# Let's debate affirmative action **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [February 20, 2014, 8:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-debate-affirmative-action/681818 "2014-02-20T20:35:34Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 9
**Author:** ![lance\_strongarm](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/87869e/32.png) [@lance\_strongarm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lance_strongarm)\ **Post date:** [February 24, 2014, 10:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-debate-affirmative-action/681818/161 "2014-02-24T22:49:53Z")
> [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > Sure eventually that is the goal but you havenot made the case that we are there yet. Not where? At a point where we should stop discriminating based on race? ---
**Author:** ![brickbacon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/898d66/32.png) [@brickbacon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/brickbacon)\ **Post date:** [February 24, 2014, 11:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-debate-affirmative-action/681818/162 "2014-02-24T23:38:11Z")
> [@ITR\_champion](#): > > Cite, please. [Here](http://www.nytimes.com/1989/07/01/us/gender-gap-in-aptitude-tests-is-narrowing-experts-find.html). The score gap [persists](http://www.britannica.com/blogs/2009/07/more-on-the-male-female-sat-math-test-gap/) in some areas though. > [@Terr](#): > > Pointing out that they have to hide what they’re doing. I don’t think they are hiding racial preference in service of diversity. What they hide is their entire process of admittance for obvious reasons. > [@ITR\_champion](#): > > I’ve already provided links to articles that back up my claim. (But to save you the trouble of finding them: [click here](http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2012/10/the-painful-truth-about-affirmative-action/263122/).) If you want us to believe that blacks drop out of college mainly because of money, why don’t you provide us with a cite? [Here](http://www.jbhe.com/features/65_gradrates.html): > [@](#): > > But, undoubtedly, the most important factor is money. JBHE research has shown that two thirds of all blacks who drop out of college do so for financial reasons. Many black students decide they do not want to build up large debts. Others see financial aid awards reduced after their first year in school and do not want to assume additional expenses. At times, increases in tuition, fees, and the price of textbooks push the cost of education too high for black students. Some black students drop out because they need to enter the work force to help support their families. Others who have tried to work while going to college find that undertaking both tasks simultaneously is too difficult and, so, many of these students will drop out of college. > [@ITR\_champion](#): > > Recall that when California abolished affirmative action, graduation rates among blacks quickly went up. Why? Did they suddenly get a lot more money? Or were they merely attending schools that matched their abilities. They didn’t _quickly_ go up. That was [trend](http://www.brookings.edu/blogs/brown-center-chalkboard/posts/2013/03/07-supreme-court-chingos) that continued post 1998. You need to actually look at the data that they analysed. It’s not only incomplete, but it also doesn’t actually address what happened to the missing students, so you have no way of knowing that they did better elsewhere. California also saw graduation rates go up more at selective schools than non selective schools, which doesn’t really gibe with your theory. What you did see was fewer minority students in total enrolling, more aid money being given out to a smaller subset of people, fewer marginal students at certain schools, students going to less selective (and incidentally) cheaper schools, more [students](http://www.eastbayexpress.com/oakland/why-black-students-are-avoiding-uc-berkeley/Content?oid=3756649) feeling unwelcome on campus, and more investment in programs and outreach to expand the supply of qualified minority applicants. The issue I have with your contention are as follows: 1. Even if you are right, you are not measuring aggregate value. All that you are attempting to do is quantify the downside without looking at the upside. To simplify things, are 6 Berkeley degrees, 2 Riverside degrees, and 2 dropouts worse than 3 Bekeley degrees, 6 Riverside degrees, and one dropout? Why is the second scenario better for a given population considering a Berkeley degree is far more valuable. That’s to say nothing about the broader positive impacts of diversity. 2. Again, even if you are right, why is a mismatch the student’s fault? Why isn’t the onus on the institution for accepting unqualified student or for failing to meet his/her needs? 3. There is plenty of [evidence](http://diverseeducation.com/article/54320/) out there suggested your theory is completely backwards. Given that the theory of mismatching rests on the idea that admissions people are admitting people that are not only quantifiably worse, but also unqualified, I think that generally defies reason. ---
