hudsontc said:
...and there was much rejoicing.
Not only is AA in college admissions unconstitutional, in my opinion, the practice seems to be pretty much directly opposed to some of the opening lines of our own Declaration of Independence which states, "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."
Disparity in admission standards as compensation for past grievances or for a rough childhood is simply not a legal right...for anybody. Implicit in "all men are created equal" is that all men really are equal in these unalienable rights and values as human beings. Compensatory adjustments to admissions standards that are due to race, gender, genetics, class, or any other conceivable category by their very nature do not treat all men as being equal--it suggests inequality--otherwise there would be no need for compensation.
This is the interesting thing about AA. There is so much data to support both why we SHOULD have it, and also why we SHOULDNT have it, but, by and large, everyone makes their internal decision based on opinion or 'feeling'.
I minored in sociology and wrote about 100 pages on the subject over my last year in undergrad, so I feel somewhat knowledgeable on the subject.
1) I understand why many parts of the establishment have openly embraced AA as a necessary way to incorporate minorities (mainly blacks) into both the professional workforce and into higher education. Any intelligent person should understand why this is a positive.
2) I understand why people who only base level or proficiency on test scores would argue that blacks have less aptitude and lower abilities, considering blacks typically do less well on standardized tests. The data is there, its irrefutable. I dont think this necessarily makes you a racist, as long as you understand what you are saying and why you say it (i.e. not "those guys are all f-ing *****s cause they (employ said cultural stereotype)".
3) The backlash is often worse from high-achieving members of other minorities than it is from the 'typical' white male, who, one could argue, is directly affected the most by AA.
4) AA is not a 'cultural experiement'. It is a way to both incorporate a lost segment of the population (~20% of it), most notably, blacks, and to increase the overall acheievement level of the country as a whole. A bunch of liberal whacks from Berkely did not get together and come up with AA as a way to 'right the plight' of the black man. Taken purely, AA is a way to improve both society as a whole and our workforce by incorporating new ideas and new habits heretofore underrecognized in the upper levels of employment and education.
The beauty of it is that you can still think AA is fundamentally wrong (and you may be right) and still support it, because you understand how valuable the end goal is for the country. We abide by the Patriot Act, wiretapping, governmental/corporate manipulation of the economy, reckless warmongering, and the rest, in the name of 'protecting America', but we have the hardest time allowing someone with substandard credentials to achieve something supposedly based on merit, even when it does not directly affect us.
In short, I see the advantage of taking an entire segment of the population that was de facto blocked from entering the system, at least until the 1960's, and promoting their progression, whether this is in medical school, government, or the McDonalds manager training program. I dont see how people think that society just layers itself out over racial tiers and that has nothing to do with inherent inequality.
And mil, wheres your data? Sounds like you tried to stir the pot with one very limited (and biased?) study and some ten-year old 'data'. Again, your belief structure dictates your feelings on this matter, which is not uncommon.
