Affirmative Action in Education: Your Views?

  • News
  • Thread starter K.J.Healey
  • Start date
In summary, affirmative action in the education system is a program that gives the "underpriviliged" a boost for getting into colleges and universities. The fact that hypothetically my asian neighbor, whose family has the same income, has a better chance of getting into a certain university (like UofMichigan) becasue he's asian is complete discrimintaion against me. I am in favor of affirmative action, but think that it should be done more selectively instead of giving everyone a boost.
  • #1
K.J.Healey
626
0
I searched for a previous topic of this nature, but didnt find any. What are your ideas about Affirmative Action in the education system? If you don't know what it is, in quite briefness, it is a program that gives the "underpriviliged" a boost for getting into colleges and universities.

My stance : Anything that helps out or deprives someone based on their race is discrimination. The fact that hypothetically my asian neighbor, whose family has the same income, has a better chance of getting into a certain university (like UofMichigan) becasue he's asian is complete discrimintaion against me.
As for UofM's policy, they also give the boost based on your economic situation and the city in which you reside. This is how any sort of oppurtunities for the underprivilaged should be given. But race/sex/sexual identity and so forth have no place on an application. I don't understand how the need for the University to have cultural diversity outweighs the needs to be indiscriminate agaisnt races.

Your views?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
This would perhaps be better suited for the Social Sciences, or Politics, forums.

While it's here though...I agree with you. I think it's a violation of one's Constitutional rights for them to be discriminated against, even if it's the opposite of the usual kind of discrimination.
 
  • #3
All people should be treated equally. Your Asian neighbour is as much a human being as you are, or as I am. Just because he looks differently, speaks a different language, and has a different country of origin, should not mean that he should have a better chance at getting a job, getting into a school, etc than you.
 
  • #4
Justinius said:
All people should be treated equally. Your Asian neighbour is as much a human being as you are, or as I am. Just because he looks differently, speaks a different language, and has a different country of origin, should not mean that he should have a better chance at getting a job, getting into a school, etc than you.

As I see it, it's the same mistake that the feminists have been making. In their fight for "equality" they have simply unbalanced the scales in a different direction.

If it was wrong for white males to oppress females or members of other races, then it is equally wrong for those females and other races to suppress the rights of a white male.

Fortunately, I'm puertoriceno, so I can speak objectively about such things :smile:.
 
  • #5
I am in favor of affirmative action.

Let's face it: People of color often have a hard time making it in white culture dominated America. I am basing this on statistics of violence, drugs, teen pregnancy, property values, income, education...we have to face the problem.

The best thing we can do to help is to offer them oppurtunity.
 
  • #6
Healey01 said:
The fact that hypothetically my asian neighbor, whose family has the same income, has a better chance of getting into a certain university (like UofMichigan) becasue he's asian
Asians are generally not considered underrepresented minorities in higher education. Thus, affirmative action tends to work against, and not for, them in that milieu.
http://www.google.com/search?q=asians+"affirmative+action"

--
Berkeley's estimates of what would happen to white and especially Asian enrollment if affirmative action were done away with are quite conservative. Yet they yield the following indications: Asians would go from 40 per cent to 55 per cent of the student body. Whites would go from 30 per cent to 35 per cent. Hispanics would go from 15 per cent to 5 per cent. Blacks would go from over 6 per cent to under 2 per cent.

Such an outcome makes clear the extent to which Asian-descended students are currently discriminated against.
--
http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1282/is_n18_v47/ai_17498657
 
  • #7
Healey01 said:
I searched for a previous topic of this nature, but didnt find any.
I would suggest searching for "Affirmative Action":
https://www.physicsforums.com/search.php?searchid=119335 [Broken]

--
Showing results 1 to 25 of 105
Search took 0.35 seconds.
--
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #8
Curiously, you only get relevant results after result 50.
 
  • #9
I am in favor of affirmative action.

Let's face it: People of color often have a hard time making it in white culture dominated America. I am basing this on statistics of violence, drugs, teen pregnancy, property values, income, education...we have to face the problem.

The best thing we can do to help is to offer them oppurtunity.

