Originally posted by Kaneda
You all should read
this.
"
The President attacked Michigan's policy of awarding 20 points (on a 150-point evaluation scale) to undergraduate applicants who are members of underrepresented minorities (which at U of M means blacks, Latinos and American Indians). To many whites such a "preference" is blatantly discriminatory.
Bush failed to mention that greater numbers of points are awarded for other things that amount to preferences for whites to the exclusion of people of color.
For example, Michigan awards 20 points to any student from a low-income background, regardless of race. Since these points cannot be combined with those for minority status (in other words poor blacks don't get 40 points), in effect this is a preference for poor whites.
Then Michigan awards 16 points to students who hail from the Upper Peninsula of the state: a rural, largely isolated, and almost completely white area.
Of course both preferences are fair, based as they are on the recognition that economic status and even geography (as with race) can have a profound effect on the quality of K-12 schooling that one receives, and that no one should be punished for things that are beyond their control. But note that such preferences - though disproportionately awarded to whites - remain uncriticized, while preferences for people of color become the target for reactionary anger. Once again, white preference remains hidden because it is more subtle, more ingrained, and isn't called white preference, even if that's the effect.
But that's not all. Ten points are awarded to students who attended top-notch high schools, and another eight points are given to students who took an especially demanding AP and honors curriculum.
As with points for those from the Upper Peninsula, these preferences may be race-neutral in theory, but in practice they are anything but. Because of intense racial isolation (and Michigan's schools are the most segregated in America for blacks, according to research by the Harvard Civil Rights Project), students of color will rarely attend the "best" schools, and on average, schools serving mostly black and Latino students offer only a third as many AP and honors courses as schools serving mostly whites.
So even truly talented students of color will be unable to access those extra points simply because of where they live, their economic status and ultimately their race, which is intertwined with both.
Four more points are awarded to students who have a parent who attended the U of M: a kind of affirmative action with which the President is intimately familiar, and which almost exclusively goes to whites.
Ironically, while alumni preference could work toward the interest of diversity if combined with aggressive race-based affirmative action(by creating a larger number of black and brown alums), the rollback of the latter, combined with the almost guaranteed retention of the former, will only further perpetuate white preference. "
Sooo.. I really don't know what the fuck you all are talking about. Read the whole article though before you reply.
I'm not a big lover of affirmative action. But it's something. I'd rather have public schools funded equitably, and are accountable to their respective communities. I'd rather have people of color the chance to represent themselves in the media, I'd rather have the thousands of
reported acts of housing discrimination eliminated. I'd rather have cops accountable for their actions. I'd rather have history classes that really teach history. I'd rather legalize marijuana, doing away with a law that disproportionately impacts poor whites and people of color(look for yourself). I'd rather have our government spend more money on education than the military, etc. etc.
But since that isn't happening, I'm gonna defend affirmative action.
PS: If you're against all those other extra points given at U of M, ask yourself why nobody at all is getting up in arms about those bonuses. Why is it we only seem to get bent out of shape when it's people of color getting some help.
