"The complaint, filed by a coalition of 64 organizations, says the university has set quotas to keep the numbers of Asian-American students significantly lower than the quality of their applications merits. It cites third-party academic research on the SAT exam showing that Asian-Americans have to score on average about 140 points higher than white students, 270 points higher than Hispanic students and 450 points higher than African-American students to equal their chances of gaining admission to Harvard. The exam is scored on a 2400-point scale."
This is real discrimination in America today.
http://www.wsj.com/articles/asian-ameri … 1431719348
While test scores are not the sole determinant as to who is admitted to these prestigious institutions of higher learning, it smacks of a quota system and the Asian Americans are right to complain and seek redress.
Uhh...what about the whites, that should have a right to complain and seek redress as they would seem to need more than Hispanics or Blacks?
But yes, of course there is a quota system. One mandated by the law of the land, giving priority to certain races. It's called "affirmative action".
I don't necessarily like the way this may have turned out. But there was an initial purpose and area that needed to be redressed that justified the programs at least in the beginning. I speak from experience here.
Affirmative action in the United States tends to focus on issues such as education and employment, specifically granting special consideration to minorities and women who have been historically excluded groups in America. Reports have shown that minorities and women have faced discrimination in schools and businesses for many years and this discrimination produced unfair advantages for white males in education and employment. The impetus toward affirmative action is redressing the disadvantages associated with overt historical discrimination. Further impetus is a desire to ensure public institutions, such as universities, hospitals, and police forces, are more representative of the populations they serve.
I would like to rebut this but I don't know how to spell that noise that comes out when you stick your tongue out and blow. I think some call it raspberries, but nobody ever spells it!
Thats ok , no need for an e-catcall. Why not put a little meat to your rebut and lets hear your beef?
No sense spinning my wheels in this area. My comment stands. It was not personal, unless you want to take it that way. The comment is directed toward any Federal govt program that limits states rights. Affirmative action was in no way "affirmative" to all.
And the attack continues today by his majesty. He is about to limit states police powers. And this under the guise of "discrimination" also. One has to wonder how long it will take for him and his sycophants to create a total federal police state, like king george had. Will there be another presidential election?
Cool your jets, I am not offended at all. Do you want your local Mayberry PD to have access to military ordinance?
States rights are not absolute, federal law takes precedent, but of course, you knew that
Question #1. Yes. The bad guys and thugs got theirs. Gotta have an equal "playing field."
Question #2. Smoke screen stuff. His majesty, and court jesters, know where the lines are and that liberals, "entitlementors" (just made that up like the leftists do), lobbyists and small but vocal minority groups will defend anything he does, so he just rolls along, in spite of the Constitution.
Oops! Did you notice what you just did? In your prior-to-this-one comment you said "... it smacks of a quota system and the Asian Americans are right to complain and seek redress....",
Yet now, in this comment you seem to think they are justified in some circumstances; "...justified the programs at least in the beginning. I speak from experience here."
Which is it? Are most quota systems bad, except some are ok because the cause is just? [i](Ha! "because the cause..." I bet that got a groan from the grammar and literary folks)
Just nudging you back on the path Bud, I am the only one that can have it both ways. The reality of my world admits the existence of perfectly reasonable gray areas.
I have trouble with this affirmative action concept. You remind me of Raymond Reddington on the tv series "Blacklist", I never know when you are going to pop in.
Are all secondary schools properly funded, staffed and equipped at comparable levels? SATs are one determining factor among many that could be used to evaluate a more successful member of a student body beyond flat standardized test scores. Yes, I justified them in the beginning, because the simple fact was that if you were not white and male, you were locked out, period. I will give society some credit for evolving in the right direction, so that what I saw as necessary without reservation in the beginning, may not be as much so. Rather than the quota, base admissions on several relevant factors associated with a successful student. Being a egghead may not always be what to look for. I thought that it was either Texas or California, that guaranteed admission to any student with a high school graduating B average. That would remove the bias between socio-economic circumstances that reflect in the schools themselves, and that would be more of a leveler. That would be fine with me.
Its busy times for me these past months and my forum time has been severely limited, but I still perused some of the threads - and I am a little worried for you.
