- Joined
- Nov 13, 2010
- Messages
- 74
- Reaction score
- 6
What are you guys opinion on this?
Affirmative Action SCOTUS Decision
- Thread starter FutureERDoc16
- Start date
- Joined
- Jan 23, 2013
- Messages
- 1,608
- Reaction score
- 501
- Joined
- May 27, 2013
- Messages
- 26
- Reaction score
- 37
Just seeing the story now tbh.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Sep 19, 2012
- Messages
- 5,149
- Reaction score
- 4,610
So entitled. Anyway, I don't think the decision if made by the SC, would have any effect on med school admissions.
- Joined
- Sep 3, 2012
- Messages
- 774
- Reaction score
- 23
- Joined
- Sep 25, 2012
- Messages
- 957
- Reaction score
- 172
Or even if it does.. I don't think the results of it will be seen for a while. It takes time to reform policy.
4
487806
Affirmative action will NEVER be shot down. If anything, it'll be upheld and strengthened.
It will. Once med schools realize quality > skin color (which may take a while), the most qualified applicants based on MCAT, GPA, ECs, LORs, PS would get accepted regardless of skin color or SES.
- Joined
- Jan 23, 2013
- Messages
- 1,608
- Reaction score
- 501
- Joined
- Jun 18, 2013
- Messages
- 1,560
- Reaction score
- 740
Disappointed that the Court didn't strike down race-based affirmative action, but whatever, it isn't my problem.
- Joined
- Sep 7, 2012
- Messages
- 191
- Reaction score
- 31
Affirmative Action now, Affirmative Action tomorrow, and Affirmative Action forever!
we need it as a country because it takes more than 50 years to right the effects of 300 years of slavery and oppression.
I indirectly benefited from slavery because my great(x4) grandparent was a slave owner (or at the very least, a white person living in the south who benefited from an economy based on slavery) and this undoubtedly led to him and his children having more opportunities. likewise someone whose great (x4) grandparent was a slave is still hindered by the lack of opportunities and mobility that his ancestry allowed. two generations of affirmative action do not undo these systemic inequalities that are centuries old.
we need it as a country because it takes more than 50 years to right the effects of 300 years of slavery and oppression.
I indirectly benefited from slavery because my great(x4) grandparent was a slave owner (or at the very least, a white person living in the south who benefited from an economy based on slavery) and this undoubtedly led to him and his children having more opportunities. likewise someone whose great (x4) grandparent was a slave is still hindered by the lack of opportunities and mobility that his ancestry allowed. two generations of affirmative action do not undo these systemic inequalities that are centuries old.
- Joined
- Jan 23, 2013
- Messages
- 1,608
- Reaction score
- 501
For an alternative argument, read Justice Thomas concurring remarks. Starts on PDF 18.
http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/12pdf/11-345_l5gm.pdf
- Joined
- Nov 10, 2007
- Messages
- 494
- Reaction score
- 34
I have no idea why white people complain so much about AA.
I did some research with my professor and took a couple of education classes and it was found that removing AA would only increase the amount of white people getting into college/graduate school by 1-3% and decrease the amount of white people getting into top colleges and competitive grad schools (T14, med, etc).
My professor and his colleagues also found that removing AA would increase the amount of Asians at top schools by over 100% (look at UCB/UCLA/Caltech). I don't remember the graduate school percentage, but it was quite high too.
I'll try to find the numerous studies showing proof, although it's easy to Google too.
I did some research with my professor and took a couple of education classes and it was found that removing AA would only increase the amount of white people getting into college/graduate school by 1-3% and decrease the amount of white people getting into top colleges and competitive grad schools (T14, med, etc).
My professor and his colleagues also found that removing AA would increase the amount of Asians at top schools by over 100% (look at UCB/UCLA/Caltech). I don't remember the graduate school percentage, but it was quite high too.
I'll try to find the numerous studies showing proof, although it's easy to Google too.
- Joined
- Jun 2, 2013
- Messages
- 624
- Reaction score
- 361
What about Asians? Don't think they ever benefitted indirectly from slavery.
Affirmative Action is silly, if school wants to incorporate diversity, SES is a much better indicator IMO. Ex. An African American growing up in Orange County with two lawyer parents and attended private schools vs. An Asian growing up with two parents working minimum wage job in Chinatown, Manhattan that had to claw his way through high school and college. How is that diversity if school decides to admit the African American?
