Would I be correct in assuming that you are against affirmative action for any reason - gender, race, or socioeconomic status, given that anyone" can make it without special consideration?" Yes, LaToya, you would be correct. As far as your description of "qualifications," being a good tight rope walker is certainly a possible qualification for getting a job in the circus. Being able to walk a tight rope means that you have experience and would do a good job working at the circus. Race, gender, national origin, etc. do not count as qualifications for a job. Based on what a company is looking for, it may make you MORE DESIRABLE for the position, but it does not mean you are more qualified. I think we both agree that public education should not only be accessible, but it should function well and educate its students as much as a private school would. It just seems to me that by relying on affirmative action there is no real impetus to make the change early on for improvement. Penn Graduate

Student- The whole point of my argument is that "standards" or "qualifications" when talking about college admissions and job hiring should not only be about standardized norms. One should not be judged solely on race, just as one should not be judged solely on grades and SAT scores. Therefore, the "black student at a good, private high school" would be looked at as a total package, as would the "white kid at a poor public school." That black student would not be subject to lower "standards," but would be looked at as an individual with different factors taken into account when deciding on his admittance, one of them being his race. What we all need to see is that Affirmative Action is not always about just the individual, it is about the college community as a whole. "Diversity" benefits all of us, not just any individual student. AA is allowed by current rules if 1) it is used to redress a historical wrong, and 2) if the school can prove a compelling interest to allow it. If the goal of a University to promote diversity of race because of a lack of racial diversity, and that has been upheld as a compelling interest (which I believe it should be), then those students who are different than the norm have a extra "qualification" that students who fit the racial norm do not. I believe though, that the white poor student should also receive AA because at most elite institutions, being economically disadvantaged also is different from the norm. I think the entire point is that while AA benefits the individual, it also benefits the community. Again, the idea of "qualifications" only applies when we discuss what the objectives of college really are Ð its more than books and academia, its about teaching people to be productive citizens. That can not happen if we do not interact, on a constant basis, with people who are different than ourselves. Those differences occur along many different lines, and RACE is one of them. (I hesitate to get into a discussion of racism and classism, but the question was asked whether the black student could be disadvantaged when compared to the white student. I believe that that black student is socially disadvantaged by racism just as the white student is economically disadvantaged by classism. The difference between the two is that one can rise out of his/her class, while the other cannot rise out of his/her race. That is not said to place any hierarchy on the "isms;" as someone who has been affected by both, I realize how both can affect a person�?s life.) "Based on what a company is looking for, it may make you MORE DESIRABLE for the position, but it does not mean you are more qualified." Being the most desirable makes you the most qualified. That is my entire point. If the most desirable candidate is that candidate that the company feels best suits its needs at the time, that makes you the most qualified because you fit the qualifications of the most desirable candidate. Companies are looking to diversity along race and gender lines because, at this time, that is what is needed for companies to be successful in the current market. Customers are demanding it. Universities are looking to diversify along race and gender lines because a college�?s worth is measured in how well they prepare their students for the "real world." Companies hiring college graduates want students who can work with others who are different from themselves in a team. Those students with the experience of working in diverse environments will fare better than those without that experience. I disagree that AA discourages changes in the educational system. The education system is not changing because those with the power - money, networks, etc. - to make change believe they have no incentive to do so because their kids are successful. Look at Penn - with an undergrad student body composed of just 6% black students, it is clear that there is a long way to go. As far as I know, having black friends who went to black high schools and being black myself, college advisors are not telling kids that they don't need to work hard because AA will get them into school. That is just not happening. There is a large misconception that black students are taught to slack off and not work hard because AA will save them when it comes to college admissions. Anyone who refuses to work on behalf of quality education for all until AA is abolished is wasting their energy - why fight against a few when you could be fighting for so many more? LaToya Baldwin, Alum NYC

