• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

21st Century Racism Is Thriving In American Academe

Should an applicants race be a deciding factor for admission to a university?


  • Total voters
    68
  • Poll closed .
Why is it not the same thing, other than AA says it's illegal to use race?

The right of an applicant “to equal consideration” is totally disregarded if race is part of that.

I think this pretty much nails it...

In the 1970s, while campuses were embroiled in debate about how to increase African-Americans and women on the faculty, universities were also putting into effect schemes to increase minority presence within the student body. Very selective universities, in particular, needed new initiatives because only a handful of African-American and Hispanic high school students possessed test scores and grades good enough to make them eligible for admission. These institutions faced a choice: retain their admissions criteria unchanged and live with the upshot—hardly any African-Americans and Hispanics on campus—or fiddle with their criteria to get a more substantial representation. Most elected the second path.

A lowering of standards and in some cases quota's.

It is not needed. Minority's can do just as well without the white mans handouts. We can make it on our own merits.
 
You keep repeating this and then you say things like "it lowers standards" and "it isn't a definitive way to judge how well students will perform" to substantiate your claim, but AA doesn't lower standards and it doesn't rest on the premise that race is a definitive way to judge how well students will perform. So you can keep repeating "it's unfair" and "it shouldn't be considered at all" over and over again, but you have yet to offer a single true line of reasoning to support those claims.

Actually yes it does and did...

In the 1970s, while campuses were embroiled in debate about how to increase African-Americans and women on the faculty, universities were also putting into effect schemes to increase minority presence within the student body. Very selective universities, in particular, needed new initiatives because only a handful of African-American and Hispanic high school students possessed test scores and grades good enough to make them eligible for admission. These institutions faced a choice: retain their admissions criteria unchanged and live with the upshot—hardly any African-Americans and Hispanics on campus—or fiddle with their criteria to get a more substantial representation. Most elected the second path. Affirmative Action (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)
 
It is not needed. Minority's can do just as well without the white mans handouts. We can make it on our own merits.
Your self-righteousness is unnecessary as AA is less about minorities themselves and more about society's treatment of them.
 
The right of an applicant “to equal consideration” is totally disregarded if race is part of that.

I think this pretty much nails it...

In the 1970s, while campuses were embroiled in debate about how to increase African-Americans and women on the faculty, universities were also putting into effect schemes to increase minority presence within the student body. Very selective universities, in particular, needed new initiatives because only a handful of African-American and Hispanic high school students possessed test scores and grades good enough to make them eligible for admission. These institutions faced a choice: retain their admissions criteria unchanged and live with the upshot—hardly any African-Americans and Hispanics on campus—or fiddle with their criteria to get a more substantial representation. Most elected the second path.

A lowering of standards and in some cases quota's.

It is not needed. Minority's can do just as well without the white mans handouts. We can make it on our own merits.

You're not addressing the law with that. And in 78, quotas went to court. Since then, quotas have been against the law. Yes, there was a debate. But, AA, the law, says what it says and not what you want to say. You're complaining about things already against the law.
 
Your self-righteousness is unnecessary as AA is less about minorities themselves and more about society's treatment of them.

People seem to think we need all kind of hand outs and assistance so I call bull****. I am sick of white people saying we need all this help because "society" or "racists" etc are holding us down. The only thing holding us down is US. Things like AA are not needed and has outlived it's usefulness. We have laws protecting us from discriminatory practices, so why do we need AA again?
 
You're not addressing the law with that. And in 78, quotas went to court. Since then, quotas have been against the law. Yes, there was a debate. But, AA, the law, says what it says and not what you want to say. You're complaining about things already against the law.

If they are already against the law, why do we need AA again?
 
People seem to think we need all kind of hand outs and assistance so I call bull****. I am sick of white people saying we need all this help because "society" or "racists" etc are holding us down. The only thing holding us down is US. Things like AA are not needed and has outlived it's usefulness. We have laws protecting us from discriminatory practices, so why do we need AA again?


:2funny: :2funny: :2funny:

No one has argued any such thing. Step back, think and try again.
 