Last edited:
- Joined
- Sep 7, 2012
- Messages
- 191
- Reaction score
- 31
he does like to go on, but after reading his first 8 or so pages, it seems his argument boils down to racial classification should only be used in extreme circumstances, or in instances where there is some huge benefit to be gained (I cannot remember the exact adjectives). the problem is that all of this criteria is arbitrary and subjective. he thinks grutter was wrong because what the law school deemed as an huge benefit by having a diverse student body he did not think it was. and this, in general, is a flaw in the affirmative action debate. you have 9 people deciding what other people should be able to decide with regards to who enters their schools (you also have the government supporting or needing to enforce "positive discrimination").
if you wanna look at a drastic example of what can happen when you eliminate affrimative action there is a good article on NPR that looks into UCLA after california eliminated affirmative action. basically the enrollment rates of african americans fell so much that by 2006 only 96/5000 incoming students were african americans. ((http://www.npr.org/2013/06/23/194656555/what-happens-without-affirmative-action-the-story-of-ucla) )
thomas mentions you can potentially use race to correct historical wrongs, but again he seems to set the bar impossibly high. if segregation and slavery are not drastic enough examples of societal wrongs we can adjust for through promoting diversity through affirmative action, i have trouble seeing anything that could ever be used (also he states that the internment of americans of japanese heritage was legal because of the threat during WWII, which I would argue had even less good cause for racial discrimination than affirmative action does).
Thomas has an interesting take that is obviously well thought out and argued, but I just don't agree with him on where he places the bar that has to be passed for race to be factored into a decision of the government.
also I sorta think when he writes this (as do all the other 8 justices) they kinda write as if they are living in some kind of idealized legal world and not a real world where everyone is not as educated, intelligent and well-versed n legal knowledge as they are.
I used to not be for affirmative action, but I changed my mind a coupl of years ago and think we still need it. but I do agree with Scalia that it is hard to see how it can ever be ended without large political backlash (eventually it will need to be ended but I don't think now is the time).
welp I don't know why I wasted my time trying to have a, relatively, well thought out and slightly nuance post on an internet forum, I am a fool.
- Joined
- Jun 2, 2013
- Messages
- 624
- Reaction score
- 361
Do they not realize Asian stand to gain the most with overturning AA yet it's only the white people screaming racism?
- Joined
- Sep 7, 2012
- Messages
- 191
- Reaction score
- 31
oh I don't disagree that this a good example of a hypothetical where the african american gets an unfair advantage ( i knew someone who was black and went to my college and bought a new $80k car every year, he obviously didn't need help).
but the issue is not even letting people consider race AT ALL. most arguments against AA is to make the process color-blind. that's stupid.
also asian americans were and still are discriminated against/fight many bad stereotypes. sure they didn't endure slavery but plenty of anti-chinese,japanese,korean etc. laws were passed 100 years ago (70 years ago, japanese internment) that made it incredibly difficult for people of that ethnicity to compete in our society. Latinos encounter similar issues today. so I think AA is still necessary insofar as we should look at someone's racial/ethnic heritage as a factor in admissions and not bar colleges from looking at it (just like we should look at someone's income, family backgournd, etc. and give preference for those who had much more difficulties). in Cali, where they outlawed AA, colleges cannot legally look at race as a factor which, I think, is wrong
disclosure, I am an upper-middle class white male who suffered no hardships in childhood. I should be held to a higher standard (bad wording but the appropriate terminology eludes me right now) of academics because I grew up in a situation that was much more beneficial for me and basically I would have had to try to fail, and I am ok with AA and people who inherently will encounter more prejudice just because of their skin color/heritage, getting some sort of nominal help.
- Joined
- Oct 30, 2011
- Messages
- 249
- Reaction score
- 33
Ideally, the need for a construct like affirmative action will cease to exist once enough time has gone by.
- Joined
- Jun 2, 2013
- Messages
- 624
- Reaction score
- 361
👍 Great argument
It's just skin color is something that you're born with, it's not completely indicative of the perspective and diversity that you would bring. AA is necessary, just wish there is a fairer way to go about it. Nature vs. Nurture and we should have a system that brings in all types of nurture, not all types of nature.
