More racist claims

[erooMynohtnA]

Originally Posted by thereom4

Encouragement? I'm not sure I like what this suggests. No one needed to encourage me or my friends to want to go to college. Some students do need to be encouraged but this does not appear to be what DA is talking about. Also programs like this do exist. In Philadelphia they exist in the form of Upward Bound, College Access Centers and various prep programs in a number of high schools to encourage students to apply to college. So I think it's less about encouragement and more about access.

So by denying someone access to a unviersity, that would, say, discourage them from attending?

But by allowing someone access, that would, most likely, encourage them to attend?

Tomato, tomahto. You just don't like the way he's saying it.

[thereom4]

Originally Posted by erooMynohtnA

So by denying someone access to a unviersity, that would, say, discourage them from attending?

But by allowing someone access, that would, most likely, encourage them to attend?

Tomato, tomahto. You just don't like the way he's saying it.

No, not tomato, tomahto. And no, I don't like what he's saying.

ILS suggested that instead of affirmative action that we should have college prep programs to encourage students to attend college. These programs exist already.

Affirmative action is necessary. Anyone who has read the History of the U.S. (not a real book, btw) knows this. Example: A minority student may attend one of these college prep programs and thus become "encouraged" to attend college. This student then takes the SATs and scores in the top percentile. He/she may still not have access to a university had it not been for affirmative action which btw came about as a remedy to the institutionalized racism in this country.

I wish we didn't need affirmative action. Just like I wish slavery didn't happen. And the way I wish every discriminatory, hateful and immoral thing that happened after slavery didn't happen. But I don't make the rules. I just observe them.

Affirmative action is just a bandage on a wound.

[I_luv_saber]

Originally Posted by thereom4

ILS suggested that instead of affirmative action that we should have college prep programs to encourage students to attend college. These programs exist already.

Some programs exist. Not that many, and not terribly effective ones, IMO. There hasn't been a strong focus on it, and there could be more.

Affirmative action is necessary. Anyone who has read the History of the U.S. (not a real book, btw) knows this. Example: A minority student may attend one of these college prep programs and thus become "encouraged" to attend college. This student then takes the SATs and scores in the top percentile. He/she may still not have access to a university had it not been for affirmative action which btw came about as a remedy to the institutionalized racism in this country.

True, and note I'm not denying the good that is done by it. But neither can you deny it is still an act of racial discrimination, plain and simple. Let's not avoid that description simply because it sounds inconvenient. You're simply arguing that it's a necessary racial discrimination. I disagree with that notion, and my own opinion is that it still would not be morally "OK" if it was.

It's using racial discrimination to try and stop racial discrimination, which does nothing but foster the notion that people of different races are/should be treated differently.

Why should one who's skin is darker than mine be treated differently, for good or ill, than me? How can one stand against racism on principle, and still be an advocate of AA?

I wish we didn't need affirmative action. Just like I wish slavery didn't happen. And the way I wish every discriminatory, hateful and immoral thing that happened after slavery didn't happen. But I don't make the rules. I just observe them.

I'm not saying we should stop observing the rules. I'm saying the rule is unjust and a step backwards in racial equality.

Affirmative action is just a bandage on a wound.

Exactly. It's a poor attempt to treat the symptom, not the problem, and in the process engages in the very racial discrimination it's meant to fight.

I'm sorry, I just can't possibly see how one fighting for true racial equality could possibly be an advocate of AA. It's a double-standard.

[thereom4]

Originally Posted by I_luv_saber

But neither can you deny it is still an act of racial discrimination, plain and simple. Let's not avoid that description simply because it sounds inconvenient. You're simply arguing that it's a necessary racial discrimination.

I'll make it clear so there is not confusion on where I stand. I do not believe that affirmative action is an act of racial discrimination. Because of this I won't counter the rest of your post because it is grounded in this argument.

[Inquartata]

Originally Posted by I_luv_saber

Some programs exist. Not that many, and not terribly effective ones, IMO. There hasn't been a strong focus on it, and there could be more.

Maybe we could put ACORN on the job.

[jessicasimpson]

Originally Posted by I_luv_saber

Some programs exist. Not that many, and not terribly effective ones, IMO. There hasn't been a strong focus on it, and there could be more.

