SC upholds UT Affirmative Action.

[Subyman]

I agree there's some argument for affirmative action to help lift people out of the hole that historical discrimination and oppression has put them in.

But I'd add a couple of caveats:

It must be constantly explicitly reevaluated. As you said, it's supposed to be temporary, but even if that was stated and understood at the time it's very easy for these things to become the status quo, and for the presence of the system to serve consciously or unconsciously as sufficient evidence that the system is needed. For example, there are still people today that think that women deserve preferential treatment in general admissions to universities and it needs to be demonstrated outright that no, they really don't.

They are reevaluated every year by each school independently. From what I understand, they produce a list based on their internal criteria and if it does not sufficiently include minorities then they may employ AA. As minorities rise in society due to AA, AA will be less relied upon.

Second, we have to be mindful of the fact that this isn't just about giving people resources, compensation, or privilege but putting them in positions that have an impact on society. As far as I'm concerned, the more important, higher responsibility and specialized a position is the less it should be considered for affirmative action. That, and by these points you should be far enough into the system to be able to stand on your own merit. I don't want to see affirmative admissions to medical school (or worse, graduations from medical school) leading to notably under qualified practicing doctors. The benefit to a small minority of a minority needs to be weighed against the public risk.

I'd argue that the graduation standards have not decreased in medical schools since AA, but I do not have definitive proof.

 

[Exophase]

I'd argue that the graduation standards have not decreased in medical schools since AA, but I do not have definitive proof.

I don't know about graduation but it's at least being applied to admission to medical school. eg this http://www.cnn.com/2015/04/07/living/feat-mindy-kaling-brother-affirmative-action/

 

[glenn1]

It has only been around 50 years since blacks were murdered and beaten because they were trying to register to vote. We had congressman openly calling them racial slurs on the house floor. The only jobs they could get were subservient roles. Banks gave them no credit because they didn't have a history of credit, but they couldn't ever get credit in the past. And on and on.

These things aren't in the distant past. People living today lived through that. Its hard to even imagine that today.

Systematic racism against Asians isn't that far back either. The Chinese Exclusion Act, Japanese-American internment, state based discriminatory laws like the California Alien Land Law of 1913 were upheld by the SCOTUS under 14th amendment objections. Hell, the Magnuson Act which allowed bans against Asian ownership of property and businesses was only repealed in the mid 1960s. Wyoming didn't repeal its Alien Land Law that targeted Asians until 2001.

 

[Subyman]

And what is your answer to my question? Here it is again.. "Because whites only discriminate against blacks and hispanics?"

So Hispanics should do better in college than blacks if we are going to use your assertion, right? But look at the two links I posted in my previous post from UCLA and UC Berkeley, not even close.

The history of hispanics, african americans, and asian immigrants are completely different. You are being obtuse and playing dumb. My previous post was about african americans. Hispanics have their own issues such as language barriers, coming from extreme poverty, being first or second generation Americans, not having a strong transitional society (like asians have), being perceived as a labor class, being perceived as illegal, racism etc.

If you really want to look into the differences then look into the history of each and their culture. There are plenty of books on the subject. Your question has been answered before, but its a much bigger discussion than what this forum can handle. I'd recommend reading more into the current discussion.

FWIW, many Asian subgroups are having a really hard time. There are severe high school drop out rates among the Laotian, Hmong, and Cambodian Americans. Hmong have a nearly 40% rate of poverty in the US.

The percentage of American college students who are Hispanic, Asian/Pacific Islander, Black, and American Indian/Alaska Native has been increasing. From 1976 to 2013, the percentage of Hispanic students rose from 4 percent to 16 percent, the percentage of Asian/Pacific Islander students rose from 2 percent to 6 percent, the percentage of Black students rose from 10 percent to 15 percent, and the percentage of American Indian/Alaska Native students rose from 0.7 to 0.8 percent. During the same period, the percentage of White students fell from 84 percent to 59 percent.

http://nces.ed.gov/fastfacts/display.asp?id=98

These numbers closely reflect the demographics of the US. This is a great achievement and we would not have achieved this in such a short amount of time without AA.

Great news though! As time marches forward AA will become less and less important. :thumbsup:

 

[Subyman]

Systematic racism against Asians isn't that far back either. The Chinese Exclusion Act, Japanese-American internment, state based discriminatory laws like the California Alien Land Law of 1913 were upheld by the SCOTUS under 14th amendment objections. Hell, the Magnuson Act which allowed bans against Asian ownership of property and businesses was only repealed in the mid 1960s. Wyoming didn't repeal its Alien Land Law that targeted Asians until 2001.

