SNIP Racism exists, but is not the "harsh reality in the work place" everywhere. Perhaps where you are, but not everywhere.Yes, you are... or at least it seems that way...I'm not ignoring it. If I concede your point that AA is necessary, will you tell me at what point will it becom unnecessary? On this forum, and in real life, I speak out against discrimination, regardless of its basis. Gender, sexual orientation, race, religion... I don't tolerate it around me. My whole point is that giving special consideration to an applicant of any kind, for any minority status, perpetuates the problem rather than alleviating it. Are you aware that many schools publish admissions statistics? I think that's where many of the discrepancies will become apparent. I think the schools should go one step further, and also publish statistics on applicant's who were not admitted. Those schools which show obvious discriminatory admissions practices should lose all government funding until the problem is remedied. Don't you think that would be a much better system? The schools and workplaces (excluding private ones, of course) should be forced to demonstrate admissions and hiring based on merit, and nothing more.
DC, I follow your line of reasoning and your argument against Affirmative Action has a certain merit which might be applicable in the
future, but not in the present. The playing field as you so call it is not yet equal. Simply desegegrating the workplace and schools does not make the situation equal. 57 years of civil rights is not long enough to equalize the economic and educational disparity of 388 years of slavery (the first recorded African slave in the Americas was in 1619). Even though I bring up slavery specifically, AA is not geared towards Blacks exclusively. Since American social hierarchy is quickly changing to one based on economic income, the question of access to such income is indeed important. To me, Affirmative Action is geared much more towards offsetting the evils of poverty than skin color. Primary public schools in poor districts receive much less funding than public schools in more affluent neighborhoods (i.e. South Central Los Angeles vs. Beverly Hills). This is important because the amount of money a school receives determines not only the basics such as lab equipment, swimming pools or new lockers, but also the quality and currentness of the textbooks, curriculum, and teachers. Add to this the setting of the school, and I would argue that there are less distractions for students at Beverly Hills than in South Central (i.e. the issue of personal safety for instance). These factors in combination would already inherently give the student at Beverly Hills elementary/high school an advantage over students in other school districts; regardless as to whether the students have the same skill set, IQ, parental support, or motivation to work hard. Now, let's take this one step further and discuss the disparity between public and private schools in lower education. Compare the education a student receives at Beverly Hills High School with a private preparatory school such as St. Paul's School in New Hampshire, one of the
internationally top ranked boarding schools in this country. The same thing applies here as in the previous comparison. Subsequently, let's compare the education a student from a public school in South Central L.A. receives with that of a student from St. Paul's School Prep, and follow them into the admissions process when they apply to college. Do you see any disparity here? Also, when taking the SAT, how many students from South Central will comprehend questions related to toboggans or skiing (I had those on my SAT)? In this scenario, we are
not discussing ability or motivation of students, but purely access to an adequate, much less competitive education when it comes to the musical chair game of college admissions. Parents want the best for their children and if they could afford it, many would send their kids to a college prep boarding school; unfortunately, most families in this country cannot; therefore, there must be some other way to compensate for this cum college admissions. It just so happens that skin color is only a symptom of a larger social ill that AA addresses.
You brought up the point of merit, which is fair enough, no arguments there. However, in the cases of elite higher education (and it is elitist because that's where everybody wants to be), in many instances we are talking about 1300 vs. 1325 SAT scores or 4.10 vs. 4.25 or 4.43 GPA's. All of these applicants are more than qualified and there comes a point when the numbers become meaningless; and at that point it is important to consider what other qualities an applicant can give to the student body. And honestly, being of a different ethnicity than the majority experience
is something worthwhile to impart to others. Going back to the first example, what do you think the life experiences of a student from South Central are as opposed to someone who's parents net more than seven figures per year? To give this discussion another facet, if you look at government statistics the majority of people on welfare are white; poor whites make a large part of this country's population. Affirmative Action has helped many poor white families send kids off to college, but of course, this has been conveniently forgotten in the AA debate.
Concerning admissions statistics, I was lucky enough to attend UC Berkeley before the passage of Prop 209 which ended Affirmative Action. Prop 209 passed the CA legislature my junior/senior year with devastating results. CAL has always been known as one of the most diverse student bodies in the nation, and indeed, that is what made being a student there so engrossing and interesting. Beyond it's world class Professors, facilities, eminent history, and proximity to San Francisco, CAL's students were its most important asset. However, after 1996, and the passage of prop 209, the diversity index took a huge plunge. The new entering class lost its percentages of minority students in the double digits, applicants for graduate school saw an overall drop of 18% in minority applicants with Latinos at 27% less than the previous year. The University of California's five medical schools saw a drop of 22% of minority applicants the admissions cycle after Prop 209. As a student, I witnessed first hand the loss of such diversity. The new entering class of freshmen was very white and asian; which has continued to the present day. UC Berkeley was quickly loosing its specialness and becoming another UCI or UCLA.
For comparison, the 1995 UC Berkeley freshman class: 41% Asian, 33% White, 17% Latino, 7% Black, 2% Amerid.
As for the UC Berkeley 2007 freshman class: 41.6% Asian, 29.7% White, 11.7% Latino, 3.9% Filipino, 3.1% Black, 0.5% Amerid.
Affirmative Action is still very relevent today, if not only in education. Until the representation of students in the top schools, as well as people in academia, or corporate executives, government, and so forth mirror the ethnic diversity of this country as a whole, I feel there is a need for AA or something similar.
Sources:
AFTER PROP 209: AFFIRMATIVE ACTION ON THE UC CAMPUSES
Minority Applicant Rate Drops at UC Berkeley, Blame Placed on Prop. 209, * U-Wire, 1/21/99
Asian Students Still Dominate UC Berkeley Demographic - NAM
Affirmative Action At UC Berkeley
EDIT: Mrs. Donna brings up another good point. Student athlete admits, especially for supposed cash cows like football or basketball are a joke. These kids might have athletic ability, but scholastically are dumb as rocks. Primary example: Jason Kidd. I remember numerous times in the tutoring center or dorms when other students did their assignments for them. How is that fair?
