Racism, are we going too far?

[Kur]

Well it seems I am incapable of finding anything on the subject matter. Anything you will accept anyway. Perhaps you could help me out, since you seem to think this information is just lying around out there.

And what other claim? I don't know what you are talking about.

I believe I pointed out that the US and the UK are different places. Your country has a lot of families that come from old money. The US has only been a country for a couple hundred years and the majority of people in this country come from poor immigrant families.

And I don't care how the higher education system works in your country. This debate is about the system in the US. Here, nobodies tuition fees are covered 100% just because. If you want to go to college, you have to apply for financing usually in the form of scholarships and student loans. These can run into living expenses and such, or you may only qualify for half the tuition you need and you may have to work while going to school to pay your tuition.

And great, I am glad your friend is getting good grades. Big deal, it has no bearing on this debate. I already agreed that universities should look past grades when selecting a new student. But to give a student a higher likelyhood of acceptance because of their parents economic background is unfair to the other students who did not have dirt poor parents.

And I believe I pointed out that what you are describing is not affirmative action. Affirmative action is exactly what I have been describing to you, which would be giving one person preferential treatment over another, because of their race, gender, or economic background.

If the system you guys use over their genuinely selects the students that deserve the spot, then fine, I am not arguing with it. I am arguing that affirmative action, applied to economic status, (which is leagues different than what you are describing) is a bad idea. Affirmative action applied to economic status would not select the more qualified student, it would select the poor student, no matter the qualifications.


We are arguing two different topics as if they were one.



And if students in your schools are being actively discouraged from going to college, then you have a serious problem with your education system anyway. We have a serious problem with our education system, but even so, any teacher even accused of telling a student not to go to college would likely be fired. At the very least they would be suspended. Probably have a lawsuit filed against them as well, for 'intellectual harm of a minor' or some dumb thing.

 

[SuperBowser]

If a poor kid applies himself in his school, no matter what school he is in, he can get to a college somewhere. As it is right now, a poor black kid (and yes, asians too) have an easier time than even a rich white kid.

There's your other claim. This is a debate (not the pool room) and it's not up to me to prove your 'facts'. Just like the black people and mental health one, you can't just sit in a topic making ridiculous claims if you're not willing to back them up. These 'facts' will have to be discarded in this debate if you don't prove them.

I do not know about affirmative action or your scholarship system. But that doesn't mean I can't call you out when you say things like:

''If a kid really is very intelligent, top of their class, and all that, they should have no trouble getting into a university on their own merit, without having the standards lowered to suit them.'',

''Black people tend to be in lower socioeconomic groups because they don't do anything to get out of them. Same with white people that are in lower groups.''

and

''It is exactly my point that they should not have an easier ride to college. You are trying to tell me a poor student should have a lower standard to reach than a wealthy student. My point is that there is no reason for that at all.''

America and England's social structures aren't that different. If it is truly easier for ethnic minorities/people from lower social classes to get into higher education give me statistics showing an overrepresentation of these groups. In england, these groups are severely underrepresented (statistics in last post). How do you explain this? The fact that they are underrepresented means it isn't easier to get into higher education like you keep claiming.

Affirmative action applied to economic status would not select the more qualified student, it would select the poor student, no matter the qualifications.

No, they still have to meet threshold grades and probably tick all the other boxes like extra curriculars, good personal statement/essay (don't know what you call it) etc.



Btw, medicine is known for having a very low dropout rate. Once you get into uni, your background won't help you in the exams. If you're not good enough you won't pass, so my story is relevant. All the students who get in through that route are just as capable. If you want to disreagard this example, you can't exactly use yourself as an example to prove opportunity is equal either. You're not statistically significant.

I also disagree when you say a place is 'taken away' from another student. The place was never theirs to begin with and it's up to the colleges to decide who gets what.

 

[Kur]

There's your other claim. This is a debate (not the pool room) and it's not up to me to prove your 'facts'. Just like the black people and mental health one, you can't just sit in a topic making ridiculous claims if you're not willing to back them up. These 'facts' will have to be discarded in this debate if you don't prove them.

The problem is that you are applying the way the school systems work in your country, to the school systems in my country.

