Once you meet someone it seems to become habit to stalk them on Facebook. Look at their likes, their favorite quotes, who they consider to be influential, what pictures they post up, and who their friends are. We try to learn as much as we can, and from there we create who they are; their identity.

Not just limited to Facebook.  It seems that our generation has become a generation of profilers. And I, being just as guilty as everyone else, found that we as a society have become accustomed with creating representations of people, what they like and ultimately who they are.

I’m not talking about stereyotypes. No, it has become more complicated than that.With our phones glued to our hands, ear buds in our ears, iTouches streaming, we have become the generation of technology, entertainment, and judgement. What we read, what we listen to, what we see, seems to be a generation of representation. Profiles of society.

Esspecially seen in our celebritires and icons. The headlines we read, and the shows we watch highlight a label we have put on.

It seems to be a common fact that Justin Bieber is a wannabe-hipster that sings like a grils, Lebron James is the sports world’s most revered backstabber and Kim Kardashian is the most annoying human being on earth.

And girls, as trite as it may be, have been created to fit one body structure. Magazines and ads covers showcase models of what have become the perfect profile; what our generation sees as perfection. Tall, thin, glossy hair, the perfect face structure and a blinding smile. You may think that the issue has come a long and gone issue, but it highlights a growing trend in our generation. Since we spend most of our time online, we become susceptible to what we read and what we see. Without even realizing it, we keep track of the pictures and ads we pass over, and the identity society has put on idividuals to search for perfection.

And all of this seems to be fueled by social media.

If one person says it, twenty people “like it,” then we’re incline to think it.

According to The American Psychological Association, seven percent of an impression is based on what one says, 38 percent is based on how someone says it, and 55 percent is based on appearance.

However, it seems today another percentage should be added based on social media perception.

With almost 200 million tweets posted everyday and Facebook users spending an average of 15 hours per month in Facebook, it seems that social media plays a pivotal role in society, and most importantly in what we think. You might think I may be over analyzing, but take the Trayvon Martin case for example. The world went in an uproar as anger spread that a young boy was killed; and when the idea that racial profiling may have been at fault, the fire grew stronger. But just as fast as the news spread, George Zimmerman become the world’s most hated man. Now don’t get me wrong, I’m not defending Zimmerman in any form, but as a society it seemed that our mind was made.

Even as new developments expanded and evidence was released to the public, we come to the notion that we’ll never know what had happened, yet ultimately it doesn’t seem matter.

The Martin story took over Twitter in a pandemonium. With more than 100 tweets per minute, and #wewantjustice and #justicefortrayvonmartin becoming worldwide trends, society had made up their mind.

Zimmerman was officially profiled.

Maybe rightfully so, but it seems that we’ll never really know, especially without all of the facts.

As cliché as it may sound, the old saying don’t judge a book by its cover needs to be put in affect, and I suppose a little refined.

So I guess, don’t judge a book by it’s cover, a person by their Tweet and a status by it’s likes or else you’ll become an official newly-reformed, societal profiler.

“She only got in because she’s black.”

Admit it, you’ve either thought of it in your head, said it aloud or heard it from someone else. It has become an idea that permeates through the college admissions process. And as the Supreme Court looks to review the concept of Affirmative Action in admissions this fall, the “race card” has once again captured the national spotlight.

Fischer vs. The University of Texas will once again regenerate the Affirmative Action debate. The case involves Abigail Fischer, a Caucasian student currently in Louisiana State University, who is challenging the university’s admission process.

The state of Texas currently uses the “Top 10 percent rule” as apart of its admission process, in which the top high school students within the 10 percent margin are guaranteed admission to all public Texas universities. Those who don’t qualify then apply through a regular admissions process.

Abigail Fischer applied to the University of Texas with a 3.59 GPA and an SAT score of 1180, yet wasn’t eligible for the rule as she wasn’t within the 10 percent range. Like many, she found herself applying through the standard admissions process and found herself rejected.

She cites that the university had favored minorities after accepting the top 10 percent, since the UT policy uses race as a factor in choosing applicants.

But, it seems to me that Fischer is just finding an excuse for her rejection. As she finds herself rejected, the scapegoat: the black student who worked hard throughout their high school career, seems to be the only clear reason for why.

Let’s start off with a history lesson. Affirmative Action is a set of policies that were created to eliminate the effects of past discrimination through either race, religion, sex, or national origin. One of these policies allows colleges to use race as a factor in college admissions, meaning a minority student has a small advantage when applying for college.

A heated topic that has created ongoing debates, the Supreme Court has reviewed multiple cases concerning this provision of Affirmative Action. Today, based on previous precedents, including the infamous Gratz vs. Bollinger court case in 2003,  the Supreme Court has ruled that colleges may use race as one of many factors that determine a student’s admission. However, a student can’t be granted “extra points” simply because of his race nor can a school assign a set amount of students to be filled by minorities. And this fall the Supreme Court will once again take on the issue of race concerning university admissions in Fischer vs. The University of Texas. 

Reality check Ms. Fischer: what makes you so sure race was the only factor that impeded your admissions? How can you be sure to pin-point your personal rejection on affirmative action? Why not blame the legacy students? The poor students? The extraordinary students? The list goes on.

Unfortunately, many fail to see that necessity Affirmative Action. To get rid of it completely would be an ignorant and naïve move which suggests that racism is no longer an issue in American society; which is an oxymoron in itself, as this issue highlights the existence of racism today. As much as many try to avoid the idea, racial discrimination is still a major force in American society. Not to say that we are in the same state as were 50 years ago, or ignore the strides of progress that have been made. But, to declare it non-existent or having played no effect on society today is simply ill-bred.

Especially when statistics shows that an African American is three times more likely to live in poverty than a Caucasian child, and the National Center of Education reports that African Americans and Latinos are more likely to attend high poverty schools.  A large pool of minority students seem to be steps behind in the academic race to college, add malfunctioning schools, and a lack of resources. It seems unfair to compare them to a student whose parents enrolled them into after-school tutoring, SAT Prep classes, and successful schools. Which is why the one key improvement to Affirmative Action is to factor in socio-economic background. We can’t categorize one race to fit statistics, trust me I understand that complexity.

What really doesn’t make sense is how many seem to overlook other so-called unfair disadvantages in the college admissions process, specifically legacy-admissions. It is common knowledge that a student with alumns as relatives have a larger probability of acceptance into that school, a probability that nearly doubles-solely on the basis of your family. At Harvard University, the legacy acceptance rate is a whopping thirty percent, more than four times the regular admissions rate according to The Crimson. Interestingly, Yale University noticed a large correlation between alumni donations and legacy-admissions. Meaning rich have a larger unconsecrated advantage, one that is largely overlooked.

Oh, and Ms. Fischer, Texas A&M has one of the biggest legacy programs in the country, according to the Houston Chronicles.

In the end, colleges there are many injustices that occur in the depths of the college admissions office. No doubt about it. But to blame a certain set of students because of your rejection is unfair and quite frankly, pretentious, if you’re not blaming everyone. Colleges don’t simply look at your skin color, your gender, you ethnicity and admit you in simply because they’re in need or because policies tell them to. So the next time you think a black kid got in because of their race, think again.