All these "you people," and "Righties," and the over-used negatively connotative "conservatives" I am seeing in your posts cause me to wonder if my absence might somehow be responsible for your slide into the realm of party rhetoric. Hmm...
...and now you even make the targets bigger and closer; "...secondary schools properly funded, staffed and equipped at comparable levels?" followed by a ramble about what could be used to determine admission.
First, what the hell does school funding have to do with this topic? "Say it ain't so Joe," Say you aren't really advocating throwing more money at the schools. I know it should be another topic, but have you looked at the level of per student spending recently? Relative to student performance and graduation rates? Compared to other first-world nation's spending?
As for your suggested admissions criteria, I kinda thought the factors you mentioned were already a big part of the selection decision. JaneSix's LA Times link sort of indicated this too.
The Affirmative Action part of your comment is germane to the topic and I am mostly with you on this one. I think, (as you already said), that like the Unions, there was a time when our society needed these kicks in the butt, even if it was only substituting one injustice for another, in order to move our nation forward. But like too many government actions they are way past their sell-by date.
As for Blacklist, and Reddington, I have only seem bits and pieces of the show, but I kinda liked the guy. He seems to see a lot of gray in his real world, (even if it is Hollywood's interpretation), too.
GA, dont know why I used schools as example in the lead topic, it just seemed relevant to me. You keep trying to amalgamate everything when there are distinct differences between the political right and left, where common ground is not likely to be found. There are many areas of controversy where find it difficult for common ground. As you know, I lean blue because the ideology of other side is anathema for the most part.
Was I hasty? maybe I need to review the numbers relating to dollars per student and corresponding graduation rates.as you suggest.
Yes, I am on tangent, it is difficult to put my finger on what the problem is, maybe what I mean to say is that the quality of school and education is probably better in Huntington Beach when compared to Compton. Little Wentworth will already have a distinct advantage in the conpetition. Many more minorities proportionatly are poorer people. There has to be a positive correlation between family affluence and student graduation rates. The money always matters. There are still a great deal of structural disadvantages, based on class, if you are more comfortable with that. To see that the opportunity to excel is the same in Compton as it is in Beverly Hills, 90210, may be all just fantasy that can't be compensated for, really. Society is to be commended when it has an objective of providing as much of a level playing field, for as many students in public schools as possible regardless of economic circumstance . We can't control outcome, but working to insure equal opportunity and access does help, I know that it is a 'blue thing', but try to visualize.
I know that the red folks say there is more to it all than throwing money at the education problem.
I think you may have misunderstood me. I don't intend to give the impression that I "amalgamate everything." I definitely see Righties and Lefties. But I see them as the fringes, not the body of either side of the political aisle. But lately I have been getting a different impression from your responses.
If I speak against a Liberal or a Conservative it will be relative to a position on something. If I speak against a Leftie or Rightie it will usually be relative to their ideologies - regardless of the topic. I hardly ever see extreme positions as a good choice. (but there are times...)
Your point about the disparity in schools is not wrong, but I do not think the main cause is discriminatory social injustice, I think it is the reality of achievers and non-achievers. And the reality of human behavior.
I don't recall the specifics, or even the specific schools, but I do recall, (in researching a related educational issue), examples of some really bad schools that were lavished with extra money and attention to help them raise their standards, (and student achievements and graduation levels) - and they were still poor performers. So the problem is something other than just funding.
Could some of those Red folks be right? It seems we have tried the "throwing money at it" option - and yet, we are still discussing the same problem.
I am all for the effort to "level the playing field" and "providing equal opportunity and access," but it is like that old saying about leading a horse to water. It seems that most Blue folks think that if we spend the money to level and provide for 100 under-achievers and one of them becomes an achiever - then it's all good.
I am with the Red folks on this one. That is a bad plan with unacceptable costs relative to results. More money is not the answer. Can you hear me down there in the Blue section?
As for "structural disadvantages" - of course we should try to correct those, but the most effective changes will be the ones made by individuals, not by society just upping the ante. Like the OP's Asian student discrimination claims - there are only so many tickets. Achievers will find a way to get one. Under-achievers will just complain because there weren't enough tickets for everyone.