So why advocate helping "people of color"? Shouldn't you advocate helping people who are disadvantaged because of violence, drugs, teen pregnancy, property values, income, and education?
 
  • #10
Bartholomew said:
Curiously, you only get relevant results after result 50.
For that search, I checked the individual posts radio button. If you would like to see only threads with the phrase affirmative action in the title:
https://www.physicsforums.com/search.php?searchid=119358 [Broken]
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #11
I think Hurkyl scores the most points on this one...the more aid is given to those based truly on their desire to help themselves the more effective the aid should probably be. Affirmative action is a bad solution to a worse problem, but times change, eventually there's likely to be a not as bad solution to a bad solution and so forth.
 
  • #12
I have personally always thought that a university should place less emphasis on the ethnicity of the applicant and instead look at the economic background that the applicant hails from. Say you get two applicants, one from a wealthy and one from a poor background, who have the same SAT scores. In general, the one from a poor background likely had to work a lot harder to get that SAT score whereas the one from a wealthy background probably had resources at his disposal the poorer applicant did not have. This implies that when it comes to work ethic and determination the poorer applicant has more than the wealthy one, which is a much better judgement of charecter.
The point of this is affirmative action ignores many people who are Asian and white who overcame adversity to get to their position. Because targeted minorities make up large parts of the lower income bracket they would still be favored when it matters in applying.
I'm not sure what all of this would do for financial aid, however. Because it might affect that part of college admissions and if you can't pay for college then you can't go, which would drive away the poorer applicants anyway. Hmmm.
 
  • #13
But what if one applicant is from a middle income with a 1300 score and the other from a poor income with a 1200 score, which would you pick? Keeping in mind that the goal of this improved system should naturally lead to a fair degree of equality between the various groups of people since we all have on average the same desire to suceed right? Where does a desire to suceed come from though, and what is considered successful? And if I grow up always seeing one group of people get ahead won't I immitate that group?
I'm not so sure, I mean it's hard to say where to draw the lines, I don't even know if poverty leads to a general decrease or increase of financial ambition, I would guess it leads to a majority of decrease and a very small minority of extreme increase but it's just a guess, if being born into a low income family with high crime and drugs and all that stuff overwhelmingly affects the individuals future to the point that it's say 95% predictable that you won't have the ambition or something to pursue such an educational opportunity even if it's there would you still support such a system, or is it a societal or cultural problem of some sort? The true problem could still be shrouded under a blanket of false solutions or there may be no problem at all to some, If you don't consider yourself or others to be in any group but I wonder what the consequences are of seeing things that way...
 
  • #14
Let's look at this whole thing in another way. What if whites suddenly became a minority and the roles were reversed? Would it then be right to say they should get better treatment? Of course not! Affirmitive action is rasism, only its target is the majority, not the minority. If two people apply to a school the only thing the schoold should know about them before enrolment is their acidemic record. That way the best student gets in, be it majority or minority. The idea that swinging the pendulam to the other extreme to fix a problem is ludicrous and, to me, laughable because the problem will still be there, only polarized in the opposite direction.
 
  • #15
Minorities often have to work harder to get to the point where they can apply for college then do whites. This is not just because of crime and poverty, which are part of the problem, but also because the education system is made by whites, for whites.

Currently, public education is terrible because they treat everyone as if they are the same. As if we all learn the same way and are interested in the same things. So if you don't fall into that narrow category of the way the government thinks students should be, you will be fighting an uphill battle. I'm white, and the school system was incompatible with me; it seems to me that the chances of this are even higher for non-whites.
 
  • #16
Non-whites include east asians and "browns" from southern asia. They do well in strong education systems, as anybody can see. Look at who wound up on top in the international math education trials.
 
  • #17
Economic impediments are not always compelling, though I'm sure they can be. I grew up fairly disadvantaged and do hail partially from minority ethnic groups, but I still had access to the free public library and I spent quite a bit of time there educating myself as a kid to make up for the sad failing of public education.
 
  • #18
The main thing should be reaching out to people(not specific groups) who want to help themselves, if our "equality" laws followed that principle and didn't make distinctions of age, race, or colour, society might follow and stop making so many distinctions as well...or society might make more laws to further aid distinctions.
 