I agree with Penn Graduate that the mere color of someone's skin is not a qualification for a job. Qualifications are attributes that show that you can perform the job, not ones that increase diversity. That argument could be used to say that a company needs more blondes to work there or more bald men, or more short (oops, I forgot my liberal general audience - vertically challenged) people. These physical attributes don't make a person more qualified for a position. If you want to use an attribute that is a "reported" attribute like race, you can use homosexuality. In the legal profession, firms report numbers of those who are openly homosexual. Does a person's sexual orientation make him or her perform the job better? No! I also totally disagree with the statement that in order to succeed in today's world, businesses have to have very diverse employees because customers demand it. My previous employer, a law firm, was predominantly white males. There were, maybe 5 or 6 non-white attorneys and maybe a dozen other non-white employees. It, along with all of the other large law firms, had no problem attracting business and never lost a client because of a lack of diversity. My current employer, a large financial company, is also predominantly white. Again, no customer revolt or loss of business. I'm not saying that this situation is the best, but I am arguing that that the racial or gender makeup of the employers have absolutely no bearing on their business. Penn Grad Boston, MA

Affirmative Action does largely benefit black and hispanic students coming from lower socioeconomic backgrounds, and in this aspect, I believe AA to be a positive program. And efforts by institutions to bridge that gap between social groups, through the use of affirmative action has benefited society to an extent. However, it is difficult to defend a program, which aids a larger minority, while at the same time hinders a smaller one. Within the asian minority, certain subgroups are mainly composed of lower income households located in disadvantaged communities; yet, in applying to colleges, which may not categorize beyond "asian", these minorities will find it even more difficult when placed in a group of, in the most part, higher income students with higher test scores. An initiative should not be based on racial lines. Because just as a black student cannot escape irrational prejudices against their race, neither can a filipino one. Although I do believe the government and social institutions should act to give those disadvantaged aid, I do not believe affirmative action to be a fair method of doing so. christine, student

Yuji - you talk about how the entire DP editorial board is white, but you make no mention of how many minority students have applied to be on the board. Are there a lot of minority students who are eager to serve on the board? If there are, and somehow none are selected, then I see your point. I would have to say that there are no minority applicants, though, since, as you noted, there is only one minority student working there. So it really doesn't seem like there is any discrimination. As far as AA goes, race alone should definitely not be a factor. LaToya, you seem to be very adamant about this, but tell me how a black student at a good, private high school is disadvantaged in relation to a white kid at a poor public school? It's absurd to say that just because one applicant is black, his application should be reviewed according to relaxed standards. AA should help those who are economically disadvantaged, because that's really the only way that makes sense. student

What a strange misrepresentation! Affirmative action may have grown out of the 1960's, but affirmative action to development classroom 'diversity' began when schools like Harvard used it as an excuse to limit the number of qualified jewish applicants by seeking applicants from other geographic locations. The stakes are high- we invest a great deal in those who we admit to good schools, and the investment should be in those who are most qualified. ... And while I hate to make it personal, this reminds me of the fact that Education Ph.D students are the least qualified grad students in any university. They score lower in science than english students, and lower in english than science students. Perhaps it is true, those who can't do teach... Vinay I think enjoys the juicy morsel of moral rectitude he gets from hanging out in front of the supreme court. But to compare that to the civil rights movement is sick. Admitting dozens of literally unqualified students so that some students can feel less guilty, or so that class photos can look more 'diverse' has nothing to do with the 60's. Not to mention the fact that it's unconstitutional. Chris, Law Student Penn

Affirmative Action is about rectifying the predestination of poverty and failure for blacks based on their lamentable historic oppression in the US. Unfortunately, we live on planet earth, where money is something of value. Therefore, the rich will always be able to procure the most coveted goods for themselves (e.g., Ivy League degrees). Poor blacks and hispanics (emphasis on the word "poor") are going to lose the affirmative action debate because the United States elected (another point of contention, I suppose) a president who represents the interests of the wealthy. Due to this inerasable history, the wealthy in America are white. So fucking deal with it. Recognize that the Jews, Irish, and Italians used to be just as poor as you blacks and hispanics, but worked their asses off and kept their feelings to themselves, and thus succeeded. The keys were community, hard work, and scholarship. Drop the woe-is-me attitudes and the gats, and pick up a pencil or a fucking shovel, and try working for what you want (and not what you deserve, because people only deserve what they earn). Hardworking, honorable hispanics--I'm sorry if my words have offended you, it's just that LaToya has pulled your name into the debate in order to make the blacks look more worthy of special consideration. The United States is a dollarcracy, stop your naive whining about fairness. Recognize the facts of the situation and get real. Work hard, apply yourself, and excel. If you feel you need special handouts, then you clearly aren't worthy in the first place. John F. Kennedy, Corpse Arlington, VA