**Author:** ![lance\_strongarm](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/87869e/32.png) [@lance\_strongarm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lance_strongarm)\ **Post date:** [February 25, 2014, 12:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-debate-affirmative-action/681818/163 "2014-02-25T00:11:08Z")
> [@brickbacon](#): > > 1. Again, even if you are right, why is a mismatch the student’s fault? Why isn’t the onus on the institution for accepting unqualified student or for failing to meet his/her needs? Really? You wrote this? You think someone is blaming the students in the first place? You’re blaming the schools for doing exactly what you want them to do? > [@](#): > > Given that the theory of mismatching rests on the idea that admissions people are admitting people that are not only quantifiably worse, but also unqualified, I think that generally defies reason. It doesn’t defy reason at all. AA allows for admitting the unqualified. It may not happen, but it could. ---
**Author:** ![andros](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/e480ec/32.png) [@andros](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/andros)\ **Post date:** [February 25, 2014, 12:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-debate-affirmative-action/681818/164 "2014-02-25T00:39:34Z")
> [@lance\_strongarm](#): > > Of all the cynical, unfair, and indeed racist tactics, this one is one of the worst. > > You claim the right to just dismiss any opinion that way. Pointing out the very real and influential existence of White privilege is neither cynical, nor unfair, nor in any way racist. ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [February 25, 2014, 5:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-debate-affirmative-action/681818/165 "2014-02-25T05:20:40Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > Affirmative action as it applies to college admissions, on the other hand, is not just senseless, it’s harmful. California’s experience with ending discrimination in college admissions has made everyone better off. I tend to agree that I would prefer federal need based scholarship program for the descendants of slaves and American Indians over preference in admissions for anyone with black skin. The population of blacks descended from slaves in ivy league schools as a percentage of all blacks in ivy league schools is shockingly low. We can improve our practice but we must first decide whether the principle is acceptable. Can we provide the descendants of slaves an advantage? > [@](#): > > Since the passage of Proposition 209, higher graduation rates have been posted at University of California schools,[6] which led opponents of affirmative action to suggest a causal link between Proposition 209 and a better-prepared student body. The African American graduation rate at the University of California, Berkeley increased by 6.5 percent,[7] and rose even more dramatically, from 26 percent to 52 percent, at the University of California, San Diego.[6] Graduation rates up, graduation numbers down because black admissions are down. There are other ways to increase graduation rates besides just not admitting very many black students to begin with. If you think its unfair that some white dudes might be Harvard to make room for a tiny population of black guys, try being Asian and being kept out of all Ivies because of people feel there are too many Asians in the Ivies. Asians understand this despite the apparent advantage 209 would give them because they understand discrimination in a way that most white males simply cannot. Thats why over 60% of Asians voted against prop 209. ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [February 25, 2014, 5:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-debate-affirmative-action/681818/166 "2014-02-25T05:31:25Z")
> [@Procrustus](#): > > I was denied entry to Harvard _and_ Standard, despite being so very qualified, IMHO And I’m going to guess that you didn’t end up going to Apex Technical to learn HVAC repair, not the end of the world, right. I can’t tell you how many George Mason students I have talked to that think they would have gotten into University of Virginia or Georgetown, so in their minds AA had this huge and dramatic effect on their lives. ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [February 25, 2014, 6:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-debate-affirmative-action/681818/167 "2014-02-25T06:03:22Z")
