College Acceptance

[Oracle]

As I have recently been filling out college applications, I have begun to notice the huge role race and heritage in general plays in college admissions. For example, the PSAT has different (lower generally) requirements for national merit scholarship nominations for african americans and hispanics (labeled as the national achievement scholarship program and the hispanic recognition program). I don't understand the logic behind this, as it assumes that it's harder for people of different races to score higher, which also leads to the assumption that non whites are not as smart as whites.

This also leads for people who are not white but come from a normal, middle class family (the same environment as his or her white peers) has more opportunities than they do based on their race, which is inherently unfair. what do you guys think?

 

[freeman123]

I wasn't aware of this, but my guess would be that colleges want to ensure that they have a decent amount of minorities attending their schools so that they aren't accused of being racist.

 

[Oracle]

That's the purpose yes. I wanted opinions of the morality of something like that

 

[Dragoon Fighter]

I think it is done out of a false sense of moral justification rather than the logical thing to do. I believe it should be equal for all sub-species of us humans (The term race is a misnomer, race indicates different species which we obviously are not different species as we are all human )

 

[freeman123]

It's not immoral of the colleges. They're just doing what they feel they have to do. We live in a culture where people are constantly looking for reasons to accuse someone of being a racist or a bigot; whether it applies or not.

If anyone is at fault, it's the people who would call a college racist for not having "enough" minorities(however many that is) even when the college has the same standards for everyone.

 

[1048576]

And yet women are accepted far more frequently than men and nobody bats an eye.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/education/2005-10-19-male-college-cover_x.htm

 

[ballin4life]

I definitely disagree with these sorts of affirmative action programs. It feels like they are trying to solve racism by creating a system of institutionalized racism. As OP pointed out, it also in some way leads to more racism, or at least resentment, when people think "oh well he only succeeded because of affirmative action".

Proponents also often claim that affirmative action is ok because it is "positive discrimination". This makes no sense to me, as you are inherently discriminating against another race. I mean, the Jim Crow South could claim "oh we are using positive discrimination - it's a privilege to use that water fountain"

To me it comes down to the old saying that two wrongs don't make a right.

Also, the focus on race in our society is ridiculous. We don't stratify people by hair color, or eye color, but your skin color is important for things like college admissions. The idea of race is really a social construct, created by slave owners and the like as an attempt to justify treating one group of people as inferior. We should stop dividing people into different races, just like we don't think of people as being of different hair colors.

 

[Bob Jane T-Mart]

I think it is done out of a false sense of moral justification rather than the logical thing to do. I believe it should be equal for all sub-species of us humans (The term race is a misnomer, race indicates different species which we obviously are not different species as we are all human )

Just to nitpick, you probably aren't even justified in calling different ethnic groups of humans subspecies. We're pretty much exactly the same. There is race is a biologically meaningless construct produced by our minds. In short, calling them a different subspecies is unjustified.

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lewontin%27s_Fallacy

 

[Grandeza]

Yeah I was just taking my PSAT recently. They asked me to put my race down supposedly so they could ensure that the test is fair for all races which didn't make sense to me. I just don't understand how if one race does worse as whole, how that shows the test needs revising. There was a big affirmative action case kind of recently with some fireman who passed his test but because not enough minorities did well on it, they tried taking back the test. I think the fireman won though.

edit- here we go
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=103289178

 

[Life]

As someone who also recently took PSATs, I find it truly strange that some people get special privilege because of something they were born with and have no control over (skin color) when that's exactly the kind of system we've been fighting for hundreds of years now. And just when it looks like we'd eliminated racism, it gets reinstitutionalized as "affirmative action".

I think I should look into the origins of affirmative action before commenting further.

 

[#HBC | Acrostic]

I think I should look into the origins of affirmative action before commenting further.

Historical Origin​

"Affirmative action" first appears in President John F. Kennedy's 1961 Executive Order 10925 which required government contractors to "take affirmative action to ensure that applicants are employed, and that employees are treated during employment, without regard to their race, creed, color, or national origin." It is the subject in the Civil Rights Act of 1964 even though it is not explicitely stated and later championed by President Lyndon B. Johnson during his presidency.

Since its inception, “affirmative action” took on a number of interpretations as arguments flared over its application in the work place and in American colleges. Critics stated that “affirmative action” was nothing more than reverse discrimination and that its own flawed means made it impossible to fulfill its purpose:

To count by race, to use the means of numerical equality to achieve the end of moral equality, is counterproductive, for to count by race is to deny the end by virtue of the means. The means of race counting will not, cannot, issue in an end where race does not matter (149).

