Affirmative Action

[jerseydevil]

I did a search and I didn't find a thread already on this.

I guess the Supreme Court is reviewing a case right now involving Michigan State - they should have a ruling as to whether theywill hear it or not.


Affirmative action case awaits Supreme Court review (http://www.cnn.com/2002/LAW/11/27/scotus.affirmative.action/index.html)
The University of Michigan is defending itself against charges it rejected white students because of their race.

At issue is whether race can be used as a factor in admissions to state-funded colleges, to increase diversity among the student body. Justices would be asked to decide whether a state has a "compelling interest" to promote a diverse student body, or whether the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment forbids giving one ethnic group or culture special advantages over another.


I feel that affirmative action is reverse discrimination. People should get accepted on their abilities - not on the color of their skin or their religion or their sex. All it does is cause more racial tensions in America.

[katya]

I don't think race should have any effect whatsoever on acceptance into college, positive or negative. That's like saying "oh we need to make sure we accept enough people who own cats". It doesn't have anything to do with it to begin with. And the idea that there would be any issue or law at all implies that there is a difference and that race does matter, which really is discrimination.

[Elven Archer]

i'm not sure i really fully understand what that's talking about. but is it about making a college to where it has the percentage of black people in the college compared to the percentage of black people in the state? cause if it is that doesn't make alot of sense to me. but since i'm not completely sure that's what you're talking about i'll shut up untill i know what i'm talking about:)

[Duddun]

Sorry, Elven Archer, I understand it but I would rather let Jersey devil explain.
I agree with Katya and JD about this, i think it should not make any difference. If they made an ammendment that they have to talk about whether it is ok or not in this case I would say it is not.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Elven Archer
i'm not sure i really fully understand what that's talking about. but is it about making a college to where it has the percentage of black people in the college compared to the percentage of black people in the state? cause if it is that doesn't make alot of sense to me. but since i'm not completely sure that's what you're talking about i'll shut up untill i know what i'm talking about:)
Basically affirmative action is where special consideration is given to various groups (usually using race or sex as a determinant) - whether or not someone more qualified is available for the position.

One case in the article was where University of Michigan used a grading scale for it's applicants. Just for being black or a minority - they'd get bonus points. In other words - they could get accepted even if someone else had a higher GPA and SAT score and was declined.


Jennifer Gratz was denied admission to the school in 1995. In her lawsuit against the school, she claims Michigan essentially runs two admissions systems to get a pre-determined racial mix of students.

A controversial part of Michigan's admission policy was a 150-point scale used to grade an applicant's record. African Americans, Latinos or Native Americans automatically received 20 points for their race, which could have raised their grade a full point on a 4.0 scale. The point scale is no longer used at the school.


It used to be common - I don't think it is anymore - to have quotas. For instance, if a school could only accept 100 students - 60 may be white, 20 black, 15 asian, 5 hispanic (just to throw out numbers). Even if there was a 61st white applicant who was more qulified than the 20th black person - the black person would get in and the white person would get rejected.

I was friends (still am, althought she lives in Indiana) who is a black woman. At RR Donnelley they had quotas or affirmative action. She was transferred from another division to bring more diversity to the Seymour plant (there weren't a lot of people that even lived in Seymour that weren't white). I used to tease her that she took care of Donnelley's quotas for two different groups since she was a "Black WOMAN". :)

Affirmative action doesn't only happen with race - sex is a big one too. Fire departments have lowered standards to get more woman fire fighters.

My feeling is that the most qualified should get the job. If they can't pass the basic requirements - then they need to look at going or doing something else.

[cassiopeia]

Originally posted by jerseydevil
My feeling is that the most qualified should get the job. If they can't pass the basic requirements - then they need to look at going or doing something else.

I agree with you, JD. Here in Australia a certain political party wants, say, 50% of the candidates to be female. Well, that may seem like a good thing, but to me they seem to be wanting to have females in the party because of political correctness, not because they are best for the job.