Here, if you get good grades, score well on SAT tests, and apply for scholarships in a timely manner, you are going to get them. If one scholarship turns you down, there are 40 more waiting to say yes. And even if you don't get any scholarships, there are no student loan programs that will say no to kid with good or even decent grades. Every student in the US has access to all of these scholarship and loan applications. The only reason a kid with good grades would not get funding for higher education is if they didn't bother to try, or waited too long to apply. And if you are a minority, one of two things happens under the veil of affirmative action.

1. The standards needed to qualify for those scholarships is lowered.

2. The standards are the same for all races, but minorities are chosen before whites.

That IS the way it works. It isn't an outrageous claim, and if you had any idea at all about the US school systems, you wouldn't be questioning it. If anybody is making an outrageous claim, it is you, because you have no authority to call my information into question when you (admittedly) have no information of your own on the subject.

I do not know about affirmative action or your scholarship system. But that doesn't mean I can't call you out when you say things like:

''If a kid really is very intelligent, top of their class, and all that, they should have no trouble getting into a university on their own merit, without having the standards lowered to suit them.'',

Yeah, what is hard to understand here? If a kid is top of their class, there isn't a scholarship program in the US that would say no to them. A kid who gets top of his class can write his own ticket. He may not get to go to whatever college he wants, but he is going somewhere.

''Black people tend to be in lower socioeconomic groups because they don't do anything to get out of them. Same with white people that are in lower groups.''

This is exactly right. If you are in a hole, you are going to stay in that hole until you climb out. You could wait in the hole until somebody comes along and pulls you out, but you are better off doing it yourself because that is the only way to be sure you will get out. And in the US, there is NOTHING stopping you from doing that. "I'm poor because my daddy was poor and his daddy was poor to." is a cop-out. Every child who goes to school in the US is given the same opportunities regardless of their parents financial situation.

and

''It is exactly my point that they should not have an easier ride to college. You are trying to tell me a poor student should have a lower standard to reach than a wealthy student. My point is that there is no reason for that at all.''

This isn't a claim. This is a summary of our conversation.

America and England's social structures aren't that different. If it is truly easier for ethnic minorities/people from lower social classes to get into higher education give me statistics showing an overrepresentation of these groups. In england, these groups are severely underrepresented (statistics in last post). How do you explain this? The fact that they are underrepresented means it isn't easier to get into higher education like you keep claiming.

Actually it is clear that the US and Englands social structures are very different. But that is beside the point.

Yes, there are less minorities in higher education than the population would indicate their should be. So? That doesn't mean the opportunity isn't available to them. And making something easier doesn't mean that people are going to rush in to do it. If I find a way to make hunting deer easier, would I expect to have a flood of people trying to go hunt deer just because of that? No, you are either a hunter, or you are not.

Black and especially hispanic high school students have a much higher drop out rate than white students in the SAME SCHOOLS in the same class rooms. High school that is required by law that they attend until they are 16. This has nothing to do with opportunity, family wealth, ancestors being slaves, or any of that. They can go to school for 16 years, why not another 2 and finish high school? I don't see how large numbers of minority kids will ever get to college if they keep dropping out of high school at the rates they are dropping out. It seems that a full education is simply not as important to certain groups of minorities (with exceptions, asians have the lowest drop out rate in the US) as it is to whites.

Call this a difference in racial societies or whatever, but do you really think making it a little easier to get into college will change a kids mind about whether education is important or not? No, it just makes it easier for the minority who was ALREADY going to go to college, sometimes at the expense of a white kid.

That is why there are not more minorities in higher education. Now to answer your question, which I can sum up as "Is it easier for minorities to get into higher education than non-minorities applying for the same funding, or spot in the university?"

The answer is: Under Affirmative action, YES. If there was no affirmative action anymore, the answer would be no.

As I pointed out, making something a little easier is not enough to get people to do something they don't intend to do anyway.

No, they still have to meet threshold grades and probably tick all the other boxes like extra curriculars, good personal statement/essay (don't know what you call it) etc.

Well of course they do. I never said it was a cake walk. I just said it was easier for minorities. There are varying degrees of easy you know.

Affirmative action simply lowers the standards, or selects a minority over a non-minority. all of those things are still required.

Btw, medicine is known for having a very low dropout rate. Once you get into uni, your background won't help you in the exams. If you're not good enough you won't pass, so my story is relevant. All the students who get in through that route are just as capable. If you want to disreagard this example, you can't exactly use yourself as an example to prove opportunity is equal either. You're not statistically significant.

