Exactly. Doesn't this system basically say to minorities "You are not as smart as white people, so we will hold you to a lower standard." And isn't that the exact opposite message that needs to be communicated? Also there are different implementations of affirmative action. There are quotas but there are also "uneven standards". I think it is fine to have a quota as a goal, and to undertake to achieve that goal through expanded recruitment and ways of helping minorities prepare to succeed. However, if you simply have a lower standard based on race, that is just discrimination, that's all it is. Pure racism. Should be totally completely banned as the racism it is.

And that is just it. How would I know that the person in front of me is really qualified and not shooed in thru the back door at night because he/she isn't as good as a non-minority?

Not necessarily, it also says to minorities, including women, that "the system" is attempting to adjust for years of social and educational inequality in a hope to bring diversity to a profession.

I would disagree. Play a game with a pro and there is a handicap that favors the weaker party. This adjustment is a spin for minorities who cannot and/or will not compete.

Affirmative Action is an oxymoron!

If all you want to see is the current discrimination of affirmative action and not the effects of the past, then you are certainly correct.

Agreed.

Also to tell someone that they were the "right" color and could get preferential treatment should be against the law whether it was law school, med school or working at the cafeteria in the schools.

Ah, but sir, the results may not be PC.

And the darlings of the morons.

No! In the "fair" service to all people, of all colors, grades must be the standard, not skin color quotas, race quotas, or gender quotas.

To tell someone that they weren't the "right" color or race to get in to law school should be against the law.

All races can be judged equally by grades, because they are "colorblind".

Affirmative Action is an oxymoron. :mad:

I believe the initial goal of affirmative action was to allow underprivileged, but driven minorities access to higher education that wouldn't traditionally be available if academic performance across racial boundaries were unweighted.

Consider an example case history of a typical suburban white student, who would have access to an exemplarary school system, complete with dedicated instructors, regular test coaching and such, increasing his chances for academic success. This student would be prepared for college with a solid GPA and high SAT or ACT test scores.

Flash over to an extreme case...an underpriviledged minority who, although has the desire to excel (and does), has limited to no access to the types of advantages that allow that student to excel in the admission exams. Couple that with grades, while superior, were attained in classes where the instructors may not have been motivated to do more that herd students in and out of the room, or worse yet, spend so much time with disciplinary issues that the ones who actual turn in work, get high marks.

Nevertheless, someone recognizes that the student aspires to go to college, and recognizes that while falling short of the pedigree that typical college applicants possess, has the determination to succeed...enter AA.

But like every human assistance program (especially welfare), it has its abusers. Many will say that this system was developed shortly after the "Jim Crow" era when it was viable, and those days are long gone. That is probably true. Also consider that the above case is no longer typical of minorities, and many have mainstreamed into suburban America, having access to the same types of advantages for success that white students enjoy.

But yeah, like others posted, my grades and test scores were exemplary, so there was no need to be considered for admission under a quota. Fortunately, my college days are long behind me, so I don't have to defend my college opportunity, or my credentials for admission.

Should AA be removed? Probably. But mostly it should be revised, so that the pendulum doesn't swing too far the other way (as it seems to have done if you are a white candidate)...whereas candidates who fall short of standards (regardless of race) but are willing to succeed are considered on a case-by-case basis.

It isn't an issue of "want to see". It is there. To give me a handicap in my favor is telling me that I don't have what it takes to compete without the handicap. Now, you can tell me about the fact that I didn't work hard enough, have enough talent, etc, etc. Either way, how does it negate the fact that I have been given a boost because I am not good enough?

Oh yeah, I recall this one, isn't it "two wrongs make a right"?

Since we're dippingi into academic waters . . . where are the facts about whether the beneficiaries of "affirmative action" suffer the hardship of lower self esteem or stigmatization as a result. After you factor in the understanding that these minority groups already have sensitization to self esteem and stigmatization by society . . . shouldn't there be some research on this?

BTW, it seems that caucasian women were the biggest group benefiting from "affirmative action."

The road to hell is paved with good intentions.

Every program does but I don't think that is what is being debated.

Then take off AA if they are equal as you say.

But how can you be sure that there were not more qualified candidates that were pushed aside to admit you?

What case is there? There are always limited resources, spaces, etc, etc. They go to the most qualified. Race, religion, etc, etc are not issues.

I know that there was a porno movie that went "Two Wongs make a White". :D

Waste of money to research this crap. Put 200 mindfawks in a room with a guy and you will have many opinions on what is wrong and even more opinions on how to fix it.