Affirmative Action

[Kirane]

Another study indicating that Asians are being treated unfairly:
"BROWN TREATED ASIANS “UNFAIRLY” IN 1987
z63\clip\2003\02\asprem.txt
nytimes.com/2003/02/02/weekinreview/02JACQ.html
February 2, 2003
Asian Students: Not All of Them Are Pre-Med Violinists
By JACQUES STEINBERG
“When Brown assembled the class of 1987, for example, it admitted 20
percent of all applicants, but only 14 percent of those who
identified themselves as Asian. A committee appointed by the Brown
trustees ultimately concluded that “Asian-American applicants have
been treated unfairly,”…struggled to decide whether
Asian-Americans fit the definition of “underrepresented” minorities.”
and
ASIANS WOULD TAKE OVER BLACK HISPANICS IF NO AFFIRM ACTION
z87\clip\2005\06\afasian.txt
Dropping Affirmative Action Would Harm Black and Hispanic Applicants but Help Asian Applicants, Study Finds
By ERIC HOOVER
the acceptance rates for black
applicants would fall to 12.2 percent from 33.7 percent, while the
acceptance rates for Hispanic applicants would drop to 12.9 percent
from 26.8 percent, according to the study. Asian-American students
would fill nearly 80 percent of the spaces not taken by black and
Hispanic students, the researchers found, while the acceptance rate
for white students would increase by less than 1 percent

and
frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=8716
Rewarding the Unqualified
By John Perazzo
FrontPageMagazine.com | July 3, 2003
"At the University of Maryland Medical School in 2000, blacks with college
grade-point-averages (g.p.a.) of B or B+ and Medical College Admissions Test
scores in the bottom half of all test-takers had a 70 percent chance of
admission; for whites and Asians of similar credentials, the chance was 2
percent. "

 

[Kirane]

What Rand Al Thor says is wrong and seriously misleading with reference to discrimination against Asian Americans at American universities:
Here is more proof how wrong he is:
“6/6/05 Princeton University website: “Study: Ending affirmative action would sharply increase
admission of Asian Americans to colleges,”
princeton.edu/main/news/archive/S11/80/77I23/index.xml?sectio
Princeton University researchers have found that ignoring race in elite college admissions
would result in a sharp increase in the number of Asian Americans accepted, sharp declines in
the numbers of African Americans and Hispanics accepted, and no effect on white students.”
asianam.org/statistics%20reverse.htm
and
“Asian American students have higher average SAT scores than any other government-monitored ethnic group, and selective colleges routinely reject them in favor of African American, Hispanic and even white applicants with lower scores in order to have more diverse campuses and make up for past discrimination.
Many Asian Americans and some educators wonder: Is that fair? Why”
Believe me, Rand Al Thor really doesn’t know what he is talking about and he is completely wrong.

 

[Kirane]

Rand Al'Thor:

You keep saying the entrance requirements are harder. You have yet to provide a single shred of evidence, so I don’t believe it.
Rand

Well here are even more facts that you don’t seem to know anything about:
"1/25/05 Washington Post: “Quotas for Asian Americans? Yes and No.”
by Jay Mathews
Asian American applicants to selective colleges appear to be at a disadvantage. Nationally, they have the highest average SAT scores, and yet many African American and Hispanic students with lower scores and grades are accepted to Ivy Leagues schools while high-performing Asian American students are rejected even when their families are similarly poor and undereducated. "
2/2/03 New York Times: “The New Calculus of Diversity on Campus,”
By Jacques Steinberg
“After a federal court in 1996 barred the University of Texas from
practicing affirmative action, the state began offering admission to all
high school students ranked in the top 10% of their classes. Given the
racial and economic segregation in the state’s high schools, the
assumption was that blacks and Hispanics would be given a fairer
chance to enroll, without having to compete directly with whites who
lived in richer districts.
But as it turned out, the main beneficiaries were Asian-Americans.
The percentage of freshmen entering the Austin campus who were
Asian-American rose to 18% last fall, compared with 14% in the fall
of 1995. Thus, almost one in five freshmen at the university’s flagship
school is Asian, in a state where only about three of 100 residents are.
As the admission rate of Asian students rose, to 71% from 68%
over that period, the admission rate of whites fell, by one percentage
point to 66%. So did that of blacks, to 43% from 59%.
Hispanics were admitted at a rate of 56% in 2002, down from 72%
in 1995. They make up about a third of the state population but less
than a fifth of the freshman class at Austin.
Asked to explain the dynamic, Bruce Walker, the director of
admissions at Austin, said, “Obviously they are the top students in
their schools.””

