Keix (![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
keilexandra) wrote2008-08-07 10:24 pm
keilexandra) wrote2008-08-07 10:24 pm
IBARW 3: Affirmative Action
As engrossed and fascinated as I am with college research, I can't avoid the topic of affirmative action. But I confess to being a) confused, and b) undecided. What exactly is AA intended to accomplish? Is it succeeding in this goal, and is it the best way to achieve this goal?
PROS
- more African-Americans, Hispanics, and Native Americans ("URM" = underrepresented minority) in selective colleges
- racially diverse campus
CONS
- in practice, raises admission standards for Caucasians and Asian-Americans ("ORM" = overrepresented minority) --Note that Asians are still considered URM by some schools, mostly Midwestern liberal arts colleges.
- does not necessarily lead to a socioeconomically diverse campus
From what I've read and heard, affirmative action has two central (and contradictory) aims. The first is to ensure a racially diverse campus; the second is to compensate for historical societal discrimination, which often leads to lower socioeconomic status. I am torn because I support the ideal of the first goal, but I believe that AA is a flawed approach to the second. Institutional racism has indeed existed in the past, still exists in the present, and in all likelihood will exist in the future. I'll even grant that maybe African-American and Latino families have a lower median income or similar indicator of socioeconomic rank. However, if this is true, a policy of affirmative action regarding socioeconomic status rather than race would still benefit those who needed the help--and stop unfairly benefiting the well-to-do minority families, because they exist too. As a side bonus, such a policy would help poor folks of any color, including white.
Frankly, if you're black--or white or pink or yellow--and making $200k a year, you are not disadvantaged. Sure, society is still racist against you--guess what, it's racist against Asians too, and even more discriminatory against poor white people. Ultimately, money counts for more than race. And all this assumes that AA is the correct way to compensate for institutional racism, a point that some might argue.
But what about ensuring racial diversity? Answer: I don't know. I think that colleges and universities should consider all kinds of diversity, but that race should play no more a factor than geography by today's standards. If you do the research, you'll find that currently race is much more of a "tip" than either socioeconomic status or geographic distribution. Also, balanced against the need for diversity is the need for fair admission of students based on merit--defined holistically, of course. A student may merit admission based on character, extracurricular activities, leadership, etc. The problem with AA is that it helps the rich, mediocre black/Hispanic/NA (though usually not this last) student who would nototherwise be admitted at the nation's most selective colleges.
So you tell me: is affirmative action ultimately good or bad? Somehow, I have a hunch that it's solidly gray.
Disclaimer: I am a college-bound student of Asian ancestry with the biases inherent in that. But note that Asians may be considered URM or ORM, depending on the school, and I am attracted to both kinds of schools.
PROS
- more African-Americans, Hispanics, and Native Americans ("URM" = underrepresented minority) in selective colleges
- racially diverse campus
CONS
- in practice, raises admission standards for Caucasians and Asian-Americans ("ORM" = overrepresented minority) --Note that Asians are still considered URM by some schools, mostly Midwestern liberal arts colleges.
- does not necessarily lead to a socioeconomically diverse campus
From what I've read and heard, affirmative action has two central (and contradictory) aims. The first is to ensure a racially diverse campus; the second is to compensate for historical societal discrimination, which often leads to lower socioeconomic status. I am torn because I support the ideal of the first goal, but I believe that AA is a flawed approach to the second. Institutional racism has indeed existed in the past, still exists in the present, and in all likelihood will exist in the future. I'll even grant that maybe African-American and Latino families have a lower median income or similar indicator of socioeconomic rank. However, if this is true, a policy of affirmative action regarding socioeconomic status rather than race would still benefit those who needed the help--and stop unfairly benefiting the well-to-do minority families, because they exist too. As a side bonus, such a policy would help poor folks of any color, including white.
Frankly, if you're black--or white or pink or yellow--and making $200k a year, you are not disadvantaged. Sure, society is still racist against you--guess what, it's racist against Asians too, and even more discriminatory against poor white people. Ultimately, money counts for more than race. And all this assumes that AA is the correct way to compensate for institutional racism, a point that some might argue.
But what about ensuring racial diversity? Answer: I don't know. I think that colleges and universities should consider all kinds of diversity, but that race should play no more a factor than geography by today's standards. If you do the research, you'll find that currently race is much more of a "tip" than either socioeconomic status or geographic distribution. Also, balanced against the need for diversity is the need for fair admission of students based on merit--defined holistically, of course. A student may merit admission based on character, extracurricular activities, leadership, etc. The problem with AA is that it helps the rich, mediocre black/Hispanic/NA (though usually not this last) student who would nototherwise be admitted at the nation's most selective colleges.
So you tell me: is affirmative action ultimately good or bad? Somehow, I have a hunch that it's solidly gray.
Disclaimer: I am a college-bound student of Asian ancestry with the biases inherent in that. But note that Asians may be considered URM or ORM, depending on the school, and I am attracted to both kinds of schools.
Re:
I do support financial aid on the basis that the students receiving it are accepted into the college based on merit - i.e., without regard to the aforementioned race and economic status issues. The financial aid helps them pay for the college, but it doesn't help them get accepted.
I also agree with you in that nothing is ever really fair, and I really can't think of any possible solution to that. Either way, the system (or society, or whatever we choose to blame it on) is flawed, and I guess I'd prefer it being left alone to the government interference (as much as it pains the liberal in me to say that).
You make some excellent points, all of which I should have thought about more before posting.
Re:
I thought of another reason why GPA is not the be-all and end-all. Many kids with access to better high schools have GPAs above a 4.0. But that depends on your school offering AP classes in the first place. AA is a patch on the problem, sure, but it is something that hopefully ensures intelligent people who had fewer opportunities in high school still get a chance at college.
no subject
no subject
(Also, this is exactly why I shouldn't be attempting anything coherent after 11pm: I don't make any sense.)
no subject
In the end, I think my being Asian affects my opinion more than I'd like. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think I've either read or seen somewhere that AA puts a limit on the percentage of minority races admitted into any given college. I've never been able to verify the legitimacy of that statement, but if it is true, then that is probably the basis for my belief that AA ends up excluding certain races (and by that I mean my race, and I'm trying not to make it all about me, me, me, but it's not working).
God, I wish I could edit these posts. (And seriously, "verify the legitimacy of that statement"? I have no idea where that came from.)
no subject
no subject
(As an aside, I was curious as to whether my impression of my alma mater (UCLA) having a high Asian population was correct or whether it was just my department (East Asian Studies), but Wikipedia says last year's student body was about 40% Asian (with 35% white and 15% latino as the next highest), out of over 25,000 students, so a cap on Asians is certainly not true everywhere. (Further aside, UCLA is an awesome school! *pimps*))
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject