Using affirmative action in higher education, is accepting underqualified minorities the same as accepting underqualified socioeconomically disadvantage applicants?

Is one better than the other, both right, or both wrong and why?

All my life I grew up in public school. I'm originally from Savannah, GA and I don't think any of the 3 public schools I went to had a >50% caucasian demographic. School was rather diverse. I grew up with minorities. My best friends were often black. I got a number of stares my senior year when I'd go out with my friends. There would be 3 guys and about 5 girls (I being the only white guy and there being only 1 white girl) and we got some queer looks from people like we were going to rape, pillage and burn the place. If only they knew we were all the nerds of the school.

But then I left home and settled in Athens and have been here at UGA for the past 4 years. In my early years I thought that affirmative action was a big crock and I disliked the idea of someone having race equated into something that made one better or worse than another. I felt that everyone was like me; that everyone had black friends. Well, here at UGA I believe that blacks are <4% (most of those being athletes) at the state's flagship institution. On top of that, most of these whitebreds are all from the metro Atlanta area which adds nothing to diversity. For a university of over 30,000 students one would think that it could be rather diverse on campus. Nope. White people. Everywhere, dumb white people. I say 'dumb' because they haven't been around a brown-skinned man since their great-great-grandparents bought one. I also began to understand and sympathize with minorities of this country on a greater scale. Combining my past experiences with the present, I became rather resentful to my own race and for the most part continue to be more critical of caucasians than any other race. Though I must say it's being critical of caucasians who never really had to work hard to accomplish something; the ones who think everyone drives around in a BMW and if they don't they have no worth. I look at the past and the ways in which minorities have been treated and gotten the shaft in this "free" country and shake my head in utter disbelief that people could be so cruel to others who are undeserving of that cruelty (can't we hate each other for a real reason rather than because Randy Bob is white and Shaquandra is black?) and that these minorities accepted it.

Well, that all said, I changed my stance on affirmative action, as I believe people ought to get some idea that there are other races, other ethnicities, other cultures outside their comfort zone. It makes you become more open and enlightened should you choose to accept it. When black people stop getting sweated by pigs just because said Barney Fife thinks he's going to make the mother of all drug busts, when Hispanics aren't looked down upon for immigrating and trying to make a living as best they know how, when soccer moms and middle-management whites get their heads out of an orifice centrally-located between the left and right glutes, maybe, just MAYBE we could see real progress as a melting pot for diversity. Until that time, I am for affirmative action because white people collectively seem to have this xenophobic fear to anything foreign and unknown. And from that fear, attempt to constrict social progress of non-whites. I see this in people on campus, in talking with people in class. Well, not in my econ classes. Most econ majors seem to have their heads screwed on right. When you learn economics you basically debase thought of prejudice because that would be inefficient, lower productivity, not be the best match, and downright irrational.

P.S.: I'm very critical of whites, as I said, thought I must say it does not help to have minorities who wish to stay in the shadows, though I think for the most part white society has attempted to keep minorities in the shadows.

I agree with the concept of affirmative practice in part, but disagree with how it is currently orchestrated. Diversity can be an important factor on campus, but skin color is not necessarily the primary component. I could have my biological parents and five adopted siblings of completely different ethnicity. If we were raised by the same parents our entire lives, our "diversity factor" would not exist. That is why I feel affirmative action based upon skin color is wrong.

I also find it wrong that wealthy minorities still have preference over poor whites. I believe that completely defeats the main purpose of affirmative action.

I am in favor of affirmative action based upon socioeconomic background. That way people unable to afford college have a better chance of getting ahead. I think varying based upon geographic reasons and economic background promotes diversity much more fairly.

PS-If anyone wants to argue lineage as the same thing as affirmative action, I agree; I am opposed to that as well.

I think everyone should be qualified, case closed. I also think that the execution of affirmative action is extremely flawed and unfair. Everyone has to be born of some race or another; why should I get more points because I happened to be born with brown skin instead of pink? Diversity is not more important than equality and being fair. The most qualified individuals should be accepted, period.

Discrimination for race, religion, gender, age, or national origin is just plain wrong. If you Discrimination is favor of one group then you are discriminating against all others.

Also you are sending a message to those of the group that are receiving Affirmative Action that you do not believe they are equal to the rest of society. What an insult, everybody should been treated equally. If one is more qualified to be admitted for higher education, then so be it.

I feel there’s a very distinct difference between the two. Although an applicant could qualify as a member of both these groups, I see a difference in what they could potentially accomplish or where they fail.

In the case of AA for admissions into institutes of higher education (and job applicants), I’ve never thought an individual should be given any sort of preference for their race (or sex and/or age). In my mind this practice only further perpetuates racial discrimination (an excellent discussion in the AA thread).

However, for socioeconomic disadvantage applicants I see a difference in the end result. Having worked in a socio-economic capacity, there’s a school of thought that the key to reducing poverty is ‘breaking the link’. It’s no secret that poverty begets poverty. In the mid 80’s it was in the high 80th percentile that children who were born into poverty would end up in poverty as adults (couldn’t find recent figures). Thus the need to ‘break the link’.

I believe that if you give the socioeconomically disadvantage student a break in admission to college they stand a better chance of breaking the chain of poverty.

I think everyone will agree that, in principle, it is wrong to discriminate for any reason in any situation.

But to be honest, that is not the issue here. The issue is there exists a society where as a general rule one group IS discriminated against. Study after study after study has shown that Blacks are more likely to be arrested, more likely to be convicted, less likely to get hired, less likely to get promoted and so on.

This endemic racism does exist in many parts of the US, some far worse than in others. It is a reality, so what do you do about it?