These advocates contested that “affirmative action” should follow accordance with Title VI of the Civil Rights Act which stated, “[n]o person… shall, on the ground of race, color, or national origin, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance.” Title VII went on to prohibit employment practices that discriminated based on race, gender, religion, or national origin (but permitted exceptions).

The administration of the Civil Rights Act by federal courts throughout the 1970s crafted "affirmative action" to not be the compensation for past wrongs, offset unfair advantage, rewards the deserving, or yield a variety of social goods but to administer change to resilient institutions in order comply with nondiscrimination.

Thread: JC: On Affirmative Action

 

[Jim Morrison]

Regarding women being in college more than men:

Wether you get into college is determined by your high school/primary education. Those levels of educations are much more girl-friendly, because often times grades are also dependant on how something looks and if you can work as a team. Both of these are things boys like to do a little less, and therefor can't be bothered to put effort into it. Tadah, boys suck at high school because part of their grades which had very nice results got ***** by something that's in their nature.

 

[A1lion835]

There was actually a 1970's sex bias in college case. It really showed that you need to look pretty deeply at statistics before talking about them.

"Reverse discrimination" doesn't make any sense to me at all. "These people used to be discriminated against because of their skin color; now, we'll do something equally wrong against the people who used to benefit from discrimination." It's sad that society has forced this to happen.

My solution whenever filling out my race on tests is checking other and putting "human."

 

[1048576]

Regarding women being in college more than men:

Wether you get into college is determined by your high school/primary education. Those levels of educations are much more girl-friendly, because often times grades are also dependant on how something looks and if you can work as a team. Both of these are things boys like to do a little less, and therefor can't be bothered to put effort into it. Tadah, boys suck at high school because part of their grades which had very nice results got ***** by something that's in their nature.

Wow. Am I allowed to gender stereotype too?
Girls suck at math, therefore they shouldn't be getting in college as frequently as men. Therefore the admissions process is sexist.

 

[Jim Morrison]

You mean sexist?

 

[1048576]

Yeah, my bad. editing...

 

[asianaussie]

I'm just gonna go ahead and say that arguing equality is not all it's cracked up to be. Sure, everyone is human, but true equality is like perfection: easy to conceive but hard to achieve.

It's times like this that one must stop regarding racism as nothing but dreadful, and start thinking that racial discrimination (REMEMBER THAT DISCRIMINATION IS NOT ALWAYS NEGATIVE) may be helpful in introducing untapped talent to the community, or to equalise what is viewed as inequality. I'll introduce an example here: the indigenous Aboriginals of Australia. Every single nationalised test, quiz or college application will ask whether you are Aboriginal or a Torres Strait Islander. Some colleges have special bond privileges for Aboriginals or rural citizens. This is because they recognise there is inherent inequality in the teaching system, and that favouring one minority slightly may be a countermeasure. Cry racism all you want, racial discrimination is only bad as marked by existing examples, and I argue that it can be employed to positive means.

Racial minorities are unlikely to have the same level of education and opportunity as the mainstream majority on the whole. You can reference prominent minority scholars, the number of African-Americans in your college course, or specialist institutions, but the sad truth is that not everyone was entitled to a quality education, so this sort of discrimination has (slightly controversial) validity.

As to why I'm posting in a bunch of underviewed threads, it's because I read every thread from beginning to end before deciding which points to address, and I'm too short on time to bother with the 150+ post threads.

 

[ballin4life]

Why do you view people as categorized by race? There are plenty of non-minority people that did not get a good education, and plenty of minority people that did. Furthermore, people's accomplishments might be dismissed as being "due to affirmative action"

When is racism a good thing? What standards do you set that tell us whether racism is ok or not?

 

[asianaussie]

I do not intentionally view people by race: it is an unconscious categorisation based on stereotypes and statistics that are significant enough to merit division. This might sound detached, but viewing all races as precisely the same is a naive viewpoint when it is not reality.

As I previously stated, racism carries a number of negative connotations, usually pertaining to persecution or blatant inferiority labels. Nobody with a realistic viewpoint could possibly condone this. I'm not referring to racism, I'm referring to positive racial discrimination.