> [@lance\_strongarm](#): > > Bullshit. This is about the right remedy to racism, not whether racism was bad. Logic fail. You’re reading comprehension needs some work. Reading fail. I said that the fact that you can’t see why blacks today should be given some sort of advantage today because of a half millenium history of slavery and segregation means you’re just fucking blind, not that you don’t know history. Its a kind of blindness that leaves the blind person thinking they have 20/20 vision. BTW, what do you think is the right remedy? > [@](#): > > No, of course not. That’s a false dilemma. AA is not the only solution. What DO you think is a better solution? > [@](#): > > Don’t put words in other people’s mouths. Where am I putting words in your mouth? Once again reading fail (I’m starting to think that AA might not have been what kept you out of Harvard or whatever). > [@](#): > > No it’s not. Yes it is. I thought it was a pretty good analogy actually. > [@](#): > > Of course you can have racism without power. Racism is simply prejudice based on race. It’s wrong even when it means well. You don’t get to make up definitions to suit your purposes. > **[Racism](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racism)** > > Racism is discrimination and prejudice against people based on their race or ethnicity. Racism can be present in social actions, practices, or political systems (e.g. apartheid) that support the expression of prejudice or aversion in discriminatory practices. The ideology underlying racist practices often assumes that humans can be subdivided into distinct groups that are different in their social behavior and innate capacities and that can be ranked as inferior or superior. Racist ideology ca... There is a difference between racism and racial preferences for historically oppressed minorities (racial discrimination is about as close to a pejorative as you are likely to get) > [@lance\_strongarm](#): > > Not at all. Don’t play that game. What game? > [@](#): > > Of course it would unfair. Do you actually think it would be fair? Are you trying to make my point for me? The fact that you are so clearly think it would be unfair speaks volumes. Like I said, a lot (not all) of white males have this blind spot that they just can’t see around. The world looks pretty fair from their perspective, sure nothing is perfect but its certainly not unfair enough that they should be burdened with anything. > [@](#): > > There are many advantages and disadvantages in society, past and present. You can’t fix them all. Yes I get that. And you would prefer that we don’t even try. The status quo looks pretty fair to you. I guess this answers the question I asked above “What DO you think is a better solution?” Your answer seems to be “do nothing” > [@](#): > > Uh-oh - you’re starting to think! Yeah, now its your turn. > [@](#): > > First of all, it’s NOT slavery, but past racism that matters. But no matter - the more you try to “target” AA, the more you’ll wade into all the details and realize how absurd the attempt is. Exactly, you think, we shouldn’t even try. After all whats the big deal. Like I said, I’m sure things look pretty fair without AA from where you’re standing. > [@](#): > > No. I don’t accept that. You may not commit gross injustice in an attempt to fix past injustice. Its not gross injustice. Noone who was in the YES pile gets passed over because of AA. The folks in the MAYBE pile do. > [@](#): > > No it’s not. You pretend it is, but 5 white dudes didn’t get in because of your policy. Explain to them why. Don’t dodge. What dodge, none of them were shoo ins. First of all, if we’re going to be fair about it, race blind admissions would mean even fewer white dudes get into those schools and a LOT more Asians do. And yet Asians consistently vote in favor of AA. Second of all, it would be hard to identify which applicants didn’t get in because of AA. Like I said, noone in the YES pile get rejected because of AA, there might be 5 applicants among thousands of otherwise qualified applicants that didn’t get in but no way to tell who they were because there were so many more qualified applicants than spots available to them (with or without AA). > [@lance\_strongarm](#): > > Like hell it doesn’t. There’s NOTHING in a race-based policy to stop it. Yeah there’s nothing to stop it but it still doesn’t happen. Show me one example of a toothless white dude that didn’t get in while a less qualified black millionaire’s child got in because of AA. Just one. You would think something like that would get some press if it occurs as often as you seem to think. > [@lance\_strongarm](#): > > Bullshit. That’s not comparable to AA, at least not to quotas. (I have no problem with other forms of AA - seeking out better opportunity.) OMFG, so you DO realize that AA is more than just quotas. Because you see quota based AA is already fucking illegal here. Try wikipedia article on affirmative action. > [@](#): > > “I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character.” And until we live