What do you guys think about Affirmative Action?

[quote name='zionoverfire']That's a huge leap in logic, more likely white idiots get in because of money, personal contacts and most importantly of all that they actually apply. Take away those three things and I can find a whole lot of dumbass white people who will never go to college for you.[/QUOTE]
So maybe the playing field kind of has to leveled by allowing certain minorities in to make up for the financial and personal advantage someone else has, do you think? I mean, it would be great if we could take away those three things, but that is not the reality of the situation. In a perfect world, AA wouldn't have to exist, but it's not perfect.
 
[quote name='zionoverfire']That's a huge leap in logic, more likely white idiots get in because of money, personal contacts and most importantly of all that they actually apply. Take away those three things and I can find a whole lot of dumbass white people who will never go to college for you.[/QUOTE]

Well, if there were no applications, there would be no racism.

Also, I would argue that "money and personal contacts" are characteristics of something called "white privelege" that policies such as AA try to remedy. One thing that AA doesn't do is try to change the fact that wealth=privelege, something else I'm not necessarily a fan of (since, in a pure meritocracy, lineage and legacy should not matter; of course, we know, they sure do).
 
[quote name='docvinh']So maybe the playing field kind of has to leveled by allowing certain minorities in to make up for the financial and personal advantage someone else has, do you think? I mean, it would be great if we could take away those three things, but that is not the reality of the situation. In a perfect world, AA wouldn't have to exist, but it's not perfect.[/QUOTE]

Then we should also let people in simply for being poor or for being a hillbilly, people in both those groups have lower entrance rates into college but you don't see them being given special treatment for it.

If AA actually worked by searching through high schools in the poor areas of town and the sticks searching for underprivileged youth with exceptional ability I would have less of a problem with it. However it is simply an advantage given based on race.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']Well, if there were no applications, there would be no racism.[/quote]
Or if all applications were treated by the same standards regardless of race there would be no racism. Reverse racial discrimination is still racial discrimination.

Also, I would argue that "money and personal contacts" are characteristics of something called "white privelege" that policies such as AA try to remedy. One thing that AA doesn't do is try to change the fact that wealth=privelege, something else I'm not necessarily a fan of (since, in a pure meritocracy, lineage and legacy should not matter; of course, we know, they sure do).
Click to expand...

So there aren't any rich black people in this world? There aren't any asians, native americans, latinos with personal contacts in american colleges? I suppose all white people magically have these "white privelege" contacts, even those poor fuckers in Alabama.
 
>>Then we should also let people in simply for being poor or for being a hillbilly, people in both those groups have lower entrance rates into college but you don't see them being given special treatment for it.

This is an interesting and all too common rhetorical slight of hand.

If they made financial aid for the poor it would be deemed welfare, Cons would decry it and would probably kill it.

You know it, I know it.
 
[quote name='Msut77']>>Then we should also let people in simply for being poor or for being a hillbilly, people in both those groups have lower entrance rates into college but you don't see them being given special treatment for it.

This is an interesting and all too common rhetorical slight of hand.

If they made financial aid for the poor it would be deemed welfare, Cons would decry it and would probably kill it.

You know it, I know it.[/QUOTE]

:lol: The aids is already in place, there are already grants and loans in place for the poor. Financial aid itself is based on income.

What I'm talking about here is people being allowed into colleges not because of their abilities but because of the color of their skin.
 
[quote name='Msut77']So the money doesnt bother you at all?[/QUOTE]

Nope, the government blows money on far more pointless things than low interest loans and grants.
 
I feel in a perfect world that there should be no affirmative action, but we dont live in a perfect world so its unfortunate necessity. People who have taken standardized test geared towards one gender over another and one race over others. Some peoples public education systems have failed them because of little to no funding or smuthered by other class members or even family. While on the other hand there are plenty of people who never have to worry about anything, cruise through an excellent HS in a suburban area and can choose wherever they want to go. Why should one person be penalized because of the advantages someone else was born into. Its not right and this is one of the best ways to fix the problem.
 
[quote name='zionoverfire']Actually it works a bit more like this: colleges decide what a good quota is for black enrollment and then except at least that number of students regardless of how qualified or not they are. If too few are accepted one year they simply lower their expectations. It's not about giving a few bonus points for race it's about guaranteeing that a certain percent of the student body is black regardless of weather they are qualified or not.[/quote]

Again, that's not the norm, and quotas are illegal anyway. I know of schools overwhelmingly white (one which is 99%) who have rejected reasonably qualified minorities, meaning it was essentially flipping a coin as to whether a white person would get in. Affirmative action, in its most common form, making decision favorable to minorities when you are deciding between 2 or more qualified applicants that are somewhat similar in qualifications.

So if they don't stand out then they really aren't improving diversity at all are they? In fact all they seem to be doing is taking the place that could be given to a more qualified applicant.
Click to expand...