But if these programs were effective, there would be the same cries of "Unfair". If collages drop AA, then they should have to drop legacy, and they won't do that, it would decimate their fundraising

[I_luv_saber]

Originally Posted by thereom4

I'll make it clear so there is not confusion on where I stand. I do not believe that affirmative action is an act of racial discrimination. Because of this I won't counter the rest of your post because it is grounded in this argument.

How can it not be an act of racial discrimination? I understand the argument that it is a necessary one, even though I disagree with it, but I don't see how AA can be looked at as anything other than racial discrimination.

It's treating one group, based on the color of their skin, differently. Whether or not this is used to counter already present discrimination in the other direction is beside the point when discussing whether or not it is discrimination to begin with.

[I_luv_saber]

Originally Posted by jessicasimpson

But if these programs were effective, there would be the same cries of "Unfair".

There's always going to be someone shouting "No fair!". I'm just stating my opinion on the matter. And my opinion would be that no, that's not unfair. That's a community program and not an institutional racial advantage. Apples and oranges.

If collages drop AA, then they should have to drop legacy, and they won't do that, it would decimate their fundraising

Oh, I agree. I doubt AA will be dropped anytime soon either. But something doesn't have to be likely or unlikely to happen for me to disagree with it and find it unjust .

[thereom4]

Originally Posted by I_luv_saber

How can it not be an act of racial discrimination? I understand the argument that it is a necessary one, even though I disagree with it, but I don't see how AA can be looked at as anything other than racial discrimination.

It's treating one group, based on the color of their skin, differently. Whether or not this is used to counter already present discrimination in the other direction is beside the point when discussing whether or not it is discrimination to begin with.

After the civil rights laws were passed, affirmative action was mandated to ensure that minorities were able to get on equal footing with their counterparts.

President Johnson to Howard University graduating class of 1965:

"You do not wipe away the scars of centuries by saying: 'now, you are free to go where you want, do as you desire, and choose the leaders you please.' You do not take a man who for years has been hobbled by chains, liberate him, bring him to the starting line of a race, saying, 'you are free to compete with all the others,' and still justly believe you have been completely fair . . . This is the next and more profound stage of the battle for civil rights. We seek not just freedom but opportunity—not just legal equity but human ability—not just equality as a right and a theory, but equality as a fact and as a result."

The Supreme Court's stance on affirmative action is that race can't be the determining factor but it can be a factor in the admissions process. I agree with this.

I think one of the problems with affirmative action is that in an attempt to promote diversity there have been a number of schools (and companies) who have employed a quota system (I think this is where the term "token black" or "token asian" or "token hispanic" or "token latino" came from) and some of these systems may be so rigid that yes, these schools (and companies) may accept an unqualified minority student (applicant) over a white student just to fill that quota. I don't agree with this. But that doesn't make affirmative action discriminatory. The schools who employ these systems simply have to do a better job with outreach. They need to go out to the high schools and college fairs and get qualified minority students interested in applying to their schools. If you're not qualified, you're not qualified. Do what you need to do to get qualified and reapply or apply somewhere else. But history cannot lie. Minority students were kept out of colleges. They couldn't apply elsewhere they were simply shut out.

Affirmative action basically said: You're not hiring blacks (now applies to women and other minorities.) Why is this? There must me at least one qualified black applicant. Now that it's law, you can no longer freeze him out of your industry. Hire him.

You're not accepting black students into your universities. Why? Surely there are qualified black students applying to your schools. Now that it is law, you can no longer discriminate against them. Accept them into your schools.

If there was only one spot left at University XY: An A student who fences in high school and applies to a college with a fencing team will have a better chance of attending University XY (and on a scholarship) than the A student who doesn't fence. This applies to students who swim, dance, play an instrument or whatever. Today affirmative action (in colleges) is used as a factor in the admissions process but not the sole factor. In the past it was used to open shut doors.