While you might say that there are plenty of non-minority people who did not get a good education, there are systems such as rural scholarships and extenuating circumstance bonds that aim to help that. Past that, take my example of indigenous Australians: the overall percentage of indigenous minority members who have completed a secondary education is very low when compared to the overall percentage of the white majority who have done so: roughly 25% compared to 85%.

I understand neither of these completion rates is an example of a perfect statistic, but those figures are far enough apart to show that, in a general example of a split minority/majority culture, there can easily exist a significant division that merits addressing, and one way to do so is with what you might even call 'preferential treatment'. While this might be unfair to some, there is already inherent inequality, and even though fighting inequality with more inequality sounds like a bad idea, I'd ask you to propose a better one before writing this particular criterion of selection as 'racist'.

 

[ballin4life]

If I discovered that blond haired people have a generally lower level of education than people of other hair colors, would you support giving preference to blond haired people?

There is no such thing as "positive racial discrimination", since treating one race more positively than others is also treating the other races more negatively. I mean you can say that whites only water fountains were "positive racial discrimination" as it is a privilege to use those water fountains. There is nothing distinctly different about "positive discrimination"

Why should those 25% have an advantage just because of their race?

If there is "racism in the system" then create some measures to address that directly (I'd like to see an example of this btw. It is entirely possible that disparities are due to other factors as well). Don't handicap other people because of the color of their skin.

 

[asianaussie]

The term 'positive discrimination' has a major difference in the intent behind the action. While the overall outcome is one group being treated less fairly, that is not the key intention. Besides, if you say that racism is always racism, then that must mean a special route to college courses and public lynchings stem from the same intent, no?

I'm arguing that the existing system favours indigenous communities with the intent of helping the minority, not to oppress the majority.

You're arguing that the system, unless perfectly equal, will always be oppressing somebody with the hammer of inequality.

While I prefer the world of theory as opposed to the world of practical solutions, sometimes the time comes where doing nothing to help a situation is worse than applying controversial means to help it, and there is no way you can bridge the education gap without some sort of preferential treatment towards those who need helping.

If blond people were a minority that had been mistreated or did not have the opportunities that the majority did, I would be in favour of giving them some form of leeway in an attempt to balance the scales.

I'd normally commend your moral stance, but in this case that stance is overly idealistic and ignores the reality of inequality existing. The reason no active measures addressing the 'racisim' inherent in the system have been put forth is because they would not be productive in bridging the gap.

 

[ballin4life]

What if the intent of whites only water fountains was to help out whites?

I also don't see why it has to be a policy to help out minorities. Why don't we examine the reasons behind inequality and attempt to address those rather than impose a blanket policy that gives preferential treatment to all minorities (regardless of whether they were disadvantaged or not).

 

[asianaussie]

You see, if colleges *only* accepted indigenous persons, then you would have a case there. Indigenous students are perfectly able to get in through the standard pathways, it's just that they also qualify for an additional pathway, with a small number of placements set out for them (and if these places aren't filled, anyone can have them). It's not as if not being a minority stops you from entering a course - the vast majority of courses at the colleges I've applied to have student attendance skewed towards the majority. This makes things easier for indigenous students, yes, but it's not as if the indigenous students take up large numbers of placements others worked hard for and deserve.

The reason we don't examine the source is because it's impractical. Inequality isn't like a leaky tap, fixable with simple, small-scale solutions. It's a complex scenario with roots in sociology and even psychology (which are both exceedingly imprecise to begin with). In an ideal world, we would address this, but it simply isn't practical. If you can come up with a practical possibility that will show results, I'm all ears.

 

[ballin4life]

How about not discriminating against people because of their race?

Why is it such a necessary goal to eliminate this inequality, that a policy of racism is justified?

 

[asianaussie]

You seem to be under the impression that this sort of discrimination is because indigenous populations received a few different alleles that made their skin darker - this is not the case. Races are not arbitrary designations: they take into account origin, traditions, and the like, and it is these origins and traditions that have caused them to be less accustomed to the majority's way of life. This is the degree of inequality you mention.

While you say two wrongs don't make a right, what will make a right then? You can't possibly expect to sit back and expect inequality to dissolve. It took a civil war to free the slaves, a decade and a half of protest to regain African-American rights, and 2 and a half decades of reconciliation efforts in Australia have achieved minimal results.

If you want to approach the situation with only equality, you will never achieve equality in the community.

 

[Life]

You can't possibly expect to sit back and expect inequality to dissolve. It took a civil war to free the slaves, a decade and a half of protest to regain African-American rights, and 2 and a half decades of reconciliation efforts in Australia have achieved minimal results.

