McCain Reverses Himself on Affirmative Action

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

First of all, the "white male" has always been a minority. White people have been a majority, but the white male was always a minority

Secondly, AA should, IMO, help those who need it. This should include poor white people and should exclude (for example) the African-American children of African-American corporate executives.

Scrapping AA is a bad idea. It needs to be reformed, however, to take into account the successes AA has helped create over the last few decades. We live in a different time, and we have new inequities to address.

I agree that it was need at one time. There is and always will be people that are unfortunately overlooked just because of the color of their skin or gender. But this does not happen near as much now.

People should receive something based solely on their qualifications and track record. The job or school should always go to the best PERSON.

But also, yes, it also works to the advantage of big companies that do not need any help. Just because they are minority owned.

Its also used in awarding education places to talented students who for one reason or another are unable to afford to go to prestigious colleges. While there are certainly problems with the AA approach - people can't see past the "race" aspect of it to see the practical arguments for the idea. Given that the reality is that discussions about "race" are in many cases synonymous with "class" it does make sense.

Its an imperfect world of course - but the idea that all people should be able to pull themselves up by the boot-straps and succeed regardless of any social or economic obstacles they may encounter is often romanticised wishful thinking. The problem with such an approach is that while a few may rise out of their deprived circumstances and achieve - the inevitable result is that overall the divide between the very richest and the very poorest gets wider all the time, which is what concepts like Affirmative Action are brought in to address.

Though it should be noted of course - that this continues to happen even with Affirmative Action.

[Steve Y Jessica 1]

First of all, the "white male" has always been a minority. White people have been a majority, but the white male was always a minority

Secondly, AA should, IMO, help those who need it. This should include poor white people and should exclude (for example) the African-American children of African-American corporate executives.

Scrapping AA is a bad idea. It needs to be reformed, however, to take into account the successes AA has helped create over the last few decades. We live in a different time, and we have new inequities to address.

I agree that it was need at one time. There is and always will be people that are unfortunately overlooked just because of the color of their skin or gender. But this does not happen near as much now.

People should receive something based solely on their qualifications and track record. The job or school should always go to the best PERSON.

But also, yes, it also works to the advantage of big companies that do not need any help. Just because they are minority owned.

Its also used in awarding education places to talented students who for one reason or another are unable to afford to go to prestigious colleges. While there are certainly problems with the AA approach - people can't see past the "race" aspect of it to see the practical arguments for the idea. Given that the reality is that discussions about "race" are in many cases synonymous with "class" it does make sense.

Its an imperfect world of course - but the idea that all people should be able to pull themselves up by the boot-straps and succeed regardless of any social or economic obstacles they may encounter is often romanticised wishful thinking. The problem with such an approach is that while a few may rise out of their deprived circumstances and achieve - the inevitable result is that overall the divide between the very richest and the very poorest gets wider all the time, which is what concepts like Affirmative Action are brought in to address.

Though it should be noted of course - that this continues to happen even with Affirmative Action.

But, the problem is, the program does not look at the persons ability to afford the education. It is awarded based on race or gender. Not ability to pay. So what about someone who is not a minority but very talented, but cannot afford to go to the prestigious college? Do they deserve any less to go to the college than a minority?

[Steve Y Jessica 1]

First of all, the "white male" has always been a minority. White people have been a majority, but the white male was always a minority

Secondly, AA should, IMO, help those who need it. This should include poor white people and should exclude (for example) the African-American children of African-American corporate executives.

Scrapping AA is a bad idea. It needs to be reformed, however, to take into account the successes AA has helped create over the last few decades. We live in a different time, and we have new inequities to address.

I agree that it was need at one time. There is and always will be people that are unfortunately overlooked just because of the color of their skin or gender. But this does not happen near as much now.

People should receive something based solely on their qualifications and track record. The job or school should always go to the best PERSON.

But also, yes, it also works to the advantage of big companies that do not need any help. Just because they are minority owned.

Its also used in awarding education places to talented students who for one reason or another are unable to afford to go to prestigious colleges. While there are certainly problems with the AA approach - people can't see past the "race" aspect of it to see the practical arguments for the idea. Given that the reality is that discussions about "race" are in many cases synonymous with "class" it does make sense.

Its an imperfect world of course - but the idea that all people should be able to pull themselves up by the boot-straps and succeed regardless of any social or economic obstacles they may encounter is often romanticised wishful thinking. The problem with such an approach is that while a few may rise out of their deprived circumstances and achieve - the inevitable result is that overall the divide between the very richest and the very poorest gets wider all the time, which is what concepts like Affirmative Action are brought in to address.

Though it should be noted of course - that this continues to happen even with Affirmative Action.