If we are to do away with affirmative action the only factor that should be taken in account is academics. Students who swim, wrestle, fence, play baseball, basketball, football, tennis, soccer or any other sport should not be given extra "points", or scholarships based on anything other than academics. The application shouldn't ask applicants to identify their race or gender. Although unless your name is as ambigious as Shannon then it wouldn't matter. Better yet all students applying to college should have to go through a central registry (who will not ask for any identifying info other than name, address and SS#) where a generic number will be assigned and this number will be used to apply to colleges. In order for this to really work, I guess we have to work on improving the education in some of these public schools first. Anyone for raising taxes?

[Inquartata]

There are a few problems with Johnson's footrace analogy, though.

For one thing, AA has in fact gone beyond his analogy, and has started transferring the chains from the laggards to the leaders.

For another, he didn't mention the tendency for any government program to acquire a constituency, which will argue vehemently that the program's job is not yet done...and will argue that forever. Which will fight to keep it in place even after any need for it has been dispelled. Which will resist to the death any diminution of it.

Self-interest is a powerful force, especially when it has the coercive abilities of government backing it up...

[PeterGustafsson]

Hi!

Originally Posted by jessicasimpson

Well to me, giving a legacy (child of alumni) admission over someone with better grades and test scores is Affirmative action. Do you think that should be stopped also?

If possible, yes.

Originally Posted by MyrddinsPrecint

I do appear more on the "white" side of the spectrum, but I am often assumed to be part or all Asian. I can probably either check off the "White" box, the "Asian" box, or the "Mixed" box without significant challenge. I've never met most of my mother's family, and both her parents were dead before I was born. I majored in math and cook with mostly Asian influence. Surgery could make my eyes appear more or less Asian, and isn't too major. A nose job could put me more in either direction, although it's unlikely I (personally) would elect to have one. Dying my hair is a super easy and reversible way to make myself appear more or less Asian.

I would guess that you look something like my sons, race-wise. I have been told that my older son looks just like a Chinese version of me. OTOH, there is a guy with very east-asian facial features living a few blocks from me, and he has his hair dyed as blonde as possible - with black roots. Looks corny.

Originally Posted by MyrddinsPrecint

Here's the thing- bringing together a diverse class for a college is a good thing. Part of college is learning from professors, but part of it is learning from your peers, in and out of the classroom.

"Color of Skin" used to be a reasonably good shorthand way to determine whether or not two people had similar or dissimilar life experiences. It's never been perfect, and I believe it's becoming a less useful indicator (I also think this is good).

But diversity is still good.

If we're thinking in terms of a "point" system, I don't think that we should take away the racial factor, and the potential points once can receive-- I just think the ways one can get those points should be broadened. There are a lot of kinds of diversity- geographical, religious, economic class, etc, and plenty of other ways to be interesting. I think that having had an unusual life experience *should* boost you a little in the eyes of admissions offices, but that it should only be a little (getting admitted to a school is only a good thing for a person if they can get succeed at that school), and that it's actual diversity that's being targeted.

Well I beg to differ. I think that Universities should have some leeway as how to design their own admissions policies. If it is a line of study leading to a job performing something specific, then they can have specfic aptitude tests (singing for Juillard, shooting for Police Academy, you get the picture). For more open-ended studies, the University should be free to weight among various grades, IQ tests, and similar things which have numerical scales and the results are only dependent on the test-takers performance, not his background. However, Universities should not have the freedom to include race, financial background, parental studies, or the like in their admissions criteria. That is my firm opinion, YMMV.

If this leads to classrooms which are too un-diverse: too darn bad, I say. One can not have everything that everyone wants, and this is a perfect example of what should be scrapped.

In order to really improve classroom diversity, the resources now spent on AA would be better spent on school improvement in places with bad local school systems.

Originally Posted by erooMynohtnA

This reminds me of a class I took where racism in Brazil was a main topic for a couple weeks (it was a jewelry class, wtf).

Were you making rings out of white gold?

Originally Posted by fencerchica

It puzzles me how people get so worked up over perceptions that affirmative action re: college admissions is apparently so awful, but they don't seem to have any similar problem with legacy admissions. It should be obvious that, given that most colleges are majority white and have historically been majority white, legacy admissions are thus weighted towards admitting white students and maintaining the cultural advantage historically held by white folks. Given this, why are legacy based admissions ok but affirmative action isn't? Is it just because race plays a more subtle role there and people don't bother to look deeply enough to see it?