Excuse me if I'm nitpicking and/or being fallacious here, but isn't this a sign that the policies implemented in Australia have failed to do anything in favor of aborigines?

Also, isn't it kind of insulting to minorities by implying they're unequal through "positive" racism?

 

[asianaussie]

Excuse me if I'm nitpicking and/or being fallacious here, but isn't this a sign that the policies implemented in Australia have failed to do anything in favor of aborigines?

Apologies for being unclear. The reconciliation attempts are all passive, with things like 'Sorry Books', NGO-organised marches, and the apology by our Prime Minister to the stolen generation. None of these were active committments that had lasting effect.

Also, isn't it kind of insulting to minorities by implying they're unequal through "positive" racism?

It would be insulting if and only if the discrimination was directed at them because of their genome. Instead, it is directed at them because they are, on the whole, in a far lower socio-economic bracket than the majority, have incredibly low education and employment rates, and receive very poor welfare (especially in the area of health). It is not because they are Aborigines that we should discriminate, it is because they are Aborigines in this time period: one where the changing world has not been kind to the Aboriginal culture. If they had been born 50 years from now, who knows? They might be part of the mainstream majority, and there would be no need for this distinction between 'us' and 'them', if I may use those terms callously.

 

[El Nino]

Speaking on the system in the U.S., Latino and black communities may produce fewer college-bound students because of the quality of education in certain areas where those communities are located. Poorer areas generally don't have well funded schools, though a teacher friend of mine suggests that the real problem starts at home, which is also reflective of the environment. Some kids, starting at the age of 5, may have already seen family members shot as a result of neighborhood violence. That kind of an environment works against a person psychologically.

Race is less of an issue than the socioeconomics of a neighborhood, and usually similiar races or ethnic groups reside in the same area. Sometimes culture affects it too.

Affirmative action-type programs are the system throwing minorities a bone. It attempts to make colleges and politicians look good; the changes are probably cosmetic at best. The roots of the problem run deeper than any quick-fix can solve.

I've seen some statistics suggesting that black students in California actually increased in numbers in colleges after affirmative action was banned. This may have been because one of the drawbacks of affirmative action is that it places students in colleges that are a tier above what their K-12 education trained them for; as a result, some of them may have had to drop out. But without affirmative action, maybe students were placing themselves into programs that were better fit with their educational background and personal ability.

I think, at the end of the day, I believe more in ordinary individuals than I do in the system. I think if we are going to pull ourselves out of the positions we were born into, we have to rely on ourselves. The politicians aren't going to do jack; their programs never worked for us anyway.

As far as affirmative action being harmful to non-minorities, I want to ask for evidence. Has there ever been anyone who was denied placement at a college due to race/ethinicity who totally washed out and had no other opportunities in life? I've heard of people being denied at a particular school based on affirmative action, but most of them seem to get accepted at other schools. I'm not saying it's fair; I'm just not sure how detrimental these programs are to non-minorities. I fully acknowledge that they probably don't actually help minorities, though.

 

[ballin4life]

You seem to be under the impression that this sort of discrimination is because indigenous populations received a few different alleles that made their skin darker - this is not the case. Races are not arbitrary designations: they take into account origin, traditions, and the like, and it is these origins and traditions that have caused them to be less accustomed to the majority's way of life. This is the degree of inequality you mention.

While you say two wrongs don't make a right, what will make a right then? You can't possibly expect to sit back and expect inequality to dissolve. It took a civil war to free the slaves, a decade and a half of protest to regain African-American rights, and 2 and a half decades of reconciliation efforts in Australia have achieved minimal results.

If you want to approach the situation with only equality, you will never achieve equality in the community.

Yes I can. Inequality in general will always exist.

Races are arbitrary designations, defined by a few physical characteristics. Other physical characteristics are not considered part of race.

The fact that certain races were discriminated against in the past is a bad thing, but at best reparations should come from the people that caused that harm. I don't believe in harming a whole group of people that had nothing to do with past discrimination.

Also, the protests etc. for civil rights are examples of ending unfairness, not instituting unfairness.

As far as affirmative action being harmful to non-minorities, I want to ask for evidence. Has there ever been anyone who was denied placement at a college due to race/ethinicity who totally washed out and had no other opportunities in life? I've heard of people being denied at a particular school based on affirmative action, but most of them seem to get accepted at other schools. I'm not saying it's fair; I'm just not sure how detrimental these programs are to non-minorities. I fully acknowledge that they probably don't actually help minorities, though.

