It compounds that assumption,
Among whom? Bigots, who think that blacks don't belong, will be bigots regardless of affirmative action. Those not bigoted will wait and see how their compatriots perform. The assumptions only gets compounded in the minds of people with axes to grind.
which is why race should not be a factor. Using income, education of parents, etc., would still largely benefit poor blacks based on statistics, but won't have the stigma.
Complete, utter codswallop. If your hypothesis were correct, and this supposed stigma attached due to affirmative action, than any poor person would be subject to this stigma, as opposed to black people only. Do you believe in your position or not?
It wasn't the extra points, it was giving so many points that admission was more or less automatic.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gratz_v._Bollinger
The University of Michigan used a 150-point scale to rank applicants, with 100 points needed to guarantee admission. The University gave underrepresented ethnic groups, including African-Americans, Hispanics, and Native Americans, an automatic 20-point bonus towards their score, while a perfect SAT score was worth 12 points.
You think giving 20 points, when 100 is needed, made admission automatic? Seriously, what world
Again this is the Michigan case. A related case that same year ruled race can be a factor, just not an automatic. But in practice, it is allowing minorities in with scores that are very low, and no non-minorities get in with the same scores. It perpetuates the bias.
You mean this case:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grutter_v._Bollinger
I'd bet dollars to doughnuts you don't have a scrap of data to back up your claim of "very low", particularly in light of Gratz vs. Bollinger.
Public universities and other public institutions of higher education across the nation are now allowed to use race as a plus factor in determining whether a student should be admitted. While race may not be the only factor, the decision allows admissions bodies to take race into consideration along with other individualized factors in reviewing a student's application.
Your quotes are conflicting now. First you infer that he would be better off if he had been admitted to a lesser law school and would have had a lesser career but for affirmative action. Then you counter that in the next post with people disputed his grades because blacks aren't supposed to be that smart. Again, these are two different types of racism. One existed before affirmative action, and one is caused by affirmative action. We are attempting to correct racism bias by introducing more.
No, this is the same old racism, finding a new excuse. People don't act in a racist fashion based on careful, rational considerations like the existence of an affirmative action program. People act in a racist fashion based on emotions and habit, and then later find rationalizations for their racism, picking at anything they can grab at.
I believe everyone should have a fair opportunity to succeed, but it should be based on class, not race.
I don't think it should be based on classnor race, ideally. That's an interesting tidbit.
I encourage you to, for example, go and look at any top school admission demographics. They will list how many students get in at each level, and the study. It would be one thing to let a minority in over a non-minority with similar qualifications, but in practice this does not happen. I noticed this when reviewing ivy league schools, that I had a fat chance to get into with my scores, and was surprised to see some very low score/GPA combination admittees. This same chart listed demographics and it was telling. When reviewing the charts of the schools I went to for my masters and doctorate, the same phenomenon existed.
First, you still haven't mentioned the year. Pre-Gratz (2003), I would not be surprised this was common. Second, can you point to any of these documents, or am I supposed to take your word for it?
I don't disagree, but affirmative action compounds the issue by making people think affirmative action helped someone when they likely didn't need it, as his grades clearly indicated (contrary to your assumption that without affirmative action he would have went to a lesser law school, etc., I hope you can see the bias it creates).
Again, you are treating racism as the result of a decision-making process. You don't fix a broken leg by putting a splint on your arm.
Thomas graduated
*** laude, but not
magna *** laude nor
summa *** laude, from Holy Cross, a good school, but not an Ivy League school. He had not achieved to a typical Yale Law school level, but was admitted nonetheless. Once there, he was able to prove he belonged. His background and treatment had disadvantaged him, but once that was accounted for, he proved he belonged. That's an affirmative action success story, the type you think should be ended.
I am also not calling you a racist by any means.
Why not?
I am saying you are making stereotypical assumptions that are created solely due to affirmative action. And I'm not saying racism will not exist without affirmative action, I am saying affirmative action is a double edged sword that stimulates bias.
It's an argument I've heard many times. It's always been dreck, and continues to be dreck, because it is contrary to our understanding of human behavior.
But it is clearly a double edged sword for those minorities who didn't need it. Based on the comments from the professor I mentioned and yours, if I were in Clarence Thomas' shoes, I would be offended. I understand there are more issues involved, and racism existed prior to affirmative action.
Even if, in my example, red heads had been discriminated against prior to the MIT admission policy, the resulting bias would still be created/perpetuated by the rule.
If red heads had been discriminated against, not instituting affirmative action would not alter it, and instituting it does not make the bias worse.
If you can't see it causes a clear bias, then we can just agree to disagree.
I will agree that your position is based on a poor understanding of human nature.