in that world, we might want to think about doing things that might help us get there. > [@lance\_strongarm](#): > > P.S. I looked and couldn’t find any evidence that anything other than merit in a sport is used to qualify a country’s competitors for the Olympics, other than the host country having the right to at least one spot in each sport. > > I call bullshit on that one until I see evidence. So South Korean Women’s Curling team made it to the Olympics this year. There are only 10 teams at the Olympics every year and South Korea was one of them. They didn’t do very well and I would bet every dollar I have that the second best team from Canada is better than half the teams that made it to the Olympics. In fact if we didn’t have a quota limit on Canadian teams, the medal podium might look like a maple tree. I don’t see what this has to do with the discussion but I just wanted to point out your ignorance. > [@lance\_strongarm](#): > > That’s not the issue. Should those from disadvantaged nations have special advantages in competition? Such as having a second or two advantage added in races? Noone is giving black students a bump in their GPA once they get into college. They are only letting them in. Kinda like South Korean women’s curling team. > [@Terr](#): > > “Soft caps” so that they can hide the racism. I mean, the goal is to admit more people based on race. > Of course. The admission policies are racist, but the colleges try to hide that. > No, they are country-ist. Blatantly. And they don’t hide it. Colleges’ affirmative action admission policies are racist. But they try to hide it. They’re not necessarily trying to hide it. They have been told by the supreme court that quotas are illegal. So they try to do it the legal way. > [@lance\_strongarm](#): > > Of all the cynical, unfair, and indeed racist tactics, this one is one of the worst. > > You claim the right to just dismiss any opinion that way. No, just yours. I think its hard to be objective if you are a white male. Like I said, I think a more objective perspective might be Asians. They certainly aren’t current beneficiaries of AA (although they were in the past) and yet they support AA. Why is that? Why are the folks who oppose AA so disproportionately white males? Its not because white dudes are evil, they just have a blind spot. They can’t (or won’t) see the privilege that they have in society. > [@andros](#): > > Pointing out the very real and influential existence of White privilege is neither cynical, nor unfair, nor in any way racist. A lot of white dudes have convinced themselves that white privilege simply doesn’t exist. They think the playing field is pretty level. ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [February 25, 2014, 1:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-debate-affirmative-action/681818/168 "2014-02-25T13:03:57Z")
White privilege in the 21st century is rich white privilege. Poor whites don’t have the privilege and furthermore lose out to AA policies. At a fast food company I worked for, if you were a white male without a college degree, you advanced slooooowwwww. Meanwhile, minority candidates and women got the fast track. Now if you were a college educated white guy, you were in good shape. I know those guys don’t have to worry about less qualified anybody getting promoted over them… That’s just the nature of the game though. The white guys who invented AA took care to make sure it wouldn’t affect them, only poor white folks. And Asians and Jews of course. Jews gotta make way for the gentiles, that hasn’t changed in 3000 years. ---
**Author:** ![Jimmy\_Chitwood](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/f475e1/32.png) [@Jimmy\_Chitwood](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jimmy_Chitwood)\ **Post date:** [February 25, 2014, 2:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-debate-affirmative-action/681818/169 "2014-02-25T14:48:32Z")
Ooh, are we playing rhetorical question battleship? > [@lance\_strongarm](#): > > We could just give women candidates a 3% bonus vote - they win as long as they get up to 3% less in votes than a male opponent. It’s a “soft” cap. Just spitballing here, but is it possible that allowing _voluntary_ efforts to be inclusive by institutions who _want_ to admit more minority candidates is somehow different from passing legislation that codifies this kind of racial bonus into election results? Is a college’s decision about who will become its alumni base perhaps somehow different from a popular election about who will govern? > [@lance\_strongarm](#): > > Anyone who says nonsense like: > > > [@](#): > > > > I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character. > > is just trying desperately to preserve white privilege. Are you suggesting that Martin Luther King, Jr. would have opposed voluntary efforts by universities to include more qualified minority candidates in incoming classes? Is that what you believe is true? Or do you, like American hero John Roberts, not actually give a fuck what anybody means when they say something, only what their words could mean if they had been said by you? ---