Justices have to think about an ideal world because it opens a whole can of worms if they try to permit exceptions because of the real world.
- Joined
- Jun 2, 2013
- Messages
- 624
- Reaction score
- 361
The only thing is Asians are so successful academically as a whole that AA is becoming a disadvantage for them. Making it race-blind and look at their history (growing up in a rough neighborhood, single mother, parents work at McD, had to go work to support family since 16) are all better indicators of diversity.
Until one day where all elementary to high schools are equal, where everyone graduating has an equal chance at college, then we can truly not require AA. Ah such a utopian idea.
- Joined
- Sep 7, 2012
- Messages
- 191
- Reaction score
- 31
speaking from complete ignorance, is it actually more difficult or do they fall more in line with where white students fall (i.e. AA does not help and does not hurt)?
I think this is why the previous decisions from the SCOTUS about outlawing quotas and actual quantitative value on race is good, but I think it should be included when look at the whole application.
unfortunately when you deal with issues that affect 300 million people there will be plenty of anecdotes about people being jobbed. its like you and I mentioned about. dealing with law is just so difficult because you have to be in an idealized world, yet the laws affect people in the real world. what do we pick a system that is color-blind where there will be discrimination against people because of their skin color/heritage. or a system that looks at race as one of many factors where other people will be discriminated against. I favor the later because, again speaking in terms of platitudes and generalities, whites and asians (as a why to large racial category, I think people from south east asia and pakistan/afghanistan are worse off than people from India, China, japan, Korea, for example) generally have an inherent advantage because of their skin color and the way our society perceives these individuals.
bottom line, there is no good answer and I just think AA is the best of a bunch of bad solutions
- Joined
- May 28, 2010
- Messages
- 1,433
- Reaction score
- 813
White people in CA called for end of affirmative action and LESS White people got in. Plan backfire.
- Joined
- Nov 13, 2010
- Messages
- 74
- Reaction score
- 6
I agree. If white applicants truly want affirmative action to end, therefore making admissions "color-blind", then the vast majority of matriculating medical students will most likely be Asian. The percentage of whites in each entering class will decrease.
Affirmative action helps you as well, so stop complaining.
4
487806
The only way to get rid of AA is to get rid of the long-term congressmen (i.e. Baby Boomers) and replace them with Gen Xers and Yers. By rejecting essentially most of what the Baby Boomers supported (i.e. Restoring the 1950s affluence), we can essentially promote a progressive solution to resolve the socioeconomic disparities faced by URMs. Baby Boomers support a welfare and a police state. We can't get anything done until we get rid of the Baby Boomers in congress.
I have yet to hear a legitimate argument in support of affirmative action. No matter how you look at it, two wrongs don't make a right. Anti-discrimination is the same exact thing as discrimination. I don't know how it works entirely in our education system, but race should NOT be a factor AT ALL in admitting students to public schools. While many will disagree, I think it's alright for private schools to look at an applicants race, and maybe even use it as a determining factor. Is it stupid? Sure. Unfair? Definitely. If I was in control of admissions at a school would I do it? Hell no, I think it's a terrible idea. But private schools have a right to function in the way they desire, if they think accepting people because of their race makes their campus diverse, so be it. On the other hand, when the government steps in and requires something like this, it's an atrocity. When LEGISLATION puts a people at a disadvantage because of their skin color, now we have a problem. Just another example of the government overstepping the responsibilities entitled to them by the Constitution.
/rant
/rant
GregMving Living
A world without AA is unfair. I agree there are issues with AA and some reform should take place. For instance, both race and economic status should be considered. It is not fair for a poor Latino applicant and a wealthy white applicant to compete in a manner that assumes the playing field is leveled because it is NOT leveled. Race is a factor in the lives of all URM. From the moment a black child is born, for example, it has a 70 percent chance of living with a single mom. The average black family income is almost half of the average white. Most media, tv, books, history, and even the education system does not favor minorities. How can URMs overcome broken homes, low incomes, and a society that undervalued them without AA? We are still living in the aftermath of segregation, and most URM are still living in it's shadow. You can't compete equally with a group of people who have been shackled for so long. Everyone has a 'this rich black guy I know got AA' story, but the vast majority of black people and applicants do not fit into this category.
AA is also important for diversity. I have learned so much from the different racial and ethnic minorities I have met in college. How can you treat minority patients if you have never interacted with any?