Seems ol' Frankie had the idea: That's Life
It's always good to hear someone complain of racist actions...as they propose further racist actions. Racism is always OK, as long as it's not applied to my own race, eh?
I recall hearing that some colleges have already, or are considering, reducing the importance of test scores in their admissions determinations. Hmm... what else might they use to make their picks?
"...smacks of a quota system..."?
Well of course it is a quota system. But I do not think it is of the type I get the impression you were inferring. How else would any school manage their efforts for diversification?
All quota systems are not bad. And all aren't documented and articulated policies. Some are just the reality that if you want to include more of something - then something else has to be decreased. Whether that something is soda flavors in a soda machine, or ethnic and racial diversity in a body of folks. *(I do not like "ethnic" bonus points or specified numbers of slots either)
To me, this just appears to be a reality of life. And not one of overt discriminatory intentions. It has already been pointed out that Whites, Blacks, and Hispanics should have been complaining even louder.
Quota systems... sheesh...
But I thought liberals ,ALL, loved it when the government steps in and equalizes the stepping stones for minorities ? After all , there's "affirmative action" , There's "equal rights for housing" .....on and on , Is this whole issue simply because it put's another minority in front of the usual ones?
While this is certainly not the only real form of discrimination in America, this is an unfortunate fact. I wasn't aware of anything like this. Everyone should have an equal opportunity to get a higher education. Hands down, affirmative action was put in place so that minorities could have a fighting chance, and in some ways that's still needed but in many ways and in most places it is no longer needed. This kind of standard for acceptance for a specific race is troublesome. It almost perpetuates that Asians are smarter stereotype, as well... in a way.
Why have you used the word "real discrimination"? Are other forms of discrimination not real in your opinion?
So the fact that black school children are suspended from school more than white students for the same behaviour. Does that count as "real" discrimination?
The fact that that resumes with African American sounding names receive 50% less callbacks than those with other names, despite the same knowledge, skills and experience listed. Does that count as "real" discrimination?
The fact that black men receive prisons sentences that are 20 times longer than white men for the same crime, even with a similar criminal history. Does that count as "real" discrimination?
Or is it your opinion that an educational establishment using more than just test scores as part of its admissions policy, is the only form of "real discrimination"?
What point are you making?
African Americans received a “bonus” of 230 points, Lee says.
Asian Americans would lose out under affirmative action
She points to the second column.
“Hispanics received a bonus of 185 points.”
The last column draws gasps.
Asian Americans, Lee says, are penalized by 50 points — in other words, they had to do that much better to win admission.
“Do Asians need higher test scores? Is it harder for Asians to get into college? The answer is yes,” Lee says.
http://www.latimes.com/local/california … tml#page=1
by nightwork4 8 years ago
do you believe that having a quota on hiring minorities or a certain sex helps make a government...or company better?should it be up to the leader of the company or party who is hired or is a quota needed?
by danielthorne 8 years ago
is affirmative action reverse discrimmination?
by Cassie Smith 6 years ago
I saw several news items last week saying that Asian-Americans were trying to hide their ethnicity on the school applications because too many of them were getting rejected even though their SAT and GPA scores were high enough or better. Should we just accept students if they meet the...
by mrpopo 2 years ago
Privilege is defined as “a right, immunity, or benefit enjoyed only by a person beyond the advantages of most.” White privilege means that there are rights, immunities or benefits enjoyed only by whites because society places whites in a higher position than minorities. Some examples of this...
by Grace Marguerite Williams 2 years ago
What is YOUR assessment of Affirmative Action? Do you believe that there should be noAffirmative Action as there are unprecedented educational, housing, & socioeconomic opportunities as never before for Blacks? Or do you believe that there should always be Affirmative Action as...
by Anish Patel 6 years ago
‘Reverse Racism’ - Is there such a thing?If you are White, have you ever felt discriminated against by a person of another race or a person belonging to a ‘minority’ group.
Copyright © 2019 HubPages Inc. and respective owners. Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners. HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc. HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.
|HubPages Device ID||This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.|
|Login||This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.|
|HubPages Traffic Pixel||This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.|
|Remarketing Pixels||We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.|
|Conversion Tracking Pixels||We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.|