**Author:** ![lance\_strongarm](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/87869e/32.png) [@lance\_strongarm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lance_strongarm)\ **Post date:** [February 25, 2014, 3:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-debate-affirmative-action/681818/170 "2014-02-25T15:40:08Z")
> [@andros](#): > > Pointing out the very real and influential existence of White privilege is neither cynical, nor unfair, nor in any way racist. Sure. But saying that anyone who is white can’t have an opinion about it is. ---
**Author:** ![lance\_strongarm](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/87869e/32.png) [@lance\_strongarm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lance_strongarm)\ **Post date:** [February 25, 2014, 3:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-debate-affirmative-action/681818/171 "2014-02-25T15:41:58Z")
> [@Jimmy\_Chitwood](#): > > Just spitballing here, but is it possible that allowing voluntary efforts to be inclusive by institutions who want to admit more minority candidates is somehow different from passing legislation that codifies this kind of racial bonus into election results? Is a college’s decision about who will become its alumni base perhaps somehow different from a popular election about who will govern? No, because those who aren’t admitted to the college, despite their qualifications, don’t voluntarily do so. > [@](#): > > Are you suggesting that Martin Luther King, Jr. would have opposed voluntary efforts by universities to include more qualified minority candidates in incoming classes? Is that what you believe is true? Or do you, like American hero John Roberts, not actually give a fuck what anybody means when they say something, only what their words could mean if they had been said by you? Nope. I just quoted him. Do you agree with his quote, or not? Whether he was consistent in his beliefs is not the issue. I think his meaning is pretty clear. Like John Roberts, I care what people say and that they mean what they say. So do you believe in what he said, or not? ---
**Author:** ![ITR\_champion](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/c67d28/32.png) [@ITR\_champion](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ITR_champion)\ **Post date:** [February 25, 2014, 3:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-debate-affirmative-action/681818/172 "2014-02-25T15:57:52Z")
> [@ITR Champion](#): > > Women and men seeking admission to college have generally similar qualifications in SAT and ACT scores, GPAs, class rank and so forth. > [@brickbacon](#): > > Now they might, but they didn’t when the program was started … [Here](http://www.nytimes.com/1989/07/01/us/gender-gap-in-aptitude-tests-is-narrowing-experts-find.html). The score gap [persists](http://www.britannica.com/blogs/2009/07/more-on-the-male-female-sat-math-test-gap/) in some areas though. Those articles do not document any dissimilarity in overall qualifications for women and men when affirmative action was started. The article by Gina Kolata says “major studies in the 1970’s showed pronounced differences in the scores of males and females, with females on average scoring higher on verbal tests and males higher on mathematics tests”, while differences between genders on the SAT she describes as “slight” and “insignificant”. Other qualifications besides the SAT are not mentioned. You’re arguing overall that affirmative action must work positively for blacks since it did so for women. But the quota or point systems used for race-based college admissions do, in fact, lead to less qualified students of some races being admitted to selective colleges and universities. If the same were true, or ever had been true, for women applying to college, there would surely be plenty of research that showed it directly. ---
**Author:** ![lance\_strongarm](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/87869e/32.png) [@lance\_strongarm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lance_strongarm)\ **Post date:** [February 25, 2014, 3:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-debate-affirmative-action/681818/173 "2014-02-25T15:59:22Z")
> [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > I said that the fact that you can’t see why blacks today should be given some sort of advantage today because of a half millenium history of slavery and segregation means you’re just fucking blind, not that you don’t know history. Its a kind of blindness that leaves the blind person thinking they have 20/20 vision. But that’s a load of utter bullshit. You are pointing to the problem - which NOBODY disputes - and