Fine. I already said (twice I think) that if that particular system works over there, then great. But here, where the system is fairly different, it would not work. Here, if you allow an all C student into medical school, you are going to end up with an all C student in medical school. In this country, all of the schools have the same basic curriculum, are funded by the government, and have lesson plans, laid out by officials in some back room somewhere. Essentially, all the public schools here are the same level of garbage. If you get an A in one of them, you would likely get an A in all of them. There is is no reason to think a kid who got all C's would ever get A's at a university.

I also disagree when you say a place is 'taken away' from another student. The place was never theirs to begin with and it's up to the colleges to decide who gets what.

Yes I see your point. But it sort of is taken away from another student. If two students apply to a university and there is only one spot available, under affirmative action the minority will get the spot even if the non-minority had slightly better grades, or more extra curriculars (which I always thought was a stupid thing to look at for college acceptance anyway) or whatever the case may be. Under affirmative action in the US, a spot that should rightfully go to a non-minority, will be given to a minority.

In the mid to late 90's affirmative action even spawned quotas. Colleges had to higher a certain number of black professors, even if there was a white professor who was more qualified to do the job. Businesses had to hire a certain number of black or hispanic people into upper managment, even if they couldn't find enough of them to fill the positions.

This aspect of affirmative action lasted for a good 10 years or so until people finally realized what a racist thing it was. But there are still many more examples of how affirmative action is racist, unfair, and hurts far more people than it helps.

 

[Deleted member]

 

[RDK]

There's your other claim. This is a debate (not the pool room) and it's not up to me to prove your 'facts'. Just like the black people and mental health one, you can't just sit in a topic making ridiculous claims if you're not willing to back them up. These 'facts' will have to be discarded in this debate if you don't prove them.

I do not know about affirmative action or your scholarship system. But that doesn't mean I can't call you out when you say things like:

''If a kid really is very intelligent, top of their class, and all that, they should have no trouble getting into a university on their own merit, without having the standards lowered to suit them.'',

''Black people tend to be in lower socioeconomic groups because they don't do anything to get out of them. Same with white people that are in lower groups.''

and

''It is exactly my point that they should not have an easier ride to college. You are trying to tell me a poor student should have a lower standard to reach than a wealthy student. My point is that there is no reason for that at all.''

America and England's social structures aren't that different. If it is truly easier for ethnic minorities/people from lower social classes to get into higher education give me statistics showing an overrepresentation of these groups. In england, these groups are severely underrepresented (statistics in last post). How do you explain this? The fact that they are underrepresented means it isn't easier to get into higher education like you keep claiming.

But the extent that it's taken to is truly ridiculous. I should know. I go to the University of Michigan.

If you're caucasian and have a high GPA and standardized test scores in high school, you have a lower chance of getting accepted into U of M than someone who is African American and has a lower GPA and test scores than you.

Liberal bias is destroying white people in this country. I have no problem with other races, but at the point where other races are given preference over white people just because they're another race, it becomes ridiculous. I don't care if their ancestors were enslaved or their land was taken 100 years ago. Minorities aren't effected by that IN THE LEAST nowadays, and they shouldn't be given unfair advantages over white people.

Racist bias is even evident when you go looking for a job now. Companies have to have a diverse workforce, or they risk a law suit over being racist. It doesn't matter who's better for the job--what matters is that you have a racially diverse work force.

 

[1337marth]

But the extent that it's taken to is truly ridiculous. I should know. I go to the University of Michigan.

If you're caucasian and have a high GPA and standardized test scores in high school, you have a lower chance of getting accepted into U of M than someone who is African American and has a lower GPA and test scores than you.

That is not right if you do better, and then a African American with lower GPA gets in. I really just wish it was all equal.

 

[SuperBowser]

Hi, sorry for the late reply. My computer's been broken and I've been generally busy/lazy over the holidays

The problem is that you are applying the way the school systems work in your country, to the school systems in my country.

Here, if you get good grades, score well on SAT tests, and apply for scholarships in a timely manner, you are going to get them. If one scholarship turns you down, there are 40 more waiting to say yes. And even if you don't get any scholarships, there are no student loan programs that will say no to kid with good or even decent grades. Every student in the US has access to all of these scholarship and loan applications. The only reason a kid with good grades would not get funding for higher education is if they didn't bother to try, or waited too long to apply. And if you are a minority, one of two things happens under the veil of affirmative action.

