>

Fix the money fix the world
I'm an Asian American who in some ways can be hurt by AA, but I still support its existence. 
Yes, there are certain things about it AA that need to be reformed, and I suspect even its staunchest supporters recognize that.
But throwing out the entire concept of AA because some things about it are broken is like throwing out all of the welfare state because sometimes it's taken advantage of: if you are only willing to support systems or institutions when they are 100% perfect and never make mistakes, then you will never support anything, ever. >

I feel like that's the end goal there "Oh well we tried and it made things worse. No reason to continue."
Tweak it a little every three years. Assess. >

It didn’t make things worse though. The wage gap narrowed, more PoC graduated and attended college, and colleges across the country became significant more diverse.
There are down sides. Tweaks are needed. But we can’t say it made things worse, in my opinion. >

As far as Republicans are concerned those changes are worse. >

I know my step son would not have gotten into his current college. >

The account I'm replying to is a karma bot run by someone who will link scams once the account gets enough karma.
Comment copy/paste bot.
Original comment
Account to be reported: Afectio 
Report -> Spam -> Harmful Bot
^^I ^^am ^^a ^^human ^^that ^^hates ^^scammers. >

Lots of these responses absolutely ignore the fact that educational systems across the country stack the deck in favor of white folks as it is.  Therefore, pure “merit” based admissions automatically favor white applicants. Legacy admissions, too, for the same reason. >

In favor of rich white folkes, if you are from a poor neighborhood you don't get any benefit no matter what color you are. >

And primarily in favor of wealthy white women more than any other group. Don't forget, they also get advantages from aa still. More than anyone else. >

Source? More whites women get into college because more apply. At lots of schools these days, they actually have higher average test scores and grades than men (also a trend across races, not just white people).
At some schools, I believe they actually have to have lower standards for men to maintain gender balance. >

This article goes way beyond modern college admissions. It talks about the entire history of AA, as well as two specific universities’ recent policies. It also doesn’t say white women benefit more than anyone else from modern AA policies.
Yes, historically most people who have benefited from AA in the U.S. are white women, definitely. White women were barred from all sorts of educational institutions and jobs until the 1970s onwards, and AA helped reverse that.
In modern America, however, women of all races apply in higher numbers and are more qualified on average than the male applicants, especially when it comes to liberal arts universities (of which most undergraduate Ivy League programs qualify). And because white women now attend most university programs in high numbers, the focus of most AA university programs is on boosting diversity among other demographic lines. Of course in cases where white women are still underrepresented, like engineering, they may still benefit from AA. So, as with most policies like this, some nuance helps in painting an accurate picture. >

The US south had racial segregation till the 70's. That's not very long ago. Should the children of these people get nothing?
Socioeconomically, being poor affects the outcomes of 3 generations. And all the segregated blacks were dirt poor by government mandate. 
I support affirmative action because it's reparations for literally enslaving these people and treating them as lessor humans for hundreds of years, until just 50 years ago. >

A lot of people who have zero connection to enslaved people can tick ‘ African American ‘ . I had an Egyptian American say that he and his family did so . Hugely ironic >

Yes, some people take advantage of the policies. A minority of people exploiting loopholes doesn’t negate the entire value of a public policy though. If that was the case, we’d have no valid policies. >

Understood . There’s also wealthy middle class African -Americans making use of affirmative action . I’d make it a socio-economic scheme  . Which would , of course , disproportionately help African Americans while helping all those who are disadvantaged. This would also ease racial resentment , which is a paramount concern and feeds the extreme right . >


Understood . There’s also wealthy middle class African -Americans making use of affirmative action .

Most wealthy middle class African Americans grew up in families where parents or grandparents experienced segregation in housing, schooling and job options firsthand, and so arguably still aren't as successful or well-connected as they might be without that, and would have diverse perspectives to contribute to classrooms regardless.
I think socioeconomics should certainly be a considered factor, and in many schools it is. But erasing race as a diversity factor to be considered by admissions boards makes no sense on any level, unless you're primarily motivated by racial resentment. >

I guess SCOTUS will decide >

Ah yes, our totally non-politically and non-religiously biased SCOTUS which definitely bases decisions only on data and logic. /heavy sarcasm >

Affirmative action should be based on socioeconomic status. That's it. >

I’m sympathetic to that . Not as easily defined as ethnicity however ? >

Zip Codes and the highest income your parents had in the past three years. >

What about people that don’t live with their parents? I’ve been away from home for years. Should I be punished because my parents are wealthy, even though I don’t see a cent of it? >

Yes, you had plenty of opportunity to get emancipated; and if you can get a memo after spending time in an emergency shelter or other homeless services that also suffices. That's not a change from what we have now. >

What? You can't get emancipated however you want. A lot of parents just say once you're 18, you have to leave. That doesn't fall under the criteria >

Then the parents supported the student and the student should receive aid equal to that.
Your proposed scenario wasn't the one being described. If you moved out years before you turned 18, then your parents income shouldn't count against you. >

I never mentioned emancipation. A lot of people attend school years after moving out. You never left room for that scenario. >

That what being supported by parents looks like. That's not special.
We are trying to support underserved communities. Not adults who delayed college for their own interests. >

So if someone leaves home at 18 and spends several years living and working on their own so they can save up money to go to college, that's being supported by their parents? >

There is no good answer
In theory, admission should be based solely on talent and achievement. Unfortunately, this is impossible to accurately measure and easy to cheat. It's also true that all sorts of unfair tricks are used by the rich and connected that have nothing to do with race
How do you measure talent and achievement? Tests are a tool that measures how good people are at taking tests. A very talented person with poor test taking skills may not do well. There are many kinds of talent, some of which are associated with rebellion. A talented, but rebellious, student may be hated or expelled before being able to achieve anything
Maybe a random selection would be better >


In theory, admission should be based solely on talent and achievement.