Penn Graduate, there is an activity that slays your performance argument, can you say political networking. If performance is the standard for 'admission' why do so many CEO and other big $$$ positions go to the guy is best at sucking up to the decision makers? Or is sucking up and networking a qualifying skill? The anti AA crowd uses the concept of 'best man for the job' as cover for the same old tired recycling of FOWG -- Friends of White Guys. Case in point -- GW Bush runs Texas Rangers? sil tuppins, Investor SE Us

AA's next target: Graduation? In the 60's reliance on standardized tests for admission was fought for as the solution to the arbitrary application of racial bigotry in college and university admissions. Ambigous and arbitrary standards were the tools of racism. They still are but now the racial spoils advocates are black. What happens when AA at admission is also seen to fail, as it must given you don't compensate for 12 years of failed education the summer before freshman year? AA degrees are the logical next step. If the admission process is racially biased as it reflects the lack of education experienced by minorities then surely the graduation rate will reflect the same thing (it did at UC Berkeley) and thus the same remedy must be applied? A certain "range" of the racial composition of each entering class must be preserved for the graduation or clearly the school process is biased and racist. This will be especially true at the high end, competitive schools where the central teaching tool is challenge and those that fall behind are washed out. How do you make up for 12 years of neglect and successfully compete with the fully prepared people? The reality is you largely don't. Admission standards are not the real problem, it's graduation standards: the call for AA degrees is just around the corner. Lin, Penn

AA is racist. Blacks support it (to the tune of 80-90%) and a large majority of whites are against it. Blacks have many reasons why they support it, but the one that matters is that it allows them to beat out better qualified candidates for the schools or jobs they apply for. Any other excuse for supporting it is a joke. UPenn Alum

I can't believe I still read this. What happened to the days when the cornerstone of philosophy was logic? "And it is incumbent upon us to remember our forebearers in this struggle and demand that the University open its doors to all." That is complete tripe: a false conclusion. Its implied premise is that the absence of a formal affirmative action policy necessarily means that an institution categorically refuses admission to all members of a given group. That is, of course, silliness. More insidiously, though, it is an inaccurate charge -- yet another example of the inability of many liberals to support their positions with fact and reason. By resorting to inaccuracy and hyperbole you hurt your cause. Shame on you. Erik Naft, Attorney Pittsburgh, PA enaft@yahoo.com

Informed members of the Penn community clearly understand the importance of race-conscious admissions policies. So clearly anyone who disagrees is uninformed. That makes perfect sense. I believe that the most qualified person should get the job or the acceptance letter, regardless of their race, so I guess I must be uninformed. Legacies cannot even be included in the argument because legacies tend to be well-educated coming from well-educated parents. Should someone be denied from Penn or any other competitive school based on their race? Absolutely not. Should a non-minority's 4.0 or 1600 be equal to a minority's 3.0 and 1000? No. Why can't we invest in youth, of all races, at an early age. Improve the early education system to provide a foundation for achievement instead of making excuses later on and giving people who might not be qualified an easy ride. "forced acquisition of community land" I understand this is a small point not really related to the overall article, but I'm so sick of this argument. When Penn moved from its initial location (in Old City) to its current location, "University City" and "West Philadelphia" was more or less considered suburban. There was a lot of green space and in short, the neighborhood is nothing like it is today. The current community grew around the university. The university did not pick up and move in, usurping land from lower class minority families. I cannot stand how local residents complain about Penn. If Penn wasn't there, I'd imagine many would be without jobs, living in a significantly more dangerous area. Penn Graduate