 

[vluvski]

Kirane,
Simply take out Asian American and everything Rand says pretty much agrees with your assertion that it is wrong to give preference or raise requirements to force percentages to reach some perceived equillibrium.

Rand’s point is that certain groups (white males, Asian Americans) are now on the NEGATIVE receiving end of Affirmative Action.

Furthermore, as AA is phased out, certain groups WILL see a decline in acceptance rates in colleges. Why? Because minorities’ requirements are finally being considered on par with their peers. (Note I did not say everyone because peers differentiates age groups and economic background.)

 

[Kirane]

vluvski:

Rand’s point is that certain groups (white males, Asian Americans) are now on the NEGATIVE receiving end of Affirmative Action…)

I don’t agree with what Rand Al thor when he said:
“If blacks, asians, and hispanics can recieve AA, why not Irish people like myself?” He speaks of blacks, asians, and hispanics in the same breath and in the same clause. This is misleading and shows that he does not know anything about the issue with Asian Americans.

 

[vluvski]

Kirane:

I don’t agree with what Rand Al thor when he said:
“If blacks, asians, and hispanics can recieve AA, why not Irish people like myself?” He speaks of blacks, asians, and hispanics in the same breath and in the same clause. This is misleading and shows that he does not know anything about the issue with Asian Americans.

Yes, misleading and not applicable in the case of Berkely and UCLA, but his point remains valid even if his facts are not all correct.

I would recommend taking issue with a specific statement (as you just did) rather than blanketly claiming that someone is ignorant and recommending other posters ignore him.

 

[1ke]

Kirane:

I don’t agree with what Rand Al thor when he said:
“If blacks, asians, and hispanics can recieve AA, why not Irish people like myself?” He speaks of blacks, asians, and hispanics in the same breath and in the same clause. This is misleading and shows that he does not know anything about the issue with Asian Americans.

You are showing your backside here. Please rein in your insults and superiority complex.

Rand included Asians in his statement, and it was an inaccurate classification. OK already. Move on. We all got his point and we all get yours.

 

[Kirane]

1ke:

You are showing your backside here. Please rein in your insults and superiority complex.

Rand included Asians in his statement, and it was an inaccurate classification. OK already. Move on. We all got his point and we all get yours.

Are you and Rand al thor hostile to Asians? He said that I did not provide evidence of discrimination against Asians and when I do, you say that I have a superiority complex. So Asians can’t win either way. My point is simply that I don’t see why these non-white racial groups should be lumped together. Also it was not fair to put Japanese Americans in concentration camps during WWII, whereas other groups who were waging war against the USA were not put into concentration camps. Doesn’t this show discrimination against Japanese Americans?

 

[bear06]

vluvski:

Kirane,
Simply take out Asian American and everything Rand says pretty much agrees with your assertion that it is wrong to give preference or raise requirements to force percentages to reach some perceived equillibrium.

Rand’s point is that certain groups (white males, Asian Americans) are now on the NEGATIVE receiving end of Affirmative Action.

Furthermore, as AA is phased out, certain groups WILL see a decline in acceptance rates in colleges. Why? Because minorities’ requirements are finally being considered on par with their peers. (Note I did not say everyone because peers differentiates age groups and economic background.)

Thanks! I think that they were actually in agreement too. They both want affirmative action ended because it hurts one population or another, yes?

 

[1ke]

Kirane:

Are you and Rand al thor hostile to Asians?

No, I am not hostile to Asians. I cannot speak for Rand as I do not know him/her.

Kirane:

He said that I did not provide evidence of discrimination against Asians and when I do, you say that I have a superiority complex.

I did not say you have a superiority complex because you are Asian (assuming you are). I made this statement because you took a simple, and innocent, remark made by Rand and attacked him and then posted a refutation in a much less than civil manner and in a manner that was attempting to show you were superior in your knowledge of the subject as if you are the arbiter of all things Asian and discriminatory.

It is fine to post refuting data, but you are assuming some nefarious motive on the part of Rand that just isn’t there. You are accusing him of things he did not state or intend. He merely made a generalization. There are ways to refute the mistake without attacking him personally.

Kirane:

So Asians can’t win either way.

My remarks have nothing to do with Asians. They were remarks on your behavior. So maybe you don’t have a superiority complex, but instead a persecution complex, or perhaps no complex at all but rather an abrassive manner. This is clearly a personal issue with you, based on your reaction, and I would just like to suggest that you refrain from placing motives on people that aren’t there. No one is claiming that Asians have not been discriminated against, I know they have both in overt ways as well as in indirect ways.