  • #19
hitssquad said:
Asians would go from 40 per cent to 55 per cent of the student body.
Such an outcome makes clear the extent to which Asian-descended students are currently discriminated against.
--
http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1282/is_n18_v47/ai_17498657

:grumpy: So bad.

I say if schools are to concern themselves with social engineering, the most efficacious way is by instilling in their present student body with virtues.
 
  • #20
Crosson said:
I am in favor of affirmative action.

Let's face it: People of color often have a hard time making it in white culture dominated America. I am basing this on statistics of violence, drugs, teen pregnancy, property values, income, education...we have to face the problem.

Originally usa was dominated by european culture. It was the europeans who essentially created the country. However, now there is unequal opportunities for all. The ethnic europeans are discriminated against simply because the people with similar ethnicity seem to do better than africans/ mexicans. The asians however do equally well as the europeans. This seems to highlight that the problem of disparity in achievement is due to problems other than discrimination. The Jews do much better than average, and have a much higher income than the ethnic europeans. If the ethnic europeans are discriminated against, then the Jews should be ultra discriminated against.
You say that USA is white culture dominated. From where I am sitting, it is black culture dominated. I can hardly think of current white male music stars and most of the sports stars are black. So according to your logic, because whites are not black they deserve special consideration in order to help their self esteem.

However, I am against all discrimination based upon ethnic origin.

It is racism and only supported by racists.
 
Last edited:
  • #21
Nice post there plus...sums up how I feel pretty well.
 
  • #22
i Hate Affirmative Action Because I Hate Sexism/racism!
 
  • #23
gravenewworld said:
i Hate Affirmative Action Because I Hate Sexism/racism!


QFE.

*10char*
 
  • #24
I think more studies need to be done (if they haven't already been done) on economic factors. Affirmative action was put in place because of events happening generations ago. There are still the "old schoolers" who look differently at minorities and women, and I know this because I work closely with these sorts and have witnessed for myself that it still occurs. It's a sad fact graven, but you seem young and unexposed to some of the older generations who still hold these views. A majority of people today I can say are not judgemental on race or gender because our culture has made an effort of education and making an awareness of this problem.

I really like what loseyourname has to say--he took the responsibility of educating himself with the resources available to him. The problem is, those are economically disadvantaged may not have all of the resources to gain from. There are a lot of people who take the initiative of their education and lives despite what the "odds". This is why I think further research needs to be done on available resources and economic backgrounds.

The fact that affirmative action has to be put in place is a shame on our culture, but it's a shame on the very few who have made it an issue.
 
  • #25
Kerrie said:
The fact that affirmative action has to be put in place is a shame on our culture, but it's a shame on the very few who have made it an issue.

That would be the people who insist on supporting it.
 
  • #26
franz, please back up your statement, it seems to be a very one sided opinion. when you experience some sort of exclusion personally because of your gender (and i am assuming you are young yet and have much to experience) then you will realize what i mean by those who have made it an issue. there is a valid reason why it was put into place years ago, please don't deny that racism/sexism has never existed in the past. as a young person, you probably havent' seen much as the older generations have.
 
  • #27
Kerrie said:
franz, please back up your statement, it seems to be a very one sided opinion. when you experience some sort of exclusion personally because of your gender (and i am assuming you are young yet and have much to experience) then you will realize what i mean by those who have made it an issue. there is a valid reason why it was put into place years ago, please don't deny that racism/sexism has never existed in the past. as a young person, you probably havent' seen much as the older generations have.


By exclusion, does being rejected from colleges in favor of less qualified minority students count?

Oh wait, no I'm white i can't be discriminated against, silly me.
 
  • #28
I attended a seminar on "discrimination data collection", where affirmative action popped up from time to time. First, it is good to know that the EU requires all member states to ratify anti-discrimination laws that separate two forms of discrimination, direct and indirect discrimination.

1. For the purposes of this Directive, the principle of equal treatment shall mean that there shall be no direct or indirect discrimination based on racial or ethnic origin.