A world without AA is unfair. I agree there are issues with AA and some reform should take place. For instance, both race and economic status should be considered. It is not fair for a poor Latino applicant and a wealthy white applicant to compete in a manner that assumes the playing field is leveled because it is NOT leveled. Race is a factor in the lives of all URM. From the moment a black child is born, for example, it has a 70 percent chance of living with a single mom. The average black family income is almost half of the average white. Most media, tv, books, history, and even the education system does not favor minorities. How can URMs overcome broken homes, low incomes, and a society that undervalued them without AA? We are still living in the aftermath of segregation, and most URM are still living in it's shadow. You can't compete equally with a group of people who have been shackled for so long. Everyone has a 'this rich black guy I know got AA' story, but the vast majority of black people and applicants do not fit into this category.
AA is also important for diversity. I have learned so much from the different racial and ethnic minorities I have met in college. How can you treat minority patients if you have never interacted with any?
4
487806
Lol, the government overstepped its constitutional boundaries since the Progressive Era.
A little history lesson for everyone: W.E.B. Du Bois and Martin Luther King Jr. both supported racial integration and argued that race shouldn't be considered as a factor in any decision making process. Only those who supported the black self-determination movements under Marcus Garvey and Malcolm X (and later collectively the Black Panther Party) believed that race is a crucial factor. Second-wave feminists used the concept of self-determination to invoke a separate but equal (sounds familiar?) identity for women. Clearly, I support their contributions to the Civil Rights Movement, but the current problems of affirmative action occur because of the self-determination argument echoed in the 1960s and 1970s. Self-determination shapes identity, no doubt, but it's completely contrary to the homogenous, integrated society that Du Bois and King had long endorsed, which in fact is the crucial element in all social issues. What we need is an integrated society, not a society categorized by various groups shaped by self-determination.
4
487806
You're echoing the self-determination argument made by the Black Panthers and second-wave feminists in the 1960s and 1970s. I don't blame you. Self-determination shapes identity and it does in fact help to promote diversity. But integration is a crucial aspect, since it is the optimal solution in creating a diverse society, where people are linked together by similar interests and desires and not by race and genders. Progressive reforms are key to improve the poor living conditions of ANYONE (of ALL races and ALL genders). But you don't break the society apart based on similar races and genders. Instead, people of ALL races and genders should work together in order to promote substantial progress in today's world. We need cooperation from everyone, but also the elimination of "racial and gender self-consciousness". This will take time, but the best solution right now is to eliminate all factors showing leniency to certain races, genders, and sexual orientations etc. Instead, affirmative action should be used to help improve the lives of all poor citizens without establishing a permanent welfare state.
I totally agree with you and I hope we achieve such a society one day. However, that is not the current situation. We live in a world where race defines much of a persons life and culture. AA is not the cause of this, but rather it is a solution. AA allows minorities to receive a better education and live in diverse/middle-class societies. We are defined by our race, and it is not caused by AA. AA plays a small role in most peoples lives. However, let's look at the the current conditions of our country. Most people live in racially homogenous neighborhoods, regardless of socioeconomic status. Poor Latinos live together, poor blacks, poor whites, ect. Racial identity is one of the most important factors in our society today. In reality, we still live in a segregated society, and it is defined by race. Futhermore, this racial segregation results in cultural differences that correlate with race. For instance, the culture of black urban youth is completely different than that of rural white youth. So now, race is not a skin tone but an indication of a persons culture, economic background, ect. I agree we should not define ourselves by our race but wishing won't make it happen. We need policies like AA that will results in more mixture and more diversity.
There are a couple of issues with using Dr. King and Du Bois with regards to AA. The biggest is the radical change in black society. Du Bois lived during the turn of the 20th century and Dr. King was seeing the world through the prism of segregation. Neither of them could foretell the current situation within the black community. Du Bois even preached that once overt racism was discontinued blacks would rather quickly rise and gain socioeconomic equality. Clearly, this has not happened. The destruction of the black family structure combined with failing publics schools, street violence, introduction of drugs, ect has made it nearly impossible. Neither Dr. King nor Du Bois could have foreseen this. And this is also the reason why almost every Civil Rights leader and activist today supports AA.