Kirane:

My point is simply that I don’t see why these non-white racial groups should be lumped together.

Because as they are all non-white racial groups. So when giving examples of non-white racial groups they are appropriate examples. Does that mean that they are identical groups with identical issues? No. Blacks, Hispanics, and Asians all have different historic backgrounds and different issues. But, the fact remains that when discussing the set of “non-white racial groups” members of that set include blacks, hispanics, and asians.

Kirane:

Also it was not fair to put Japanese Americans in concentration camps during WWII, whereas other groups who were waging war against the USA were not put into concentration camps. Doesn’t this show discrimination against Japanese Americans?

This is not relevant to the topic. Japenese internment during WWII has nothing to do with Rand’s statement or the topic we are discussing. Of course Asians have been, and still can be, discriminated against. No one has stated otherwise.

 

[Rand_Al_Thor]

Kirane:

Are you and Rand al thor hostile to Asians? He said that I did not provide evidence of discrimination against Asians and when I do, you say that I have a superiority complex. So Asians can’t win either way. My point is simply that I don’t see why these non-white racial groups should be lumped together. Also it was not fair to put Japanese Americans in concentration camps during WWII, whereas other groups who were waging war against the USA were not put into concentration camps. Doesn’t this show discrimination against Japanese Americans?

Peace be with you!

Where did you get the idea that I am hostile towards Asians??? You haven’t been reading my posts closely enough. I have said that I think EVERYONE would be treated equally. I also said that the reason I put Asians, blacks, and hispanics in the same sentance (and remember, I said NOT in the same CATEGORY) was because each of these groups either recieves AA of some sort or people that are for AA want each group to recieve it.

You seem to be one of those people that WANT their race to be discriminated against so you have something to complain about. I will now stand corrected on my statement about entrance requirements and discrimination against Asian students–I made that statement because I have never witnessed or heard anything about it at any school in the state I live in. But my point still remains valid about Berkley and UCLA. You cannot use those as examples because they have more Asian students than any other schools in the country.

The internment of Japanese Americans during WWII was a terrible thing, but completely irrelavent to the topic at hand. I really don’t know how much more clear I can make this, because you seem to be simply reading only the parts of my posts that you can twist into some sort of racist remark. I AM AGAINST AA BECAUSE IT IS RACIST AND DISCRIMINATORY. I AM AGAINST ALL FORMS OF RACISM AND DISCRIMINATION. I WANT EVERYONE TO BE TREATED EQUALY. If that makes me a racist, then Martin Luther King was a racist, too.

In Christ,
Rand

 

[Kirane]

1ke:

Of course Asians have been, and still can be, discriminated against. No one has stated otherwise.

Thank you for clarifying this. That was just my point, that the statement made by Mr. Rand al thor was not fair: “If blacks, asians, and hispanics can recieve AA, why not Irish people like myself?” Getting back to his statement where he mentions Irish people, don’t Irish people receive special treatiment in the Catholic Church, for example, the Kennedy family? Don’t they get special treatment, or how else do you explain the fact that they are allowed to marry and divorce in the Catholic Church? I have a Vietnames friend and her husband left her. But her Vietnamese priest told her that she has to pray everyday that he will come back and she must remain faithful to her marriage. But this was not what I read about the Irish people such as the Kennedy family who get special treatment from the Catholic Church on divorce issues. Don’t Irish people divorce and remarry a lot more than the Vietnames Catholics do because of this Church sponsored affirmative action on divorce for the Irish such as the Kennedys?

 

[Rand_Al_Thor]

Kirane:

Thank you for clarifying this. That was just my point, that the statement made by Mr. Rand al thor was not fair: “If blacks, asians, and hispanics can recieve AA, why not Irish people like myself?” Getting back to his statement where he mentions Irish people, don’t Irish people receive special treatiment in the Catholic Church, for example, the Kennedy family? Don’t they get special treatment, or how else do you explain the fact that they are allowed to marry and divorce in the Catholic Church? I have a Vietnames friend and her husband left her. But her Vietnamese priest told her that she has to pray everyday that he will come back and she must remain faithful to her marriage. But this was not what I read about the Irish people such as the Kennedy family who get special treatment from the Catholic Church on divorce issues. Don’t Irish people divorce and remarry a lot more than the Vietnames Catholics do because of this Church sponsored affirmative action on divorce for the Irish such as the Kennedys?