2. For the purposes of paragraph 1:

(a) direct discrimination shall be taken to occur where one
person is treated less favourably than another is, has been
or would be treated in a comparable situation on grounds
of racial or ethnic origin;

(b) indirect discrimination shall be taken to occur where an
apparently neutral provision, criterion or practice would
put persons of a racial or ethnic origin at a particular
disadvantage compared with other persons, unless that
provision, criterion or practice is objectively justified by a
legitimate aim and the means of achieving that aim are
appropriate and necessary.
- http://europa.eu.int/comm/employment_social/fundamental_rights/pdf/legisln/2000_43_en.pdf [Broken] (A civil rights lawyer is very welcome to explain what exactly this means...)

My take is that indirect discrimination is here used to describe a situation where a non-discrimatory action will lead to a discriminatory situation, ie. when a light and a dark skinned person, with about the same qualifications compete for the same jobb, and the light skinned person is chosen because he has more teaching experience, even if the jobb consists mainly of labwork. Teaching experience would still be relevant for the jobb, so it would not be direct discrimination, but if the empirical evidence showed that there is more light than dark skinned persons working in the field, there would be reason to suspect indirect discrimination - "an excuse was used to hide the real reason for the choice". Or something like that...

Direct discrimination is easy to spot and condemm, but indirect discrimination is not - and hence the seminar promoted the need for statistics to identify indirect discrimination.

Well, such legislation would maybe help in situation where a clear choice is made. But what about the inofficial football games, cigar-clubs and other socializing places for the good ol' guys, where prejudice attitudes can spread like the flew in warm humidity? That would be where affirmative action could step in and make sure that minorities are so well represented that despite such attitudes no group could freeze out an individual and the consensus could swing towards equality. Such policy is in place here in Finland, for example, law and med-school has a quota for Swedish speaking applicants who compete among themselves to ensure the longlivity of the Swedish speaking minority (about 6% of the population).

Personally, I have not made up my mind about this issue. I don't like the Swedish quotas, I do no think they help much in keeping Swedish alive in Finland. On the other hand, I have understood it is a fairly little problem compared with gender equality and especially ethnic equality.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #29
Joel said:
My take is that indirect discrimination is here used to describe a situation where a non-discrimatory action will lead to a discriminatory situation, ie. when a light and a dark skinned person, with about the same qualifications compete for the same jobb, and the light skinned person is chosen because he has more teaching experience, even if the jobb consists mainly of labwork. Teaching experience would still be relevant for the jobb, so it would not be direct discrimination, but if the empirical evidence showed that there is more light than dark skinned persons working in the field, there would be reason to suspect indirect discrimination - "an excuse was used to hide the real reason for the choice". Or something like that...

Direct discrimination is easy to spot and condemm, but indirect discrimination is not - and hence the seminar promoted the need for statistics to identify indirect discrimination.

Well, such legislation would maybe help in situation where a clear choice is made. But what about the inofficial football games, cigar-clubs and other socializing places for the good ol' guys, where prejudice attitudes can spread like the flew in warm humidity? That would be where affirmative action could step in and make sure that minorities are so well represented that despite such attitudes no group could freeze out an individual and the consensus could swing towards equality. Such policy is in place here in Finland, for example, law and med-school has a quota for Swedish speaking applicants who compete among themselves to ensure the longlivity of the Swedish speaking minority (about 6% of the population).

Indirect discrminitation is a load of crock made up by ACLU lawyers to justify reversing discrmination in favor of minorities. There can be subconscious, or conscious discrimination, but indirect discrimination is bs. You're either the most qualified, or you're not. Period. I don't care if you're white, black, green, blue or purple. You're either qualified or you're not.
 
  • #30
franznietzsche said:
Indirect discrminitation is a load of crock made up by ACLU lawyers to justify reversing discrmination in favor of minorities. There can be subconscious, or conscious discrimination, but indirect discrimination is bs. You're either the most qualified, or you're not. Period. I don't care if you're white, black, green, blue or purple. You're either qualified or you're not.

Okay... First off, what is ACLU?

But "color-blindness" as a principle of equality, is one that I do not share. I think it must be possible to be both different and equal. In terms of jobs, I think it is easy to tell who are qualified and who are not, but to pick the one from many qualified applicants can't be that easy... But I have never hired anyone, so maybe I shouldn't say.
 
