Affirmative Action: Jim Webb speaks out.

[Phishfan]

So you were there when they instituted the program or are you just using conjecture?

[Dave Gray]

Get rid of programs like this FIRST and then AA. 

No.  This is why nothing gets done.

There is no first, then next.

AA is bad.  Get rid of it.  If you want to get rid of other things, too, fine -- but they're separate issues and it's just dragging your feet as an excuse to keep a bad program in place.

[MyGodWearsAHoodie]

So you were there when they instituted the program or are you just using conjecture?

Harvard was the first to do it.  And they clearly stated that as the purpose when they first announced the program, in fact the idea was developed as the solution to solving the problem off too many Jews being admitted.  Yale including keeping Catholics as well as Jews out as part of their goal.

Others were not always as obvious and blatant, simply going with a more bland "if its good program for Harvard and Yale its good enough for us."

[Phishfan]

So since you were discussing Michigan (a public institution) and not Harvard (a private one) it is conjecture.

[Spider-Dan]

No.  This is why nothing gets done.

There is no first, then next.

AA is bad.  Get rid of it.  If you want to get rid of other things, too, fine -- but they're separate issues and it's just dragging your feet as an excuse to keep a bad program in place.

What you don't understand is that AA is there specifically to combat programs like legacy admissions.  If you want to get rid of them both, then let's talk.  Otherwise, the status quo is better than what you propose.

I'm surprised that some of you are taking such a passive attitude towards the problem of legacy programs.  The very first Jim Crow laws in the South (after the Civil War) gave legacy exemptions to the "literacy tests" for anyone who could vote before 1866 (or who was related to someone who could vote before 1866).  The entire purpose of a legacy program is to exclude outsiders in favor of benefiting existing members.  It's institutionalized nepotism, and is the living example of the Good Ol' Boy network in action.

For the record, I have no problem with replacing racial affirmative action with socioeconomic affirmative action; effectively, the purpose of the AA program was to help poor minorities overcome artificial obstacles to improving their socioeconomic standing.  I don't see any reason why a rich black kid should be admitted to a college over a poor white kid.  But any such change would immediately elicit cries of "class warfare," so I say that the system that we have is better than nothing.

[Fau Teixeira]

you can't fix racism with racism

Once we figure that out, then we've begun to address the problem.

There's nothing wrong with nepotism, and while in the past legacy programs may have been used as a tool to further racism, there is nothing intrinsically racist about a parent wanting their child to attend the same university they did. The alumni of these schools, who contribute funds to these schools have the expectation that their children should be able to attend the same school assuming they meet the entry requirements.

Does anyone have actual numbers, just by the way? are we talking about less than 2% of a student body being a legacy?

Legacy programs may have been a tool with evil intentions in the past, just as fire hoses and police dogs were, but today, legacy programs are blind to race. As policies should be.

[Dave Gray]

What you don't understand is that AA is there specifically to combat programs like legacy admissions.

I understand.  I just don't care.

You don't combat something shitty by doing something shitty.

[MyGodWearsAHoodie]

You don't combat something shitty by doing something shitty.

When you are willing to stand up to all shitty, we probably can come up with a comprehensible program to end both forms of "racism."  As long as you don't care about or actively support the continuation of programs designed to promote white christian supremacy and oppose any program that beings to equal the playing field just a bit, I will oppose the unilateral ending of AA.   

[Spider-Dan]

you can't fix racism with racism

The solution to the problem is not to eliminate de jure racism while turning a blind eye to de facto racism (more accurately: classism, which just happens to affect minorities more).

There's nothing wrong with nepotism, and while in the past legacy programs may have been used as a tool to further racism, there is nothing intrinsically racist about a parent wanting their child to attend the same university they did.

There's nothing wrong with nepotism?  Seriously?  How do you feel about monarchies as a system of government?

The alumni of these schools, who contribute funds to these schools have the expectation that their children should be able to attend the same school assuming they meet the entry requirements.

That's not what we're talking about.  Even without a legacy program, the children of alumni can still get into a school.  The legacy program gives them preference over non-legacy applicants, which is (ostensibly) the problem, in exactly the same sense that minority applicants get preference over non-minority applicants in AA situations.

[TonyB0D]

AA sucks - i lost out on a job recently to a FAR less qualified candidate just because he was black :-(

[Fau Teixeira]

That's not what we're talking about.  Even without a legacy program, the children of alumni can still get into a school.  The legacy program gives them preference over non-legacy applicants, which is (ostensibly) the problem, in exactly the same sense that minority applicants get preference over non-minority applicants in AA situations.

But this is the case regardless of the alumni's race .. which by definition makes this program not racist .. especially as more and  more minority graduates have children that choose to attend the same university their parents did.

as far as de jure vs. de facto racism .. you can't legislate away de facto racism .. you can only legislate de jure racism .. and de jure racism has no place in a modern law making.

On the topic of monarchies, i have nothing against them, there's nothing intrinsically wrong with a monarchical system. there are 44 countries on the planet with a monarchical head of state. and most of them are doing quite well. I do think

[MyGodWearsAHoodie]

as far as de jure vs. de facto racism .. you can't legislate away de facto racism .. you can only legislate de jure racism ..

That is absolutely not true.   We most certainly can legislate away many form of defacto racism, including legacy admissions.  You just only want to eliminate those forms of racism that helps non-whites while keep any form of racism in place that helps whites. 

[Spider-Dan]

But this is the case regardless of the alumni's race .. which by definition makes this program not racist .. especially as more and  more minority graduates have children that choose to attend the same university their parents did.

By this same logic, laws that require anyone who couldn't vote before 1866 (or isn't related to someone who could) to pass a "literacy test" aren't racist, because they apply to everyone who couldn't vote before 1866, regardless of their race!  Therefore, it's perfectly fair.

Similarly, if a law were to be passed that gives preference to applicants with (naturally) black hair and brown eyes, that's not racist at all... it applies to anyone with black hair and brown eyes, regardless of race, right?

You cannot simply look at these things in a vacuum.  In a situation where 95%+ of the alumni is white, a system that gives preference to the children of alumni (who are likely to have a similar racial makeup) is applying a de facto racial preference.

as far as de jure vs. de facto racism .. you can't legislate away de facto racism .. you can only legislate de jure racism .. and de jure racism has no place in a modern law making.

Umm, the entire purpose of AA is to fix the problem of de facto racism through legislation.  Are you arguing that AA is ineffective or that it's unjust?  Those are two very different arguments.

On the topic of monarchies, i have nothing against them, there's nothing intrinsically wrong with a monarchical system. there are 44 countries on the planet with a monarchical head of state. and most of them are doing quite well. I do think

So then, I presume you also have no problem with caste systems, nobility, an aristocratic ruling class, etc?

Bestowing privilege on individuals based on a birthright is antithetical to the very core of what this nation was founded on.  It's arguably even worse than racism.

[Spider-Dan]

AA sucks - i lost out on a job recently to a FAR less qualified candidate just because he was black :-(

How do you know this?  Or, more specifically, how can you know this?

If I've ever lost out on a position due to my competitor being a woman, I'm not sure how I would even find out.

[Phishfan]

That is absolutely not true.   We most certainly can legislate away many form of defacto racism, including legacy admissions.  You just only want to eliminate those forms of racism that helps non-whites while keep any form of racism in place that helps whites. 

We keep saying this isn't a racist policy though. Legacy admittance is applicable to all. How can it be racist if it doesn't discriminate by race. It may be nepotism, but it isn't racism.