I had a big argument with some friends and I was the one against affirmative action. But, by the end of it, we realized that none of us could actually define it.

Is it, simply choosing more minorities, or is there some sort of specific case where it is used? Examples?

1. It was first defined to me as the super rare situation where a minority and white student are 110% equal in every way in their application. The college doesnt know which one to pick, so they simply pick the minority.

2. But, can it be if a white student is a better applicant (better grades, higher SATs, more achievements), but they still pick the minority who's a little worse.

3. What about considering a situation in which a poor black student from the ghetto overcame these challenges to become a superstar student in his school. Would considering this achievement as a factor in his college application be considered affirmative action, or would it simply be like another significant achievemtn like beating cancer, surviving as an immigrant, or saving 100 lives. (this seems OK to me, by itself)

4. What about quotas. Whats the deal with them? Colleges that say they want like 8% blacks, do they want that % because they want diversity or as a balance to the fact that blacks are disadvantaged.

I can't stand not understanding this issue ( for some reason I think its very important). I would appreciate responses from both conservatives and liberals and supporters and non-supporters.

P.S. If this post is successful, I very well may post some more "Please explain this issue to me" posts.

Thanks.

I think affirmative action can generally be defined as "legal requirements, such as quotas and desegregation, to address past discrimination and provide opportunities to groups who would not have those opportunities in a free market due to discrimination."

It's different from simple anti-discrimination laws.

The problem is that such measures are themselves discriminatory, and only justified as long as the wrong being addressed is worse than the wrong being committed.

And they absolutely have to be temporary.

An example is black admission to colleges in the 1950s and 60s. It would have been unfair to say "okay, we're done discriminating; everyone can now compete equally." Because blacks had been denied educational opportunities for generations, and they weren't going to be able compete on the same level as the more privileged majority. To address that, they deserved preferential access to jobs and education.

But every such policy should have a sunset provision -- either a firm deadline or a measure you can use to say "okay, that's it for the preferential treatment." Otherwise you just replace one perpetual wrong with another.

So affirmative action made tons of sense in the 1950s and 60s. But we're long past the point where we should be discussing if it still makes sense today. In some areas, the answer may well be yes. In many other areas, the answer is probably no.

I'd love to see a discussion where we agree on the criteria for declaring affirmative action unnecessary, and then applying that criteria to the modern world.

__________________
Man up.

Couldn't have said it better myself. If affirmative action is still required in schools then the problem is something much more than discrimination. At this point, in schools, it has become an avenue to obtain admission into schools for lower performing students, not a way to overcome discrimination. Schools actively search for qualified minorities. But I agree in regards to what we need, sunset provisions, and pretty much everything else you described above.

__________________
All you need to know about the energy crisis:
ANWR Exploration Republicans: 91% Supported. Democrats: 86% Opposed.
Coal-to-liquid R's: 90% YES. D's: 78% NO.
Oil Shale Exploration R's: 90% YES. D's: 86% NO.
Outer Continental Shelf Exploration R's: 81% YES. D's: 83% NO.
Increased Refinery Capacity R's: 97% YES. D's: 96% NO

SUMMARY: 91% of House Republicans have historically voted to increase the production of America’s own oil and gas. 86% of House Democrats have historically voted against.

Giving someone preferential treatment because of their skin color is wrong - ALWAYS. Many colleges rate applicants with a point system and give points for "race". A&M (which I know a little about) recently quit giving points to applicants who are the offspring of former students. I wasn't too happy about this, but since my kids were accepted without it, I guess I'm OK with it. The president explained to us that he wanted applicants to be judged strictly by what they had acheived. If a black or latino is accepted into A&M, they can be quite sure that they deserved it - as it should be.

Scholarships, however, have consistently discriminated by race. They have for years and show no signs of stopping. I was eligible to apply for 16 scholarships in 1978. My black friend with an identical GPA was eligible to apply for 32. My kids have the same problem. When I recently went to the awards night, there were far more scholarships doled out to latinos than whites. Since, I know most of these kids and their parents, I can guarantee you that their financial status is much better than my own (with three kids in college, everybody's finances are better than mine). It's quite frustrating to see them get a huge chunk knocked off their tuition simply because they have a hispanic last name. When a kid ranked lower than your kid and who lives in a 350K house gets a 40K scholarship, it's hard to be gracious. Scholarships should be based on need and achievement - nothing else.

__________________
Do you know what it's like to fall in the mud and get kicked... in the head... with an iron boot? Of course you don't, no one does. It never happens. It's a dumb question... skip it.