  • #31
franznietzsche said:
Indirect discrminitation is a load of crock made up by ACLU lawyers to justify reversing discrmination in favor of minorities. There can be subconscious, or conscious discrimination, but indirect discrimination is bs. You're either the most qualified, or you're not. Period. I don't care if you're white, black, green, blue or purple. You're either qualified or you're not.

That's not true. When you're old enough to be the one hiring people, you'll understand there is a subjective component to hiring, and that's where indirect discrimination can occur. You can look at two people's resumes and say they have the same years of experience in similar jobs and similar degrees and similar GPAs (unless they come from the exact same university and previous employer, you really can't directly compare point for point GPA or experience; we know some universities have more grade-inflation than others), but then when it comes to picking one of those two, you bring them in for an interview. This is where it gets subjective. Which one answered questions better, which one seems like a better fit for the team, which one seemed more comfortable during the interview? These all can be subject to indirect discrimination.

I'm glad to hear that the younger generation isn't seeing so much discrimination, though I'd like to hear from some minorities and women to find out if it is just the white men who don't see it because they aren't the ones experiencing it. If this trend continues, I really do hope there will be a time when affirmative action isn't needed. It's not something I think should be considered permanent or rigid, I think it's something that was meant as a bridge to get people over that moat of discrimination. I do think it's time to consider changes in how affirmative action is used. It may no longer be working for university admissions, and I think it may be hindering progress at this point because it can be used as a crutch rather than forcing people to address the root causes of inequalities in education leading up to that point.

As for the workplace, that older generation who grew up thinking discrimination was the norm is still out there, still making the hiring decisions, and still practicing both direct and indirect discrimination. There's still a lot of those who give the best career advice and opportunities to those who go out with them for martinis and cigars after work. The affirmative action laws keep them on their toes. It's also not true that they only protect the minority and women applicants. We somewhat recently (about a year ago) had an issue where a business manager was hiring for a new assistant, and selected a minority applicant over a white male applicant. Our affirmative action office would not allow an offer to be sent out to the minority applicant because the white male applicant was far better qualified (yes, this was a case of discrimination against the white male applicant by a business manager who was trying to bring in a buddy for a job; the business manager lost his job over it too - in this case, it wasn't a judgement call between too closely qualified applicants, but a case of blatant discrimination). So, before you complain there are no laws to protect white males, that's not true. These laws protect everyone from discrimination.

I think something worth considering for where to refocus affirmative action for university admissions as we tackle more of the overt discrimination in our society is to take into consideration things such as parents' educational background. Even a kid in a lousy school might have a better chance if their parents are well-educated enough to help them along, while someone whose parents didn't even graduate high school, no matter what school they attend, may be facing more of an uphill battle by not having that support at home for their studies. As new generations come up through the schools, we need to look at whether the issues involved in creating laws and admissions policies several decades ago are still relevant today, and adapt those to more modern times.
 
  • #32
We Have The Civil Rights Act Of 1964 For A Reason. It Makes Discrimination Based On Race, Sex, Religion, Etc. Illegal. Anyone Who Violates This Act Is Breaking The Law And Should Be Punished Accordingly. Aa Goes Directly Against The Civil Rights Act Of 1964, It Violates The Civil Rights Of White Males, By Discriminating Against Them. Aa=legalized Discrimination. WHY DO YOU NEED AA when we already have the civil rights act?
 
  • #33
The purpose of anti-discrimination laws is not to reduce hate, or even, to make things more 'ok.' The purpose of anti-discrimination laws is to prepare just plain folks for the coming anti-judgmental laws. If you can somehow be made to feel guilty for seeking the best relationships in business, commerce, employment, or even your personal life, then you can be made to feel guilty for seeking the best value in any phase of your life. And, in the flawed theory of the long dead 19th century German philosophers and their naive One Pie World, that will mean more pie for some who now have less. We are bobbing adrift in the wreckage of those dead 19th century German philosophers, and it is not clear if the species will survive their nonsense. The atavistic Tribal Gene runs deep, and it keeps surfacing in our politics, in spite of our constitution.