Myke pointed out what the comment meant. And you're basing your assumption on "after a few minutes you know what they're there for", have you listened to the complete and utter stupidity coming out of white mouths are parties, in hallways, sports etc.? Unless you look at their academic work, you can't make that assumption. In 3 colleges I've attended, I've seen many people who simply didn't cut it. Who had no place in college. More often than not it was due to work ethic, and more often than not they were white. If a white person flunks out no one thinks anything, if a black person flunks out it's because they were an AA admission. Again, I knew a white kid who got into a school I was rejected from and, across the board, was worse than me. Much lower sat's, slightly lower grades but with easier (no ap) classes, no activities etc. Some white people would want to sue if that kid had been black. But he wasn't, and he didn't get in due to AA.
 
[quote name='alonzomourning23']Again, that's not the norm, and quotas are illegal anyway. I know of schools overwhelmingly white (one which is 99%) who have rejected reasonably qualified minorities, meaning it was essentially flipping a coin as to whether a white person would get in. Affirmative action, in its most common form, making decision favorable to minorities when you are deciding between 2 or more qualified applicants that are somewhat similar in qualifications. [/quote]

No, that's really how it works at a lot state schools. They take a look at the number of blacks, Latinos, native americans in the local and state population and the percents enrolled in their school. Then they fiddle with entrance requirements and send out recruiters until they have a number they like. College isn't like a job where they take just 2 candidates match them up head to head and choose which one they like better.

Myke pointed out what the comment meant. And you're basing your assumption on "after a few minutes you know what they're there for", have you listened to the complete and utter stupidity coming out of white mouths are parties, in hallways, sports etc.? Unless you look at their academic work, you can't make that assumption. In 3 colleges I've attended, I've seen many people who simply didn't cut it. Who had no place in college. More often than not it was due to work ethic, and more often than not they were white. If a white person flunks out no one thinks anything, if a black person flunks out it's because they were an AA admission. Again, I knew a white kid who got into a school I was rejected from and, across the board, was worse than me. Much lower sat's, slightly lower grades but with easier (no ap) classes, no activities etc. Some white people would want to sue if that kid had been black. But he wasn't, and he didn't get in due to AA.
Click to expand...

How nice of you to assume that comment was only meant for black people.:roll:

The real difference as I stated earlier is that those white idiots got in on their abilities not because of the color of their skin.
 
[quote name='zionoverfire']Then we should also let people in simply for being poor or for being a hillbilly, people in both those groups have lower entrance rates into college but you don't see them being given special treatment for it.

At my college, there is a program that works with the local city school district that allows underprivileged kids attend for free if they are accepted into the scholarship program. I also was reading somewhere (don't ask me where because I can't recall) that some of the bigger urban schools were actively trying to recruit people from small towns to attend their school to increase diversity.(Not implying that all hillbillies are from small towns, mind you) As far as qualifications, what makes someone more qualified than another? Is it based on grades, SAT scores, extracurricular activities? I don't know what that last sentence had to do with the discussion, but I thought I would throw that out there.
 
[quote name='docvinh'][quote name='zionoverfire']Is it based on grades, SAT scores, extracurricular activities? I don't know what that last sentence had to do with the discussion, but I thought I would throw that out there.[/QUOTE]

I can tell you what it shouldn't be based on and that's race. AA as much as some people try to deny it or sugarcoat it plays the race card more than any "special treatment" for a few rich white brats ever does.

Mainly my point is that not all underprivileged youths are black, yet all black applicants received the assumed benefit that because they are black they deserve special treatment. Trust me there are plenty of poor white people who would love to go to college and AA actually hurts their chances.
 
[quote name='zionoverfire']No, that's really how it works at a lot state schools. They take a look at the number of blacks, Latinos, native americans in the local and state population and the percents enrolled in their school. Then they fiddle with entrance requirements and send out recruiters until they have a number they like. College isn't like a job where they take just 2 candidates match them up head to head and choose which one they like better.[/quote]

2 or more I said. They give small advantages to minorities, that was my point. But it seems, from previous comments (like the talking to minority students one) that your thinking of particular people you've associated with who you thought were completely unqualified for that particular university.

Just to be argumentative, they also do line them up sometimes. One college I attended I was one of the last ones admitted. They had a bunch of borderline qualified students and they waited until the end, then went over the group of very close students. At least that's what the woman told me, since I called her on the day they had the review meeting. She told me, beforehand, that my qualifications were very close, but possibly not quite what they wanted for that particular field. I got in, but I obviously don't know the ratio of accepted in that group though.



How nice of you to assume that comment was only meant for black people.:roll:

The real difference as I stated earlier is that those white idiots got in on their abilities not because of the color of their skin.
Click to expand...

People overal react more to blacks, which is why I used it in the example. An asian or hispanic is likely to get less of a reaction.

