[cwperkins]

I think Affirmative Action made sense when it was instituted, but it was never intended to be implemented indefinitely. There is so much to talk about in this subject, but since it revolves around race people feel uncomfortable talking about it.

I ask 2 questions to anyone I know who comes out in support of affirmative action:

1) Is the policy actually effective? If so, what has been the effect?

2) When is the policy no longer needed?

I see far too many people who seem to think its just the way it is and is meant to be in place indefinitely. I think its absurd that the children of Beyonce can have their race considered, but we don't consider the adversity of the children of a poor, white, laid-off coal miner or the poor, hard-working asian immigrant from NYC. Rising above adversity itself is impressive and is definitely a qualifier to consider for admissions.

Think of the rich discussion we can get into about how we determine how someone truly stands out because of rising above the circumstances they grew up in. We could consider things such as average income, percent of households with a single parent, percentage of food secure households and a wealth of other data instead of Race.

I hope we can get beyond Race in the not too distant future, it's definitely a subject we can talk about, but in the context of college admissions I think adversity is far more appropriate to consider.

[bsanr2]

This represents a fundamental misunderstanding of what affirmative action is meant to correct. It's not simply about bridging economic divides, any more than college is solely about future earning potential. Rather, as higher education is intended to produce capable, responsible, and sophisticated members of society - in other words, to create a better society - affirmative action is meant to correct for long-standing and extant social bias. The x-points-lower SAT score a black applicant might need versus a comparable white or Asian applicant represents the energy redirected to physical and psychological survival particular to the black experience in America, regardless of income (as the other Mr. Gates will attest). It is not an in-spite-of situation, but a but-for one, writ large across American history and society. With college purporting to be the last stop before an educated adult's entrance into society, it is meant to remediate as well as elevate, for those who pass a minimum bar of competency.

The temptation to reduce affirmative action to an economic argument is especially ironic in that many of the mechanisms used to implement it were first used in the opposite direction, to cast university as beyond a purely economic arrangement, as eminently qualified Jewish students threatened to fill class rolls in the early 20th century. Suddenly, test scores were not important, character was. With the swing to hysteria over race in admissions, the inheritors of the legacy of steel drivers and sharecroppers are subject to less-than-genuine arguments centered around money. Suddenly, character is not important, economic uplift is. Hm.

[cwperkins]

Adversity isn't solely an economic argument though. It's a genuine effort to try to identify the true outliers. If you stand out significantly in a school district with a high absentee rate and low test scores it might indicate that you have perseverance and aptitude far greater then average and may be a better indicator of future performance then being a little above the mean at Phillips Exeter. These are not the most comfortable conversations to have because being above average at Phillips Exeter is an impressive feat and I don't want to discount this, but it's also important to recognize the people that rise through adversity. Can you answer the first 2 questions I posed in my original comment?

[bsanr2]

You're casting adversity in terms of economic adversity. A poorly-performing school district, rce-agnostic, performs poorly because it is likely underfunded in regards to its needs. That's your example, not mine. But adversity in America absolutely appears along racial lines, regardless of economic positioning. A black student at a top-performing school is carrying not only the obvious academic load of an intensive curriculum, but also the silent social load of race in America.

When someone like that, who is hopefully aware of the mechanisms of race even as they are buoyed on the privilege of wealth, enters an Ivy League school, they carry with them the legacy of black experience while also representing a high chance at academic success. He is not better than his lower-income brother, but his matriculation is not a loss for the concept of affirmative action in this manner. And until the long process of correcting the imbalance in representation in society - particularly elite society - is finished, affirmative action will be necessary. History has proven that certain aspects of our society have to be dragged kicking and screaming into progress and fulfillment of America's founding notions, and AA is one tool for doing so.

[bsanr2]

Downvotes are not for disagreement.

[mythrwy]

No they are not. They are for revenge and punishment!

The downvote keep the party line with what majority is saying is the most annoying thing about this site, but I don't know the alternative. Certainly trolls and the ill informed need to be discouraged but it's always annoying to see a legitimate reasoned opinion greyed out.

BTW, I don't agree with your original comment for whatever it's worth. I do agree with your downvote comment.

[bsanr2]

>BTW, I don't agree with your original comment for whatever it's worth.

Well, let's hear why.

[mythrwy]

No way! I don't want to be downvoted off the page.