That's incredibly specific evidence to ask for. Colleges don't come out and say "we rejected this person because of affirmative action".

Also you can't justify discrimination by saying "well they'll probably get into other colleges". It's almost like saying "well there are other water fountains for you to use".

 

[asianaussie]

Physical characteristics are the initial descriptors that help define the arbitrary designation that is 'race', but break it down further and you'll see a significant number of factors that merit address. Social factors are one: my example of aborigines is not misplaced, as very few Aborigines, even in relation to their own population, are prominent in any mainstream organised activity, not even sport or cultural ones, which should not be affected by the cultural split.

Whoever said that these college acceptance paths are to be instituted forever? They could be viewed as a means to reduction of the consequence of authoritarian prejudice. You can argue that people will look down upon people for it, but in truth it's not even publicised. Stigmatisation won't occur from such a trivial thing.

 

[El Nino]

That's incredibly specific evidence to ask for. Colleges don't come out and say "we rejected this person because of affirmative action".

No kidding. I wasn't seriously expecting that information to be readily available to the public.

Also you can't justify discrimination by saying "well they'll probably get into other colleges". It's almost like saying "well there are other water fountains for you to use".

I am aware. I wasn't trying to justify it. I just want to get a handle on how these policies actually affect people.

In theory, you could argue that it's bad. But in practice, does it actually change the outcome of a situation for anyone?

 

[ballin4life]

No kidding. I wasn't seriously expecting that information to be readily available to the public.



I am aware. I wasn't trying to justify it. I just want to get a handle on how these policies actually affect people.

In theory, you could argue that it's bad. But in practice, does it actually change the outcome of a situation for anyone?

If there is favoritism shown towards one race, then clearly outcomes are getting changed (if no outcomes are changed then there isn't really a policy of favoritism).

Physical characteristics are the initial descriptors that help define the arbitrary designation that is 'race', but break it down further and you'll see a significant number of factors that merit address. Social factors are one: my example of aborigines is not misplaced, as very few Aborigines, even in relation to their own population, are prominent in any mainstream organised activity, not even sport or cultural ones, which should not be affected by the cultural split.

Whoever said that these college acceptance paths are to be instituted forever? They could be viewed as a means to reduction of the consequence of authoritarian prejudice. You can argue that people will look down upon people for it, but in truth it's not even publicised. Stigmatisation won't occur from such a trivial thing.

Again, I say that maybe you should try to find out why Aborigines are not "prominent" or whatever. Perhaps the source of that is not even a bad thing. They might, as part of their culture, generally prefer not to engage in mainstream activities, or go to college, etc. I don't see it is a reason to impose a blanket policy that harms others.

Suppose that affirmative action is indeed a "reduction of the consequences of authoritarian prejudice" (I don't really think it is, since it IS an authoritarian prejudice itself). Then, you are arguing that in order to reduce the consequences of these negative actions of the past, it is perfectly ok to punish people who had no influence on those past negative actions. You are punishing people who don't deserve it.

 

[asianaussie]

Alright, so withholding things like a modern education and health welfare is better for their culture than helping their new generation live on and help preserve that culture?

If you're going to claim things like that, first learn about Aborigines. If I recall correctly, the quantified life quality of these Aborigines is, according to the UN, among the worst on the planet. Their life expectancy is very low. It is widely known in Australia that drug abuse and crime rates among Aboriginals is far higher than those of other minorities or the white majority. Not helping them and 'preserving' their culture isn't an argument here: a good majority of living Aborigines are urbanised and have adapted (a very loose definition of 'adapt') to mainstream culture. The minority remaining in Aboriginal settlements continue to spread their culture. I myself have experienced their culture, and any visitors to Ayers Rock (Uluru) can be immersed in their culture.

While you can take that overly moral view of two wrongs not making a right, allowing a wrong to remain a wrong isn't much better. Aborigines in particular need help. Programs like this are hurting neither the majority or minority communities, and are a compliment to education for Aboriginal students, which will hopefully reduce (even slightly) the crime rates and other undesirable activities among Aborigines.

 

[ballin4life]

I claimed nothing. I said it might be the case. You didn't appear to have any reasons why Aboriginies don't go to college, etc, and I was giving an example of a case where that would actually be ok.

If there is truly "withholding" of the ability to get an education, then fine, remove that. But that still is not justification for preferential treatment.