:2funny: :2funny: :2funny:

No one has argued any such thing. Step back, think and try again.

I am talking about in general, you can read right?

Now again answer the question.
 
If they are already against the law, why do we need AA again?

AA is what makes it against the law. Are you not following? AA says you ahve to show you are not discrminating due to race. A quota would show you are, so you can't have them. Understand?
 
I am talking about in general, you can read right?

Now again answer the question.

No one's argued that in general either. Generalizations are ususally somethign to avoid for a reason.
 
Actually yes it does and did...

In the 1970s, while campuses were embroiled in debate about how to increase African-Americans and women on the faculty, universities were also putting into effect schemes to increase minority presence within the student body. Very selective universities, in particular, needed new initiatives because only a handful of African-American and Hispanic high school students possessed test scores and grades good enough to make them eligible for admission. These institutions faced a choice: retain their admissions criteria unchanged and live with the upshot—hardly any African-Americans and Hispanics on campus—or fiddle with their criteria to get a more substantial representation. Most elected the second path. Affirmative Action (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)
What you fail to include in this "evidence" is that 1) The article gives no source for its claim that "most elected the second path", and 2) The actions of the single school that the article uses to substantiate its claim were ruled unconstitutional. Like I said, AA does not lower standards or definitively judge students by race.

And as far as how widespread you think discrimination with AA is, we have this:
In an analysis, the U.S. Department of Labor found that affirmative action programs do not lead to widespread reverse discrimination claims. It also found that a high proportion of claims that are filed are found to lack merit. These findings firmly refute the charge that affirmative action has helped minorities at the expense of whites. The analysis found that fewer than 200 out of 3,000 discrimination cases filed involved reverse discrimination, and in only six cases were such claims substantiated.

Frequently Asked Questions | Affirmative Action | PCC
 
AA is what makes it against the law. Are you not following? AA says you ahve to show you are not discrminating due to race. A quota would show you are, so you can't have them. Understand?

We have laws against discrimination and have nothing to do with AA.

Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act of 2009
Age Discrimination Act of 1975
Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967
Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990
California Fair Employment and Housing Act
Civil Rights Act of 1871
Civil Rights Act of 1964
Civil Rights Act of 1968
Civil Rights Act of 1991
Employment Non-Discrimination Act
Equal Pay Act of 1963
Executive Order 11478
Executive Order 13166 – “Improving Access to Services for Persons with Limited English Proficiency”
Fair Employment Act of 1941
Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993 - enables qualified employees to take prolonged unpaid leave for family and health-related reasons without fear of losing their jobs. For private employers with 15 or more employers
Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution
Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act
Immigration and Nationality Services Act of 1965
Lloyd – La Follette Act (1912)
No-FEAR Act
Pregnancy Discrimination Act of 1978
Rehabilitation Act of 1973

So why do we need AA again?
 
People seem to think we need all kind of hand outs and assistance so I call bull****. I am sick of white people saying we need all this help because "society" or "racists" etc are holding us down. The only thing holding us down is US. Things like AA are not needed and has outlived it's usefulness. We have laws protecting us from discriminatory practices, so why do we need AA again?
I already explained to you when said this nonsense the first time that no one is arguing for handouts. You refuse to listen and instead address what you want us to have said rather than what we have actually said. Our arguments aren't about "white people" saying you need help and nobody is trying to "hold you down".
 
We have laws against discrimination and have nothing to do with AA.

Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act of 2009
Age Discrimination Act of 1975
Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967
Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990
California Fair Employment and Housing Act
Civil Rights Act of 1871
Civil Rights Act of 1964
Civil Rights Act of 1968
Civil Rights Act of 1991
Employment Non-Discrimination Act
Equal Pay Act of 1963
Executive Order 11478
Executive Order 13166 – “Improving Access to Services for Persons with Limited English Proficiency”
Fair Employment Act of 1941
Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993 - enables qualified employees to take prolonged unpaid leave for family and health-related reasons without fear of losing their jobs. For private employers with 15 or more employers
Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution
Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act
Immigration and Nationality Services Act of 1965
Lloyd – La Follette Act (1912)
No-FEAR Act
Pregnancy Discrimination Act of 1978
Rehabilitation Act of 1973

So why do we need AA again?