Irrational discrimination is clearly its own punishment; but, that is the hook. If we can be made to identify 'irrational discrimination' with 'discrimination' with 'judgment,' then it is not a distant lurch to painting all judgement as 'irrational judgment,' when in fact, judgment is just the tool by which rational folks seek the highest value when confronted with a choice between multiple values. Irrational choices--based totally on skin color, for example, would be their own punishment. However, ruling out otherwise rational choices in the coincidental presenceof skin color is equally as absurd, and provides no feedback with respect to the choices which DO result in values. Which is what makes Affirmative Action a crippling program.

So, as a hypothetical employer, how dare you even ask if a prospective employee is educated, or, what her grades were, or if she is capable at all of carrying out her employment. She says she needs a job, and that is all you need to know. For you to be judgmental, based on her abilities, and to seek the 'best' employee available to you, is a blatent act of 'discrimination' against those less able.

Or, so we must be all trained to think, come The Revolution.

Look at the sad facts of Affirmative Action as a constructivist act to tool society, as if folks were multicolored interchangeable tinker toys and their only important characteristic was their color. Let's face it, when it was implemented, maybe by some with good intentions, the intent was to accelerate the advancement/success of African-Americans and try to make amends for centuries old crimes. And, slavery was a crime; there is no doubt about that. However, the legislation was not written that way; it was written to include all minorities. So, instead of being a program specifically intended to cripple -- I mean, artificially accelerate the advancement of African-Americans, the intended benefactors of this cruelty--I mean, assistance, found themselves in a pool competing with latinos and even, God forbid, orientals. So, employers, eager to meet their Affirmative Action goals and check off the appropriate boxes in their government bid contracts, discriminated within that pool by using their judgment and selecting the best available candidates from within that pool. To the extent that this competition existed, in fact, is what saved the African-Americans who did benefit from the program, but there is no doubt that the program, as a whole, has not turned out to be targeted bonanza that some might have hoped for 30 years ago. When Affirmative Action quotas can be met by hiring any 'minority,' they will. And, we will not hear too much complaining about that, because it would truly sound pathetic, so, we don't. I think--finally-- pride keeps folks from saying, "That one wasn't quite good enough; we need a special program just to cripple us."
 
  • #34
Here's a problem with affirmative action that few people flat-out talk about but is always implied, and that is dealing with people and legitimacy. Should I, as a female science student, snag an REU there will always be people questioning if I really "deserved it." And whenever someone starts questioning your legitimacy it always degrades you by implication so you're not on the same level as those who "honestly" reached that position.
Since Moonbear asked and, for those unwilling to believe it, let me tell you there still is a lot of subconscious discrimination out there still that can make success for women and minorities difficult. I can refer you to all the studies where two applicants with the same stats but a "black name" and a "white name" are submitted and the "white name" applicant overwhelmingly gets accepted at higher rates, and the same applies for male and female names. Or as the token female in science I can tell you that I always have to prove my legitimacy and intelligence much more than my male counterparts. For example at the beginning of the school year I went up to a physics professor at my university expressing my wish to double major in physics and astro and was overwhelmingly told to pick one because it would be way too difficult. Before I got out of earshot, however, a guy went up wishing to double major in physics and EE (which requires more credit horus to pull off) and was met with nothing but words of encouragment. The professor had never met either of us and all he heard was "hi, my name is blah and I want to do this and that, what would it require?"
With one instance and one situation it doesn't sound too bad but after awhile it can wear a person down when everyone notices you're the one who misses class and people charmingly condescendingly explain to you to not worry over the details and the others will take care of it. Maybe they're just trying to be nice and all but when it comes down to what's important, the final exam, you all get the same one and those who learned the details will score better than those who were told not to worry over them.
 
  • #35
affirmative action is all that i have going for me, you guys!

i don't really agree with the idea of affirmative action. it gives people the idea that a minority got into that college on the sole fact that he or she is a minority, and not academically qualified. affirmative action turns minorities into slackers (like me) who think that they can get into any college just because of their skin color.

of course, this doesn't apply to every person.

if someone already said something along this lines, i apologize; i didn't read anything of what others said (except for gravenewworld's lovely comment ;)).
 

Similar threads

  • STEM Academic Advising
2
Replies
45
Views
20K
Back
Top