I used to staunchly support AA, but as I went through college, my views changed. I now support an end to race-based affirmative action and think a socioeconomic status based affirmative-action model should be implemented instead. As others have mentioned, our current system assumes that you are disadvantaged based on the color of your skin. In reality, it's not so much skin-color as SES that puts you at a disadvantage and potentially puts up barriers for your future academic and professional success.
Plus, most of the people benefiting from the current affirmative action model would continue to benefit under an SES-based model. Only wealthy minority applicants would lose their advantage.
Plus, most of the people benefiting from the current affirmative action model would continue to benefit under an SES-based model. Only wealthy minority applicants would lose their advantage.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Jul 14, 2011
- Messages
- 325
- Reaction score
- 39
Big misconception going around the thread as to the reason medical schools embrace AA. The AAMC has made it clear that medical education is very different than undergraduate education in terms of the validity of AA.
Read the AAMC's pre-ruling brief on fisher v u texas, their reason for valuing diversity is not for the sake of diversity itself, rather, because they believe that it will improve patient outcomes and access to quality care if the physician population demographics closely match that of the population at large.
I'm not saying their logic is right or wrong, I'm just pointing out that most of you are arguing against the reasoning for AA at the undergraduate level and conflating it with medical school admissions which is a process with entirely different social obligations.
http://cwru-osr.weebly.com/uploads/1/1/7/0/11703893/aamc_presidential_memorandum_12-07.pdf
4
487806
In the early 1960s, the Civil Rights Movement shaped more of an integration tone than that of self-determination. However, the true changes came when the major proponents of integration had suddenly died. Du Bois died in 1963 due to old age. Malcolm X, a long supporter of self-determination, changed his views and supported an integrated society after his trip to Mecca, but he was quickly disposed off in 1965. King's assassination in 1968 fueled the image of black self-determination, and since then it has become a fundamental aspect of black identity. The changes around 1965 and later was primarily due to the rise of Black Power and the Black Panther Party to fight off against drug lords in California and New York, but they soon revitalized the idea of self-determination. It's because of black self-determination from Black Power that racial identity exists today, and inspired the Chicano and other minority movements. I agree that Du Bois and King hoped to create a better integrated society, but alas, the so-called reforms of the Black Panther Party essentially backfired and worsened the socioeconomic wellbeing.
Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon, Ford and Carter all supported this integrationist theme and worked accordingly to improve the society by promoting affirmative action as a way to alleviate racial tensions and improve the overall society. But racial identity fueled by the Black Panther Party proved to be just too strong, and unfortunately, well-respected groups like the NAACP, who strongly advocated racial integration, promoted racial identity and political correctness. Racial consciousness is one of the causes of Marxism (in relation to class consciousness). We don't want that.
Nixon, Ford and Carter thought the same way in the 1970s as a way to improve the lives of blacks and women who faced long discrimination. Their AA is an excellent way to promote substantial progress and improve living conditions. The reason why AA went awry was when AA supporters introduced the quota system as a way to promote diversity. I support the intentions but oppose the practice, which the Supreme Court later shot down. I'm all for diversity. We need a diverse society for everyone of all races and genders to interact freely. Diversity is an excellent way to get rid of racial and gender self-consciousness. But using quotas and racial sympathy isn't going to help.
In the context of admission processes, the common argument against AA is people who are URM get admitted with lower stats, while Asians and whites have to earn higher stats to get admitted. Perhaps instead of having different charts of different stats for people of different races, it's best to establish a baseline requirement with some uncertainty. However, assess the applicant's diversity experience based on community service and rural experience. Clearly, my proposal will be shot down, because minorities are still racial minded and wish to associate with people of their own race. This de facto segregation is the precise cause of today's problems with racial evaluation. We can mitigate this racial self-consciousness by improving the education of poor minorities as well as their living conditions. Perhaps in the long run, more educated minorities will help us in our quest to permanently destroy this feeling of racial and sexual self-consciousness.
I'm all for leniency for people from disadvantaged backgrounds, but strongly condemn the separation of people based into races for the sake of diversity. We must improve education starting from K12.
- Joined
- May 13, 2013
- Messages
- 704
- Reaction score
- 467
Hate AA, but I don't think the time is right to remove it. I don't think the time will ever be right in our lifetimes, unfortunately.