Ignoring it and hiding behind the 'theory' that Affirmative action is just another form of discrimination is great, and in fact, 'in theory', you may even be correct. But the problem exists, and igbnoring it does not make it dissapear.


Perhaps the current application of AA does not work, perhaps it has been badly applied or even abused in some instances, but as a principle it exists to right a wrong. Those who would say AA is a bad thing, fine, then propose another way to correct the wrong which would work better...

Everyone has made wonderful points and most of which I agree with. CobraNightVipet and Fife and Drum especially.
I myself am a poor white student in a school full of stupid, white people--for the most part. Some of them aren't that bad. Anyway, from what I've heard from most of them, they find AA to be rather unfair. I myself would have plenty of reason to dislike it considering I'm white and poor, but the fact that I get tired of the same people all the time, I appreciate it's existence greatly and I look forward to college where I'll be able to be around more diversity. However, in the case of qualification, the one best for the job should get it, no questions asked.
It really is unfair for a wealthy minority to be favored over a poor majority when the qualification would rightly favor the best worker. As Suzy said: "The most qualified individuals should be accepted, period."

~Pau-Goat~

I agree, everyone agrees, blacks agree, whites agree, albinos agree.

But its not happening.

Blacks are still discriminated against in the workforce, in schools and in the justice system. Stop trying to pretend that there IS universal equality and that AA is tipping the balance towards inequality. In fact there is systemic and endemic inequality, and AA is a way to try and right the scales.

Saying 'everyone should be treated the same' is like saying the sky is blue. Correct, so what? AA is not the problem, it is an imperfect solution created to try and address a problem. If you do not like Affirmative action, thats fine. Then propose another way to solve the problem, because pretending it does not exist will not make it go away.

You're correct, Vermillion. There is no true 100% equality. In a fair world, everyone would be good to each other, the right person would get the job, everyone would have a job, and there would be love for and from every single person. But the world is not fair, America possibly being the least of all that could ever be thought of as "fair."
Prejudice begets prejudice, hate begets hate, and racism begets racism. From the day that the second wave of immigrants--the low/middle-class Italians and Polish and Irish and so on--came to settle in America, the first wave of settlers--the English, Dutch, Scandinavians, French, etc.--treated them like dirt, saying to them even then that they should, "Go back from where you came" when not long ago they had left their origins to seek this wonderful land of America. Before them when these first settlers came upon the Native Americans some of the NA attacked, fearing what they didn't understand, but for the most part the NA knew little of hatred beyond those amongst themselves--which tended to be quite rare in comparison to the extraneous amount of fighting that Europeans tended to stir up, in a way much like bashing a honeycomb open in the height of summer--and so they greeted the settlers and helped them. What did the settlers do? They gave them smallpox infected blankets to keep warm and commit mass genocide--at least that was the plan. Thankfully, it wasn't successful.
And within the last two hundred years we have many times outlawed segregation, but as the mindsets of our forefathers that says "We are in a position of power above you, mister random minority, so therefore we find something wrong with your existence and can discriminate against you as we wish" still is set in the minds of our youths, the idea of life-segregated will still exist. The only way to quash discrimination would be to change the mindsets of the ignorant masses of people who find something to hate about someone else and therefore eliminate the idea from our children--which will be very nearly impossible.
The warring between Israel and Palestine has existed of a story of two men born of the same man thousands of years in the past and it still continues. People kill each other for a Holy Land that they believe is rightly theirs completely and no possibility of being someone else's also, and they think nothing of it.
This situation isn't just blacks, it's Jews, Asians, Middle Easterners, Indians, gays, and on and on.
Of course this problem exists and when people can stop hating indiscriminately, maybe things will get better and life will become more fair. Until then people are going to disagree with things that are trying to make things better. I agree and support AA to promote diversity. However, to deny the better man isn't what it was intended to do. To create equality for all is what it was meant, and we're getting there. Slowly but surely, we might get there someday.

~Pau-Goat~

I believe the purpose of an admission policy should be to get students who are most likely to succeed. Not promote diversity or right percieved wrongs. Having said that, there is evidence that SAT scores underrepresent a black students possibility of successs in college. Let me quote from "Challenging 'The Bell Curve': College education halves black, white IQ score gap."



Later in the same article:



I suggest everyone read the whole article at this link. This single article changed my view on affirmative action.

The problem is that minorities have always been sent this message. It is just that everyone chucks it up to coincidence that the latest AP Poll shows that a person with a "black-sounding" name has a 50% less chance of even being called in to an interview than that of a "white-sounding" name.

This is the real insult. I agree with many others here that AA is not perfect - infact far from that. However, we have to start somewhere. I'm glad the government has decided to take the initiative and start in higher education.

And the thing to remember is that AA is not just a black-white thing. It is a mind-altering thing; one that encourages people to reject the idea that Mexicans are slow, Southerners are backward, and women should know their place.

We have to start somewhere.

I'll add some conversations I overheard right after the Texas Hays-Hopwood decision came out (was working at Texas A&M at the time, in a department focused on special student needs). Basically, the lament was "How can Texas A&M possibly recruit minorities if they weren't able to offer them these financial incentives?" Interesting that there was absolutely no mention whatsover of actually modifying the campus environment to get minorities to want to come there without having to offer them 'bribes'. Until that mindset changes, I don't see the problem being resolved.

That's the same thign people have said about the University of Georgia. However, I think that this has to be a gradual process, and that minorities won't be just fleeing to the University overnight.

The truth is, back where I live, there are just as many stereotypes about UGA from minorities, as there are about minorities from some of these students here at UGA.

People still see this University as the same as the 1960s UGA, and it takes the effort of those attending to change these ideas. Only then will, parents feel comfortable sending their children to "that" school.