The Supreme Court of the United States of America is once to look at a case that deals with Affirmative Action in the allotment of college places. Within the last ten years the court looked at this issue in the case of Grutter v Bollinger on whether the use of race as a factor in the University's admission procedure was unlawful. It is by no means a foregone conclusion that SCOTUS will come to the same decision as the author of the majority decision, Justice Sandra Day O'Connor has been succeeded by Justice Samuel Alito who has previously seemed unpersuaded by the need for affirmative action

 

 

New York Times Article

Huff Post Article

 

Grutter v Bollinger

Wiki page on G v B

I said cannot decide, because to be honest, I am ignorant on how it is applied. Intuitively, it would seem to pick certain minorities over more qualified people. Am I worried that it is harming white males? No. More likely, other minorities, such as Asians, which are probably over-represented with higher SAT scores, would be potentially harmed.

 

I understand the thinking behind it. Would be nice to know if there are any rules at all as to implementation. Does anyone review the demographics of those rejected to see if too many poor Asians with good scores were rejected for example?

 

I understand that SAT scores aren't the only measure as well, especially if the scores are reasonably close. But, if there is a significant gap, are we just lowering standards?

 

Poor is poor. If you are a poor white person from the Appalachia region, you have less in common with Mitt Romney than an upper class African American in the suburbs. I guess I am much more affirmative action for the poor than I am for race.

Your point on poverty - and the need for the poor to have proper access is my primary concern as well. We do not have any form of strong affirmative action in the UK - and I believe and hope fervently that we don't need it. But with reference to social mobility by open and free access to higher and further education we seem to be taking backward steps most years. When I was eighteen I was able to choose to go to university without the worry of an enormous financial burden for either my future self, or my parents, or both - I was given a grant to help with my expenses and my tuition was free. I believe with every fibre of my being that this situation is one we should strive for - but every year in the UK we move a little further away from that ideal.

 

My problem with affirmative action, and I would not know which answer to choose either, is my worry that it is engendered through guilt and the rump-end of paternalism rather than a desire for social mobility. There should be universal education for all - and that entails removing financial barriers as well as cultural hurdles and discrimination. One of my favourite quotes about the English system of law is by the great Irish jurist Sir James Mathew: 'In England, justice is open to all, like the Ritz hotel.' Higher education should not become / must stop being a preserve of the affluent.

 

Sorry to have wandered off topic so quickly - i was hoping to engender some discussion between those with strong opinions on the subject; I know little about it and watching a vigorous discussion is one of my favoured ways of getting into a subject

I've been following this case for a few months now. Great write up here:

 

http://www.scotusblog.com/2012/08/college-admissions-case-made-simple/

 

With a more recent follow-up here: http://www.scotusblog.com/2012/10/argument-preview-is-affirmative-action-about-to-end/

You can listen to Wednesday's oral arguments (as well as obtain a full transcript) here: http://www.oyez.org/cases/2010-2019/2012/2012_11_345

Until affirmative action is ended within the prison system, it feels ridiculous to consider ending it within higher education.

Affirmative action is as much discrimination as the discrimination it is intended to circumvent. Two wrongs do not make a right. Seats should go to the most qualified applicants regardless of class, race, gender, etc..

Assuming correct and intended implementation and execution…

 

That "Assuming" leaves this topic quite ill defined.

 

I believe affirmative action is an important remedy to correcting injustice both past and present. It is also an important way to giving opportunity to those in poverty. But how is it correctly implemented?

 

I think all should be encouraged to apply to the college or university of their choice. Colleges and universities should review all candidates using both conventional and unconventional means. By unconventional I mean life experiences beyond test scores, grades, and participation in traditional extracurricular activates l like DECA, honor societies, clubs (4H, FFA, Scouts, community organizing) and sports. For example, perhaps work should be considered. A student living in poverty that has a 2.8 GPA but has held a full time job while in school might perform better at Harvard than an upper middle class student that played volley ball, was in DECA, has great SAT scores, and a 3.8 GPA. If admissions offices looked for the former as aggressively as they look for the latter I would call that affirmative action. Also, I think admissions officers should consider achievement impacted by living in a racial ghetto or by an applicant who's achievement has been impacted sexual discrimination.