But the minorities are not unqualified. Those who got in due to AA are not quite as academically qualified, but still in the ballpark.

Though you previously states on of the reasons for white idiots getting in is money. Money and legacy admissions are often little more than AA for the rich.

Also though, schools with many minorities have a much better learning environment, more intelligent class discussions, are less likely to be enclosed in their own little world etc. in my experience.
 
[quote name='alonzomourning23']2 or more I said. They give small advantages to minorities, that was my point. But it seems, from previous comments (like the talking to minority students one) that your thinking of particular people you've associated with who you thought were completely unqualified for that particular university. [/quote]
There are plenty of people who I think are unqualified for college, some of them passed the entrance requirements and some were let in when they would have failed them.

Just to be argumentative, they also do line them up sometimes. One college I attended I was one of the last ones admitted. They had a bunch of borderline qualified students and they waited until the end, then went over the group of very close students. At least that's what the woman told me, since I called her on the day they had the review meeting. She told me, beforehand, that my qualifications were very close, but possibly not quite what they wanted for that particular field. I got in, but I obviously don't know the ratio of accepted in that group though.
Click to expand...

And had your college decided to have a minimum for 2% of the student body being black you probably wouldn't have been let in.


But the minorities are not unqualified. Those who got in due to AA are not quite as academically qualified, but still in the ballpark.
Click to expand...

It doesn't matter how qualified they are, rather the fact that more qualified applicants are being kept out.

Though you previously states on of the reasons for white idiots getting in is money. Money and legacy admissions are often little more than AA for the rich.
Click to expand...
1. It's not based off skin color but who you know so it isn't racial discrimination.
2. You're looking at a very very very small percentage of applicants, much smaller than the amount affected by AA.
 
[quote name='zionoverfire'][quote name='docvinh']

I can tell you what it shouldn't be based on and that's race. AA as much as some people try to deny it or sugarcoat it plays the race card more than any "special treatment" for a few rich white brats ever does.

Mainly my point is that not all underprivileged youths are black, yet all black applicants received the assumed benefit that because they are black they deserve special treatment. Trust me there are plenty of poor white people who would love to go to college and AA actually hurts their chances.[/QUOTE]
Maybe, I can't say that for sure. I can say for sure that my college campus (York College of Pennsylvania) is predominantly white, and by predominantly I mean probably in the neighborhood of 80 to 90 percent. Is there any statistics to back your opinion, I'm just curious, not being a smartass. I think most colleges are predominantly white, so I don't think AA is exactly running all the white people out.:) Out of curiousity, does AA only apply to blacks, or is that only an assumption?
 
[quote name='docvinh'][quote name='zionoverfire']
Maybe, I can't say that for sure. I can say for sure that my college campus (York College of Pennsylvania) is predominantly white, and by predominantly I mean probably in the neighborhood of 80 to 90 percent. Is there any statistics to back your opinion, I'm just curious, not being a smartass. I think most colleges are predominantly white, so I don't think AA is exactly running all the white people out.:) Out of curiousity, does AA only apply to blacks, or is that only an assumption?[/QUOTE]

Think about it for a second, if colleges have a maximum enrollment and some people below the cut-off line are being let in, who gets screwed? The people who would get in otherwise, I bet in the case of your college this will be some low income white kids who without AA would have been allowed in.

AA doesn't apply only to blacks, however it has normally been used in most of the nation for blacks due to the low numbers of native americans, asians and latinos in the majority of the country. But when you start looking at state universities many of them also track the number of latinos and native americans in the state verse their enrollment figures.
 
[quote name='zionoverfire']
And had your college decided to have a minimum for 2% of the student body being black you probably wouldn't have been let in.[/quote]

The population was well above 2% at that school. And, again, quotats are not the norm and they're illegal. Unless you want to show that there is rampant violation of the law in that respect, there isn't much to that argument. And even if you were to show that, it's illegal, meaning what you want done (removal off AA), wouldn't prevent already illegal behavior from occuring.




It doesn't matter how qualified they are, rather the fact that more qualified applicants are being kept out.
Click to expand...

But the learning environment improves from diverse perspectives and having minorities. It also works towards the main goal of AA, trying to correct the harm that racism has done to particular groups.

1. It's not based off skin color but who you know so it isn't racial discrimination.
2. You're looking at a very very very small percentage of applicants, much smaller than the amount affected by AA.
Click to expand...

It is a form of discrimination based on wealth and family history. A form of discrimination that heavily benefits whites, who are more likely to have college graduates in the family, and have money. They're the last group that needs it. Some of those people go on to be quite succesful, and I'm sure you know at least 1 or 2.
 
[quote name='zionoverfire'][quote name='docvinh']

Think about it for a second, if colleges have a maximum enrollment and some people below the cut-off line are being let in, who gets screwed? The people who would get in otherwise, I bet in the case of your college this will be some low income white kids who without AA would have been allowed in.