1. The standards needed to qualify for those scholarships is lowered.

2. The standards are the same for all races, but minorities are chosen before whites.

That IS the way it works. It isn't an outrageous claim, and if you had any idea at all about the US school systems, you wouldn't be questioning it. If anybody is making an outrageous claim, it is you, because you have no authority to call my information into question when you (admittedly) have no information of your own on the subject.

I'm going to try and condense this whole debate because after taking a step back I feel like a lot of my words have been twisted during this debate and we're forgetting the core issues.

Earlier, adumbrodeus stated that asians do not get these same benefits, yet you responded by saying it's easier for asians to get into uni than caucasians. That is what I want you to prove (and from what I've read adumbrodeus is right...). You haven't proved this at all.

Second of all, I don't need to have authority on the subject to question you. Affirmative action/additional points(?) for lower socioeconomic groups are currently given in america. You say it's wrong, therefore you should provide valid facts for why it is wrong (you have made claims). If I ask you to verify a claim and you can't, that's not my problem. It just means you argument is poor. Notice how I don't need any knowledge on the subject to do this?

I'd like you to define what you believe opportunity is. I get the impression we're not using the same definition. There are so many social studies that quite happily conclude that lower socioeconomic groups do indeed have less opportunities in the world. Life isn't fair, and we aren't all born equal, as much as we may like to believe it.

I want to make one thing clear. There are two very different topics we have been covering here - race and social class. I have been focusing on social class because this is the issue I feel strongly about. Honestly, I also disagree with race being an advantage in admissions. I just disagree with many of the reasons you have given in this topic. But I do believe social class has a place in admissions forms, so please don't mix my words up.

btw, you stated (i quoted it earlier) an ethnic minority would get the place ''regardless of qualifications''. I corrected you on that, so no need to pretend my reply was out of order.

 

[Indigo4]

Just throwing my 2 cents in here.

What drives me nuts is that people who try to be "cultural" are often racists themselves. By forcing others to partake in culturaly diverse activities or eat diverse foods, they are not respecting the rights and cultures of those people. Whenever we elevate one race, for example, having a Black history month, we segregate everyone else. It's reverse racism, yet just as ignorant. Why not simply have a "History month?" We are all people, and all equal after all. :/

 

[RDK]

Just throwing my 2 cents in here.

What drives me nuts is that people who try to be "cultural" are often racists themselves. By forcing others to partake in culturaly diverse activities or eat diverse foods, they are not respecting the rights and cultures of those people. Whenever we elevate one race, for example, having a Black history month, we segregate everyone else. It's reverse racism, yet just as ignorant. Why not simply have a "History month?" We are all people, and all equal after all. :/

That's what I hate also. By having a "Black History Month", they're just waving the fact that their different from you in everyone's face. Why not just acknowledge that we're all people instead of forcing others to celebrate a certain race's history?

 

[Deleted member]

What I hate more is when people come into the bookstore that I work at and ask for the "Caribbean Literature Section"

 

[Kur]

Earlier, adumbrodeus stated that asians do not get these same benefits, yet you responded by saying it's easier for asians to get into uni than caucasians. That is what I want you to prove (and from what I've read adumbrodeus is right...). You haven't proved this at all.

No, he was right, to an extent. Most organizations that follow affirmative action do not include Asians as minorities. This is actually because of a racial stereotype of Asians being 'smarter' in school, therefor not in need of any assistance. Though there are still quite a few companies that will list Asians as minorities under their own Affirmative action regulations.

Second of all, I don't need to have authority on the subject to question you. Affirmative action/additional points(?) for lower socioeconomic groups are currently given in america. You say it's wrong, therefore you should provide valid facts for why it is wrong (you have made claims). If I ask you to verify a claim and you can't, that's not my problem. It just means you argument is poor. Notice how I don't need any knowledge on the subject to do this?

No, affirmative action is NOT giving anything to lower socioeconomic groups. It is giving to races. It is based purely on race, nothing else. You do need some knowledge because you are asking me if something is wrong, that doesn't even happen. You are essentially putting words in my mouth, then asking me to back them up.

I'd like you to define what you believe opportunity is. I get the impression we're not using the same definition. There are so many social studies that quite happily conclude that lower socioeconomic groups do indeed have less opportunities in the world. Life isn't fair, and we aren't all born equal, as much as we may like to believe it.