I would hazard a guess that legazy admissions help fewer than AA, and therefore are seens as less of a threat for those who will be helped by neither.

Originally Posted by jessicasimpson

But if these programs were effective, there would be the same cries of "Unfair". If collages drop AA, then they should have to drop legacy, and they won't do that, it would decimate their fundraising

Where I live, we have neither, and undergrad University studies are almost entirely tax-funded. With the exceptions of artistic and police studies, all admissions are based on grade averages.

This is very simple. It catches those who would easily get in under any system, and keeps out the no-hopers. One might argue that the US. system does a better job at discerning among those with "maybe" grade averages, but I respond to that that it is a minor improvement for a significant cost.


Have a nice time!

Peter Gustafsson

[I_luv_saber]

Originally Posted by thereom4

President Johnson to Howard University graduating class of 1965:

"You do not wipe away the scars of centuries by saying: 'now, you are free to go where you want, do as you desire, and choose the leaders you please.' You do not take a man who for years has been hobbled by chains, liberate him, bring him to the starting line of a race, saying, 'you are free to compete with all the others,' and still justly believe you have been completely fair . . . This is the next and more profound stage of the battle for civil rights. We seek not just freedom but opportunity—not just legal equity but human ability—not just equality as a right and a theory, but equality as a fact and as a result."

I don't buy it. I get what he's trying to say here, same as I understand the argument behind AA. However, two points:

1) There will always be (IMO) some amount of racial divide in the world. If we are leaning upon the fact there is still racism in the world as an argument that AA is a temporary, necessary evil (as he seems to be saying here, which is why I emphasized some text), when does it stop? If there is always racism it isn't a temporary measure.

2) If we are going to stand against racial discrimination on the principle that no man should be treated differently based on the color of his skin, how can we then turn around and say "But we need to for the sake of fairness". If we're going to stand on principle, let's stand on principle after all.

There are some things in this world that I have zero moral tolerance for. Racism and racial discrimination is one of them. It's a nasty scar on society. Perhaps this removes me from my usual position as a pragmatist and puts me in one of an idealist - but there are certain things in life which are so important morally, that no tolerance should be shown for them. I'm not trying to sound like I'm lecturing, simply trying to clarify why I feel the way I feel about this subject.

The Supreme Court's stance on affirmative action is that race can't be the determining factor but it can be a factor in the admissions process. I agree with this.

Again, I'm simply arguing it is unjust. In this case, I believe they got it wrong.

But that doesn't make affirmative action discriminatory.

Yes, it is. If you are treating group A differently than group B because of the color of their skin, that's racial discrimination.

But history cannot lie. Minority students were kept out of colleges. They couldn't apply elsewhere they were simply shut out.

I absolutely do not deny this. My argument is that two wrongs do not make a right.

You're not accepting black students into your universities. Why? Surely there are qualified black students applying to your schools. Now that it is law, you can no longer discriminate against them. Accept them into your schools.

No. That's addressed separately via anti-discrimination laws. AA is a direct advantage given to person A because his sin is darker than person B. That's fundamentally not right to me, regardless of the good trying to be accomplished.

If there was only one spot left at University XY: An A student who fences in high school and applies to a college with a fencing team will have a better chance of attending University XY (and on a scholarship) than the A student who doesn't fence. This applies to students who swim, dance, play an instrument or whatever. Today affirmative action (in colleges) is used as a factor in the admissions process but not the sole factor. In the past it was used to open shut doors.

That's discrimination as well. However it's discrimination based on skill and character, not race, which is a bit of a different gig. Employers discriminate in hiring employees who are more or less skilled in a particular field. This I don't have a problem with. I have a problem with discrimination based on the fact someone else's skin is darker than mine, or vice versa. Skill is a valid point for discrimination... race is not.

If we are to do away with affirmative action the only factor that should be taken in account is academics. Students who swim, wrestle, fence, play baseball, basketball, football, tennis, soccer or any other sport should not be given extra "points", or scholarships based on anything other than academics.

As I said, that's discrimination based on character or skills, and is a different can of worms than a pre-set advantage because I was born with a certain shade of skin.