AA doesn't apply only to blacks, however it has normally been used in most of the nation for blacks due to the low numbers of native americans, asians and latinos in the majority of the country.[/QUOTE]
So what would you propose as a solution? Once again, I'm not trying to be a smartass, just want to know. Do you implicitly trust someone to make admission decisions and that they wouldn't make a decision solely based on race? I may be a little biased mainly due to my experience with closet racists, so I guess that's why I believe in AA. Once again, an imperfect solution, but until we learn how to read minds, what are we supposed to do?
 
[quote name='docvinh'][quote name='zionoverfire']
So what would you propose as a solution? Once again, I'm not trying to be a smartass, just want to know. Do you implicitly trust someone to make admission decisions and that they wouldn't make a decision solely based on race? I may be a little biased mainly due to my experience with closet racists, so I guess that's why I believe in AA. Once again, an imperfect solution, but until we learn how to read minds, what are we supposed to do?[/QUOTE]

Simple, you create applications without the check race and gender box here. AA was never meant to deal with racism it was created to increase the number of minorities that went to college.
 
[quote name='zionoverfire'][quote name='docvinh']

Simple, you create applications without the check race and gender box here. AA was never meant to deal with racism it was created to increase the number of minorities that went to college.[/QUOTE]
You could still read the names and infer a certain race though. I believe that is the reason why a lot of minorities change their names to more common white names.(No scientific evidence to this phenom, just educated speculation). I believe if maybe you could eliminate names, maybe even the location of where they are originally from, it could be a possibility. I also believe less emphasis should be given to SAT scores, because although it is a fairly good predictor of how someone will do in college, it is not perfect. But I guess it is an imperfect solution to a problem though, huh?:) Damn, I hate it when my own logic comes back to bite me in the ass!
 
[quote name='alonzomourning23']The population was well above 2% at that school. And, again, quotats are not the norm and they're illegal. Unless you want to show that there is rampant violation of the law in that respect, there isn't much to that argument. And even if you were to show that, it's illegal, meaning what you want done (removal off AA), wouldn't prevent already illegal behavior from occuring. [/quote]

Quotats are the norm and they are not illegal, it's only illegal if you demand that x% or more of your student body be black. It is however quite legal to based on last years acceptance rates change the points you give black people for being black and then magically having roughly x% of your student body be black.


But the learning environment improves from diverse perspectives and having minorities. It also works towards the main goal of AA, trying to correct the harm that racism has done to particular groups.
Click to expand...

Do you just copy and paste this stuff from websites?:lol:

You don't get diverse perspectives by tossing in a few tolken black people, you get it by bringing in students from around the country and world.

And as you already know the goal of AA is to increase minority achievement, this is blind to weather you are the great great grandchild of a former slave or a recent national.

It is a form of discrimination based on wealth and family history. A form of discrimination that heavily benefits whites, who are more likely to have college graduates in the family, and have money. They're the last group that needs it. Some of those people go on to be quite succesful, and I'm sure you know at least 1 or 2.
Click to expand...
No, it benefits rich white people, or have you forgotten that not all white people have money?
 
[quote name='zionoverfire'][quote name='docvinh']

Simple, you create applications without the check race and gender box here. AA was never meant to deal with racism it was created to increase the number of minorities that went to college.[/QUOTE]

Do Shaniqua, Carlos and Abdul really have to check off a box?
 
[quote name='zionoverfire']Quotats are the norm and they are not illegal, it's only illegal if you demand that x% or more of your student body be black. It is however quite legal to based on last years acceptance rates change the points you give black people for being black and then magically having roughly x% of your student body be black.[/quote]

You can't give someone designated points for being a minority, that's what the university of michigan did and was ruled unconstitutional. Other than that, what you're suggesting is in violation of the laws. Obviously, when that occurs, those schools willingly do it. You can't double outlaw something and expect that to work.




Do you just copy and paste this stuff from websites?:lol:
Click to expand...

If you notice, I've made that comment multiple times by now. It's based on my own experience, another element I've added multiple times.

You don't get diverse perspectives by tossing in a few tolken black people, you get it by bringing in students from around the country and world.

And as you already know the goal of AA is to increase minority achievement, this is blind to weather you are the great great grandchild of a former slave or a recent national.
Click to expand...

There are multiple ways to increase diversity in perspectives. Though, recent nationals are underprivileged, as a whole, and could benefit.


No, it benefits rich white people, or have you forgotten that not all white people have money?
Click to expand...

Or have you forgotten who dominates the wealthy class?
 