I don't think anyone would argue that asians haven't been oppressed in the US. Their history is much, much different than other minorities.

 

[Atreus21]

People who are not exposed to people and cultures outside of their own tend to stunt their growth as individuals and tend to develop seriously wrong ideas about people other than themselves.

Take the South, for example. How many times have you heard hilariously wrong, pejoratives about the South from people who have never lived there and don't know anyone from there? I'm guessing more than a few times. Wouldn't things be better if people were less ignorant of it?

Yes they would, but should the South limit migrants only to those who meet some preconceived image of what the South thinks to be a "diverse" population?

Diversity has benefits, but trying to enforce it necessarily means racism - drawing conclusions about somebody on no other criterion than their skin color.

I've never understood the argument of 'trying to correct the ills of racism is racism.' This is similar to the argument that if you hate bigots you're a bigot yourself. The idea that an admissions process that tries to include more minorities is racist would imply that the system that applicants came from wasn't racist.

Can you tell me with a straight face that the average black kid has the same chance to get into top tier universities as the average white kid? If not, why? Are they lazier? Dumber? What? Jon Stewart showed this about as well as anyone could awhile back, it's a great clip to watch.

http://www.cc.com/video-clips/4u4hqr/the-daily-show-with-jon-stewart-bill-o-reilly

Whatever problems blacks as a group face, taking two applicants of exactly equal merit and giving one preference on basis of their skin color is racist.

I'll repeat what I said in the OP. Racism appears to be okay provided the right type of people are discriminated against.

 

[glenn1]

I don't think anyone would argue that asians haven't been oppressed in the US. Their history is much, much different than other minorities.

The class issue applies to Asians also. Why should the child of Oprah Winfrey or Michael Jordan get preferential treatment over some dirt poor FOB kid that escaped from Burma or North Korea? Why should the child of Jerry Yang (Yahoo founder) get preferential treatment over some dirt poor black kid from Haiti or white kid from Appalachia who never lived in a house with indoor plumbing?

 

[fskimospy]

Yes they would, but should the South limit migrants only to those who meet some preconceived image of what the South thinks to be a "diverse" population?

No affirmative action policy I am aware of does this.

Diversity has benefits, but trying to enforce it necessarily means racism - drawing conclusions about somebody on no other criterion than their skin color.

No affirmative action policy I am aware of does this.

Whatever problems blacks as a group face, taking two applicants of exactly equal merit and giving one preference on basis of their skin color is racist.

Why? If people of one race have to work harder to get to that position of 'equal merit' why is it racist to take that into account? Wouldn't it be racist NOT to take that into account?

 

[Subyman]

The class issue applies to Asians also. Why should the child of Oprah Winfrey or Michael Jordan get preferential treatment over some dirt poor FOB kid that escaped from Burma or North Korea? Why should the child of Jerry Yang (Yahoo founder) get preferential treatment over some dirt poor black kid from Haiti or white kid from Appalachia who never lived in a house with indoor plumbing?

I'm not quite understanding you here, are you saying AA would apply to a celebrity's kid and that is a reason against it? We are talking wide sweep general policy here...

Anyone with $$$ won't be hurting to get into a school.

 

[Svnla]

The history of hispanics, african americans, and asian immigrants are completely different. You are being obtuse and playing dumb. My previous post was about african americans. Hispanics have their own issues such as language barriers, coming from extreme poverty, being first or second generation Americans, not having a strong transitional society (like asians have), being perceived as a labor class, being perceived as illegal, racism etc.

If you really want to look into the differences then look into the history of each and their culture. There are plenty of books on the subject. Your question has been answered before, but its a much bigger discussion than what this forum can handle. I'd recommend reading more into the current discussion.

FWIW, many Asian subgroups are having a really hard time. There are severe high school drop out rates among the Laotian, Hmong, and Cambodian Americans. Hmong have a nearly 40% rate of poverty in the US.



http://nces.ed.gov/fastfacts/display.asp?id=98

These numbers closely reflect the demographics of the US. This is a great achievement and we would not have achieved this in such a short amount of time without AA.

Great news though! As time marches forward AA will become less and less important. :thumbsup:

Sure, all groups have their own problems and issues. I never claimed Asians are all that or perfect. But as a whole group, Asians are still doing well in HS and college than blacks and hispanics and they did not even have AA to fall back on.

I will put this here: Study ties hard work to Asian students’ higher grades. What’s your excuse?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...son-asian-kids-get-better-grades-study-finds/

 

[glenn1]

I'm not quite understanding you here, are you saying AA would apply to a celebrity's kid and that is a reason against it? We are talking wide sweep general policy here...