[Duddun]

I think it is almost an insult to women when they choose women over more qualified men. Same with minority and whites. Because they are favoring you just for your race or sex

[Elven Archer]

thanks for explainin' it. i was thinking that's what it was but wasn't too sure and i've stuck my foot in my mouth lots of times for talking about something before i knew for sure what it was. anyway thanks for spainlin' it better for me. i can't think of anything to say about it right now that ya'll haven't already said.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by cassiopeia
I agree with you, JD. Here in Australia a certain political party wants, say, 50% of the candidates to be female. Well, that may seem like a good thing, but to me they seem to be wanting to have females in the party because of political correctness, not because they are best for the job.
There was a study done in the US recently saying that not enough woman are in public office and more woman should be. I question these studies - because there are really only two reason for this. Either woman aren't going into politics - or they aren't getting voted in. Short of declaring woman to a political office without an election - I want to know what this group has in mind as a solution. I can care less if the candidate is white, black, female, male or any other ethnicity. All I want is someone that supports - as close as possible - the things I do.

People throw around the word "segregation" a lot too here. Saying our schools are still segregated or this or that school is more segregated. To me this is erroneous. The only way a school can be segregated is through the actions of government - which after the civil rights movement is illegal (as it should be). People generally go to schools within their neighborhoods or towns. Short of having quotas on the number of people of each race that can live in a neighborhood or town - I don't see a government solution. I think vouchers would be good - because then families can choose to send their chidren where ever is best for the child. Busing was a failed experiment in this - because it gave the parents no choice. Their children were forced to go to a different school across town or even in a different town in order to diversify the schools.

[cassiopeia]

Originally posted by jerseydevil
There was a study done in the US recently saying that not enough woman are in public office and more woman should be. I question these studies - because there are really only two reason for this. Either woman aren't going into politics - or they aren't getting voted in. Short of declaring woman to a political office without an election - I want to know what this group has in mind as a solution. I can care less if the candidate is white, black, female, male or any other ethnicity. All I want is someone that supports - as close as possible - the things I do.

Why should there be more women in public office? Fundumentally I think that women want the same as men, so why should we push women in to office *just* because it is politically correct? I actually have to vote this weekend in the state election, and I don't care if what sex or race the candidate is - as long as I think thier policies are worthy.

[Eruviel Greenleaf]

Concerning polotics, and elected officials, i think it's great if more women are in office but what's really important is that they are good candidate...i would never vote for someone on the basis of race or sex; only on whether or not their polocies are worthy and agree with my political views. er..

as for the rest of the issue, and what the thread was started about, well, i wouldn't go near that subject with a virtual ten foot pole. (although i just sort of did. *sigh*)

[jerseydevil]

Today it was announced that the Supreme Court has accepted to hear this case. Maybe they'll finally put an end to this reverse descrimination.


Affirmative action case awaits Supreme Court review (http://www.cnn.com/2002/LAW/12/02/scotus.affirmative.action/index.html)
The Supreme Court Monday agreed to decide whether affirmative action programs in the nation's universities should continue to help minorities, or whether they represent "reverse discrimination."



ABCNews.com (http://abcnews.go.com/sections/us/DailyNews/supreme_court021202.html)
The justices will consider whether white applicants to the University of Michigan and its law school were unconstitutionally turned down because of their race.

The cases give the court an opportunity to ban affirmative action in higher education or say how much weight universities may assign to an applicant's race. The stakes are high because many colleges have race-conscious admissions policies.

Affirmative action supporters argue that without policies that encourage diverse student bodies, the top public colleges in the country would not be representative.

Opponents contend that those policies discriminate against white students, giving slots to less-qualified minorities.

[azalea]

I am generally against affirmative action. There is a really good conservative black syndicated columnist (I forget his first name, his last name is Armstrong) who gives very good arguments against it. His position, which I agree with, is in part that affirmative action "dumbs down" expectations for blacks and other minorities, which perpetuates prejudicial views. Affirmative action is kind of like Title 9 (sports quotas for women in organizations that receive federal money), which was a good idea, but in practice it is illogical. I think there are enough safety nets in place so that minorities today have an equal chance at college admissions, and if they feel they were denied on the basis of race there are avenues to take to fight the decision.

[Coney]

I'm not particularly interested in affirmative action but I thought some of you might like to catch up on the news (I stumbled on this by accident)-

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2002-12-02-court-affirmative_x.htm

[Nibs]

I just have to wonder why they would be doctoring their applications like that... how would a more diverse student body benefit the school? Is it just to make it look like they don't favor one race over the other? If so, that's really not a bad thing... however, if they reject someone because of their racial background, as it seems they have done, that is exactly what they should be preventing.

[afro-elf]

I am against it.