No life isn't fair. We aren't all born with the same amount of money, good looks, or kind loving parents. But none of that has anything to do with opportunity. In the United States, the opportunity is available to everybody. Your particular situation may hinder your ability to seize that opportunity, but the school system here in the US gives that opportunity to any student who gets even mediocre grades. Even the poorest kid has an equal chance at going to college than anybody else, as long as he gets decent grades and applies for the loans/scholarships in time.

I want to make one thing clear. There are two very different topics we have been covering here - race and social class. I have been focusing on social class because this is the issue I feel strongly about. Honestly, I also disagree with race being an advantage in admissions. I just disagree with many of the reasons you have given in this topic. But I do believe social class has a place in admissions forms, so please don't mix my words up.

That is what I have been trying to say. In the US right now, Affirmative action deals only with race. It doesn't care about your social class.

I have been trying to say that race nor social class should be any factor in determining who gets a job, scholarship, loan, or anything else because in this country, the opportunity ALREADY IS equal to everybody.

btw, you stated (i quoted it earlier) an ethnic minority would get the place ''regardless of qualifications''. I corrected you on that, so no need to pretend my reply was out of order.

That is taken a bit out of context. I am not going to bother going back and looking for the exact quote, but I believe it was referencing some examples I gave of a white kid and black kid applying for the same position and the black kid getting the position even if his qualifications were not as good as the white kids.

I certainly did not mean that a minority would get a position with failing grades over a white kid with good qualifications.

 

[SuperBowser]

No, affirmative action is NOT giving anything to lower socioeconomic groups. It is giving to races. It is based purely on race, nothing else. You do need some knowledge because you are asking me if something is wrong, that doesn't even happen. You are essentially putting words in my mouth, then asking me to back them up.

err, I haven't put words in your mouth. I have taken specific quotes from you and asked you to provide valid sources for those quotes. You failed to do so. Considering so much of your argument rested on these claims it's important you prove them to be true. Why should anyone believe you otherwise?

One example was your claim that most wealthy people did not have wealthy parent. I know for a fact this is wrong, and you've yet to provide a source to prove your claim. I'll give you a source for this one: http://www.statistics.gov.uk/pdfdir/poptrends0905.pdf Nowhere near what you said. America is not that different from England for this issue so don't use that excuse.

All the other claims I asked you to verify? Well I know for a fact that they're false too. But it doesn't matter because it's not my job to prove you wrong. It's your job to provide sources or concede those points when I question you on them. Stop making pointless claims then twisting the topic so you don't have to answer me. The claims I've asked you to verify are all pretty clear in past posts.

I'm aware affirmative action and social class are separate. The sentences you quoted me on was just horribly written, sorry. I'm not sure what happenned there My point was that you haven't provided sources for anything I've asked you to so far.

No life isn't fair. We aren't all born with the same amount of money, good looks, or kind loving parents. But none of that has anything to do with opportunity. In the United States, the opportunity is available to everybody. Your particular situation may hinder your ability to seize that opportunity, but the school system here in the US gives that opportunity to any student who gets even mediocre grades. Even the poorest kid has an equal chance at going to college than anybody else, as long as he gets decent grades and applies for the loans/scholarships in time..

I've bolded the important part. I've always understood this to be an important part of the definition of opportunity so maybe we were never on the same page. I believe sociology includes circumstance as part of the definition of opportunity. Sociological studies conclude that lower social classes (and black people in america...) have less educational opportunities.

That is taken a bit out of context. I am not going to bother going back and looking for the exact quote, but I believe it was referencing some examples I gave of a white kid and black kid applying for the same position and the black kid getting the position even if his qualifications were not as good as the white kids.

I certainly did not mean that a minority would get a position with failing grades over a white kid with good qualifications.

I'll bring the full quote back up for you then because that's not the case...

''If the system you guys use over their genuinely selects the students that deserve the spot, then fine, I am not arguing with it. I am arguing that affirmative action, applied to economic status, (which is leagues different than what you are describing) is a bad idea. Affirmative action applied to economic status would not select the more qualified student, it would select the poor student, no matter the qualifications.''

My response was fair.

btw, I found an interesting article on affirmative action. http://www.princeton.edu/main/news/archive/S11/80/78Q19/index.xml?section=newsreleases. I think that's worth reading for anyone that cares about affirmative action and the impact of removing it.