The application shouldn't ask applicants to identify their race or gender.

I'd be more than down with that.

[thereom4]

Originally Posted by I_luv_saber

If we are going to stand against racial discrimination on the principle that no man should be treated differently based on the color of his skin, how can we then turn around and say "But we need to for the sake of fairness". If we're going to stand on principle, let's stand on principle after all.

No man should be treated unfairly based on the color of his skin. But the reality is that men (inclusive) are treated unfairly based on the color of their skin. This is not going to change anytime soon.

I love how the media says that we are living in a post-racial America because we elected President Obama. America has gotten more racial or at least less afraid of talking about race (whether in a negative or positive way) since President Obama's election.

I like that we are talking about race. This country had (has) a problem and we should talk about it. We shouldn't pretend like there is no such thing as race because IMO that would be disingenuous. If I were in an elevator with one of my friends and three hot guys of different races and my friend wanted to know which one of the three I thought was the most attractive, I'd use race (assuming I knew their races) as a descriptor to answer the question.

There are no two people alike. This is a good thing. No one should be treated unfairly because of their race. But sometimes you do have to treat people differently. That's why wrestlers have different weight classes or why we have different bathrooms for men and women or why men and women can't (usually) compete athletically against each other.

Originally Posted by I_luv_saber

No. That's addressed separately via anti-discrimination laws.

These laws would have been rendered as useless as separate but equal (in it's time) if affirmative action weren't put in place.

Originally Posted by I_luv_saber

That's discrimination as well. However it's discrimination based on skill and character, not race, which is a bit of a different gig.

I argue that these skills have as little to do with academic ability as race. Except swimmers and fencers weren't shut out because they had these skills.

Originally Posted by I_luv_saber

As I said, that's discrimination based on character or skills, and is a different can of worms than a pre-set advantage because I was born with a certain shade of skin.

It is a different can of worms. Schools who employ a point system award scores to candidates based on academics, race, socioeconomic status, personal achievement/extracurriculars, and I'm sure other factors.

Forget that I'm a black woman. Take away the advantages I would have as a novice fencer who likes pottery, crotcheting, swimming, playing the piano and guitar (actually learning now), writing, cooking, comedy and watching "good" reality shows. These things are just a part of who I am as a person as my race and gender. Affirmative action doesn't automatically get you a seat in the classroom. It shouldn't. Affirmative action made it so that a minority could have an opportunity to sit in that classroom, if he or she so chose to.

[MyrddinsPrecint]

Originally Posted by PeterGustafsson

This is very simple. It catches those who would easily get in under any system, and keeps out the no-hopers. One might argue that the US. system does a better job at discerning among those with "maybe" grade averages, but I respond to that that it is a minor improvement for a significant cost.

I would guess that high schools in the US are of such differing qualities and difficulties that it would be difficult to do that. I went to a private high school, even though the local public school wasn't too bad. A very close friend of mine teaches high school on the South Side of Chicago. There is no easy way to compare the experience I had (or she had) in high school with those children, and you really can't gain much information from one number alone.

Many schools already see significant grade inflation. This would only make it worse. How do your schools avoid that?

[I_luv_saber]

Originally Posted by thereom4

No man should be treated unfairly based on the color of his skin. But the reality is that men (inclusive) are treated unfairly based on the color of their skin. This is not going to change anytime soon.

Well, that's (sort of, indirectly) part of my point. If we continue with the assumption there is always going to be some racism, then AA is not the temporary measure as was put forth by Johnson in your quote. It's a bad patch. Again, totally understand where you're coming from, but I don't understand how one can damn racism based on morality, then turn around and say "but a certain amount of discrimination is necessary in order to counter this discrimination that's already going on". If you've based your position against discrimination on morals, then wouldn't that same morality dictate that it's not OK the other direction either?

I guess what I'm trying to say is: I understand what good is accomplished, and I understand your position - but I don't understand how it isn't a double-standard.

I love how the media says that we are living in a post-racial America because we elected President Obama.

Yeah... gotta love reporters. We've come a helluva long way, and I don't think things are nearly as bad as they once were - but I also think racism will never be totally eliminated, here or anywhere else.