This is the most ridiculous thing I’ve ever read. You know full well that Irish people do not recieve “special treatment” to divorce and remarry. Even when I admitted that I had been wrong on the point you attacked me on, you make up something to attack me on. Who’s acting more “hostile” (to use your own words) here?

 

[vz71]

Kirane:

Please read post number 5, to see why Asian Americans have been discriminated against by America’s top universities and it is not right to place them in the same category as groups which are given preferential treatment in admissions to some of the top schools in the USA. This leaves a false impression that Asian Americans are receiving preferential treatment when they are not.

This actually proves the point.
No matter which side of AA you end up on, AA ends up descriminating against you.
All AA seems to have done is cause tensions along racial lines. Not because there is a race line, but because the law arbitrarily prefers one race over another.

AA stinks, and should be banned.

Z

 

[1ke]

Kirane:

Getting back to his statement where he mentions Irish people, don’t Irish people receive special treatiment in the Catholic Church, for example, the Kennedy family?

No, they do not.

Kirane:

Don’t they get special treatment, or how else do you explain the fact that they are allowed to marry and divorce in the Catholic Church?

Decrees of nullity are based on the evidence present to the Tribunal, not the last names of the petitioners.

Kirane:

I have a Vietnames friend and her husband left her. But her Vietnamese priest told her that she has to pray everyday that he will come back and she must remain faithful to her marriage.

Any Catholic can submit their case to the Tribunal for consideration, including your friend. I cannot comment on the counsel given to her by her priest because I do not know the specifics. Your friend has not been denied anything.

Kirane:

But this was not what I read about the Irish people such as the Kennedy family who get special treatment from the Catholic Church on divorce issues.

You are misinformed. The Kennedy family does not receive “special treatment” from the Church on the issue of divorce or any other. by virtue of our baptism, we are all equal before God and in the Church.

Kirane:

Don’t Irish people divorce and remarry a lot more than the Vietnames Catholics do because of this Church sponsored affirmative action on divorce for the Irish such as the Kennedys?

(1) I know of no statistics confirming or refuting the number of divorces/remarriages by ethnic groups in relation to other ethnic groups so I cannot comment on who divorces and remarries “more” or “less”.

(2) There is no Church sponsored affirmative action regarding divorce and ethnic groups, specific families or anything else. Each case presented to the tribunal is examined based on the evidence presented and the Canon Law applicable to Marriage.

You are now so far in left field that I doubt anyone will take you seriously. If you actually believe any of what you wrote you are (a) completely misinformed and (b) delusional with regard to the Catholic Chruch.

 

[Anglican77]

I understand the arguments against affirmative action and I also understand the reasoning behind labeling it “racism” as it fits the dictionary definition. However, in order for something to be labeled something so negative as racism, there would have to be severe consequences of using this practice. Now, while I realize some white kids with mediocre grades, test scores and accomplishments, sued and said they were not admitted because some minorities were given preferential treatment over them, I seriously find it hard to believe any whites are truly suffering from this. And if they are, I am sure it pales in comparison to the hardships of the minorities past and present in this country. What angers me is not racial affirmative action, but economic affirmative action. The rich kid that gets into Harvard simply because mommy or daddy gave the school tons of money. The rich are already privileged, they don’t need preferential treatment from universities.

 

[vz71]

Anglican77:

I understand the arguments against affirmative action and I also understand the reasoning behind labeling it “racism” as it fits the dictionary definition. However, in order for something to be labeled something so negative as racism, there would have to be severe consequences of using this practice.

No, the practice is racism.
You are correct given the dictionary definition, but I am afraid that the attempt to negate this with the concept of ‘severe consequences’ does not wash.

The abscence of any perceived consequence is not a justification for the practice.

Z

 

[siamesecat]

urbana:

I personally am strongly against racially based affirmative action, but for socioeconomically based affirmative action.

Racially based affirmative action only makes sense if there is active discrimination on the basis of race. In my opinion, nowdays the majority of discrimination on the basis of race is not active discrimination, but implicit discrimination based upon unconcious stereotypes and opinions. Racially based affirmative action, risks enforcing the stereotypes and opinions that cause this implicit discrimination, especially anytime that individuals feel that they were passed over in favor of someone of a different race.

While implicit discrimination means there is some racial handicap, the primary handicap nowdays is not race, but the circumstances in which one grew up. Yet, as far as I can tell, frequently racially based affirmative action benefits most those who have suffered the fewest drawbacks due to their race. Who is going to submit a better scholarship or college application: the black kid from the inner city with poor parent(s), or the black kid from an affluent suburb, with college educated parents? Additionally, racially based affirmative action does nothing to help the unfortunate individuals of non-disadvantaged races who happen to be themselves disadvantaged. Is the poor inner city black kid really all that much more worthy of help than the poor inner city white kid?