[quote name='docvinh'][quote name='zionoverfire']
You could still read the names and infer a certain race though. I believe that is the reason why a lot of minorities change their names to more common white names.(No scientific evidence to this phenom, just educated speculation). I believe if maybe you could eliminate names, maybe even the location of where they are originally from, it could be a possibility. I also believe less emphasis should be given to SAT scores, because although it is a fairly good predictor of how someone will do in college, it is not perfect. But I guess it is an imperfect solution to a problem though, huh?:) Damn, I hate it when my own logic comes back to bite me in the ass![/QUOTE]

Actually most people change their name because it helps them fit in better in general, even if an employer can pronounce it most of the rest of the people you will meet during your life many not.

Removing names and locations from the process won't matter because the majority of minority applicants who are not foriegn will have typical american sounding names. Locations matter very little because most cities and areas are not entirely comprised of minorities.

But if you're really worried about it you could always have applications given to evaluators with simply a number and facts, that way someone wouldn't be denied admission because he shared the same name as an ex-husband.;)
 
[quote name='alonzomourning23'][quote name='zionoverfire']

Do Shaniqua, Carlos and Abdul really have to check off a box?[/QUOTE]

Because there are a whole lot of minorities with names like those.:roll:

If people only have names to go on they have no evidence that John Smith is any more white than Carlos Venga is.
 
[quote name='zionoverfire'][quote name='alonzomourning23']

Because there are a whole lot of minorities with names like those.:roll:

If people only have names to go on they have no evidence that John Smith is any more white than Carlos Venga is.[/QUOTE]

You honestly suggesting indians, Iraqis, chinese, brazilians etc. don't have a tendency to have minority sounding names? I can count the amount of middle easterners I've encountered with european names on one finger.
 
[quote name='zionoverfire'][quote name='docvinh']

Actually most people change their name because it helps them fit in better in general, even if an employer can pronounce it most of the rest of the people you will meet during your life many not.

Removing names and locations from the process won't matter because the majority of minority applicants who are not foriegn will have typical american sounding names. Locations matter very little because most cities and areas are not entirely comprised of minorities.

But if you're really worried about it you could always have applications given to evaluators with simply a number and facts, that way someone wouldn't be denied admission because he shared the same name as an ex-husband.;)[/QUOTE]
I guess you could possibly use that process. I dunno, some people hate city slickers, some people hate country bumpkins, so I would probably eliminate location just to be on the safe side.:) I thought I actually read somewhere that some school was trying this, don't know what the results are however. I guess we'll see.
 
[quote name='alonzomourning23']You can't give someone designated points for being a minority, that's what the university of michigan did and was ruled unconstitutional. Other than that, what you're suggesting is in violation of the laws. Obviously, when that occurs, those schools willingly do it. You can't double outlaw something and expect that to work. [/quote]

What Michigan did was make those points real, in most cases like the percentage they don't write the number down.

If you notice, I've made that comment multiple times by now. It's based on my own experience, another element I've added multiple times.
Click to expand...

and like so many of your "experiences" it reads more like an experience I had while reading through propiganda.

There are multiple ways to increase diversity in perspectives. Though, recent nationals are underprivileged, as a whole, and could benefit.
Click to expand...
Then stop claiming this whole paying for past crimes BS.

Or have you forgotten who dominates the wealthy class?
Click to expand...
and have you forgotten who dominates the poor? The majority of the poor in this country are white, just in case you've forgotten.
 
[quote name='alonzomourning23'][quote name='zionoverfire']

You honestly suggesting indians, Iraqis, chinese, brazilians etc. don't have a tendency to have minority sounding names? I can count the amount of middle easterners I've encountered with european names on one finger.[/QUOTE]

Middle Easterners who aren't American citizens don't count.
 
[quote name='docvinh'][quote name='zionoverfire']
I guess you could possibly use that process. I dunno, some people hate city slickers, some people hate country bumpkins, so I would probably eliminate location just to be on the safe side.:) I thought I actually read somewhere that some school was trying this, don't know what the results are however. I guess we'll see.[/QUOTE]

My point really is that most evaluators aren't going to be biased towards a race any more than they will be bias towards a region a name or any of a thousand other things and hopefully they have enough experience and judgement to put aside such things, but then again they are only human.
 
But if you're really worried about it you could always have applications given to evaluators with simply a number and facts, that way someone wouldn't be denied admission because he shared the same name as an ex-husband.;)[/QUOTE]
Why, am I your ex-husband?:) I think you kind of hit it right on the nose, people are human and are possibly going to discriminate for a variety of reasons, personal experiences, religious orientation, etc. They might not even be aware they are descriminating.
 
[quote name='docvinh']
Why, am I your ex-husband?:) I think you kind of hit it right on the nose, people are human and are possibly going to discriminate for a variety of reasons, personal experiences, religious orientation, etc. They might not even be aware they are descriminating.[/QUOTE]

Exactly so to assume people are being discriminated against for one particular reason by most evaluators is just plain silly.
 