America has gotten more racial or at least less afraid of talking about race (whether in a negative or positive way) since President Obama's election.

I think it's more the latter than the former.

I like that we are talking about race. This country had (has) a problem and we should talk about it. We shouldn't pretend like there is no such thing as race because IMO that would be disingenuous.

I agree.

If I were in an elevator with one of my friends and three hot guys of different races and my friend wanted to know which one of the three I thought was the most attractive, I'd use race (assuming I knew their races) as a descriptor to answer the question.

Exactly. No different than, say, hair color. It's just a different color, nothing more.

There are no two people alike. This is a good thing. No one should be treated unfairly because of their race.

I don't think two people of different race should be treated differently in any respect. I'll elaborate below.

But sometimes you do have to treat people differently. That's why wrestlers have different weight classes or why we have different bathrooms for men and women or why men and women can't (usually) compete athletically against each other.

But this is again different. Treating race differently would be more akin to having different fencing categories for blondes, dark-haired people, redheads, etc. Race is another color, it's not a tangible difference like weight or skill or sex or what have you. These things make a solid difference.

In wrestling, 200 lbs black guy will have an advantage over a 150 lbs white guy. But the race plays no factor here. The weight plays a factor.

A black job applicant with black hair, with a degree in engineering, will have a better chance at a job than a white guy with blonde hair, with a HS Diploma. But race and hair color are not tangible differences. Even if the skill is not directly related, such as swimmers applying to a college, it's still a tangible difference. Race, like hair color, is not (for nearly all intents and purposes). See what I'm saying here?

These laws would have been rendered as useless as separate but equal (in it's time) if affirmative action weren't put in place.

Perhaps, perhaps not. I'm not convinced AA was/is the only answer to the problem.

I argue that these skills have as little to do with academic ability as race. Except swimmers and fencers weren't shut out because they had these skills.

I addressed this above.

Forget that I'm a black woman. Take away the advantages I would have as a novice fencer who likes pottery, crotcheting, swimming, playing the piano and guitar (actually learning now), writing, cooking, comedy and watching "good" reality shows. These things are just a part of who I am as a person as my race and gender

Yes, but should you be treated differently because of your skin color? Or your hair color? Or your eye color?

Affirmative action doesn't automatically get you a seat in the classroom. It shouldn't. Affirmative action made it so that a minority could have an opportunity to sit in that classroom, if he or she so chose to.

Nah. I'm not trying to argue it does, either. I'm against it on principle.

And again, I understand and appreciate the goal. I just think it's hypocritical and, in the end, a step backwards in the ultimate goal of racial equality. It fosters the idea that people of different races are different because of their race. Different color skin shouldn't be treated any differently than different colored hair. And regardless if society treats it that way or not, our policies should at least reflect that. How can we expect society to treat all colors equally if our policies don't?

[thereom4]

Originally Posted by I_luv_saber

Well, that's (sort of, indirectly) part of my point.

I'm not sure about that. I was careful to make the distinction (I think) betweeen being treated unfairly because of race and being treated differently because of race.

Originally Posted by I_luv_saber

If we continue with the assumption there is always going to be some racism, then AA is not the temporary measure as was put forth by Johnson in your quote. It's a bad patch.

Clearly strides still need to be made. Minorites (all including women) represent a small percentage of upper management, CEO, CIO, and CFO positions. That's why when we a minority is hired into one of those positions they are written about in publications like Forbes.

Originally Posted by I_luv_saber

Again, totally understand where you're coming from, but I don't understand how one can damn racism based on morality, then turn around and say "but a certain amount of discrimination is necessary in order to counter this discrimination that's already going on". If you've based your position against discrimination on morals, then wouldn't that same morality dictate that it's not OK the other direction either?

I don't see it as discrimination.

Originally Posted by I_luv_saber

A black job applicant with black hair, with a degree in engineering, will have a better chance at a job than a white guy with blonde hair, with a HS Diploma.

That's assuming they are applying for a job where education will be of an bearing. I'm not saying that the white applicant would get the job over the black applicant, but it has happened and it does happen. Dateline did an undercover report in the past and shown us that it still does happen.

