Affirmative action is NOT the law. The law prohibits discrimination by race and sex (and by age, I think?). Affirmative action came into being as a way of giving minorities opportunities they might not otherwise get, or at least that's always been my understanding of it.
I don't think it's fair to equate having to work multiple jobs with being a minority. It ignores the systematic things in place that make it harder for minorities to get accepted to and attend elite universities, which in turn affects graduate admissions (as numerous threads on here have been concerned with). I'm not sure I understand why you think it's okay for affirmative action at the high school and college level but not at the graduate level. Are you saying that the playing field gets automatically leveled once someone acquires a bachelor's degree?
I don't think affirmative action creates this misconception, I think it is a reaction to the already existing misconception. That may seem like a subtle wording difference but it has huge ramifications in the "real world". I think what many minorities would want is to not need affirmative action because it would mean that their qualifications are taken seriously. But, studies (particularly in I/O psych) have repeatedly shown us that if you give an employer the same qualifications in two candidates, the white candidate will get the job over the black candidate. In that case, affirmative action might actually help someone qualified get a job they would not otherwise get. The New York Times actually had some articles on this on MLK Day. Shades of Prejudice, which is really about skin color, and another on how college degrees don't close the racial gap. You may be interested in the,
First off, you're calling affirmative action "discrimination", right? So, trying to make sure that people aren't systematically disadvantaged because of the color of their skin is problematic in your eyes. I'm going to assume that you find it equally problematic when people are not given chances that they presumably have earned/deserve/that their work merits because of the color of their skin, even though you don't say this. Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.
Can you give some evidence to support the things you've listed as costs of discrimination? For example, you cite grading and graduation. As a TA, I don't care what color someone's skin is. I grade their work based on the assignment's criteria and what they submit. So, in that case, I'm not sure how that relates to "discrimination". How do you figure that the academic mission of the university and the academic quality of the student body are lowered due to affirmative action? How do you know it mismatches students and institutions (and how on earth could this be separated from countless confounding factors like 16 year olds not knowing what they want to do with their lives?)?
Also, as far as I know, the only time that blood gets factored into group membership is when it comes to Native Americans determining who is a proper member of the tribe. The rest relies on self-reported data.