On the other hand, socioeconomically based affirmative action, done properly tends to benefit those who are the most disadvantaged. Nor does it have the drawbacks of perpetuating racial stereotypes.

I think socioeconomic affirmative action is most easily implemented in colleges. (Ideally, we would improve inner city schools, and prevent socioeconomic status from ever being a handicap, but I cannot foresee that happening.) If I were in charge of admission for Harvard, I would ignore race completely. However, I would consider socioeconomic status, somewhat that of your household, and especially that of the school district(s) in which you received your schooling. Who do you think shows more natural aptitude:

Student A:
took 2 of 10 advanced classes at their high school
has college educated parents who can help him learn, and allow him to focus on his schoolwork
has a SAT score of 1470 in a school that has a few dozen scores in the 1500’s

Student B:
took 1 of 1 advanced classes at their high school
already has more schooling than his parents and must spend hours each day caring for his siblings or earning money to help the family
has an SAT score of 1400, in a school that averages 700

I think student B has more potential, and deserves the Harvard education. However, even so, I would not admit him immediately to Harvard… he doesn’t have adequate preparation (not his fault), and would likely flunk out or at best struggle through and graduate in the lower end of the class. Instead, I woud inform him that he had a spot reserved in the following years class at Harvard, contingent upon his completion of a year of community college (with financial aid set up to help him with that too). That year would be time to spend remedying deficiencies in his preparation, high school 3 R’s if necessary, allowing him the time to enter unhandicapped by his poor high school education.

Excellent post, just what I was thinking. Not sure of a solution, but this really is the way things are and it’s definately unfortunate. I do feel though that Affirmative Action is not the way to correct it, but it’s true their are many unfairly disavantaged kids out there, and it’s not necessarily because of race. We have a program at my school to bring kids in from the inner city to learn at my suburban school, but they have to be minorities. I’m sure there are many poor white kids who could use a better education also, so I think it should be open to everyone. It should be based on circumstance, not race.

 

[Kirane]

I would like to take issue with what was said by 1ke here:

1ke:

This is not relevant to the topic. Japenese internment during WWII has nothing to do with Rand’s statement or the topic we are discussing. .

Here he says that we are not supposed to mention the fact that innocent Japanese Americans were placed in concentration camps during WWII. But why so/? He has no objection to what Rand al thor says about Irish working on the railroads as evidence of discrimination:
Rand Al'Thor:

If blacks, asians, and hispanics can recieve AA, why not Irish people like myself? We built half the railroad. We were discriminated against.

Don’t we have an example of a double standard here – one for the Japanese Americans and the other for the Irish. The Japanese Americans are not supposed to mention their illegal internment in concentration camps during WWII as evidence of discrimination, but it is OK, and no one has raised a peep, concerning the raising of the question of Irish Americans working on railroads (of their own free will). Why is it OK to mention the irrelevant topic of Irish working on railroads, and nobody has objected to it, but it is not OK to mention the illegal internment of Japanese Americans during WWII. Is not this another example of how Japanese Americans have been discriminated against on this thread and in the USA?

 

[Kirane]

Rand Al'Thor:

This is the most ridiculous thing I’ve ever read. You know full well that Irish people do not recieve “special treatment” to divorce and remarry. ?

Are you sure that the Kennedys and the Irish generally, don’t receive special treatment in the Church that other groups don’t have? For example, isn’t it easy to get divorced and remain a Catholic in good standing if you are an Irish person, like the Kennedys?
Also, there seem to be certain leeway given to Irish priests, like for example, there is one who they let write off color novels, and make a lot of money doing it. He is an Irishman, and you don’t have the Asian priests doing such things or being allowed to do this. When this Irish priest was at the LA Cathedral he was greeted with open arms by another Irish priest Cardinal Mahony. And I understand that this Irish priest, i guess his name is Greely or something like that, is actually in favor of birith control and thinks that the rule against birth control is wrong. Isn’t it ture that he is against the Catholic teaching on birth control - I heard that someplace, maybe someone can clarify it. Also, they have Irish priests in charge of Catholic theology departments, and they give them a lot of leeway as to what they can teach. For example, there is an Irishman by the name of Father McBrien who is the head of the theology department at Notre Dame University in the USA, and they allow him to teach all kinds of things that are not in accord with strict Catholicism, whereas the Asian priests are a lot more careful about what they are teaching.