in disadvantaged communities and for them to have access to better educational resources. This might take longer to implement probably one whole generation of kids. Plus i dont have a plan exactly how it would be done, but there are a lot of public policy majors who should be able to figure it out. This might take longer than the quick fix of having a racial bias during admissions, but in the long run it would be lot better, plus it doesnt have that bad racist part in it.

I think i'm just really against the race based policies because i hate racial preferences when it comes down to people making snap judgements about a person. I am a chinese / filipino. From what i've read and what my relatives have told me Chinese people in the philippines are hated because of the general stereotype that chinese people are people who do things like hoard food, control the business community, make everyone poor while getting rich, etc. Yeah some of that is true to a degree, but its a racist thing and a chinese person cant do anything about being chinese and people still hate them. That really sucks. I think really even if the admissions process even gave special preference to lower income people but not regarding race, i wouldn't be as strongly against it even though it would largely help the same people anyways(though i'd still disagree, i wouldn't have taken the time to write this if it was just that).

 

SendTrash

Platinum Member
Apr 18, 2000
2,581
0
76


<< they were supporting a program that uses race as a measure of a person >>


I would argue that a race and heritage of a person is an important part of who they are and it affects their attitude, their involve in communities, and is an integral part of themselves.



<< rarity. activism working >>


Hell yeah!

Russ,

Affirmative action puts race and background as a factor, along with GPA, SAT and extracurricular activities. If doesn't &quot;set aside&quot; a certain number. When you look at the whole person, and the struggles they are involved with, it is evident that minorities will have a slight edge. They are just as everyway &quot;qaulified&quot;, but with evidence of overcomming adversity and having leadership potentials, they should be in this public university.



 

CQuinn

Golden Member
May 31, 2000
1,656
0
0
My two cents,

1. The problem isn't the institution of Affirmative Action, it is those who
would use AA as a minority only leverage to force support of, instead of
encouraging activity in, equality in standards of hiring and admission practice.

2. As long as there are percieved inequities in certain social structures such
as schools and government hiring, then policies like AA will be needed, BUT
those policies and decision made therin should always be prepared for
re-examination in the hopes that someday society will have matured enough to
make them unnecessary.

3. When I first read the title of this thread, I was wondering what people had
against Service Pack 1... and Service Pack 2 isn't even out yet...

 

RichieZ

Diamond Member
Jun 1, 2000
6,549
37
91
AA doesn't hurt majorities, it hurts minorities. I mean why else would Ward Connarly a black man want to repeal affirmative action. I'll tell you why: its because it perputates the idea that minorities are underachivers and cannot make it on their own. When a minority gets a degree, it is lessed by people thinking they got it only because of affiramtive action.

SO DOWN W/ AFFIRMATIVE ACTION

And I think getting rid of the SAT one is a step in the right direction, rich ppl spent a lot of money to send their kids to SAT prep classes. The use of financial power to advance their own children turns a mertiocrary into an aristoricacy of the rich.
 

hans007

Lifer
Feb 1, 2000
20,212
18
81
go richiezzz. its a crutch. ALso a friend of my roomate's said this after he got back from watching them at royce. He didnt agree with the ASU people because he thinks that affirmative action perpetuates stereotypes. Like if you want being say black to mean something they will think &quot;hey he's black let look him up on the chart , hmm....&quot; . then they look on this theoretical &quot;chart&quot; and see &quot;black = poor, innercity , single parent, blah&quot; and perpetuate a stereotype. I think he's right too, thats another good point to consider. I think richiezzz hit it on the head. i was talking with some people the other day, and well my roomate said something like &quot;if you are running against someone with one shoe and the other guy has 2 and won its a lot more impressive than if you got a 50 yard headstart with one shoe on and won&quot;

also ididnt know ward connerly was black. thats kinda interesting. i bet if he keeps it up, he'll get that colin powell reputation among minorities. sad how that will probably happen.


the SATs as originally designed was supposed to be like a test to see &quot;who were the most brilliant&quot; for them military or something right. Without prep courses it actually does its job pretty well. I mean, they are gonna need some sort of test of this type, and they will have prep courses no matter what. There are not unlimited resources to analyze applicants, and its still a tool. Eliminating a tool would make it even harder anyways. They should probably make it optional , possibly. I mean in theory if you were well educated and were smart you'd have done well without a prep class, so the basis of the test works. Then again i'm biased since i was one of those people who didnt go to a prep class, and still scored really high on it.

Take it for what it is, but the more tools you have for analysis even if they aren't perfect the better off you are analyzing.
 

SendTrash

Platinum Member
Apr 18, 2000
2,581
0
76


<< I mean why else would Ward Connarly a black man want to repeal affirmative action >>


Yeah, when I first learned that Ward Connarly was black I was really suprised. But he is really a figure head that people behind the scenes are hiding behind.

If you remember back to the campaign for Prop 209 (spearheared by Ward Connarly and Pete Wilson) they actually used the image of Martin Luther King Jr as a symbol &quot;supporting&quot; Prop209 (which ended affirmative action use is all colleges in California). Also, the backers of Prop 209 actually called it the &quot;Civil Rights Iniatitive&quot; and the word affirmative action was never mentioned in the wordings of the bill.

I hate to put it in this way, but Ward Connarly is essentially a bought spokeperson to be against rights and opportunities of minorities.

If you really look at the language of SP-1 it states that no less than 75% of students admitted will be based solely on GPA and SAT scores (so forget about what ever you put in your personal statement or even Extra curricular activities). If you based people solely on numbers, then it is evident that those with the resources and schools will be accepted. The creators of SP-1 know full well that disadvantage people cannot level up to the inflated GPAs and SATs of well off students in nice communities.

Also, hans007 stated that minorities accepted under Affirmative Action effectively do not belong in this school because they aren't on the same &quot;level&quot; as the other gifted students. I challenge that and say that what makes you say that they don't belong? For an application to even be considered you have to meet minimun standards, and let me tell you that they well exceed those standards. Everyone who is accepted to a College (affirmative action or not) mets and often exceeds the requirements to be there. Students of color belong in a public university.

I think it is a slight racist and heavly miseducated belief to say that people admitted to College with Affirmative action are at the bottom of the barrow, that they are the scraps that are left over once you exhaust the &quot;allowed&quot; number of white and priveleged people being admitted. Inside, Affirmative Action allows those disadvantage youth to compete equally on a level playing field with well off students. Affirmative Action forces Colleges to take a holistic view of the applicant.
 

SendTrash

Platinum Member
Apr 18, 2000
2,581
0
76


<< AA doesn't hurt majorities, it hurts minorities. I mean why else would Ward Connarly a black man want to repeal affirmative action. I'll tell you why: its because it perputates the idea that minorities are underachivers and cannot make it on their own. When a minority gets a degree, it is lessed by people thinking they got it only because of affiramtive action. >>



To me and I hope for everyone else, I degree is still a degree. Sure people may say that you couldn't have done it without Affirmative Action, does that take away from the knowledge and skills that you have learned? Does it in anyway make you less able to do your job, to lead your community? No.

Those that say and think that a minority with a degree is any less of a person that a white person with a degree is plain and simple racism... and I hope no one argues with me on that point.