Affirmative Action (Specifically, Standardized Testing)

1) The SATs aren't a big factor at most universities; http://www.sourcebookscollege.com... 2) The Princeton study was interesting. With respect to their findings; that eliminating AA would result in markedly less diversity on campus doesn't mean that the system is unfair because part of AA is the outreach. The bottom line is that in order to get in the door, minority students still have to meet the criteria. No one who is unqualified is given an unfair leg up. 3/4) Points are not currently being assigned at any universities for minority status during the admissions process in the United States. The reference to the points-based system dates from 1980-1997; well before the Supreme Court decision that rendered such points-based systems unconstitutional. Further, the points were never assigned at the level of the SAT test, as I maintained. 5) One of the most important components of AA is to have programs in place to seek out minorities and women and solicit or recruit them into college. There are a many people who would never think of college because there are major perceptual barriers that people have about attending that need to be overcome. I have no problem if two people are equal and the one of minority status is given preference. In the US, if someone of minority status attained equal credentials on the way to attending college as someone who is white – that means that they invariably had to work harder to get there given the latent biases people carry around with them and unconsciously apply to people of minority status. Some academics at Harvard have an excellent site that addresses this reality: https://implicit.harvard.edu... 6) The proof is in the pudding – since AA was implemented in the 1960s – our society has become MORE equal, not less. There is absolutely no evidence to back up the idea that AA sends out a message that is demeaning to minorities (and that minorities are then affected in terms of their achievement goals as a result of that). You're right; in a truly equal society people would be judged by the content of their character and not their physical appearance. Problem is – we don't live in a truly equal society yet. AA will get us there. The good thing is that we've made a lot of progress, and interestingly – it appears that we've hit upon the first "post-racial" generation in US history (that is to say, the "Millennials" think about race in a profoundly different way even from Gen Xers – the irony is that this is making addressing racial inequities more difficult because Millennials don't view themselves as having racial biases, but they still do; they're just subtler and more difficult to pinpoint and eliminate) 7) The shortage of nurses is just one reason that there are recruitment efforts targeting men. The other reason is that there is a practical benefit to having people of different backgrounds working in a field; it helps guard against groupthink that stifles innovation and critical thinking. It also improves the quality of care by helping more patients more easily relate to their service provider. It is for that reason that there are programs that try to recruit minority individuals into the police forces of most major cities. In addition to improving relations with the public by presenting a face that more accurately depicts the population at large, it breaks down groupthink and helps the rest of the force develop its cultural competence to understand the intricacies of the diverse population that exists in the US. Those links didn't talk about giving men preference over women because they don't need it. The challenge is getting them to think about the field; once you've got them thinking about it – they transcend the barriers. That is to say, if you're white and male, you don't face the same perceptual barriers that minorities and women do. 8) It's possible that a society without AA would slowly equalize. Given this country's sordid and tortuously-slow progress when it comes to improving the station in life of minorities – we deserve no benefit of the doubt. If it were left to the south to voluntarily eliminate slavery – it's very likely we'd still have slavery today because the pressures to keep that institution are so strong (like the perceptual pressures today). Crash is a good movie; I use it in the classes I teach. There are a couple of problems with the example of Dillon's character though: 1) he fundamentally misunderstands how AA works (less qualified people aren't given preference), and 2) he would be an angry bigot no matter what. Further – Dillon's character's anger only comes out in response to his father's poor treatment by the HMO (both when he molests Thandie Newton's character, and when he blows up at Shaniqua in the office after being denied out-of-network coverage). The more significant example of racism in Crash, however, is Ryan Phillipe's character – who shoots Larenz Tate's character after he reaches into his pocket for his St. Christopher statue. It's the perfect embodiment of the most prevalent kind of racism in society today; the latent kind I've been referring to. Phillipe's character considers himself not to be a bigot – but when he has to make a snap-judgment, his biases come out (the implication of the movie – one I agree with whole-heartedly / and one that is borne out by Implicit Association research - is that he wouldn't have been as trigger-happy had the hitchhiker he picked up been white). As I mentioned; the numbers of people in college have more than doubled since AA was implemented; I don't see that it has come at a cost to anyone else. 9) The founding fathers weren't hypocrites per se; they just believed in a different notion of equality and justice than we do today. In a factual sense – this country was not founded on true equality. Our understanding of true equality has evolved over time. I'm not disagreeing with the notion; I'm disagreeing with the historical presentation you were offering. I don't believe that people were "created," but I do believe in inalienable rights (regardless of how old the concept is; in point of fact it predates the Declaration of Independence and even the Magna Carta). I'm not being disadvantaged by AA either – and I'm white. As a result of AA, I've gained a great deal of new insights and perspectives through my higher education experience that I never otherwise would have had access to. This has helped me better understand cultural differences which allows me to better perform my job (which involves a great deal of cross-cultural communication). I'm not claiming that AA has increased college attendance (although that's possible). I'm claiming that it AA hasn't hurt white college attendance – a fact borne out by the statistics (that is to say, increasingly higher percentages of whites attend college). 10) I didn't say Michigan is the most racist state – I said it's the most segregated state. There's a big difference. Actually one could measure racism with statistics; though it would be difficult to control for the impulse of people to lie on such a survey and give the answer that they believe to be the most socially acceptable (the questions would have to be very cleverly designed). If you're claiming that AA is building barriers – it's incumbent upon you to demonstrate this with some sort of evidence other than a representation in a fictionalized movie portrayal. You can tell your Persian friend not to worry about filling in "Asian" on his entrance applications: it would be unconstitutional for the university to deduct points from his application for that (and if they did – he'd have one whopper of a civil suit on his hands).