But, the problem is, the program does not look at the persons ability to afford the education. It is awarded based on race or gender. Not ability to pay. So what about someone who is not a minority but very talented, but cannot afford to go to the prestigious college? Do they deserve any less to go to the college than a minority?

And the way it is set up now, it also gives an advantage to wealthy "minorities".

[amiquechu 0]

As far as college. When i graduated from high school, my girlfriend was hispanc.

Steve,

Do you have a thing for 'hispanic' women?

Well, my ex was also hispanic. So I think that would be a yes.

Don't tell anyone, but I love Colombian women!

I will try to keep your secret, nobody will ever know.

Latinas are hot!

[DeadPoolX 9]

I wouldn't have an issue with Affirmative Action if it only looked at two pieces of information:

• The individual's ability to do the work involved (education or employment).
• The individual's ability to pay for their education.

Unfortunately, AA looks at far more, often including certain races while excluding others, without paying much attention to the details. A poor African American or Hispanic American who has good grades, a high SAT/ACT score, and a hard work ethic should probably be eligible for AA. However, the same should be said for any other person, regardless of color, race, ethnicity, religion or whatever else.

Likewise, someone who is monetarily comfortable to the point of being "well off" or even "rich," should not be allowed to make use of AA. It shouldn't matter if the student is of a minority group. They don't need the help.

Some might say, "Who're you to suggest someone doesn't need help?" I'm merely reiterating what AA advocates have been stating for years when regarding those races who are generally seen as more "affluent." I fail to see why it really has much to do with race at all. We could see the election of a black president in this country soon, so if that could occur (and to be honest, the chances of McCain beating Obama seems slim), I have trouble believing that African Americans, as a whole, need quite the same level of assistance they may have a decade or two ago.

[Jenn! 918]

I wouldn't have an issue with Affirmative Action if it only looked at two pieces of information:

• The individual's ability to do the work involved (education or employment).
• The individual's ability to pay for their education.

Unfortunately, AA looks at far more, often including certain races while excluding others, without paying much attention to the details. A poor African American or Hispanic American who has good grades, a high SAT/ACT score, and a hard work ethic should probably be eligible for AA. However, the same should be said for any other person, regardless of color, race, ethnicity, religion or whatever else.

Likewise, someone who is monetarily comfortable to the point of being "well off" or even "rich," should not be allowed to make use of AA. It shouldn't matter if the student is of a minority group. They don't need the help.

Some might say, "Who're you to suggest someone doesn't need help?" I'm merely reiterating what AA advocates have been stating for years when regarding those races who are generally seen as more "affluent." I fail to see why it really has much to do with race at all. We could see the election of a black president in this country soon, so if that could occur (and to be honest, the chances of McCain beating Obama seems slim), I have trouble believing that African Americans, as a whole, need quite the same level of assistance they may have a decade or two ago.

I have to agree. It's a class issue, not a race issue - at least it should be. Kind of ties into yesterday's thread about the free college vs. the ivy league...

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

First of all, the "white male" has always been a minority. White people have been a majority, but the white male was always a minority

Secondly, AA should, IMO, help those who need it. This should include poor white people and should exclude (for example) the African-American children of African-American corporate executives.

Scrapping AA is a bad idea. It needs to be reformed, however, to take into account the successes AA has helped create over the last few decades. We live in a different time, and we have new inequities to address.

I agree that it was need at one time. There is and always will be people that are unfortunately overlooked just because of the color of their skin or gender. But this does not happen near as much now.

People should receive something based solely on their qualifications and track record. The job or school should always go to the best PERSON.

But also, yes, it also works to the advantage of big companies that do not need any help. Just because they are minority owned.

Its also used in awarding education places to talented students who for one reason or another are unable to afford to go to prestigious colleges. While there are certainly problems with the AA approach - people can't see past the "race" aspect of it to see the practical arguments for the idea. Given that the reality is that discussions about "race" are in many cases synonymous with "class" it does make sense.

Its an imperfect world of course - but the idea that all people should be able to pull themselves up by the boot-straps and succeed regardless of any social or economic obstacles they may encounter is often romanticised wishful thinking. The problem with such an approach is that while a few may rise out of their deprived circumstances and achieve - the inevitable result is that overall the divide between the very richest and the very poorest gets wider all the time, which is what concepts like Affirmative Action are brought in to address.

Though it should be noted of course - that this continues to happen even with Affirmative Action.

But, the problem is, the program does not look at the persons ability to afford the education. It is awarded based on race or gender. Not ability to pay. So what about someone who is not a minority but very talented, but cannot afford to go to the prestigious college? Do they deserve any less to go to the college than a minority?

And the way it is set up now, it also gives an advantage to wealthy "minorities".

Do you have a specific example of this? Not disputing it - just curious to see a real-world example of how this works.