And again, by definition "programs like this" are hurting other groups of people, because they are giving preferential treatment to one group over another.

Also, where is the wrong in this situation? If they have an equal opportunity to get an education, then what is the problem with that? And even if there is a wrong, why is it justified to hurt others to make up for it?

 

[asianaussie]

There is no such thing as a perfect scheme to help everyone and not make sacrifices. That's too idealistic. This particular college entrance scheme has been institutionalised in Australia, because the maximum number of people being 'hurt' is still single-digit, and the potential to help those who have grown up in rural areas and represent minorities is greater, and can pay off in the long run (with these students, after graduating, returning to the understaffed rural communities, which are in dire need of many professions). The ultimate consequence provides numerous benefits, at a minor cost, which you of course won't accept, because there definitely exists a perfect way to help everybody >_>

The number of places set aside for Aboriginals and Torres Strait Islanders is shared with rural students as well, so it also allows for those non-minority students in rural areas to benefit from this. The ones who are being 'hurt' are competing for a number of places that has been reduced by a single digit sum.

Aboriginals don't really have an equal opportunity. With a lower socioeconomic bracket comes lower resources, especially monetary resources. They'll won't have a diverse choice of schools, and because quality schooling and higher house prices go together in Australia, they will most likely not be within the school zone of better educational institutes. It is for this reason, among others, that national testing takes into account whether or not a student is an Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander. This is not something we can cure easily, and it is only when one reaches tertiary education that the only factor in entering the majority of courses is academic prowess, and possibly an interview.

 

[ballin4life]

Yes, I generally don't accept harming innocent people just to help out a certain racial group (sounds awfully familiar right?).

When is it ok to have institutionalized racism, in your opinion? If you are going to support it in one instance and oppose it in others, you need to have some criteria that tell you whether racism is good or bad.

Also, you automatically equate race and socioeconomic status, which is racist to begin with. Are there any upper class or middle class Aboriginies, who are then benefiting unfairly from this policy, despite the fact that they are not at all disadvantaged? What about the non-Aboriginie poor person? Why is it ok to discriminate against him, even though he is disadvantaged as well?

I mean, you're not even saying the standard line of "there is racism in the system, and we are counteracting that". You're saying that just because Aboriginies are poorer on average, there deserves to be a blanket policy favoring them over others.

What is the problem with not asking for race at all, and treating everyone equally? It's possible to help out Aboriginies and other people of low socioeconomic status too without harming others (e.g. charity).

 

[asianaussie]

Yes, I generally don't accept harming innocent people just to help out a certain racial group (sounds awfully familiar right?).

Tell me, what is your definition of 'harm'? I don't see anything akin to terrorism or hate crimes (which is what you are attempting to imply, just get it out there :S) in what you are so eager to call 'institutionalised racism'.

When is it ok to have institutionalized racism, in your opinion? If you are going to support it in one instance and oppose it in others, you need to have some criteria that tell you whether racism is good or bad.

You're trying to push me into a corner, but I'm going to point out that while the ends do not justify the means, the intent determines both. If you intend to help one minority rather than intend to hurt the majority, then that is where 'institutionalised racism' begins to be viable. With 'harm' comes 'benefit', and the goal in a practical world is to balance the two. Every action, no matter how small, will have some sort of consequence. The colleges are offering rural and Aboriginal scholarships for places that could have gone to fee-paying students. They are also losing money for the sake of helping out a minority, and they still offer these scholarships. Why? Because the potential benefit is greater than the short-term losses.

Also, you automatically equate race and socioeconomic status, which is racist to begin with. Are there any upper class or middle class Aboriginies, who are then benefiting unfairly from this policy, despite the fact that they are not at all disadvantaged?

You cannot use the outliers and idiographic examples to override potentially monumental benefit for the greater community. While I am using a minority to argue its own case, using a minority within a minority has the issue of raw magnitude. There simply aren't enough people to make a case for helping everybody, while Aborigines as a population actually come up on the radar for nation-wide population ratio.

What about the non-Aboriginie poor person? Why is it ok to discriminate against him, even though he is disadvantaged as well?

He has a huge range of scholarship options, the opportunity to request exemption from or extension to examination conditions, and myriad other options that are not all open to Aborigines (eg. Outreach and bond options in medical and pharmaceutical courses). Should we also abolish these as unfair?