saying it says your solution is the only possible one. > [@](#): > > BTW, what do you think is the right remedy? Gee, are you actually listening to the white guy’s opinion now? The right remedy is to end racial discrimination, and to work hard to improve schools and communities where blacks are concentrated so they don’t need artificial “help” like AA. > [@](#): > > Where am I putting words in your mouth? Once again reading fail (I’m starting to think that AA might not have been what kept you out of Harvard or whatever). Why is it that people on this thread feel the need to throw out snide insults so often? > [@](#): > > You don’t get to make up definitions to suit your purposes. Nor you. > [@](#): > > [Racism - Wikipedia](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racism) Nor wikipedia. > [@](#): > > The fact that you are so clearly think it would be unfair speaks volumes. Like I said, a lot (not all) of white males have this blind spot that they just can’t see around. The world looks pretty fair from their perspective, sure nothing is perfect but its certainly not unfair enough that they should be burdened with anything. Do not judge me by my race. > [@](#): > > Yes I get that. And you would prefer that we don’t even try. The status quo looks pretty fair to you. Why is it that people on this thread feel the need to play this stupid false dilemma game, combined with the straw man? I do NOT support the status quo. Instead of declaring that I do, and that my opinion isn’t worth anything anyway because of my race (racism - oops, you follow the self-serving academic perversion of that term, so I’ll say racial prejudice instead), how about you have a respectful conversation about it? > [@](#): > > I guess this answers the question I asked above “What DO you think is a better solution?” Your answer seems to be “do nothing” Only if you are too busy talking and declaring that my opinion doesn’t count due to my race (oh, irony) instead of asking me or reading my previous posts. > [@](#): > > Exactly, you think, we shouldn’t even try. After all whats the big deal. Like I said, I’m sure things look pretty fair without AA from where you’re standing. This is one of the lowest, most insulting, racist tactics you can take. Don’t got there. You don’t know me. > [@](#): > > Its not gross injustice. Noone who was in the YES pile gets passed over because of AA. The folks in the MAYBE pile do. Bullshit. That’s simply bullshit. Someone who would have gone to the YES pile didn’t because someone else did. Don’t play that game either. > [@](#): > > First of all, if we’re going to be fair about it, race blind admissions would mean even fewer white dudes get into those schools and a LOT more Asians do. And yet Asians consistently vote in favor of AA. So? They’re wrong too. > [@](#): > > Second of all, it would be hard to identify which applicants didn’t get in because of AA. So? > [@](#): > > Show me one example of a toothless white dude that didn’t get in while a less qualified black millionaire’s child got in because of AA. Just one. It’s so convenient that you can’t quite tell who didn’t get in, isn’t it? If colleges were open about admissions, and listed who was ranked at the top of the list of rejected candidates who just barely missed getting in, we could easily identify them. But we can’t because that’s private information. By your logic, a school that discriminates in favor of WHITES would also not be hurting blacks! > [@](#): > > OMFG, so you DO realize that AA is more than just quotas. Because you see quota based AA is already fucking illegal here. Yes, and that’s a good thing to bring up. I’m talking mainly about quotas. I don’t have less of a problem with other forms of AA. On the other hand, do you think quotas should be legal? I don’t see how you can possibly say no given all you’ve said here. > [@](#): > > And until we live in that world, we might want to think about doing things that might help us get there. I couldn’t agree more. There are good solutions, and bad ones. > [@](#): > > Noone is giving black students a bump in their GPA once they get into college. They are only letting them in. Kinda like South Korean women’s curling team. But why NOT give them a bump in their GPA? > [@](#): > > They’re not necessarily trying to hide it. They have been told by the supreme court that quotas are illegal. So they try to do it the legal way. Do you think quotas should be legal? > [@](#): > > No, just yours. I think its hard to be objective if you are a white male. Like I said, I think a more objective perspective might be Asians. Wow, so now you’re using racial prejudices to judge who has a better opinion about racial prejudice. You see how this goes nowhere, right? ---