[quote name='zionoverfire']Exactly so to assume people are being discriminated against for one particular reason by most evaluators is just plain silly.[/QUOTE]
It is, I guess. Most people are particularly oriented towards race however(no scientific proof, just educated observation), so that makes it a particularly troublesome discriminatory item.
 
[quote name='docvinh']It is, I guess. Most people are particularly oriented towards race however(no scientific proof, just educated observation), so that makes it a particularly troublesome discriminatory item.[/QUOTE]

Most people are far more oriented towards sex than race, but wait there are lots of women in college, no massive discrimination there.
 
[quote name='zionoverfire']What Michigan did was make those points real, in most cases like the percentage they don't write the number down.[/quote]

So, basically, you're saying they just can't be caught. Removing AA isn't going to effect already illegal behavior.


and like so many of your "experiences" it reads more like an experience I had while reading through propiganda.
Click to expand...

That could be because the "propaganda" you're reading isn't all made up. In all honesty, how many minorities do you actually encounter in wisconsin? I have a friend who moved there when he came from vietnam, and he the area he was was overwhelmingly white. Though wisconsin is obviously quite large and differs substantially depending on the area.

Then stop claiming this whole paying for past crimes BS.
Click to expand...

Not paying for crimes, making it so victimized groups can make up for that. It's not an attack on whites, but an assistance to minorities. And, as you should know, very few things have only one reason.

and have you forgotten who dominates the poor? The majority of the poor in this country are white, just in case you've forgotten.
Click to expand...

Technically, but only because there are more whites overall. The percentage is very different and that's all that matters. Native americans could have a 100% poverty rate and that wouldn't mean anything to you since whites have the numbers. I have no problem with extending it to poor whites, but considering the social environment in place, it should still focus on minorities.

Middle Easterners who aren't American citizens don't count.
Click to expand...

You haven't been around many minorities (or at least middle easterners), have you?
 
[quote name='alonzomourning23']You can't give someone designated points for being a minority, that's what the university of michigan did and was ruled unconstitutional. Other than that, what you're suggesting is in violation of the laws. Obviously, when that occurs, those schools willingly do it. You can't double outlaw something and expect that to work.
[/QUOTE]

Actually their policies were only partly unconstituational, it was actually upheld for their law school admissions program which operated under something similar to a quota system but was not directly weighted with something like points. The only reason a points system was ruled against in the undergrad admissions case was because they did not feel it apporiately achieved the goals of the university's policies for diversity so much as it let race be an overriding factor as to who was admitted. It's also important to note that some private universities still use similar point-type systems.
 
[quote name='zionoverfire']Most people are far more oriented towards sex than race, but wait there are lots of women in college, no massive discrimination there.[/QUOTE]
Good point. However, isn't there a call to have more women involved in the hard sciences, to the point that they might give special preference to women? I thought I read this somewhere after the Harvard president flap.
 
[quote name='alonzomourning23']So, basically, you're saying they just can't be caught. Removing AA isn't going to effect already illegal behavior.[/quote]
Nope, lawsuits will take care of that.

That could be because the "propaganda" you're reading isn't all made up. In all honesty, how many minorities do you actually encounter in wisconsin? I have a friend who moved there when he came from vietnam, and he the area he was was overwhelmingly white. Though wisconsin is obviously quite large and differs substantially depending on the area.
Click to expand...
Propaganda is never made up, partial lies always work the best.

Horray for Wisconsin then.

Not paying for crimes, making it so victimized groups can make up for that. It's not an attack on whites, but an assistance to minorities. And, as you should know, very few things have only one reason.
Click to expand...

The "victimized" groups are long dead and buried, I'm afraid you can't actually make anything up to them. But if you'd like to try I'm sure a nice plaque or something would work, maybe some flowers twice a year.

Any assistance to one group is discrimination against everyone barred from taking advantage of it. Racial discrimination is wrong, even when the victim is white.

I think you'll find that quite a few real things do have one reason behind them, lies however require multiple excuses to justify their existance. Afterall it would be a bitter pill to swallow if the campaign slogan of AA was: Let's end racism perpetuating it.

Technically, but only because there are more whites overall. The percentage is very different and that's all that matters. Native americans could have a 100% poverty rate and that wouldn't mean anything to you since whites have the numbers. I have no problem with extending it to poor whites, but considering the social environment in place, it should still focus on minorities.
Click to expand...

No, it should focus on the poor. Focusing on minorities is racial discrimination.


You haven't been around many minorities (or at least middle easterners), have you?
Click to expand...
Of course I have, I've met at least a half dozen Israelis.
 
[quote name='docvinh']Good point. However, isn't there a call to have more women involved in the hard sciences, to the point that they might give special preference to women? I thought I read this somewhere after the Harvard president flap.[/QUOTE]

It's a bit more difficult to explain that than. Plenty of women go into the natural sciences, but most as biology majors and then quite a few go off to med. school.