 

[Liquid Entropy]

I think the question in all of our hearts, the real question, is this:
Racism: Are we going far enough

I kid.

But for serious:
Far be it from me to pretend as though I don't see race, or that it doesn't influence me. I do and it does.
I do what I can not to be a **** and judge people based on their exterior.
It's a hit and miss endeavor, but I do endeavor.

I kind of get it, though. I mean, I'm a whitey. The majority of folk I see look more like me than not like me, and grew up in a similiar context. I could see how somebody's identity might feel under pressure when everybody they see tends to NOT look like them, and tends to look at them as being different. More power to the person who can experience that, live in it, and not be shaped by it.

On a side note, I found out that there are other countries were racism is par for the course. I mean, honest to goodness knee-jerk racism to a degree you just can't find in the U.S.. And when I say that, I mean that you can't find it because America land is diverse. You got to WANT to be racist to be seriously racist in Americaland, because you won't be able to get along for too long if you can't handle a little variety. There are other countries, less diverse, where racism is kosher, even patriotic.
That was a suprise to encounter folk like that. And the funny thing is that they weren't hateful about it, it was just part of their cultural identity. How ironic.

 

[Tomkraven]

racism has gone this far because it keeps appearing in all media. the most you talk about racism the most racism is going to be. Nowadays, people tends to exagerate everything specially ethnical issues and specially in the USA. People should realize that not everyone is concerned about which ethnic group they are part from. The only way to make racism disappear is by forgetting about it.

EDIT: EXCUSE BE ABOUT MY BARELY DECENT ENGLISH

 

[Kur]

err, I haven't put words in your mouth. I have taken specific quotes from you and asked you to provide valid sources for those quotes. You failed to do so. Considering so much of your argument rested on these claims it's important you prove them to be true. Why should anyone believe you otherwise?

I've given sources in this thread. Several actually. Just because you don't read them doesn't mean they aren't there.

One example was your claim that most wealthy people did not have wealthy parent. I know for a fact this is wrong, and you've yet to provide a source to prove your claim. I'll give you a source for this one: http://www.statistics.gov.uk/pdfdir/poptrends0905.pdf Nowhere near what you said. America is not that different from England for this issue so don't use that excuse.

lol. the US and England ARE DIFFERENT. England is full of families that go back dozens of generations, with hundreds, if not thousands of years of culture. Plenty of time for several of them to accrue wealth and pass it on to their heirs. The US was founded a few hundred years ago by poor immigrants and a very small contingent of wealthy land owners.

All the other claims I asked you to verify? Well I know for a fact that they're false too. But it doesn't matter because it's not my job to prove you wrong. It's your job to provide sources or concede those points when I question you on them. Stop making pointless claims then twisting the topic so you don't have to answer me. The claims I've asked you to verify are all pretty clear in past posts.

I am not making pointless claims. I am telling you the truth, with sources I HAVE given. I don't twist anything.

I've bolded the important part. I've always understood this to be an important part of the definition of opportunity so maybe we were never on the same page. I believe sociology includes circumstance as part of the definition of opportunity. Sociological studies conclude that lower social classes (and black people in america...) have less educational opportunities.

If you are only reading the bolded part, you are just quote mining. The very next sentence states that the school system in this country gives any opportunity lost to social situations, back to any student willing to get the grades to earn that opportunity. And since it is required by law that all children attend school until the age of at least 16, I fail to see why we need ANOTHER expensive, unfair, government program to give more opportunity to one group of people than another.

And I would like some evidence from you showing that lower social classes and blacks in the US (NOT ENGLAND) have less educational opportunities. Show me that a black, or poor, kid in high school just doesn't have the opportunity to fill out a scholarship application.

I'll bring the full quote back up for you then because that's not the case...

''If the system you guys use over their genuinely selects the students that deserve the spot, then fine, I am not arguing with it. I am arguing that affirmative action, applied to economic status, (which is leagues different than what you are describing) is a bad idea. Affirmative action applied to economic status would not select the more qualified student, it would select the poor student, no matter the qualifications.''

My response was fair.

Again, I did not mean that a poor kid with poor grades, or failing grades would get selected over a qualified 'rich' kid. I meant the qualifications would be lowered for the poor kid, allowing him to be selected over a more qualified 'rich' kid, which is not only not fair, but just plain wrong.

btw, I found an interesting article on affirmative action. http://www.princeton.edu/main/news/archive/S11/80/78Q19/index.xml?section=newsreleases. I think that's worth reading for anyone that cares about affirmative action and the impact of removing it.