Anyone with $$$ won't be hurting to get into a school.

No, I'm saying the entire premise that just because you're black you're disadvantaged is complete and utter bullshit. And applying policies that act like that's true serves to fuck over the blacks who truly are disadvantaged. My niece and nephew, who live in an upper class household got AA benefits that probably hosed some other poor black kid out of a college scholarship. My kids may someday gain AA benefits that advantage them over actually disadvantaged kids (and mine certainly aren't). The entire premise of doing things to help people based on artificial race constructs is stupid, period.

 

[Subyman]

Sure, all groups have their own problems and issues. I never claimed Asians are all that or perfect. But as a whole group, Asians are still doing well in HS and college than blacks and hispanics and they did not even have AA to fall back on.

I will put this here:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...son-asian-kids-get-better-grades-study-finds/

Article says:

But the authors of the study also found that, by some measures, Asian youth may not be as happy. Asians in surveys were less likely to agree with the statement "I feel good about myself," and they reported spending less time with friends and feeling more distant from their parents.

Its a cultural and historical discussion. The Asian culture is performance based, as are facets of white culture. Which is likely why Asians do so well in white culture. Their culture and history aligns with ours in some ways.

As someone who taught in university, it is quite easy to see the difference between different backgrounds. A lot of foreign Asian students were amazing at book work, but they floundered during independent studies or open ended projects. White kids typically did very well in independent projects likely because American culture promotes individualization.

That cultural difference had a large impact on how foreign Asians performed in certain US education systems. That is only one small example.

 

[Atreus21]

Why? If people of one race have to work harder to get to that position of 'equal merit' why is it racist to take that into account? Wouldn't it be racist NOT to take that into account?

Because it's wrong to draw conclusions about people just based on their race. You shouldn't assume that black people are all downtrodden, nor that white people are all privileged. That's prejudice, by definition.

 

[Svnla]

Article says:



Its a cultural and historical discussion. The Asian culture is performance based, as are facets of white culture. Which is likely why Asians do so well in white culture. Their culture and history aligns with ours in some ways.

As someone who taught in university, it is quite easy to see the difference between different backgrounds. A lot of foreign Asian students were amazing at book work, but they floundered during independent studies or open ended projects. White kids typically did very well in independent projects likely because American culture promotes individualization.

That cultural difference had a large impact on how foreign Asians performed in certain US education systems. That is only one small example.

You "forgot" to mention the article says (first part of the story):

A study published this week in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences finds that hard work is the reason why Asian-American students do better in school than their white peers.

and

Hsin, who was born in Taiwan and grew up in the United States and Canada, said that even poor Asian immigrants benefit from having well-educated friends or relatives who can recommend a tutoring program for their children and help them understand the American educational system.

She and Xie found that students who responded in surveys that math was not an innate skill were more likely to work harder. But hard work was much more than the result of a student's belief in her ability to learn.

"If you are poor and working class, say, Chinese or Korean, your class disadvantage doesn't necessarily have to be as disadvantageous because you will have access to other ethnic resources," Lee said. "That kind of thing is not going to be measured in any kind of quantitative study."

Lee criticizes Chua's work in her commentary and elsewhere, but she does not believe that strict parenting is to blame for the fact that young Asians can seem unhappy compared to whites

I disagree the assertion of because if you are xxxxx then you suffered xxxxxx then you could not do xxxxx because of xxxx and xxxxxx and xxxxxxx and then <insert more excuses>.

 

[fskimospy]

Because it's wrong to draw conclusions about people just based on their race. You shouldn't assume that black people are all downtrodden, nor that white people are all privileged. That's prejudice, by definition.

Why is this wrong? Does every government policy have to ensure that not a single person is negatively affected? That doesn't make any sense, does it?

You're basically saying that any attempt to combat racism is itself racism. All that means is that the original racist status quo remains. So again, how is it anything but racist to ignore very real disadvantages that black Americans face?

 

[Exophase]

The history of hispanics, african americans, and asian immigrants are completely different. You are being obtuse and playing dumb. My previous post was about african americans. Hispanics have their own issues such as language barriers, coming from extreme poverty, being first or second generation Americans, not having a strong transitional society (like asians have), being perceived as a labor class, being perceived as illegal, racism etc.

Thank you, I wish more people would recognize this. Different groups have very different backgrounds and issues. It feels like these days there are a lot of people boiling down group dynamics to a simple matter of whether or not you're white, where all not-white people should be addressed the same way.

First and foremost there's definitely going to be huge differences when your ancestors immigrated vs predominantly being abducted and sold into slavery. And where immigration is concerned there's are big differences in practical implications between people who immigrated to escape poor conditions and those whose immigration was enabled by good conditions. For example, first or second generation immigrants Africa today are decently well off, probably because it's generally only the most well off that could even manage to leave.