Other areas like Chem, phys, the civil science of engineering have always had a problem with the ratio of men to women. This has become more and more worrysome as the number of women in colleges increase and but the number in the sciences doesn't.

And special treatment would still be wrong even when it's done with the best of intentions.
 
[quote name='zionoverfire']It's a bit more difficult to explain that than. Plenty of women go into the natural sciences, but most as biology majors and then quite a few go off to med. school.

Other areas like Chem, phys, the civil science of engineering have always had a problem with the ratio of men to women. This has become more and more worrysome as the number of women in colleges increase and but the number in the sciences doesn't.

And special treatment would still be wrong even when it's done with the best of intentions.[/QUOTE]
So do you think it is because women just aren't good enough, or maybe it's just a stereotype that is perpetuated? I would say that if the president of Harvard(or whatever he is) is perpetuating stereotypes, there might be some other people that feel that way also. I know this is starting to run off topic, so feel free to disregard this post if you like.
 
[quote name='zionoverfire'] And special treatment would still be wrong even when it's done with the best of intentions.[/QUOTE]

It sort of reminds me of this girl in my high school. I was in AP CS and the class was 9 other guys and 1 girl. She was not the worst programmer in the class (that spot was reserved for the kid that copied off some other kids and turned that code in), but she was pretty damn lousy. However, she was a major advocate of getting girls into the class. Intentions are there, but she just sucked at CS too much to really do very well in it.
 
[quote name='zionoverfire']
Propaganda is never made up, partial lies always work the best.

Horray for Wisconsin then.[/quote]

That it's mostly white?


The "victimized" groups are long dead and buried, I'm afraid you can't actually make anything up to them. But if you'd like to try I'm sure a nice plaque or something would work, maybe some flowers twice a year.

Any assistance to one group is discrimination against everyone barred from taking advantage of it. Racial discrimination is wrong, even when the victim is white.

I think you'll find that quite a few real things do have one reason behind them, lies however require multiple excuses to justify their existance. Afterall it would be a bitter pill to swallow if the campaign slogan of AA was: Let's end racism perpetuating it.
Click to expand...

Most things are not clear cut. Minorities are not treated equally with whites, putting aside AA, whites are more respected and treated better overall, be it in law enforcement, work, or just everyday life. So, in that sense, the victims are not dead.

The victims create their own society and their own children. You don't wave a magic wand and expect it to go away.

It's foolish to think that the simple answers are the correct one. Unfortunately, most of the population doesn't agree, which is why 5 second political sound bites are so well recieved. Most things exists in shades of grey. For example, if someone were to ask me whether murder was always right or always wrong, I couldn't honestly say it was one or the other. Most things have special circumstances.

No, it should focus on the poor. Focusing on minorities is racial discrimination.
Click to expand...


Of course I have, I've met at least a half dozen Israelis.
Click to expand...

Most of which are probably white, and most of which probably had jewish names. That's not to say jews aren't discriminated against, but normally it's not the violent, lazy, unqualified stereotype that hindersmost minorities professionally.

But if 6 people are your experience, that's kind of supporting my point.
 
[quote name='docvinh']So do you think it is because women just aren't good enough, or maybe it's just a stereotype that is perpetuated? I would say that if the president of Harvard(or whatever he is) is perpetuating stereotypes, there might be some other people that feel that way also. I know this is starting to run off topic, so feel free to disregard this post if you like.[/QUOTE]

That really bit him in the ass. He insulted a ton of people, so then he had to go and not only apologize, but attempt to get more of those "unqualified" women into his school.

It was fun to watch him squirm.
 
[quote name='docvinh']So do you think it is because women just aren't good enough, or maybe it's just a stereotype that is perpetuated? I would say that if the president of Harvard(or whatever he is) is perpetuating stereotypes, there might be some other people that feel that way also. I know this is starting to run off topic, so feel free to disregard this post if you like.[/QUOTE]

More likely it's because the pay isn't very good (outside of engineering).
 
[quote name='alonzomourning23']That it's mostly white?[/quote]

Wow you really do try to hard to put words in people's mouths.

how about horray because their cheese is so good?

Most things are not clear cut. Minorities are not treated equally with whites, putting aside AA, whites are more respected and treated better overall, be it in law enforcement, work, or just everyday life. So, in that sense, the victims are not dead.
Click to expand...
Please I can find plenty of subgroups of white people who are hated or treated worse than minorities: ex-cons, retards, fat people, the disfigured.

The victims create their own society and their own children. You don't wave a magic wand and expect it to go away.
Click to expand...
The sins of the father are not the burden of his sons.

It's foolish to think that the simple answers are the correct one. Unfortunately, most of the population doesn't agree, which is why 5 second political sound bites are so well recieved. Most things exists in shades of grey. For example, if someone were to ask me whether murder was always right or always wrong, I couldn't honestly say it was one or the other. Most things have special circumstances.
Click to expand...
Good for you.