That article boils down to a few things. It is an article defending affirmative action, written by a college which uses affirmative action. The subject is suspect right there.

It claims that getting rid of affirmative action would not increase the amount of white students accepted to colleges. So what? that is not the goal of abolishing affirmative action anyway. The goal is to make the process fair to all races.

It also claims that admission rates for blacks and hispanics would fall dramatically. Well instead of holding their hand and helping them into college by fudging the numbers and lowering standards, shouldn't we be trying to determine why they don't meet the standards in the first place? Why a statistically large portion of the black and hispanic communities drop out of high school even though they have been attending school for the 10 or 11 years before? What's another 1 or 2 years?

Your own source article says that in 1997, 14 black students were admitted to University of California-Berkeley Boalt Hall Law School, but NONE of them chose to go! You can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink.

If you are going to lower the standards for one group of people, lower them for everybody. Of course, lower standards means lower product quality (educated people) so why not leave the standards where they are and let people meet them or not based on their own ability?

 

[SuperBowser]

Firstly, you didn't dispute my definition of opportunity (which is the accepted definition). I think you should look back at some of your previous posts and see why I disagreed with you.

http://www.nytimes.com/packages/html/national/20050515_CLASS_GRAPHIC/index_03.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/05/15/national/class/OVERVIEW-FINAL.html

Look at class mobility. Stop speaking garbage that has no foundation in reality. There are SO MANY sources out there that prove you wrong. What a surprise. It's the same as england. :embarrass. Transmigration between social classes has been reducing more and more in the past few decades, so the statistics will be even more pronounced for present day figures.


You brought up a single source which I already refuted. You already knew I read it. I don't want to continue this debate if you are intent on being dishonest.

Several of the quotes I have disputed with you (which you didn't provide sources for when I asked) rest on the definition of opportunity. You haven't disagreed with the accepted definition of sociologists so...

If a poor kid applies himself in his school, no matter what school he is in, he can get to a college somewhere. As it is right now, a poor black kid (and yes, asians too) have an easier time than even a rich white kid.

If a kid really is very intelligent, top of their class, and all that, they should have no trouble getting into a university on their own merit, without having the standards lowered to suit them.

Yet all the statistics and studies say otherwise. What about the people inbetween? I put it to you that better grades =/= always better student (though there is obviously a strong correlation) for the university. Because of opportunity.

Black people tend to be in lower socioeconomic groups because they don't do anything to get out of them. Same with white people that are in lower groups.

See source provided in this post. Perhaps because there is less opportunity to get out of that situation for cultural, psycho-social and material reasons. You explain it away as being a purely social problem but the studies indicate otherwise. It's called the Materialist Model and most certainly exists. One famous study is called the Black Report (not about black people...). I'm not sure if this study is stricly about education, but the implications of its conclusions are most certainly applicable to education.


Your challenge? Ok, I'll provide two more sources and explain, although a lot of your question has been answered by previous sources.

http://www.eaop.ucla.edu/aboutus/SlidesWeek3_Oct152007.ppt
http://www.richardstaines.org.uk/sociology.htm#Equality

The whole second section of the second source is a good read but here's the important part:

''Study after study throughout advanced capitalist countries have documented substantial differences between those from upper and lower status family backgrounds in levels of cognitive achievement, educational aspirations, level of schooling attained and consequent economic success. Indeed, assessing equality of educational opportunities in relation to parental socio-economic status has been the major preoccupation of sociologists''

Do you concede now? This source also uses the scientific definition of opportunity, which ties into most of what I've said.

It's got ridiculous that I have to provide all the sources for your stupid claims. Everything I have said can be backed up by studies. You have brought nothing to the table. Your next post better have sources or as far as I'm concerned this debate is finished because you just keep moving the goalposts. It needs sources from you to progress.

 

[Vandom6]

Political Correctness is stupid and defeats its own purpose's.

Instead of focusing on not 'hurting anyone fragile feeling', we should be trying to become more educated and tolerant.

I don't like water chestnuts but that doesn't mean I don't like anything Asian. I just don't like water chestnuts. :/

 

[Ice Climbers P and N]

Some people learn from others, young kids do not know racist slurs yet, even if they are told, they will still go ahead and do it until they are old enough to know that they insulted another race.