I think we could even challenge this presumption a bit. Why should college admission preferences go to people who already have talent and achievement when college is supposed to teach people how to achieve the same things that people with natural talent already have?
I also think that we are fooling ourselves if we think we can determine who is the "most qualified" to get an education. "Qualified" means "meets the qualifications", and I think that once you have a bar set, anyone above that bar can supposedly handle the demands of the educational curriculum and will benefit from it. Your idea of "random lottery" for those who qualify has been floated before, and maybe it should be the way that we dole out these coveted spots. >

Diversity has value. We're all robbing ourselves with this. It will only change a few peoples lives directly but we'll unknowingly feel the effects of this forever. >

Diversity is more than skin tone >

Diversity doesn't exclude skin tone. And race is more than skin tone. Whatever point you want to make isn't getting through. >

Race is superficial diversity. What really matters is diversity of thought. >

So you want diversity and you don't want racial diversity.
Diversity of thought I would expect to be an outcome.
I'm not sure how you would measure that going in. This is children we're talking about. I'm not sure how much thought diversity exists coming out of high school. >

Right now it disadvantages everyone.
Groups of Asians that came over as refugees  such as Phillipinos, Vietnamese, and Cambodians cant hope to score as high on college admissions, or are their familes as rich as those who came over because they were well to do such as Japanesse and Chinese immigrants. Limiting applications based on Asian ancestry hurts the rich asian groups... and devastates the chances of the others. 
Moving to say, black applications, scoring them higher means that they can get into programs or schools that that particular student cant hack. They could have done well in a certain field, or a school that was not as rigorous, but because they got bonus points they are now in programs that they will fail out of and owe a bunch of student loans when they never got their degree. It hurts them too. 
As for white people... its a very large demographic. The amount of cultural and economic difference is often overlooked just because they are one group. In reality you have a multitude of the richest best educated people, and by far the largest amount of poorly educated people who have no hope to be able to climb the economic ladder. That group is overlooked (hence why they are angry) because race based submissions help others... but never them, so they are tired of being an overlooked group. 
Take race out of the equation and move to an socioeconomic model. It solves a lot of problems and prevents a lot of the racial tensions rising today. >

Racial discrimination at its core is socioeconomic.....aa needed as another buttress against this country going back to the 19th century >

You are right about racism being socioeconomic. The problem is that AA paints with too broad a brush as per my examples. Rich asians get hurt a little, poor asians hurt a lot. Hispanics and blacks get better acceptance... rich ones do great, but poor ones might be accepted to programs or schools that might be to rigorous and they fail out in debt. Rich whites have it neutral, and poor whites get the shaft, leading to resentment and other issues with AA. >

Idk about that last part. I’m a poor, white 31 year old, disabled woman that’s getting major assistance to go to school. I know I’m a minority, a disabled person and a woman, and therefore might have more advantages offered because I am disabled and a woman, but still. I didn’t have a hard time getting funding for my education from the state. >

Ethnicity should have no part in college admissions. >

Yes it should, considering how the historical and continued denial of higher educational opportunities to racially underrepresented groups is a large factor in the economic gaps they continue to experience when compared to the White population >

No it shouldn’t >

Real compelling argument you got there champ, consider me convinced >

Doesn’t need an argument. Best person for the job, role, seat, position, etc. >

It should end because it is racist >


If Affirmative Action Ends, College Admissions May Be Changed Forever

Yes, admissions will be more merit based and not ethnic or skin color based. >

I know my step son would not have gotten into his current college.  Even though he had the grades, he is not wealthy or a favored class. >

You mean people might get into colleges based on their own qualifications? Oh the horror.. >

I just had to reply to your comment. There are clearly systemic disadvantages from an early age and all the way up to college for lower income and thus disproportionately minority groups. From red lining practices that are present to this day in local laws and ordinances. And all the secondary effects that this has on minority groups. Everywhere you look, there are systemic racist practices, from well documented lending discrimination and abuse to lack of job opportunities and inferior pay. Students from privileged families have tutors and all the best resources available to them, including legacy admissions. As everyone else is saying, AA is far from perfect and only tries to address a tiny portion of what is actually wrong. But you can’t scrap it and think that nothing is wrong anymore. It is a disgrace and a borderline insult to try to pretend that racism is solved and nothing is wrong. >

When people oppose affirmative action, they are almost always only opposing one specific element of it: racial preferences in college admissions decisions. This element doesn't address any of the systemic disadvantages you mentioned. >

I would love to know how Admissions would stay the same if Affirmitive Action ended? >

They wouldn't, that's why conservatives are so hell-bent on eliminating the practice. They know it'll lead to less Black and brown students going to college >

There’ll be more Asian admissions ; ‘Brown ‘ >

Not exactly…the assumption is college only recruit based on merit which isn’t always the case… >

It's never been the case, but hardly anyone here wants to acknowledge that