Most of which are probably white, and most of which probably had jewish names. That's not to say jews aren't discriminated against, but normally it's not the violent, lazy, unqualified stereotype that hindersmost minorities professionally.
Click to expand...
The more of this I read it seems more like this crazy land of total persecution is all just in your head, I mean violent AND lazy? Who are you trying to kid here?

But if 6 people are your experience, that's kind of supporting my point.
Click to expand...
Your point was lost to the wind pages ago.
 
[quote name='zionoverfire']Wow you really do try to hard to put words in people's mouths.

how about horray because their cheese is so good?[/quote]

I said I had a vietnamese friend who lived there and said there weren't many minorities. You said horray for wisconsin. Not much of a leap.


Please I can find plenty of subgroups of white people who are hated or treated worse than minorities: ex-cons, retards, fat people, the disfigured.
Click to expand...

Make em black and their future chances just got worse.

The sins of the father are not the burden of his sons.
Click to expand...

So only the victims children should have to suffer that legacy?

The more of this I read it seems more like this crazy land of total persecution is all just in your head, I mean violent AND lazy? Who are you trying to kid here?
Click to expand...

So you're suggesting if if a black kid is walking down the street, there aren't any people who get scared? People don't assume that blacks are lazy and have no interest in their future? Hell, I can find those people in my family.
 
[quote name='alonzomourning23']I said I had a vietnamese friend who lived there and said there weren't many minorities. You said horray for wisconsin. Not much of a leap.[/quote]
Clearly not in your warped mind, I suppose I could go on into a story about asian women I've dated but it's not worth the trouble.

So only the victims children should have to suffer that legacy?
Click to expand...
Legacies typically come about when you don't let the dead die, but hey it's your cross to bare if you want it.

Hell, I can find those people in my family.
Click to expand...

Ding Ding, I think we've found the source of the problem.
 
Legacies typically come about when you don't let the dead die, but hey it's your cross to bare if you want it.
Click to expand...

So, if we had just freed blacks, and made equal rights the law and segregation illegal, while doing nothing else, african americans and other minorities would be better off today?


Ding Ding, I think we've found the source of the problem.
Click to expand...

That I know racists?
 
[quote name='"alonzo"']Most things are not clear cut. Minorities are not treated equally with whites, putting aside AA, whites are more respected and treated better overall, be it in law enforcement, work, or just everyday life. So, in that sense, the victims are not dead.[/QUOTE]

Minorities are not treated equally by whom? Whites are more respected by whom ? It's pretty obvious that alonzo has never ventured into a puerto rican neighborhood after dark to see discrimination against soft white suburbanites. Alonzo's white ridden, deep seeded guilt only allows him to try to be the savior of those beneath himself, becuase none of those darkies could ever be as good as he is on their own.

The victims create their own society and their own children. You don't wave a magic wand and expect it to go away.
Click to expand...

Yet the magic wand of Affirmative action will magically erase hatred and discrimination by dishing out favors for the relations of the formerly oppressed, and penalties for the relatives of the former oppressors. Too bad that wand won't erase the hate it creates in it's wake.

It's foolish to think that the simple answers are the correct one.
Click to expand...

Like the foolishness of a simple payback plan like affirmative action ?

Unfortunately, most of the population doesn't agree, which is why 5 second political sound bites are so well recieved. Most things exists in shades of grey. For example, if someone were to ask me whether murder was always right or always wrong, I couldn't honestly say it was one or the other. Most things have special circumstances.
Click to expand...

Murder is wrong, alonzo. Discrimination is wrong, regardless of who is being discriminated against, black, grey or white, alonzo. Or perhaps you can describe for us when the circumstances require us to favor one person over another becuase of the color of their skin?


So, if we (emphasis is mine, this is what we refer to as a "tell" or freudian slip - bmulligan) had just freed blacks, and made equal rights the law and segregation illegal, while doing nothing else, african americans and other minorities would be better off today?
Click to expand...

Yes, so that good white people like yourself couldn't pat yourselves on the back and alleviate your guilt by thinking that you are helping people. Then the minorities in question would know that everything they received was earned by them and not given to them by generous white bastards. It's called self respect and dignity, something you will never have becuase you must spend your life repaying some fabricated debt spent by your ancestors.

Rosa parks did not wait for a white person to give up his seat to her. She demanded it becuase it was wrong to deny her equal treatment. She knew she had earned the right to be treated fairly, not to be given a favor. Something tells me that if some whitey had offfered to carry her to a seat just across the white/black only line, she would have refused it and picked out her own damn seat nearer the front, and walked there herself.

Ding Ding, I think we've found the source of the problem.

[quote name='"alonzo"']That I know racists?
Click to expand...
[/quote]

No, that you are one but you are unable acknowledge it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top