|
|
Post by laurenmclaughlin on Jan 14, 2016 21:12:53 GMT
There have been many arguments against government intervention with college education and affirmative action, which essentially require public schools to accept a certain percentage of students from certain socio-economic positions or of specific ethnicities. Affirmative action, people say, hurts the chances of people who have worked just as hard, even hard than, or are even more academically qualified than those accepted only because of government intervention. They go on to say there will be fewer intelligent and competitive professionals, because colleges will be colored and tainted with " less qualified" or " less deserving" students.
However, though there may be a small lapse in number of fully-prepared and intelligent students who will go on to become professionals after college, affirmative action has the most beneficial long-term effect. Government action will break cycle of poor education for people living in poverty, and the chains that poverty restricts around a person's future education and job opportunities. For example the people who might have not had this opportunity if not for affirmative action are given the chance to go to a good college, learn, and consequently get a better job with their better education. These people will subsequently cut ties with their impoverished pasts, and create new lives that will perpetuate through the lives of their children and their children's children. The future and long-term benefits of slowing reducing poverty through education ultimately outweighs the small costs of admitting less prepared or less intelligent individuals from lower socio-economic backgrounds.
|
|
|
|
Post by laurencox on Jan 15, 2016 0:05:00 GMT
I completely agree. Affirmative action is also important because schools should reflect the growing ethnic diversity that makes up America. It is often more challenging for people of different ethnicities to progress through college or higher education, due to the continuing effects of our history, and this is leading to a gap in education between different races. Affirmative action helps to lessen this gap and create a more even playing field for all races. Also, diversity within schools and workplaces is beneficial to all of the students/workers because it is important to interact with a variety of people and to learn from people who have different backgrounds than your own.
|
|
|
|
Post by jvollrath on Jan 15, 2016 1:15:23 GMT
I agree. The harsh reality of our society is that families can easily get caught into cycles of poverty, and without affirmative action or other help, they never end. A child has no control over which family it is born into, yet it is undeniable that children born into poorer families have fewer opportunities. I think Lauren's idea about intermixing the different groups of society and letting them learn from each other has the potential to produce long-lasting effects. It will teach the struggling groups life skills and likely make the richer groups more empathetic and willing to help out.
|
|
|
|
Post by fionalokey on Jan 15, 2016 3:30:55 GMT
I completely agree, government intervention to help reduce stresses amongst society has proven to be beneficial over the years. However, I know several people who have rigged the system in a way to exploit affirmative action (ex: family friend said he was Latin American because born in Brazil but had American Caucasian parents, said Brazil on birth certificate). While this blatant exploitation of affirmative action is disgraceful, it is better to have a few fools take advantage of it rather than not enforce affirmative action at all. Whether or not we want to admit it, morals shape the policies passed by government, and I have hope in the American people that there is a desire to bring more opportunities to those born into difficult circumstances or going through rough times.
|
|
|
|
Post by hannahelisofon on Jan 15, 2016 3:32:54 GMT
I agree that affirmative action can be extremely influential in providing opportunities to those who otherwise wouldn't have the chance to have them. I also agree that affirmative action has a great purpose which is essentially to "right the wrongs" of America's past in terms of racial discrimination and injustice. However, I don't necessarily agree that the program is efficiently resolving the cycle of poverty that you mentioned, Lauren. I do agree that the cycle is what needs to be broken and that government intervention can definitely achieve this, but I don't think that affirmative action is the most effective solution. I understand that many racial minority groups also mainly comprise the lower classes of America's societal hierarchy, however the two are not mutually exclusive. Programs such as affirmative action don't completely recognize that there exist whites who are in fact much farther below the poverty line than many racial minorities. According the National Conference of State Legislatures' website (www.ncsl.org), "a study by the Hoover Institution found that affirmative action tends to benefit middle- and upper-class minorities". The goal of the affirmative action program is not to break this cycle of poverty but instead to, as Lauren C. stated, close the racial gap within our country. I think this goal is great and extremely important to our society, but I don't think it is helping reduce our state of poverty. There are definitely other government instituted programs that can prove to break this cycle, I just don't believe that this program in particular is specifically aiding in doing so.
|
|
|
|
Post by Ben Strehlow on Jan 15, 2016 3:38:36 GMT
I agree with Fiona, we can't let a minority of people who exploit the affirmative action system dissuade it's implementation. However, as discussed in the other affirmative action thread, it's important to address that it's simply ridiculous to only take race into account through the affirmative action process, which many institutions do. A wealthy African American may be provided equally strong educational advantages as a wealthy Caucasian, or better than a poorer Caucasian. That does not mean that African American should still be accepted over said Caucasian, particularly if the Caucasian student is more qualified. Affirmative action needs to take the wealth of the applicants into account as well, or the system will not be as effective as it has the potential to be. Part of affirmative action is creating diversity in schools, particularly with representation from marginilalized minority groups such as African Americans or Hispanic Americans, however another benefit to it is giving the poor opportunities the same opportunities in education that a wealthier peer with more family connections may have.
