Legacies are color blind. It doesn't matter what color your skin is, if your legacy you get in. Because of the non-discriminatory nature of legacies, there is nothing wrong with them.

It's a matter of honor. And there are LOTS of legacies in many orginizations all over the country. Should we pass a law ending them all? Even in those private orginizations? god forbid....

--cheers

And the grandfather clause applied equally to people of all creeds and colors.

Legacies are preferences. And in no small part AA is designed to counter the effects of official and unofficial use of legacies in admittance and hiring.

Legacies should be abolished also (public organizations only, of course)

MERIT......MERIT.....MERIT!

I guess the top 10% plan would work pretty well. However, like Madtown pointed out, it could lead to a preference for primary and/or secondary school segregation to achieve the end "goal" in all of this: diversity, complete with all of its enriching qualities. For example, if the vast majority of this said 10% was (disproportionally) white, minorities (blacks in particular) would have a fit. So, there are problems with this program too, at least in theory. The reason I am so quiet on the subject of what to replace AA with is because I really don't know. The Constitution, after all, tells us when and where things go wrong, but not necessarily how to fix them...



Oh, so that makes it OK, huh? This is how progress DOESN'T happen. Instead of trying to solve a problem, let's just succumb to a supposed deservance of whatever discriminations come our way, based on the actions of people from a completely different time who just happen to have the same color skin.



Right you are! But, again, does it make it right? NO! Let's say I've wanted to go to school A for my entire life, and it's a great school that would be perfect for me. I've done everything right academically, scored very well on my SAT, etc., and yet, I get DENIED because of my skin color. Sure, I could apply to colleges B-Z, but why should I accept the fact that it is POSSIBLE that I was denied access to my college of choice simply because of my skin color? I did everything right, like I said, so it's a well-based suspicion. This, Danya, is where you have been wrong in saying the things about "not knowing the other applicants, not knowing the difference". The point is, with Affirmative Action, you have to wonder if you're being screwed due to the fact that you are not the right color (or religion, gender, etc.). You shouldn't have to because you're guaranteed against this by the 14th Amendment.



Being an athlete, developed enough in one's chosen sport to be granted a scholarship or other form of preference in the college acceptance program, is totally different. This is because athletic skills are developed through hard work and determination, the same as academic skills, and being that athletics are just as much an aspect of college as academics in most circumstances, this is understandable. Race, however, is an attribute that a person is born with and cannot be changed, regardless of hard work or any form of effort. Therefore, it is not an acceptable medium by which to select applicants, if it is true that no race is better than another.



Legacies are, like athletics, earned privileges. I am less for legacies, however, because it exhibits no effort on the part of the applicant. But still, not on the same level as race.

First, the University of Michigan does not use a "quota" system. The paranoid posturing here perpetuating the myth of the white student getting bumped by an under qualified minority is simply horse****. Even in this case it is known that numerous "white" students with poorer SATS were accepted over the plaintiffs in this case. The ruling idea (and it is a good one) is that a university should have the right to promote diversity on its campus as the campus environment is meant to be a laboratory for life in the "real" world.

Bush makes no mention in his statement about the status of legacy preferences or athletic preferences or any of the many other factors that can be weighed in an admissions policy.

Make no mistake: Bush filed this amicus brief for one reason only - to reassure the Southern white-supremicist wing of his party (some might call it his base) that despite the Trent Lott farago (wink-wink, nudge-nudge) that they and the Republican party were still standing as one.

Since the case is not even being heard until March what undue haste could have prompted Bush to make his incredibly disingenuous statement on Martin Luther King's birthday???

Perhaps it was just a coincidence?

According to the N Y Times, a group of distinguished retired military officers is preparing a legal brief supporting Michigan's affirmative action policies.

Why? Because the service academies use AA to achieve a diverse student body. The dean of admissions at West Point told the Times, "We like to represent the society we come from. We want people to understand the society they will defend."

The conservatives would have us believe that diversity in the officer corps is because of accomplishment alone, but that just is not true. Without AA, the services academies would be...."Quite White."