I didn't say it was the only law. But it requires we affirmatively show we don't discriminate as opposed to waiting for someone to sue. This seems valid to me.
 
So why do we need AA again?
It depends on who you ask. Some understand that race impacts social experience and they want people with diverse social experiences on their campuses and in their workplaces. Other want to make sure that existing or past discrimination does not impact their pool of candidates.
 
What you fail to include in this "evidence" is that 1) The article gives no source for its claim that "most elected the second path", and 2) The actions of the single school that the article uses to substantiate its claim were ruled unconstitutional. Like I said, AA does not lower standards or definitively judge students by race.

You know as well as I do their are plenty of others. If I list them, will you just ignore them as well?

And as far as how widespread you think discrimination with AA is, we have this:

This is funny...

Myth: Affirmative Action is preferential treatment
Fact: Preferences for those in need is the American way; a basic concept. Affirmative action programs for minorities and women are a very small part of U.S. preferential policies. College draft deferments, selective allotments for refugees, support for corporate farms, re-entry programs for GI's, the Marshall Plan (billions of dollars for free training of former European enemies denied to Black GI's in the U.S.), legacy systems, and geographical preferences are but a few of the programs engineered in the name of inclusion and deemed worthy of preferential treatment.


Sorry no dice.
 
I didn't say it was the only law.

You went the extra mile presenting it as such.

But it requires we affirmatively show we don't discriminate as opposed to waiting for someone to sue. This seems valid to me.

If someone does, they go to jail, get fined etc. SO again no need for AA, period.
 
It depends on who you ask. Some understand that race impacts social experience and they want people with diverse social experiences on their campuses and in their workplaces. Other want to make sure that existing or past discrimination does not impact their pool of candidates.

I am sorry man, that is a lame excuse in 2011.
 
You went the extra mile presenting it as such.



If someone does, they go to jail, get fined etc. SO again no need for AA, period.

If we learn about, from someone suing. Again, it's not a bad idea to have a school or company show they are nto discriminating. You are making a rather large deal out of people showing they are following the law.
 
You know as well as I do their are plenty of others. If I list them, will you just ignore them as well?
Do you not understand that that case was deemed UNCONSTITUTIONAL as were all other quota cases. And I already linked you to a site that said only 6 of 200 "reverse discrimination" cases were found to have merit. So what, are you going to list a bunch of cases that have already been deemed unconstitutional along with the 6 cases that were found to exist. Sure, list them, but it does nothing for your argument.

This is funny...

Myth: Affirmative Action is preferential treatment
Fact: Preferences for those in need is the American way; a basic concept. Affirmative action programs for minorities and women are a very small part of U.S. preferential policies. College draft deferments, selective allotments for refugees, support for corporate farms, re-entry programs for GI's, the Marshall Plan (billions of dollars for free training of former European enemies denied to Black GI's in the U.S.), legacy systems, and geographical preferences are but a few of the programs engineered in the name of inclusion and deemed worthy of preferential treatment.


Sorry no dice.
Sorry, you still haven't proven anything.
 
Just for clarity Boo and play, I do not mean to insult your intelligence or anything like that. I just seriously think it is an antiquated law that partly because of all the controversy around it, needs to go away because it really is no longer needed. It is not the 1950's anymore.

Heheh "Boo & Play" sounds like a new hiphop group.
 
Do you not understand that that case was deemed UNCONSTITUTIONAL as were all other quota cases.

Ummm no, Bakka won that case. Look at my link again.

And I already linked you to a site that said only 6 of 200 "reverse discrimination" cases were found to have merit. So what, are you going to list a bunch of cases that have already been deemed unconstitutional along with the 6 cases that were found to exist. Sure, list them, but it does nothing for your argument.

Who is talking about just cases? I am talking about others who point out how it is wrong and creating more problems than it is worth. We have plenty of laws against discrimination, we don't need it anymore as I have shown.

Sorry, you still haven't proven anything.

Oh I think I have.
 
Back
Top Bottom