To truly keep the ideal of the American Dream alive, we need to address not only the ability of every race to succeed, but the ability of every income class, and therefore affirmative action needs to be able to address not only the race but the income level of applicants to universities or jobs.
|
|
|
|
Post by theangieyang on Jan 15, 2016 4:00:29 GMT
I agree with Lauren in that affirmative action can be very beneficial to society because it gives chances to those born into lower social classes. By definition affirmative action is favoring those who tend to be discriminated through education and employment. And although like Ben and Fiona both stated, there are cases where few people take advantage of the system of affirmative action through their ethnicity, the majority of African Americans, Latino Americans and Native Americans do come from lower socioeconomic backgrounds. As well as in the work force, those who are white are favors more than those who are not. Ideally affirmative action allows for those who grew up in the lower class to be able to rise up and work their way out. In addition, people from a lower class tend to be more inclined/willing to work in "worse" neighborhoods, so ideally the system of affirmative action would allow for whole communities to grow as well as be able to supply them with educated professionals like doctors, teachers, ect. But the system of affirmative action does not work perfectly and excludes many who are deserving of a chance. For it to truly make things "equal" things beyond race are needed to be considered as well.
|
|
|
|
Post by colegillespie on Jan 15, 2016 5:25:30 GMT
I agree that education is important in raising the quality of living for most people. I also believe that everyone should receive the best type of education possible regardless of race or income level. However, I think college is too late to start. By the time those living in poorer neighborhoods pass through the K-12 system, they are already very behind and therefore disadvantaged. In order for people to receive a more equal education, changes must be made to poor middle and high schools. Perhaps the government should put more of an emphasis on funding public schools or wealthy individuals should consider donating some of their excess wealth to create better schools in poor areas. This way, by the time people from these poor neighborhoods apply for colleges, they have a better chance of getting accepted without affirmative action and raise their chances of receiving a scholarship.
|
|
|
|
Post by hannahelisofon on Jan 15, 2016 6:51:43 GMT
I think that Cole brings up a very valid point in that a program like affirmative action should be instituted before college in order to be successful. I hadn't put much thought into that perspective before but now I see that it is more sensible not only because the students are already extremely disadvantaged by the end of high school but also because a lot of development occurs within the years of middle and high school thus it is important to ensure that equality is withheld during this crucial time of growth. This also ties into a topic that is going on in another thread regarding the fact that the caliber of education should not depend on the area in which the school resides. Which, in turn, touches back to Cole's idea of more government emphasis on lower income schools. A distribution of wealth could prove extremely influential in the progression of equality within the field of education.
|
|
|
|
Post by emilykbrumley on Jan 15, 2016 7:11:06 GMT
Cole brings up a very interesting point. In many ways, affirmative action is not even close to enough to make up for a lifetime of discrimination that these people face and having the odds stacked against them. Aid shouldn't begin when students are already adults. However, simply receiving a good education is not the only factor influencing someone's college career. Many people go to college in order to have a good future rather than for the sole purpose of educating oneself. College is where you can make connections that help build careers for the rest of your life, not to mention the fact that having a diploma from a good college is enough to secure a lot of well-paid jobs. This is not usually true for K-12 education. As well, simply going to a well-funded school does not mean that students will have the same opportunities as their wealthier counterparts. Children from richer families are more likely to have parents with connections to get them internships or who are willing to pay for fancy programs to build their college resumes, things that children from poorer families would never really have the opportunity to do. Because of this, I believe that affirmative action is still a necessary part of the fight against poverty, although it should not be the only thing that is done.
|
|
|
|
Post by laurenmclaughlin on Jan 15, 2016 8:48:05 GMT
Hannah, I see your point about how affirmative action should apply to all living in poverty, not just those of ethnic backgrounds. HoweverI was not saying that affirmative action should necessarily be applied to certain racial groups; Instead it should be directed towards the people from lower socio-economic backgrounds. While the government will not be able to eliminate poverty within this one swift step, I believe that education is crucial in leading a more successful and prosperous life.
|
|
|
|
Post by laurenmclaughlin on Jan 15, 2016 8:56:07 GMT
Emily and cole you bring up an interesting point: affirmative action for college bound students is starting a little too late in their lives. If more must be done earlier on in the educational system for grades K-12, how and what would that look like? For example, in the San Francisco school district, there is a lottery of children's names, that will determine what school they will go to. Everyone has a fair shot at attending the more prestigious schools, but also has a chance of received one of the lower ranked schools, wealthy and poor alike. However this seemingly more fair education system raises objections by people of the middle and upper class because of the obvious disparity between the schools. Consequently I think that the government should focus their efforts on developing the more lower ranked schools in certain areas, that are more likely to keep students who had previously lived in poverty in that lifestyle.
|
|