**Author:** ![lance\_strongarm](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/87869e/32.png) [@lance\_strongarm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lance_strongarm)\ **Post date:** [February 25, 2014, 4:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-debate-affirmative-action/681818/174 "2014-02-25T16:04:24Z")
> [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > Can we provide the descendants of slaves an advantage? Do they have to prove they descended from slaves? Do more slaves in the family count for more? What about those who descended from other oppressed people? Do they get nothing? How is that fair - they suffered from disadvantage too. What if the student is biracial? How does a biracial person fit into your neat little classifications (more irony) of knowledge of what people think or know or suffered in the past? Do you follow the “one-drop” rule? > [@](#): > > If you think its unfair that some white dudes might be Harvard to make room for a tiny population of black guys, try being Asian and being kept out of all Ivies because of people feel there are too many Asians in the Ivies. So is that wrong that people don’t want too many Asians in the Ivies? > [@](#): > > Asians understand this despite the apparent advantage 209 would give them because they understand discrimination in a way that most white males simply cannot. Thats why over 60% of Asians voted against prop 209. Well, now white males can understand it too, since now you’re discriminating against them. Voila! ---
**Author:** ![Jimmy\_Chitwood](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/f475e1/32.png) [@Jimmy\_Chitwood](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jimmy_Chitwood)\ **Post date:** [February 25, 2014, 4:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-debate-affirmative-action/681818/175 "2014-02-25T16:39:07Z")
> [@lance\_strongarm](#): > > Nope. I just quoted him. > > Do you agree with his quote, or not? > > Whether he was consistent in his beliefs is not the issue. > > I think his meaning is pretty clear. Like John Roberts, I care what people say and that they mean what they say. > > So do you believe in what he said, or not? That is amazing. So you quoted him, and his _meaning_ is clear to you, _and_ you care what he said, but it’s irrelevant to you whether he believed in that meaning. Explains your method of debating. Yes, I believe in what he said. I also believe that if he were alive to explain it - if he hadn’t been shot to death by warriors for equality - what he would say is that he was talking about ideals. And that he believe that the road to the achievement of those ideals went through a process very much like affirmative action. “The moral justification for ‘special measures’ for Negroes is rooted in slavery,” is what he would say. 'Cause he did say that. And he would say > [@](#): > > Among the many vital jobs to be done, the nation must not only radically readjust its attitude toward the Negro in the compelling present, but must incorporate in its planning some compensatory consideration for the handicaps he has inherited from the past. It is impossible to create a formula for the future which does not take into account that our society has been doing something special against the Negro for hundreds of years. How then can he be absorbed into the mainstream of American life if we do not do something special for him now, in order to balance the equation and equip him to compete on a just and equal basis? If you knew a little more, you’d be embarrassed. Standing on the shoulders of giants, and pissing down their backs; it’s the John Roberts way. ---
**Author:** ![lance\_strongarm](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/87869e/32.png) [@lance\_strongarm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lance_strongarm)\ **Post date:** [February 25, 2014, 4:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-debate-affirmative-action/681818/176 "2014-02-25T16:44:55Z")
> [@Jimmy\_Chitwood](#): > > That is amazing. So you quoted him, and his _meaning_ is clear to you, _and_ you care what he said, but it’s irrelevant to you whether he believed in that meaning. Explains your method of debating. First explain the meaning of his quote as you see it. And explain how racial preferences get us closer to the dream of no racial preferences. > [@](#): > > Yes, I believe in what he said. I also believe that if he were alive to explain it - if he hadn’t been shot to death by warriors for equality - what he would say is that he was talking about ideals. And that he believe that the road to the achievement of those ideals went through a process very much like affirmative action. If so, then his logic was completely inconsistent, wasn’t it? So even he didn’t believe quite what he said. > [@](#): > > “The moral justification for ‘special measures’ for Negroes is rooted in slavery,” is what he would say. 'Cause he did say that. And he would say So? He was wrong. At least now he is. In his day, in certain situations, racial quotas were justified. Even I think so. If you’ve got 1,000 garbage men in a city that’s half black, and they’re all white, you come in and set a quota for hiring blacks, because there’s no way anything but racism is holding them back from hiring black garbage men. But we’re a long way from that situation today. And I’m quite aware of his views on the subject, thanks. > [@](#): > > If you knew a little more, you’d be embarrassed. Standing on the shoulders of giants, and pissing down their backs; it’s the John Roberts way. You’re not nearly as eloquent as MLK was. ---
