Those who disagree with the usefulness of such a policy need to study the concept(truth?) of PRIVILEGE.

I've been on this site for nearly two years, and finally maple has given me proof that he's not a one-dimensional asshole.

That said, I think AA is usually implemented wrong. I think there definitely need to be adjustments based on race, socioeconomic status, etc., but something about the way things are done now leads to a bunch of rich kids with one black great-grandparent getting more breaks in their lives and the people that actually should be benefiting getting nothing and continuing to live in the conditions into which they were born.

only +1, how cheap are you ..... isn't affirmative action the gift that never stops giving. Without this maybe we'll get a white guy back in the White House and running the 100 metres (not the same guy) ...... also when will OJ be re-tried for killing his wife. I sometimes wonder if the US hates white guys, but loves white gays

And what is 'truth'? Is truth unchanging law? We both have truths. Are mine the same as yours?

Put simply, affirmative action violates the equal protection clause. Is it right or wrong? Arguably, it had its time and place, but that is no more. If the goal is racial diversity (as in the UT case) then set a quota for how many spots are designated for eahc race and eliminate the bonus points that may well result in an overabundance of the minority race counter to the goal of racial diversity. With affirmative action in the "race gets a bonus to their scores" manner, one may find that the whole school end up all one minority and with no diversity at all. That's right, because the judging slants towards the minoritie, should a school get an over abundance of applicants from one specific minority, they could get all the positions.

No, the better approach is to set a quota percentage +/- a certain much smaller percentage. Say 20% +/- 2% Asian, 25% +/- 2% Hispanic, 35% +/- 2% black (Afrikan American or otherwise), and 20% +/- 2% Caucasian. Then as the new class fills, the school can keep the balance for their diversity and with the +/- percentage, particularly worthy students from any race have a shot at still getting in even if their demographic is right at the target percentage.

But that would make actual sense and not discriminate against an entire class of recent high school grads who *all* need an education.

Affirmative action, as it currently resides, discriminates against whites *and* does a disservice to minorities by essentially telling them "you aren't good enough so here is a hand out". Add to that the fact that the problem isn't race, but rather socioeconomic standing and the problem becomes exaggerated. I mean, do you really think the President's daughters should get bonus points over a poor Italian boy who grew up in the Bronx?

Black no longer means poor and white no longer means rich (if it ever did). Diversity is more than skin color, it is economic in nature. Keep the cultural diversity as I mentioned above but add an additional division of percentages from the various socioeconomic classes and eliminate alumni influence by not granting automatic acceptance or even preferred acceptance to alumni children.

I know you are trolling with the OJ thing, Nigee, but we here in the US have a double jeapordy clause that prevents a person from being tried for the same crime twice. That said, OJ is in prison for kidnapping and robbery and several other chartges and won't be out until 2017 at the earliest. He got 30 odd years with possible parole after 9. He could get lucky and an appeal result in him getting another trial for incompetent representation, but I doubt it.

'rich kids with one black great-grandparent'

A black great grandparent? How does this work? Surely if you're classified as black if you have a black great grandparent then your grandparent and parent descended from the black great must also be classified as black, meaning you in fact had a host of black relatives, albeit a rather pale looking back host?

I'm confused...

What are the official US definitions of black and hispanic and white, and what (in terms of mixed families) trumps what? Does anyone even know?

Well, this is the "one drop rule" meaning if you had one black relative (in this case with one black great grandparent meaning you're 1/8th black) then by law you are black. So that means that you actually have a mostly white family, with only a certain line being black(ish).