 

The important aspect of my commentary above is that admissions offices focus on the potential success of applicants based on the standards of their institution. Standards that should be applied to all equally. There is nothing affirmative about providing an opportunity for likely failure.

 

For most families success takes several generations. How many times have you heard of people who were the first in their family to graduate high school, or attend college, even if that college was a two year community college? Affirmative action can provide access to these lower rings as well as the higher ones.

 

Finally, one needs to consider that discrimination is not just applied to groups. Discrimination is also applied to individuals. Individuals can better understand being passed over for people that succeed than for those that fail. When admissions offices select candidates to meet affirmative action goals, and these candidates fail based on an inability to meet standards, candidates that were passed over justifiably feel discriminated against. These failures are more likely to occur if quotas replace goals in affirmative action.

Affirmative Action = Racism against Asians

 

Here is what "affirmative" action has meant for Asian Americans:

 

If all other credentials are equal, Asian-Americans need to score 270 points higher than Hispanics, and 450 points above African-Americans out of a maximum 1600 on the math and reading SAT to have the same chance of admission to a private college, according to "No Longer Separate, Not Yet Equal", a 2009 book co-written by Princeton sociologist Thomas Espenshade.

 

Budget-strapped state schools such as the University of California at San Diego are reducing enrollment of Asian-Americans to make room for international students from China and elsewhere who pay almost twice the tuition of in-state residents, Bloomberg News reported December 28, 2002. Why is the enrollment of Asian-Americans being reduced? Because there would be "too many" Asians otherwise, and that would exceed the university's allocated racial quotas!

 

 

Hiding their race

by Rich Lowry, New York Post 12/16/11

 

To check or not to check the Asian box? That's the choice faced by Asian-American students applying to what are supposed to be the most tolerant places on Earth: the nation's colleges

 

Ward Connerly, a former University of California regent, explained to the newspaper The Sacramento Bee about what Asians faced trying to get accepted into the state's university system:

 

"In an unguarded moment, [a fellow regent] told me that unless the university took steps to 'guide' admissions decisions, UC would be dominated by Asians. When I asked, 'What would be wrong with that?' I got an answer that speaks volumes about the underlying philosophy at many universities with regard to Asian enrollment. The UC administrator told me that Asians are 'too dull – they study, study, study.' He then said, 'If you ever say I said this, I will have to deny it.' I won't betray the individual's anonymity because to do so would put him in a world of trouble."

 

 

 

I can't believe anyone clicked "yes" for that poll. Don't you understand? Affirmative action is racism!

Edited October 21, 201213 yr by Anders Hoveland

Affirmative Action = Racism against Asians

<...>

Don't you understand? Affirmative action is racism!

You know, except not when it helps females or people of a different religion or socioeconomic status. Could you please at least TRY to make it a little harder for your positions to be so easily debunked so regularly?

 

You have misrepresented what affirmative action actually does. You have subsequently argued against this misrepresentation, without really addressing the reality of what's happening. If you get confused why people accuse you of strawman arguments so frequently, let this served as another educational moment.

when it helps females or people of a different religion or socioeconomic status.

and who does it hurt ?

 

without really addressing the reality of what's happening.

And that's really the main issue. Why do women and minorities (except for east asians!) earn less? Is it just beyond your understanding that there might be other possible reason beside just racism?

 

Affirmative action often only helps a small upper crust of privileged minorities that do not need any help anyway, while doing little to nothing to help the poor.

And that's really the main issue. Why do women and minorities (except for east asians!) earn less? Is it just beyond your understanding that there might be other possible reason beside just racism?

Like institutionalized discrimination, status quo mentalities, or good 'ole boy thinking perhaps?