I mean, you're not even saying the standard line of "there is racism in the system, and we are counteracting that". You're saying that just because Aboriginies are poorer on average, there deserves to be a blanket policy favoring them over others.

There is always racism in the system. There are things that only certain races qualify for, such as Asian international student privileges. Do we remove these because they're racist? They're beneficial and only open to international students rfom Asia, so by your definition they're racist, right? We don't remove them because they help more than they hurt.

I have not mentioned or inferred any blanket policy: I've been talking about a small-scale scholarship and alternate entrance program for Aborigines and rural students.

What is the problem with not asking for race at all, and treating everyone equally? It's possible to help out Aboriginies and other people of low socioeconomic status too without harming others (e.g. charity).

To prevent any further moral (and that is all that your stance is, purely moral and not practical) attacks, let me say right now that this world will never be perfect, as you yourself have mentioned. The problem with this is that it's bloody impractical to go about assuming everyone should be treated perfectly equal because the quality of all society is a graph that rises to a plateau. Your definition of harm, as I see it, is so far spread that every action we could possibly take would lead to harm.

Charity isn't a bad idea, but I'll attack it for the sake of showing how wide your idea of 'harm' is. Contributing to charity would slowly create a cornerstone of dependance for minorities, who will now be less motivated because there is a security net of charity to catch them. They will not advance in society. Due to the nature of charity organisation front-stores, they are easily open to being robbed or attacked by desperate people, which harms the workers in the store. If charity is a success, increasing numbers of fraud charities may appear, scamming hundreds and thousands of people nation or worldwide.

Guess what? You can't refute these for the same reason I can't refute many of your examples. They aren't material, they don't have anything to work on, they are conjecture, but you cannot say they are 100% untrue.

 

[El Nino]

If there is favoritism shown towards one race, then clearly outcomes are getting changed

Okay. Then there must be stories out there of people whose lives were ruined due to affirmative action. I would just like to hear a few of them.

 

[ballin4life]

Tell me, what is your definition of 'harm'? I don't see anything akin to terrorism or hate crimes (which is what you are attempting to imply, just get it out there :S) in what you are so eager to call 'institutionalised racism'.



You're trying to push me into a corner, but I'm going to point out that while the ends do not justify the means, the intent determines both. If you intend to help one minority rather than intend to hurt the majority, then that is where 'institutionalised racism' begins to be viable. With 'harm' comes 'benefit', and the goal in a practical world is to balance the two. Every action, no matter how small, will have some sort of consequence. The colleges are offering rural and Aboriginal scholarships for places that could have gone to fee-paying students. They are also losing money for the sake of helping out a minority, and they still offer these scholarships. Why? Because the potential benefit is greater than the short-term losses.



You cannot use the outliers and idiographic examples to override potentially monumental benefit for the greater community. While I am using a minority to argue its own case, using a minority within a minority has the issue of raw magnitude. There simply aren't enough people to make a case for helping everybody, while Aborigines as a population actually come up on the radar for nation-wide population ratio.



He has a huge range of scholarship options, the opportunity to request exemption from or extension to examination conditions, and myriad other options that are not all open to Aborigines (eg. Outreach and bond options in medical and pharmaceutical courses). Should we also abolish these as unfair?



There is always racism in the system. There are things that only certain races qualify for, such as Asian international student privileges. Do we remove these because they're racist? They're beneficial and only open to international students rfom Asia, so by your definition they're racist, right? We don't remove them because they help more than they hurt.

I have not mentioned or inferred any blanket policy: I've been talking about a small-scale scholarship and alternate entrance program for Aborigines and rural students.



To prevent any further moral (and that is all that your stance is, purely moral and not practical) attacks, let me say right now that this world will never be perfect, as you yourself have mentioned. The problem with this is that it's bloody impractical to go about assuming everyone should be treated perfectly equal because the quality of all society is a graph that rises to a plateau. Your definition of harm, as I see it, is so far spread that every action we could possibly take would lead to harm.

Charity isn't a bad idea, but I'll attack it for the sake of showing how wide your idea of 'harm' is. Contributing to charity would slowly create a cornerstone of dependance for minorities, who will now be less motivated because there is a security net of charity to catch them. They will not advance in society. Due to the nature of charity organisation front-stores, they are easily open to being robbed or attacked by desperate people, which harms the workers in the store. If charity is a success, increasing numbers of fraud charities may appear, scamming hundreds and thousands of people nation or worldwide.