4
487806
- Joined
- Jul 21, 2011
- Messages
- 617
- Reaction score
- 646
Yeah, Asians can suck it. So everyone stop complaining, we are trying to cure racism here. /sarcasm
I don't care if less whites get in. I don't care if more asians or blacks or latinos get in. This is why I'm against race entering the calculation at all. It turns all of us against each other. Just look at any thread on SDN about AA.
Skin color is a horrible way to judge someones character or future career. I don't believe that GPA or MCAT should be the only factor ADCOMs take into account. Past personal experience, socioeconomic situation, and challenges overcome should and will always play a factor. I just fundamentally don't believe that racism can be cured by policies that take race into account.
Last edited:
4
487806
It doesn't. Race-based policies fuel racism. It's a no-win situation. ORMs feel they are being discriminated against by URMs for having lower stats. URMs feel they are being discriminated by ORMs for being "less qualified" or "less intelligent" because of the advantage they have of having lower stats and looser requirements.
This will probably be my last post. I enjoyed debating with you, but I don't want to take over the thread.
Here is the heart of your argument and the reason why your position is flawed. Your entire argument rests on the idea of a homogenous, integrated, racially-blind society. However, that is NOT reality. In reality, we live in a segregated society that is drawn along racial lines. Affirmative action is necessary in order to create an integrated society and once this is achieved, AA will no longer be needed. Only then can your "homogonous, integrated society" be achieved. This is the exact case for AA!
Your position is derived from the "color-blind theory," an idea which states that we essentially live in a color-blind society and policies like AA disrupt this harmony. But clearly this is not the case. We need AA in order to achieve a "color-blind" society, because it is AA that will allow for integration.
Unfortunately, this part of your argument is not quite correct, and it completely misinterprets black history. In fact, it completely demonizes the black power movement, which was essential to the formation of a positive black identity.
The truth is racial self-consciousness is NOT the product of the black power movement. It is a product of European imperialism and classification. Which can be clearly seen in social darwinism and its classifications of races into mongoloids, negroids, ect. This legacy can be seen all over the world in former colonies. Such as Brazil which has a very different society, which is evident by its history of extreme racial mixing and stricter racial classifications (people aren't just classified as simply black or white). However, Brazil is dealing with the same AA controversy. Even Malaysia, which has policies that favors native Malay against Chinese, is undergoing a debate regarding AA.
So clearly, black power did not create racial self-consciousness. It is seen around the world. It effects a variety of different societies, and it is the result of European racial self-consciousness. For goodness sake, European racial self-consciousness is the cause of African slavery! To blame the black power movement for this is short sighted. Events and movements have to been seen within the ENTIRE historical context. You don't just randomly single out a historical event without putting into perspective. The black power movement is not the cause of the present situation, but rather it gave minorities a voice. It took "the idea of being black" from a negative into a positive. It allowed blacks to reclaim their identity and it allowed them to be proud of it for the first time in history. The same with the Chicano movement.
Finally, you state that minorities are the ones who are racially minded. However, strong instances of racial profiling (such as the profiling of Arabs/Muslims as radicals or of black/Latino men as criminals) shows that whites see race as well. To lay the blame entirely on minorities is to blame the victim.
This really makes no sense. Although some of the black panther leaders had Marxist idea, there is no historical example of racial consciousness causing Marxism. Marxism and race are not related. In the cases of Marxisim around the world, race wasn't a driving force. Class classification was the driving force. In fact, the biggest example, China, is a homogenous nation. In China, racial consciousness did not result in communisim, but communisim resulted in a new racial-consciousness and an elevation of minorities.
Here is the heart of your argument and the reason why your position is flawed. Your entire argument rests on the idea of a homogenous, integrated, racially-blind society. However, that is NOT reality. In reality, we live in a segregated society that is drawn along racial lines. Affirmative action is necessary in order to create an integrated society and once this is achieved, AA will no longer be needed. Only then can your "homogonous, integrated society" be achieved. This is the exact case for AA!
Your position is derived from the "color-blind theory," an idea which states that we essentially live in a color-blind society and policies like AA disrupt this harmony. But clearly this is not the case. We need AA in order to achieve a "color-blind" society, because it is AA that will allow for integration.
Unfortunately, this part of your argument is not quite correct, and it completely misinterprets black history. In fact, it completely demonizes the black power movement, which was essential to the formation of a positive black identity.