There are some common shared issues that minorities will tend to all share, like being targets of stereotypes, vague xenophobia and straight up white supremacy. But fighting those things isn't enough. And people get frustrated because they hear a lot about racism and privilege and want people to lay off them because they don't see themselves as racist or what they ever thought of as privileged. That makes it harder for them to see practical issues others face and harder to accept things like affirmative action.

 

[Subyman]

No, I'm saying the entire premise that just because you're black you're disadvantaged is complete and utter bullshit. And applying policies that act like that's true serves to fuck over the blacks who truly are disadvantaged. My niece and nephew, who live in an upper class household got AA benefits that probably hosed some other poor black kid out of a college scholarship. My kids may someday gain AA benefits that advantage them over actually disadvantaged kids (and mine certainly aren't). The entire premise of doing things to help people based on artificial race constructs is stupid, period.

Seriously man, we are talking about disadvantaged groups, not cherry picking individuals in a group. AA is more complicated than you make it out to be. Many things come into the picture when admitting college students such as financial need, household income, socioeconomic position, scores, diversity, in-state/out-state, foreign-born, transcript, short essay, letters of recommendation, area of study, etc etc.

As you can see it is a hugely complex process where AA only comes into play if the college has trouble diversifying their student body.

"Artificial" race constructs have real world impact. Tell James Earl Ray that race is only a construct.

 

[Subyman]

You "forgot" to mention the article says (first part of the story):



and



I disagree the assertion of because if you are xxxxx then you suffered xxxxxx then you could not do xxxxx because of xxxx and xxxxxx and xxxxxxx and then <insert more excuses>.

Wait what? So disadvantages aren't disadvantages?

Your article shows the Korean man saying the poor benefit from ethnic based help!!!

 

[Svnla]

Wait what? So disadvantages aren't disadvantages?

Your article shows the Korean man saying the poor benefit from ethnic based help!!!

Why can't other groups have ethic based help as it was cited in the article? Who/what is stopping them? Evil racist whities?

 

[Subyman]

Why can't other groups have ethic based help as it was cited in the article? Who/what is stopping them? Evil racist whities?

They do! I seriously think you need to spend more time around minorities and their communities. I recommend volunteering at the local YMCA, meals on wheels, or some community project that will have you in contact with people other than your neighbors. At the very least explore the history of minorities in the US. Spend a day researching black, hispanic, and asian history. Just start on wikipedia with an open mind.

 

[Svnla]

They do! I seriously think you need to spend more time around minorities and their communities. I recommend volunteering at the local YMCA, meals on wheels, or some community project that will have you in contact with people other than your neighbors. At the very least explore the history of minorities in the US. Spend a day researching black, hispanic, and asian history. Just start on wikipedia with an open mind.

I am talking about ethic based help as in school/academic related help as it was cited in the article .

Pssssst.. I AM a minority so I know a thing or two about being disadvantaged, poor, and all the bad horrible stuffs in life.

 

[buckshot24]

I'm all for helping people who are disadvantaged but to assume all blacks need a hand up is simply ridiculous, racist, and untrue.

 

[ivwshane]

I am talking about ethic based help as in school/academic related help as it was cited in the article .

Pssssst.. I AM a minority so I know a thing or two about being disadvantaged, poor, and all the bad stuffs in life.

Oh shit he's a minority folks! That means he knows all about this minority stuff! And there is no way he can be racist.



/S

 

[buckshot24]

Because it's wrong to draw conclusions about people just based on their race. You shouldn't assume that black people are all downtrodden, nor that white people are all privileged. That's prejudice, by definition.

If a presidential candidate makes assumptions about a certain judge's ethnicity, that's bad. If it becomes institutionalized, that's good.

 

[Atreus21]

Why is this wrong?

Why is prejudice wrong? I don't know. Why does 2+2=4?

Does every government policy have to ensure that not a single person is negatively affected? That doesn't make any sense, does it?

I don't understand what you mean.

You're basically saying that any attempt to combat racism is itself racism.

Any attempt? C'mon - baloney. There are plenty of good ways to combat racism, one of which is to give all races the impression that laws, policies, and institutions generally look upon them without prejudice.

All that means is that the original racist status quo remains.

The status quo isn't racist. Looking at college applications without regard for race is the exact opposite of racist.

So again, how is it anything but racist to ignore very real disadvantages that black Americans face?

I'm not ignoring them. I don't think most reasonable people ignore them. But you don't commit individual injustices in the name of collective justice.