[Timber Loftis]

Originally posted by Bardan the Slayer: [QB]I wish we could do away with the terrible euphemism "Affirmitive action" and replace it with the far more apt term "legalised racism" - yes, racism against white people.

Quite wrong. YOu're talking quotas. Quotas are abolished. Taking into account the racial diversity is, IMO, as appropriate as taking into account how pretty someone is (for a hostess position) or how well they get along with other (for an HR position). I've been in a hiring position before, and at one point snapped up a black applicant. He was suited for the job. Moreover, we were quite embarrassed at the fact we had no minority employees - company image is a fair concern.

If a person is applying for a job, a university post, a place at Uni, whatever - the person best qualified to go should be the one who gets the place. Adding 20 points to the 150-point scale just for being black makes as much sense as adding 15 points to my score because I wear white socks.

White socks aren't really relevant to what you add to the learning experience. But, diversity is. This point system had several factors aimed at getting a diverse student body, such as the 5 points for varsity sports. The sports player has always been preferred - yet unless he's NCAA material, how much more competent a student is he? None. But, colleges seek to bring in and produce well-rounded individuals. Getting people from different walks of life helps that goal. Otherwise, we'd just compile an SAT/GPA matrix and do the math. That would hurth what education is though. And, let's not forget that the LEGACY applicants also got 20 points. Think those people were mostly white? I do.

The colour of a person's skin in no way affects their academic ability, so it should in no way be something that is adjusted for in determining college placements.

See above comments. The fact daddy went to the school doesn't affect an applicant's ability, but it is most certainly the single biggest trump card when applying to a school - trust me, my kids will be using it.

Racial diversity is a good thing if it is taken in the proper spirit - that a person fitted for a position gets that position irrespective of the colour of their skin. Giving people bonus points for their racial background will only serve to exacerbate racial tensions by making white people feel like they are being discriminated against. Yes, racism against black people was (and is) terrible and indefensible, but two wrongs don't make a right.

And problems can't be fixed overnight. You are lying to yourself if you think having black skin is a 0% affect on your life in America. It is a hurdle, and the playing field is still not even. Maybe one day it will be. We are simply not there yet.

I used to feel like you do on this issue. But, my mind changed as I came to understand the state of the law: while race can sometimes be taken into account, it is very VERY limited and can only account for a very minute difference. In effect, it's what you theoretically apply to "split hairs" when you have 2 or more applicants who are relatively equal in their qualifications. I see nothing wrong with it being one small factor out of many.

I also find it terribly patronising to the black people that they are, in effect, being told "It's ok - we understand what a terrible handicap being black is, and we know that this makes you inherently inferior to white people, so we'll artificially inflate your score." That kind of thinking is just as racist as the KKK.

Clarence Uncle-Thomas says the same thing. But, he got C's all through his affirmative action ride through college and would not have made it to law school, much less the Supreme Court, without affirmative action. I'll quote a lecturer I heard once: "When the gates are Harvard's, I'm willing to sit at the back of the bus, just so long as I get through them." Ultimately, this logic would be fair. Again, we're not there yet. Again, these "adjustments" serve to level an otherwise unfair white-preference playing field. They don't make it unfair for minorities, they limit the unfairness already there for whites, many would say. It's a tough issue, I know, and I myself waffle on it.

Yes, I can totally understand why a college wants racial diversity, but that diversity should not be artificial. If there are 100 places available and the 100 best candidates are white, then the white people should get the places. If the 100 best candidates are black, then they should get the places.

(A) This ignores reality. (B) The diversity can only be artificially created. Since diversity is not really quantifiable or qualifiable, it necessarily is determined on an artificial basis. Besides, 100 white candidates would not educate each other very well at all on world views, you must admit.

Good thoughts all around. I hope I've contributed in a positive way. I'm not trying to deride your point of view on this. Just show you one that is.... diverse.