The truth is racial self-consciousness is NOT the product of the black power movement. It is a product of European imperialism and classification. Which can be clearly seen in social darwinism and its classifications of races into mongoloids, negroids, ect. This legacy can be seen all over the world in former colonies. Such as Brazil which has a very different society, which is evident by its history of extreme racial mixing and stricter racial classifications (people aren't just classified as simply black or white). However, Brazil is dealing with the same AA controversy. Even Malaysia, which has policies that favors native Malay against Chinese, is undergoing a debate regarding AA.
So clearly, black power did not create racial self-consciousness. It is seen around the world. It effects a variety of different societies, and it is the result of European racial self-consciousness. For goodness sake, European racial self-consciousness is the cause of African slavery! To blame the black power movement for this is short sighted. Events and movements have to been seen within the ENTIRE historical context. You don't just randomly single out a historical event without putting into perspective. The black power movement is not the cause of the present situation, but rather it gave minorities a voice. It took "the idea of being black" from a negative into a positive. It allowed blacks to reclaim their identity and it allowed them to be proud of it for the first time in history. The same with the Chicano movement.
Finally, you state that minorities are the ones who are racially minded. However, strong instances of racial profiling (such as the profiling of Arabs/Muslims as radicals or of black/Latino men as criminals) shows that whites see race as well. To lay the blame entirely on minorities is to blame the victim.
This really makes no sense. Although some of the black panther leaders had Marxist idea, there is no historical example of racial consciousness causing Marxism. Marxism and race are not related. In the cases of Marxisim around the world, race wasn't a driving force. Class classification was the driving force. In fact, the biggest example, China, is a homogenous nation. In China, racial consciousness did not result in communisim, but communisim resulted in a new racial-consciousness and an elevation of minorities.
4
487806
I definitely agree that it's actually been fun discussing various viewpoints on the benefits/flaws of AA. Compared to most of our wonderful, knowledgeable premeds on preallo, you not only clearly know what you're talking about but also provided actual facts to back up your claims, which essentially forced me to reevaluate my previous assertions for clarity. So, I thank you for that. 👍
I'll try to summarize my final points here (in bullet-point form).
1. I definitely agree that today's society isn't colorblind, but a colorblind (and a gender-blind) society is our goal. I agree that AA will help us achieving that goal, but I don't believe it can help by enforcing quotas or race-based policies. Perhaps another version of the Equal Rights Amendment will be a major hallmark in achieving this goal.
2. I only used the Black Power movement to make a point on self-determination and racial identity. I completely endorse it as a rational counterattack against the Social Darwinist movements in the 1890s (and later), which essentially was the cause of the problem. I only criticized it as a way of stating that supporters of this movement got somewhat carried away in self-determination that it essentially helped forced the de facto segregation rather than supporting the integrated society that King and Du Bois envisioned. Clearly, there are other self-determination movements worldwide, and I support them as a way for minorities (or once oppressed majorities etc.) to have a say on policy, but rather than forming a unified society, self-determination essentially split to produce many racially-based societies. Self-determination, while having positive intentions, is counterproductive to our goal in creating a unified society. And yes, self-determination also applies to the whites (as I mentioned previously regarding the second-wave feminism).
3. Poor choice of words I know. A cause of Marxism is class consciousness, which Marx believed will lead to a worldwide socialist revolution. I used racial consciousness as a way to analogously compare it (if self-determination was unchecked) to a worldwide race war. This gloomy prediction is probably as bizarre as the whole Malthusian catastrophe.
Alas, if the Radical Republicans had continued their reforms in the Reconstruction Era all the way to the 1890s, we would likely have achieved a colorblind society long ago. It's all because of those pesky southerners interfering our plans as always.
- Joined
- Mar 24, 2012
- Messages
- 2,264
- Reaction score
- 537
And since we all know Asians were slaveowners since before the pilgrims first landed on the shores of america, they need to be punished further for their intransigence.
- Joined
- Dec 29, 2011
- Messages
- 180
- Reaction score
- 29
Many of the people arguing against AA and suggesting to look solely at socioeconomic standing are basically ignoring how much culture plays a role in how successful one may become. I am disadvantaged and I go to a UC and most of my Asian-American friends that were also disadvantaged told me that despite how poorly they were brought up, their parents emphasized education and worked hard to help them attain the resources they needed to become a successful student. In contrast, growing up in a disadvantaged area most of my African-American friends were not expected to go to college and we were not encouraged to work hard in school either. It was due to fact that I was naturally self-driven that I mad it this far but n=1.