**Author:** ![Jimmy\_Chitwood](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/f475e1/32.png) [@Jimmy\_Chitwood](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jimmy_Chitwood)\ **Post date:** [February 25, 2014, 4:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-debate-affirmative-action/681818/177 "2014-02-25T16:48:54Z")
My clarification wasn’t for you; think whatever you want. It was just in case there are any seventh graders reading who \*also \*didn’t know who Martin Luther King was. Good luck with your demands. ---
**Author:** ![brickbacon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/898d66/32.png) [@brickbacon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/brickbacon)\ **Post date:** [February 25, 2014, 7:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-debate-affirmative-action/681818/178 "2014-02-25T19:46:03Z")
> [@ITR\_champion](#): > > Those articles do not document any dissimilarity in overall qualifications for women and men when affirmative action was started. The issue you took contention with was over whether scores were the same then and now. The articles demonstrated that they were not. Here is [another](http://www2.edc.org/womensequity/resource/title9/report/standard.htm). We don’t know about “overall qualifications” of anyone no matter their race or gender because all the studies that use data do not have it broken down by individual because they don’t have access to the same information the colleges do. > [@ITR\_champion](#): > > You’re arguing overall that affirmative action must work positively for blacks since it did so for women. No, I am saying the policies that fall under the umbrella of Affirmative Action have demonstrably worked for women, so saying those specific policies don’t work for Blacks may be accurate (I doubt it is), but it is less likely to be a result of the policies themselves, but rather something else. > [@ITR\_champion](#): > > But the quota or point systems used for race-based college admissions do, in fact, lead to less qualified students of some races being admitted to selective colleges and universities. If the same were true, or ever had been true, for women applying to college, there would surely be plenty of research that showed it directly. Assuming anyone has a vested interest in that research. Either way, the data driven admissions movement happened much later on, so I doubt we would have access to such data even if it existed at one point. Second, you are assuming something that is not necessarily true. “Less qualified” doesn’t have a set definition, and doesn’t imply the things you say it does. The idea that mismatching is bad, and that it occurs on a level that makes AA as a whole bad for Black people has very little evidence to back it up. ---
**Author:** ![lance\_strongarm](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/87869e/32.png) [@lance\_strongarm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lance_strongarm)\ **Post date:** [February 25, 2014, 7:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-debate-affirmative-action/681818/179 "2014-02-25T19:51:21Z")
> [@Jimmy\_Chitwood](#): > > My clarification wasn’t for you; think whatever you want. So you’re running away just like Brickbacon because you can’t defend your views? As for those 7th-graders, maybe we shouldn’t go telling them they should dream of being judged by the “content of their character” if we still can’t live up to it. Maybe the quote should come with an asterisk so people don’t actually take it seriously. You think? ---
**Author:** ![Jimmy\_Chitwood](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/f475e1/32.png) [@Jimmy\_Chitwood](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jimmy_Chitwood)\ **Post date:** [February 25, 2014, 8:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-debate-affirmative-action/681818/180 "2014-02-25T20:21:15Z")
Running away? Oh no, am I in danger? I’d be happy to defend my views if anyone had challenged them. That’s not what you’re doing. You’re saying that you’re right, ignoring that you’re mischaracterizing the fundamentals of the discussion, and then demanding satisfaction. No thanks. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-debate-affirmative-action/681818.md?page=8) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-debate-affirmative-action/681818.md?page=10)