Political Crossfire Forums

[Zadoc]

Thrilla wrote: micfranklin wrote: Zadoc wrote: Affirmative Action should exist in leveling the playing field between economic standings, not between races. A rich black person or Latino has just as good of a chance being accepted into Yale as a rich white kid.

However, under Affirmative Action, it can be argued that a poor white kid may have greater difficulty getting into Yale than an equally poor black or Latino kid with equal scholastic achievements.

If Affirmative Action were based on economic status, it wouldn't take into the effect of the equation an element that is irrelevant: race. It would take into affect economic background. This would still greatly favor minorities over whites, of course, however, it would be based on a variable of substance.

It does happen to be true that minority races, specifically blacks and Hispanics, are disproportionately poor and are disproportionately more poorly educated.

Affirmative action doesn't need a reboot, it needs to be gotten rid of, abolished, deleted, wiped away, and I'm speaking as a black person myself. this racist white boy concurs :tu:... finally.. racial harmony! :lol:

Fixed that for you.

[Thrilla]

Zadoc wrote: Thrilla wrote: micfranklin wrote: Zadoc wrote: Affirmative Action should exist in leveling the playing field between economic standings, not between races. A rich black person or Latino has just as good of a chance being accepted into Yale as a rich white kid.

However, under Affirmative Action, it can be argued that a poor white kid may have greater difficulty getting into Yale than an equally poor black or Latino kid with equal scholastic achievements.

If Affirmative Action were based on economic status, it wouldn't take into the effect of the equation an element that is irrelevant: race. It would take into affect economic background. This would still greatly favor minorities over whites, of course, however, it would be based on a variable of substance.

It does happen to be true that minority races, specifically blacks and Hispanics, are disproportionately poor and are disproportionately more poorly educated.

Affirmative action doesn't need a reboot, it needs to be gotten rid of, abolished, deleted, wiped away, and I'm speaking as a black person myself. this racist white boy concurs :tu:... finally.. racial harmony! :lol:

Fixed that for you. wierd.. under your profile.. it says your are an active member... let me fix that for you :-D

[micfranklin]

So anyway, ignoring Zadoc, affirmative action is racism under a different name in my opinion.

[californian conservative]

Thrilla wrote: Zadoc wrote: Thrilla wrote: micfranklin wrote: Zadoc wrote: Affirmative Action should exist in leveling the playing field between economic standings, not between races. A rich black person or Latino has just as good of a chance being accepted into Yale as a rich white kid.

However, under Affirmative Action, it can be argued that a poor white kid may have greater difficulty getting into Yale than an equally poor black or Latino kid with equal scholastic achievements.

If Affirmative Action were based on economic status, it wouldn't take into the effect of the equation an element that is irrelevant: race. It would take into affect economic background. This would still greatly favor minorities over whites, of course, however, it would be based on a variable of substance.

It does happen to be true that minority races, specifically blacks and Hispanics, are disproportionately poor and are disproportionately more poorly educated.

Affirmative action doesn't need a reboot, it needs to be gotten rid of, abolished, deleted, wiped away, and I'm speaking as a black person myself. this racist white boy concurs :tu:... finally.. racial harmony! :lol:

Fixed that for you. wierd.. under your profile.. it says your are an active member... let me fix that for you :-D

rofl :lol: but really he deserved that.

[veritas lux mea]

It's been said in this thread but I'll say it again; affirmative action is simply racism, etc.

[Charlie Man]

The base argument for affirmative action nis sound in my opinion, even when execution is flawed.
You may have heard it before, it's called the "potential argument."

Universities and employers who do training don't necessarily want people who are the best right then. Or if they have two people who are equally good right then, they have a simple tiebreaker already in mind duing the interviews.

"Who has the most potential?"

Now, if you're measuring potential as what you've done compared to what the average person like you (race, income, location, etc) has done, it's pretty easy for an actuary to make a big chart of, among equally qualified people, who will do the most with the education or training you give them.

Most of affirmative action is a slightly flawed attempt to follow this chart. There is a big problem when you DON'T use the chart among equally qualified people or "near enough as makes no nevermind" qualified people, because although this idea of potential is developed enough to judge it in a qualitative way, you can't turn that into an SAT-score difference without the kind of large longer term study that I don't think we have yet. Ah well.

Still, it's worth it for universities to try and admit people with the most potential, even if that means that the 150 IQ black girl from the ghetto with only one parent beats out the 151 IQ vietnamese son of two doctors. There are always going to be gray areas, but there are gray areas anyways in college admissions, they're hardly objective and quantitative through and through.

[californian conservative]

Charlie Man wrote: The base argument for affirmative action nis sound in my opinion, even when execution is flawed.
You may have heard it before, it's called the "potential argument."

Universities and employers who do training don't necessarily want people who are the best right then. Or if they have two people who are equally good right then, they have a simple tiebreaker already in mind duing the interviews.

"Who has the most potential?"

Now, if you're measuring potential as what you've done compared to what the average person like you (race, income, location, etc) has done, it's pretty easy for an actuary to make a big chart of, among equally qualified people, who will do the most with the education or training you give them.

Most of affirmative action is a slightly flawed attempt to follow this chart. There is a big problem when you DON'T use the chart among equally qualified people or "near enough as makes no nevermind" qualified people, because although this idea of potential is developed enough to judge it in a qualitative way, you can't turn that into an SAT-score difference without the kind of large longer term study that I don't think we have yet. Ah well.

Still, it's worth it for universities to try and admit people with the most potential, even if that means that the 150 IQ black girl from the ghetto with only one parent beats out the 151 IQ vietnamese son of two doctors. There are always going to be gray areas, but there are gray areas anyways in college admissions, they're hardly objective and quantitative through and through.

But that has nothing to do with race but rather the circumstances surrounding their achievements.

[Anti-Federalist]

BTW Did anybody notice that Affirmative Action was abolished in Michigan in the November election?

http://washingtontimes.com/upi/20061118-024551-2642r.htm

"The voters went to the polls and Proposition 2 passed, and we have to live with it now," mayoral spokesman Matt Allen told the Post. "As of December 22, there can be no more gender or race preferences."

... :-D

[Black Sheep 5]

Charlie Man wrote: The base argument for affirmative action nis sound in my opinion, even when execution is flawed.
You may have heard it before, it's called the "potential argument."

Universities and employers who do training don't necessarily want people who are the best right then. Or if they have two people who are equally good right then, they have a simple tiebreaker already in mind duing the interviews.

"Who has the most potential?"

Now, if you're measuring potential as what you've done compared to what the average person like you (race, income, location, etc) has done, it's pretty easy for an actuary to make a big chart of, among equally qualified people, who will do the most with the education or training you give them.

Most of affirmative action is a slightly flawed attempt to follow this chart. There is a big problem when you DON'T use the chart among equally qualified people or "near enough as makes no nevermind" qualified people, because although this idea of potential is developed enough to judge it in a qualitative way, you can't turn that into an SAT-score difference without the kind of large longer term study that I don't think we have yet. Ah well.

Still, it's worth it for universities to try and admit people with the most potential, even if that means that the 150 IQ black girl from the ghetto with only one parent beats out the 151 IQ vietnamese son of two doctors. There are always going to be gray areas, but there are gray areas anyways in college admissions, they're hardly objective and quantitative through and through. The problem with Affirmative Action is it focuses on the categories, and not the individual. When you say blacks should receive preferential treatment; I fail to see how this is anything but discrimination. If I said whites should receive preferential treatement how does that make you feel? The point is you should focus on the individuals. We have taxes, use these to determine who gets preferential treatement, or make every university color blind and let people get in based soley on test scores.