PF5
Ranger
Why Affirmative Action Started and What Happens If It Goes Away voanews
interesting read (before SC decision)...
interesting read (before SC decision)...
GOP Rep. Eli Crane Sparks Fierce Criticism After Saying ‘Colored People’ On House Floor
- Thread starter Polds4OSU
- Start date
Affirmative Action is not and never was racism. It understood that in the broad spectrum people who aren't white men have a set of societal issues that will bar them from being the most qualified. It never said "Hey white man, you don't get in, only brown people or women here." It said "as a whole, white men have access and these people don't. White men created the gateway systems, we need different ones for these groups or they will always be left behind." There are also class issues that hurt everyone, including plenty of white men and we now have programs for that as well that do the exact same thing based on income.
In my childhood, if you lived on the west side of Lawton you were almost certainly going to have a better chance at higher ed than the average student who lived in central Lawton. Lawton Ike had better neighborhoods and therefore better funding and more access to advanced classes. Lawton High was surrounded by old Jim Crow neighborhoods. Places that were originally built out of scrap wood from Ft. Sill. Funding being based on property taxes, well, you had a lot less options at Lawton High. Guess who lived in old Jim Crow neighborhoods that were not that long ago the only legal place non-whites could live.
This story plays out everywhere. I worked at a university and we were examining high schools in a specific metro area. One high school in the poorest district did not have a student with the ACT/SAT scores to qualify for admission in over 5 years. Every student we allowed in from that school had to be through alternative enrollment. Guess what race the majority of those students were not.
Under Affirmative Action public universities were already struggling to create a population of students that is representative of the population of their area. This decision will make them all whiter, no doubt about it, and recreate barriers to access for non-white male students.
There are certainly school districts that are not as strong as others. I have no doubt that the original intent was good, but attempting to solve that issue through a racial policy is not the solution. The way Affirmative action was utilized at UNC was racist.
Affirmative Action at UNC was based on the race of the student applicant. Great to add points for eligibility due to income level, school districts, etc. but UNC did so on skin color. Flat out some students were denied due to their race - that is racism.
Some universities provide that anyone in the top x% of a HS is eligible. That helps solve for underperforming school districts but doesn’t negate someone just on the color of their skin.
(Think of your example above. You said to guess what race the majority of students that came from the underperforming school. Now think about how some were given help and others not just due to race. How fair it that?)
Some universities provide that anyone that has an income under $xx has a lower tuition or receives additional funding. That’s helps solve for lower income HH but does negatively effect someone just for race.
Last edited:
Honestly, I struggle with affirmative action. I wish there were a better solution, but I'm not sure there is.
If affirmative action is established to address a racial issue, how can a racial policy not be the solution?
The counter argument here is without factoring in race, how do you ensure you are POSITIVELY effecting someone based on race? That's the whole point. Maybe you have issues with the principle of giving a benefit those who were historically held back because of their race. You're challenging the way this principle is applied, which is just going to create a circular argument.
I don’t think we should ensure that we are positively or negatively effecting someone based on race. I disagree that it should be the point. Someone is not born behind the 8-ball or with a silver spoon in their mouth because of skin pigmentation. People certainly can be beginning life journey well behind the starting line and others well ahead (that can be from being in a 1-parent family, fighting for food everyday, having little parental support, needing to work to help support your family, living in heavy crime community, living in a school district without proper funding and educators)———- but skin color again plays no part.
If we are talking helping people get to secondary schools, then the targets should be based on ways to get more students in lower performing HS. And get more students from lower income families. And get more students from communities with challenges. Which is what many schools do now.
I appreciate your response, but I believe we can absolutely target and help people without factoring in race.
And that's where we disagree in principle. From its inception people have been held back specifically because of their race and gender in this nation. It was literally written into the laws. You can't do that and then say "Nah, that doesn't hurt anyone generationally anymore." That's just deciding you don't care about it.
No, it is deciding to be fair. And care about everyone —- including the ones that are getting stepped on.
Question: So how long, in your opinion, should Affirmative Action and race-based policies continue. One more generation? five more? Ten more? Forever?
Until the generational effects of 200+ years of slavery and systemic government sponsored racism have been eradicated.
And they haven't.
But if you want a solid number: 1790 (Ratification of Constitution which ensconced slavery) -1965 (passage of the voting rights act) was 175 years of government sponsored racism.
Giving the generational victims of that government sponsored racism a little bit of an advantage in college admissions and employment for an equal number of years seems pretty fair to me....especially when we are talking about ALLOWING employers and higher education to do it if they want rather than MANDATING that they do so.
Last edited:
One thing I agree with you. We should allow private employers to do so. In fact, I personally think Harvard should be able to do what they want. But UNC is a state school. And the government should not sponsor racism or uphold racist, race-based policies. I am sad in this day that even has to be said.
Luckily, SCOTUS made a decision that hopefully will help. Americans are ready for fairness as all polls, including MSNBC, show that 2/3rd of Americans support the SCOTUS decision. Even in California, nearly 60% support ending the racial policies of Affirmative Action.
This is a very long read from the excellent Thomas Sowell. Fantastic exploration of Affirmative Action and similar policies abroad. Good info and educational.
www.commentary.org
“Affirmative Action”: A Worldwide Disaster
Arguments for and against “affirmative action” have raged for about twenty years in the United States. Similar arguments have provoked controversy—and even bloodshed—for a longer or a shorter period, in
www.commentary.org
So we just ignore the damage done by two centuries of explicit state racism, shrug our shoulders, proclaim an even playing field has been accomplished, racism and its effects are dead, and call it even.
Got it.
Seems "fair".
Glad you are in the extreme minority on this.So we just ignore the damage done by two centuries of explicit state racism, shrug our shoulders, proclaim an even playing field has been accomplished, racism and its effects are dead, and call it even.
Got it.
Seems "fair".
I know your posts are mostly just regurgitating talking points from your media sources…but WOW.
Last edited:
Haven’t you heard? Thomas Sowell isn’t “black enough “.This is a very long read from the excellent Thomas Sowell. Fantastic exploration of Affirmative Action and similar policies abroad. Good info and educational.
“Affirmative Action”: A Worldwide Disaster
Arguments for and against “affirmative action” have raged for about twenty years in the United States. Similar arguments have provoked controversy—and even bloodshed—for a longer or a shorter period, in
A good first step would be for anyone running for public office (say DA for example) to step down and demand that only minority women be considered. You know, put your money where your mouth is and all thatSo we just ignore the damage done by two centuries of explicit state racism, shrug our shoulders, proclaim an even playing field has been accomplished, racism and its effects are dead, and call it even.
Got it.
Seems "fair".