Since Bush wants to attack quotas, why didn't he start with the US Military Academies, who have quotas, instead of the U. of Mich. which does not? "

Madtown

Maybe Bush realized that the Armed Forces have been used as a social laboratory for too long.

Besides the Military officially does not use 'quotas' but rather 'goals'. Whatever........

Just a question, but instead of attacking institutions for not having the party line required amount of diversity in it's student body, Does ANYONE ever look at how many minorities actually apply to places like West Point, rather than just looking at the current or graduate population?

Really? Colin Powell would not have had the chance for the advancement that led to his eventual post as secretary of state had it not been for AA.

"At one point in the late 1970s Powell had been overlooked for a promotion to brigadier general. Clifford Alexander, then secretary of the Army, held up the promotions list, ordering the General Officer Board to take a second look for black officers who were unfairly passed over.

The second time, the list included Powell's name, as well as other black colonels. Without Alexander's affirmative effort, Powell's career may have been stalled.

Even conservatives don't dare suggest the military is putting unqualified officers of color in command positions. Bush probably didn't intend to open a debate over affirmative action at the service academies. He just wanted to score some cheap and easy political points with his ultraconservative base."

Cynthia Tucker's column
Sorry, don't remember the name of the paper. Atlanta Constitution??

Madtown

I had written a paper on General Powell in one of my service schools. One reason Powell wasn't on the original list is that he was, at 42, below the age normally considered eligible for promotion to brigadier general.

An exception was made in order to give Secretary Alexander a black as he had requested.

Powell, who has always been forthright in his defense of affirmative action, says himself that he wouldn't have appeared on the second list or been made the youngest general in the Army if it had not been for preferential treatment.

Well then, what's your argument? Are you against the "preferential" treatment in Powell's case?,

From DTOM

Does ANYONE ever look at how many minorities actually apply to places like West Point, rather than just looking at the current or graduate population?

I have to confess I haven't looked for that info yet. But, I did read that every year West Point aims for a class that is 10 to 12 percent African-American but ends up, despite affirmative action, with only 7 to 9 percent Afro-Amer representation.

As I understand it, the Naval Academy and Air Force Academy employ affirmative action policies in their admissions, but West Point has an actual numerical goal for the number of black students admitted to its ranks.

I also read that the service academies have another reason for supporting diversity in admissions. It seems the enlisted military ranks are disproportionately dependent on racial minorities...Air Force-28 percent minority...Army-44 percent minority....so, they say, an all-white officer corps would hurt morale.

The military officers understand that if AA goes in Mich, they may be forced to dismantle their AA programs also.

Madtown

Actually, I am against the reason he was selected. I like Gen. Powell, and I'm glad he went on to become obviously successful.
My file is going before the board for promotion to the next rank as we speak. But I already know that I do not have enough time in the next lower position to be selected for promotion, and it would be wrong if I was.
I obviously should and will only speak for the Army, and you are correct about West Point's numbers. And according to the Army Almanac 2002, the minority population is 41.4%.
As an Army Equal Opportunity Representitive, it has been my experience that there is not a disproportionate amount of complaints or morale problems between units with all white leadership, and those with mixed or all minority leadership.
Even without AA, we would never have an all-white officer corps. Working presently, with the ROTC program, I can say that although we do have desired goals, AA does not come in as a factor on whether or not a cadet passes Military Science, or graduates their Advanced Camp, and receives a commission.

Let me qualify my statements as being my experience, and not as an official representative of the Army.
But I can say that minorities are well represented in the upper echelons of officers and non-commissioned officers.

DTOM,
I still think AA is a good program. But, I'm still wondering why, if Bush is against quotas, he didn't denounce the service academies instead of the Univ of Mich, which doesn't use quotas. The service academies are, after all, under the presidents authority.

Madtown

I would like the answer to that also from Bush.
Might be the case that there is more pressure from congress or the military brass, and Bush doesn't want alienate any of his supporters. But I'm not sure.


BTW, I think equality is the ultimate goal, and I truly believe in it, but I just think AA is flawed. We need a national debate of some kind to try and come up with a fix that makes everybody happy, yet discriminates against nobody. (if that exists)