Regardless - I never said it was perfect. Just that the alternative (of not recognising any disparities between race and socio-economic group) would probably be worse.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

But, the problem is, the program does not look at the persons ability to afford the education. It is awarded based on race or gender. Not ability to pay. So what about someone who is not a minority but very talented, but cannot afford to go to the prestigious college? Do they deserve any less to go to the college than a minority?

Is that true though?

We've had this discussion on VJ quite a few times - and there are members here who work (or who have worked) in college admissions offices and have said pretty explicitly that quite a bit more thought goes into assigning university places than fulfilling the demands of some arbitrary quota system.

[Steve Y Jessica 1]

But, the problem is, the program does not look at the persons ability to afford the education. It is awarded based on race or gender. Not ability to pay. So what about someone who is not a minority but very talented, but cannot afford to go to the prestigious college? Do they deserve any less to go to the college than a minority?

Is that true though?

We've had this discussion on VJ quite a few times - and there are members here who work (or who have worked) in college admissions offices and have said pretty explicitly that quite a bit more thought goes into assigning university places than fulfilling the demands of some arbitrary quota system.

Well, here are some of my personel experiences:

In my first statement, I mentioned how when I graduated high school. My hispanic girlfriend had many scholarships soley based on the color of her skin. Her parents were pretty well off. I on the otherhand, could not get near as much help with my tuition and had to work full time while attending college full time. Because my father and myself are "White males", these were not available to us. My father was a farmer who struggled at many times.

Another example: Due to my position, I have to interview and hire employees at times. One time after I completed the interviews, I let my boss and the HR department know of my decision. However, I was told that I could not hire that person because our percent for women was low. So I was forced to offer the job to the only woman that interviewed, who was not nearly the best person for the job.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

The problem here I think is that we we are not talking about one overarching national policy - but various disparate pieces of general legislation that provide guidelines to local authorities.

Clearly these policies should be looked at on their own merits - and this doesn't really have much to do with whether or not the general idea is sound.

[DeadPoolX 9]

But, the problem is, the program does not look at the persons ability to afford the education. It is awarded based on race or gender. Not ability to pay. So what about someone who is not a minority but very talented, but cannot afford to go to the prestigious college? Do they deserve any less to go to the college than a minority?

Is that true though?

We've had this discussion on VJ quite a few times - and there are members here who work (or who have worked) in college admissions offices and have said pretty explicitly that quite a bit more thought goes into assigning university places than fulfilling the demands of some arbitrary quota system.

Well, here are some of my personel experiences:

In my first statement, I mentioned how when I graduated high school. My hispanic girlfriend had many scholarships soley based on the color of her skin. Her parents were pretty well off. I on the otherhand, could not get near as much help with my tuition and had to work full time while attending college full time. Because my father and myself are "White males", these were not available to us. My father was a farmer who struggled at many times.

Another example: Due to my position, I have to interview and hire employees at times. One time after I completed the interviews, I let my boss and the HR department know of my decision. However, I was told that I could not hire that person because our percent for women was low. So I was forced to offer the job to the only woman that interviewed, who was not nearly the best person for the job.

Scholarships are often weird. I remember when I was in high school, there was a scholarship called the "Tall Texan Scholarship." I'm not kidding. It merely offered money to go to college for Texans who were tall people. What constituted as "tall," I'm not sure. However, if you were under whatever the height limit was, you were not eligible, regardless of your academic record.

Granted, I've haven't seen one quite that unusual since then, but they do exist. I have to admit, I don't see a problem offering scholarships to students based upon the color of their skin or race. Some might see that as exclusionary, but so is letting students attend college purely because they're excellent athletes. I'm not, nor have I ever been, terrific at sports so there's no way I could have opted for any one of those methods.

Was I upset or did I cry "foul" at the thought that some other students might get to go so long as they played football or some other sport? No, not really. There are plenty of scholarships available for students today, all of which focus on different areas. Finding the right one may take a little work, but if you're not prepared to do some work, you probably shouldn't go to college in the first place.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Right. I'd be surprised if there wasn't some form of means-tested benefits for poorer people.

[Niels Bohr 72]

There was a scholarship at an Ivy League schools that says, "If you are white, you may apply."

For those who been down the poverty road in their childhood, you understand the culture relating to being poor. Having AA helped you with the disadvantages of resources.

Like I said, people, no matter where you go always think of the negative, greedy, jealous of others, self-centered. We neglect that when there are so many bad people people, there is one that is always good.

There's a lot of negative towards AA here, but, that's because of human nature. What happens if there was this one kid who is truly the one who deserves AA? What will happen to him?

Edited July 28, 2008 by consolemaster

[Trompe le Monde 1,107]

When they eliminated affirmative action in California the group the benefitted the most was Asians, not white males

[Niels Bohr 72]

When they eliminated affirmative action in California the group the benefitted the most was Asians, not white males

Pwned!