The point of affirmative action is to prevent qualified minorites from being rejected on the basis of race. Without it we are letting (un)conscious bias affect admissions decisions with no accountability. 100% of the push back against the policy is completely misdirected. "...recruit and advance qualified minorities, women, persons with disabilities, and covered veterans" Any admissions employee who is implementing affirmative action in a way that accepts less qualified applicants or defaults to rejecting a specific other group of non protected minority applicants needs to be held accountable as they are not following the actual policy. To blame this policy for the illegal actions of others is like blaming the Olympics when an athlete is caught using steroids. You don't shut down the Olympics, you discipline the cheaters.
Health & Wellness
18h
1404
Quitting Sugar
India
Yesterday
2808
Dating for Marriage is Hard
2024 Presidential Election
Yesterday
1552
If Trump wins the election again , will you cry?
Fitness
14h
927
how can i loose 5 pounds with small changes to lifestyle
Tech Industry
16h
2516
Google giving meals. Meanwhile Amazon L8 βdonβt take more than one fruitβ
Affirmative action always translates to accepting less qualified applicants on the basis of race in practice. The solution isnβt for a college to accept students who are less qualified, but to work with high schools and parents to insure all students are getting a good education. Some students are pressured to study hard, while others are pressured to complain about racism.
Always is a pretty strong word. Only when poorly implemented is more accurate.
Is a poor black kid from east Oakland who scores 30 points below a kid from Palo Alto high school less qualified? What if the Palo Alto kid could afford sat prep courses? If the poor black kid from east Oakland has a slightly lower gpa because he/she had a part time job, are they less qualified? Did they study less hard? Did they have more obstacles to overcome by going to a school where there are fewer academically motivated students? How about a school that is less safe? A school with fewer so classes and where teachers need to accommodate less academically gifted students? Who is more qualified really? How does one evaluate academic potential in these cases? How does one evaluate leadership ability and potential? It just isn't possible to normalize everything to a number. That's why schools like Harvard look at a lot of factors. Harvard understands that they should consider more than the high school equivalent of leetcode.
So is there something wrong with accepting candidates with 200 pts lower SAT scores?
Yes, if it means youβre rejecting candidates with 200 pts higher SAT scores
So?
Iβd take someone scrappy over Ivy League any day.
Racism = treating people differently based on race = affirmative action. There, you just learnt the new transitive property!
You forgot the important part, its based on the belief that one's own race is superior.
^ absolutely right. this is racial discrimination, not racism.
We should practice equal opportunity not equality of outcome.
AA==Racism, period.
Nah
where exactly do you work?
We pray to find more qualified minorities since quotas are being filled so please don't give us this BS about the need for affirmative action and how that's not racism or doesn't lead to racism
required reading for everyone getting involved in this thread: https://afro-optimist.blogspot.com/2018/05/explaining-affirmative-action-to-martian.html
I'm struggling to click that link simply because of your patronizing "required reading" tone
good point. didn't meant to be patronizing. it's just very well written, and I really want everyone to read it.