I've been turned down for jobs (and discouraged from taking a job) because according to the hiring manager I was over-qualified. I don't think it had anything to do with race, they just didn't think I'd want to do that job. Example: I was looking for a summer job when I was in college. Rita's water ice was hiring so I applied. The owner wanted to hire me but at the same time was trying to discourage me from taking the job. He didn't think I'd want to do that type of job. What? Scooping water ice in the summer in an air conditioned building? If I didn't want the job I wouldn't have applied. I took it because I wanted to work there. A) It was 3 blocks from my house B) Free water ice and pretzels.

Originally Posted by I_luv_saber

But race and hair color are not tangible differences. Even if the skill is not directly related, such as swimmers applying to a college, it's still a tangible difference. Race, like hair color, is not (for nearly all intents and purposes). See what I'm saying here?

You're right, race and hair color are intangibles. But a college may accept a swimmer for the value they'd add to their school. That same school may also accept a minority for the diversity they'd bring to their school.

Originally Posted by I_luv_saber

Perhaps, perhaps not. I'm not convinced AA was/is the only answer to the problem.

I don't think it is the only answer now. But I do think it was the only answer then.

[jeff]

I'd like to see some real evidence that we're so post-racial as to obsolete the factors that led to affirmative action. That has been claimed a lot, but AA has been called unfair, racist, and unnecessary since Day 1 - and it absolutely opened doors to qualified applicants that otherwise would have remained closed.

In an ideal society we won't need AA - but at a time when political protests have 'send the lying Kenyan back' signs, or some moron says that Michelle Obama is related to an escaped gorilla ---- well, guess what - we're not post-racial yet. Some of those morons are hiring managers teachers and guidance counselors. Those of us lucky enough to be born with melanin levels that give us privileges in society are usually unaware of it.

However, some good news, just in:

Criticism of Obama 'Not About Race,' Says New Poll of White People
Foreign Birth, Resemblance to Hitler Cited
People who criticize President Obama do so for reasons that have "nothing to do with his race," a new poll of white people indicates.

According to the poll, which was conducted by the University of Minnesota's Opinion Research Institute, those who take issue with the President do so because of his "questionable birth certificate," his "love of socialism," and his "Hitler-like health plan," but "not because of race."

A significant number of Mr. Obama's critics "strongly agree" with the statement, "I don't have any problems with Obama being black, but I do have a problem with him being a socialist from Kenya who is trying to kill my grandmother."

Professor Davis Logsdon, who conducted the survey, says that the poll is "full of good news" for Mr. Obama: "It indicates that race is no longer an issue in America, but a foreign-born president trying to institute a Nazi-slash-socialist euthanasia plan is."
Elsewhere, Fox News host Glenn Beck called for stricter limits on the nation's IQ.

[thereom4]

Originally Posted by jeff

That has been claimed a lot, but AA has been called unfair, racist, and unnecessary since Day 1 - and it absolutely opened doors to qualified applicants that otherwise would have remained closed.

Exactly. I just don't understand why people opposed to affirmative action don't see that.

Originally Posted by jeff

A significant number of Mr. Obama's critics "strongly agree" with the statement, "I don't have any problems with Obama being black, but I do have a problem with him being a socialist from Kenya who is trying to kill my grandmother."

Ha! ha! This is in the race for quote of the year. Wow! Just wow! If this weren't so ignorant I'd make it my new sig.

[jeff]

Originally Posted by thereom4

Exactly. I just don't understand why people opposed to affirmative action don't see that.

Alas, even the nicest, best-intentioned people are painfully aware of doors shut in their faces, and opportunities denied to them, but are blissfully unaware of doors slammed in other people's faces.

Originally Posted by thereom4

Ha! ha! This is in the race for quote of the year. Wow! Just wow! If this weren't so ignorant I'd make it my new sig.

I get some funny e-mails I can share

[thereom4]

Originally Posted by jeff

Alas, even the nicest, best-intentioned people are painfully aware of doors shut in their faces, and opportunities denied to them, but are blissfully unaware of doors slammed in other people's faces.

You're right. If it's not being done to us, either we don't care, don't see the problem, or do care but just don't know how to fix the problem.

Originally Posted by jeff

I get some funny e-mails I can share

Cool. PM me.