- Joined
- Apr 21, 2012
- Messages
- 3,226
- Reaction score
- 2,490
This assumes that all Asian people had parents who motivated them to try hard in school. Obviously, being a generalization, there will be tons of exceptions.
What about the poor Asian who grew up with parents who didn't care how they did? My parents weren't careless about my education, but they certainly did not expect me to go into medicine. That was my own choice and self-motivation.
D
deleted393595
D
deleted393595
My view:
1) The URM's who benefit most from AA in med school admissions are often those who are the most socioeconomically well-off.
2) AA isn't going to fix racism and socioeconomic disadvantages. In fact, it worsens them since it leads others to judge well-qualified URM applicants as having gotten in only because of a policy that lowers the bar for them, and thus engenders further discrimination.
I agree that having a racially diverse med school student body is critical, and I do wish to go to a school where my class isn't composed of just Asians and Whites. However, AA advocates seem to be missing the point that more than not URMs come in with weaker academic skills and metrics (MCAT and GPA) than their non-URM counterparts. Addressing this issue by promoting greater educational programs in socioeconomically worse-off areas, such as inner cities, would do greatly to benefit URMs across the board.
But I think that the latter approach is not advocated for as loudly as maintaining URM-priviledge in admissions since that requires a lot of effort. Might as well go for the low hanging fruit since working hard and doing the right thing is really hard, you know?
3) What about the poor White kids from the hills of Appalacia whose grand-daddies definitely weren't slave owners, and faced a heck of a lot of discrimination amongst their own White counterparts (Eg. "hillbillies")? Why don't they get an admissions bump like the URMs?
So essentially it's their parents fault that they worked so hard?
Last edited:
- Joined
- Aug 27, 2012
- Messages
- 30
- Reaction score
- 0
+1
There is a culture aspect that is not being taken into account when arguments for a socioeconomic system instead of AA arise. I'll make a comparison to aid my point.
https://www.aamc.org/data/facts/app...mcat-gpa-grid-by-selected-race-ethnicity.html
From 2010 to 2012, almost 30,000 applicants who identified as Asian applied to US M.D. medical schools. meaning around .002% of the Asian american population applied.
From 2010 to 2012, around 11,000 applicants who identified as African american applied to US M.D medical schools. meaning around .0002% of the African american population applied.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/24/education/census-finds-bachelors-degrees-at-record-level.html
Around 20%, 7,781,000, of African Americans hold a bachelors degree. This makes the percentage of African Americans who apply to U.S. M.D. medical school while presumably holding a bachelors, .001%.
Around 50%, 7,337,126, of Asian Americans hold a bachelors degree.This makes the percentage of Asian Americans who apply to U.S. M.D. medical school while presumably holding a bachelors, .004%.
Why is it that an Asian American with a bachelors degree is more than four times as likely to apply to medical school than an African American with a bachelors degree?
A socioeconomic system would give advantage to applicants from a poor economic or social background. While this system would increase the amount of those from destitute conditions in professional schools, I fail to understand how this system would improve the number of minorities in professional schools because it would not change the fact that few minorities are applying in the first place compared to their Orm counterparts.
Unless the minority culture has a shift in paradigm in regards to higher education or a drastic reform of elementary and high school education for minorities is made, AA will continue to be the better solution compared to socioeconomic standing for increasing the amount of minorities in professional schools.
- Joined
- Apr 21, 2012
- Messages
- 3,226
- Reaction score
- 2,490
So you're basically saying that URM's, culturally, do not work hard?
Nonono.
The argument for AA is that because not all groups start on an equal playing field. The theory is that, once equal, there should be a fair representation from all races/ethnic groups.
BUT, the only "equal playing" field is racial quotas/discrimination and socioeconomic disadvantages.
Since AA cures neither of these, I fail to see how AA attempts to fix these issues. I agree with El Capone: a program that targets poor neighborhoods and attempts to equalize the education system will at least fix one of the two issues that URM's face.
The racial discrimination can only be fixed with time.
Similar threads