I believe that the most qualified person should get the job or the acceptance letter, regardless of their race. Penn graduate, I don't believe most people would disagree with you. The issue, is, and has always been, how do we define qualifications, and whether race is a qualification. If college admissions were based only on SAT scores and grades, essays, lists of activities, etc. would be unnecessary. The same goes for jobs. People are interviewed, and resumes as a whole are taken into account because merit can be defined in many different ways, not just college GPA. Affirmative Action realizes that coming from a socially disadvantaged group, or race, is yet another factor to consider just like gender, activities, recommendations, and essays. All of those things together make the individual, and individuals together make the community. The same way Historically Black Colleges and Universities use AA to increase the non-black population, historically white colleges, such as Penn should also use AA to increase its non-white population. "Legacies cannot even be included in the argument because legacies tend to be well-educated coming from well-educated parents." You are correct, legacy admits often come from higher educated backgrounds, but if they are already better qualified than most (and therefore would get in regardless of their legacy status), why do they need special consideration? "Why can't we invest in youth, of all races, at an early age. Improve the early education system to provide a foundation for achievement instead of making excuses later on and giving people who might not be qualified an easy ride." In the case of gender and race, I also agree that many of the problems would be fixed if primary education actually educated everyone equally, but we can all see that that is not happening anytime soon. Broad-based educational reform has been talked about for decades, but every little has been done. The gap between the haves and the have-nots is getting larger, (in my opinion) due to the increase in the educational gap. To get rid of affirmative action would leave nothing to handle the problem, despite the fact that affirmative action is a bandaid on a very large sore. To both sides of the argument - Where are the protests to force the government to make more of an investment in education? Too much time has been devoted to both supporting and protesting affirmative action. Given that the outcome both sides are ultimately striving for is quality education for all, wouldn�?t we all be making more of an impact if we rallied together in support of equal and quality education with the same furor we rally over affirmative action? "The university did not pick up and move in, usurping land from lower class minority families. I cannot stand how local residents complain about Penn." On the issue of neighborhood displacement, you are wrong. Many works have been done, by Penn students and faculty, on the Black Bottom, a black West Philadelphia neighborhood that was uprooted and its people displaced in the 1950�?s and 1960�?s as Penn expanded. Black communities at that time, while not on par with the suburbs in terms of economic status, were extremely stable and meccas of culture. Given that Penn is the largest private employer in the City, I agree that most residents are better off in terms of employment than they would have been if Penn were not here. But the ends do not justify the means, and lots of hostilities still exist because of the tactics Penn has used to secure its current position. Imagine if that was your home and your community. LaToya Baldwin, Alum NYC

Race is not a qualification, LaToya. Anyone can work hard and get a better score or receive a diploma. I cannot, by virtue of being born with white skin, become black. As much as Michael Jackson might argue one can change the physical characteristics of their race, it is not possible (sorry to insert something so silly, just trying to keep it light and perhaps prove a point). I wouldn't argue that only a GPA should be considered, certainly there is a larger picture that when compiled makes up an applicant profile. I just do not believe that the color of a person's skin should be a part of that profile. My white skin or your black skin does not define us, you might believe otherwise. I believe that we should be defined on what we have accomplished. Maybe I cannot relate, but for you, as an African American woman, I cannot imagine how it would feel to think that your race and gender may have been what made the difference between getting in to Penn. I don't believe that is the case because your arguments are too well thought out and presented. You are obviously intelligent whether or not we agree on this. As far as legacies go, I don't think they get special consideration. I knew plenty of legacies at Penn and they were all extremely qualified to be there. Whatever may be construed as special consideration are token gestures to keep alums happy and donating. On other flip side, I interview for Penn and I have interviewed legacies who were clearly not qualified and some who were on the fence, and they were not accepted. I can honestly say I don't understand what you are talking about with the haves and have nots. I went to a Catholic elementary school and a private high school. I was able to do so because my parents each worked more than one job at a time, while putting their tax dollars into a terrible school system that fails to educate its students. I came from a lower class neighborhood in Philadelphia where most others were in similar situations. Anyone can "have" if they want it bad enough and are willing to work. The problem with affirmative action, much like most problems in this country, is that those advocates for AA expect some quick fix, overnight change. Do blacks deserve more than they get in this country? Yes. But that can only be accomplished through work and each generation will find themselves better off. If we continue to use a quick fix bandaid approach, we are helping no one. As far as the McPenntrification people love to talk about, Penn was still around in its present location well before the 1950s. In fact, if you take a look on the University Archives' site, the purchase of the Almshonse farm in West Philadelphia as the new site for the University was made in 1870 with the first classes being held there in 1872. Anyone who was there in the 1950s or 1960s came well after that initial purchase of land. Penn Graduate