Guess what? You can't refute these for the same reason I can't refute many of your examples. They aren't material, they don't have anything to work on, they are conjecture, but you cannot say they are 100% untrue.

Now it looks like you're talking about scholarships, rather than biased admissions. I have no problem with privately funded scholarships (or even private schools that decide to have a racial policy). I might not like it, but private institutions should be able to do what they want with their money. My problem is with public funding and support for institutionalized racism. Affirmative action, to me at least, implies a blanket policy that some students are more likely to be accepted than others because of their race.

I was using the term harm loosely. Obviously it is not physical violence. You are still negatively affecting people's lives though. Perhaps a better word would be unfairness. But either way it is equivalent to having white only water fountains (not in magnitude of unfairness, but certainly they are pointed in the same direction).

What I want is for you to lay out a distinction between white only water fountains and racial admissions policies, explaining why the first is wrong, and why those reasons don't apply to racial admissions. It looks to me like you are saying that it is the intent that matters. So then past racism would have been ok if its purpose (however you determine that) was to help out whites, rather than hold down minorities?

I bring up these "outliers" to demonstrate the unfairness and the silliness of judging people by their skin color. Your supposed reason for affirmative action is to eliminate unfairness, but what exactly is unfair to the rich person who happens to have a certain skin color?

If there are certain "white only" scholarship options, then I wouldn't support those either. Could you give an example of these scholarship options along with the reason that they aren't open to Aborigines? I'm a bit doubtful that there is really a policy of "no Aboriginies" on that many things. And why can't Aboriginies request special exam conditions?

The international students from Asia thing sounds different, by the way, because it looks like it refers to people who live in Asia, not just people who are of the Asian "race", which is a very different situation. Basically, if a "non-Asian" person who happens to live in Asia could get accepted for those, then I have no problem with it.

Not really sure what you're going for with the Charity example, but it seems absurdly speculative and disconnected from reality to say that numerous fraud charities will suddenly appear (I mean, why haven't they already?) I think it's reasonable to say that Charity can be bad for the recipient, but it's at least a case by case issue.

If we want to talk about speculation, here's some:
If we continue to openly support race-based discrimination, then the spectre of racism will never completely disappear. I instead envision a world where people don't even consider other people's race when they meet them (just like you don't categorize people by their eye colors). You won't see a black person, or white person, or a whatever person, you'll just see a person. If we continue to view people through the lens of race then we will never move past it.

Okay. Then there must be stories out there of people whose lives were ruined due to affirmative action. I would just like to hear a few of them.

That doesn't follow, since colleges don't tell you why they rejected you.

 

[Oracle]

I'm just gonna go ahead and say that arguing equality is not all it's cracked up to be. Sure, everyone is human, but true equality is like perfection: easy to conceive but hard to achieve.

It's times like this that one must stop regarding racism as nothing but dreadful, and start thinking that racial discrimination (REMEMBER THAT DISCRIMINATION IS NOT ALWAYS NEGATIVE) may be helpful in introducing untapped talent to the community, or to equalise what is viewed as inequality. I'll introduce an example here: the indigenous Aboriginals of Australia. Every single nationalised test, quiz or college application will ask whether you are Aboriginal or a Torres Strait Islander. Some colleges have special bond privileges for Aboriginals or rural citizens. This is because they recognise there is inherent inequality in the teaching system, and that favouring one minority slightly may be a countermeasure. Cry racism all you want, racial discrimination is only bad as marked by existing examples, and I argue that it can be employed to positive means.

I understand the case with the aborigines; the same can be applied to the native americans living in the states. The reservations simply have very low quality of education and a poor environment for learning, and they attempt to factor that in with test scores. What I don't understand is with the minorities who aren't necessarily in those conditions.

Racial minorities are unlikely to have the same level of education and opportunity as the mainstream majority on the whole. You can reference prominent minority scholars, the number of African-Americans in your college course, or specialist institutions, but the sad truth is that not everyone was entitled to a quality education, so this sort of discrimination has (slightly controversial) validity.

Yes, unlikely. But why don't we just factor in the quality of the education? There are non minorities who get crappy education because they can't afford private schooling too. It doesn't make sense to give them an advantaged based on hypothetical lack of quality education (that may not even exist) while not giving those advantages to non minorities (majorities?) who must overcome the same circumstances.

In addition, there are minorities who do get qualification. In these circumstances, a minority who has similar test scores, grades, and a similar application in general to his classmates (basically the average students in the class) can get into much nicer colleges based soley on their heritage.