Penn Graduate Ð You say that "Anyone can work hard and get a better score or receive a diploma." Just to make sure I am following your argument correctly, would I be correct in assuming that you are against affirmative action for any reason - gender, race, or socioeconomic status, given that "anyone" can make it without special consideration? Qualifications are also based on the needs of whatever institution to which you are applying. In other words, being an accomplished tightrope walker, which is a great qualification for a circus, would not necessarily be a "qualification" for becoming an accountant. If a want ad for a commercial needed a female actress, a male would not qualify, even though nothing (or maybe not nothing) could make him a woman. If diversity Ð the interaction of people for various backgrounds - is a goal of an institution, then those who apply who do not currently fit the mold of the typical student, and therefore add to the diversity of the institution, have a qualification as a result of that thing that makes them different. This could be because of race, gender, geography, special accomplishment, socioeconomic status, etc. I believe that diversity is an important goal because it better prepares graduates for work in the "real world," where many businesses depend on the successful interaction of people of different cultural, racial, and other factors that make up "backgrounds" to make a productive team. The most successful colleges are those that best prepare their graduates to be the most productive members of society that they can be, and that it not possible unless those graduates have had ample interaction with people that are different from them in all ways. I do believe in the "stigma" that many say is attached to Affirmative Action. When I say I do not believe, I mean that it is only a stigma if I embrace it and recognize it. I do not. That stigma is not my problem, it is the problem of the one who chooses to believes it. When I speak of the "haves" and the "havenots," I am referring to the ever-increasing income gap in the United States. Even as we are the richest country in the world, our income is more greatly skewed to the richest than most other developed countries. I applaud the efforts of your parents, but why should anyone HAVE to do that? Why wasn�?t the school in your neighborhood equipped to educate its students? That is the real issue. I am also from a lower class neighborhood in Philly and my parents worked more than one job and still could not afford to send me to private schools. I was lucky enough to go to the best public school in the city. Why can�?t all public schools be like mine? I�?d be willing to drop the fight for affirmative action if we could all, on both sides of the debate, come together to fight for quality education for all. But I don�?t see that happening. Some who advocate for AA may just want a quick fix. But I would hesitate to put that label on all. Anyone who does can look at AA over the last 40 years and see that it is not a quick fix. But I do not see how you can look over the last 40 years and say that it has helped no one. I agree with you when we speak of the initial movement of Penn from Old City to the current location. Vinay�?s statement, though, was concerning the displacement of residents on the 1950�?s and 1960�?s, when Penn made a lot of its expansion into West Philadelphia. LaToya Baldwin, Alum NYC

Why DP is a wrong forum. . . . . .to discuss affirmative action, or any other race-related subjects for that matter: because its Editorial Board consists of 100% Caucasian students. It's a dirty little secret that the DP doesn't want the readers to know about. Why do you think the current DP regime hasn't taken an editorial stance on arguably the hottest issue on the nation's campuses today? Because it can't. How can it support the race-conscious program when its OWN group excludes the voices of minorities? The editors of the DP will gladly let everyone else discuss the issues in their paper, but they will keep themselves out of the debate to preserve their best interests. The last thing they want is the entire University community questioning its OWN affirmative action practice. Granted, there has been an occasional exception. This year there is ONE Asian student editing copy. Last year there was a black student in the art department. But over the course of 15 years that I've read the paper, the makeup of the DP's editorial board has been almost always totally white. It's true. Look it up. Now that you know, if you think something should be done about it, go ahead and make some noise. Because it's about time someone did. And if you don't, you are just as much a hypocrite as the DP editors. Yuji Former Penn Employee nineball@budweiser.com Yuji