A Questionabl Statement or Not (Race Issue)

Yeah, had a bad feeling about that statement. I could never find the exit poll for that but I seem to remember all of these interviews of hispanics saying they weren't voting for Orlando because he wasn't "really" hispanic. Oh well...

 

Well, that's close. Latino Democrats thought Sanchez wouldn't get as many votes as he did because the majority of Hispanics in Houston are Mexican-American Democrats and Sanchez is a Cuban-born Republican. Cubans and Mexicans don't get along very well, generally.

This was an historic election because of the coming together of the Hispanic voting bloc to vote for a conservative Republican despite the fact that the majority of Hispanics in Houston identify themselves as both liberal and Democrat.

Joe Joe: Thanks. But, I'll pass on the running for office bit.

 

<B>It's awfully nice of you to cherry pick some universities around the country to try to boost your obviously incorrect assessments but the schools you mentioned aren't exactly anywhere near UT's or A&M's neighborhood of quality. </B>

Timing, I agree with you that racism is still an issue in our education system, but I'm not sure your UT/A&M numbers really show it. First off, minority representation at UT did not noticably drop after Hopwood. Second, it's very possible (and very likely) that blacks and hispanics are under-represented at higher level universities because they are not as well educated at the lower levels. That is, blacks are disproportionately educated in inner-city schools which are shown to have both lower standards and worse results.

So now the question is, why are inner-city schools so bad? That, I would argue, is a financial issue. Suburb schools (consisting primarily of whites) have higher income families and higher property taxes, which leads to more education spending and higher quality schools.

I believe the core of the issue in education is that previous discrimination has led to lower incomes for minority families, which leads to lower quality primary and secondary education. That, in turn, leads to lower representation in Universities, and more specifically, higher level Universities. This is one reason I am for more state-control of education, based on state-wide taxes rather than individual local taxes where the rich get the best teachers.

A good test of this theory would be the level of representation of ALL students from inner-city schools at UT vs. suburbia or private schools. I'm guessing whites, blacks, asians, and hispanics would all be underrepresented from inner-city schools.

I think job discrimination beyond the collegiate level is far greater of a current discrimination issue. While a primary stated goal of major Universities like Texas is diversity (they fought Hopwood and are trying to find ways around it), ultimately, you can't force diversity by bringing in underqualified students at the expense of more qualified students. In the job market, however, individual underlying racism can more directly affect the ability of a minority to get a job.

 

I am proud. I have not posted one positive or negative thought in this thread. I abstained. I love everybody. I understand everybody. My heart hasn't felt this good in years. It's usually fraught with bitterness. Bitterness is bad. Then I see young sara hughes win the gold when she was just happy to medal. Man, to realise a dream ten fold. I love sara hughes. I love everybody. I love. I love. Now, please don't think this is a device. I do love everybody. I love everybody. Oh, heck, I posted. I'm not proud of myself anymore. I love myself though. I love. I love.

 

I'll have whatever he's drinking...

 

Originally posted by Major
Timing, I agree with you that racism is still an issue in our education system, but I'm not sure your UT/A&M numbers really show it. First off, minority representation at UT did not noticably drop after Hopwood. Second, it's very possible (and very likely) that blacks and hispanics are under-represented at higher level universities because they are not as well educated at the lower levels. That is, blacks are disproportionately educated in inner-city schools which are shown to have both lower standards and worse results.

Between 1996 and 1997, African-American enrollment at Texas public law schools dropped from 477 to 454. Hispanic enrollment declined from 465 to 428. There were also significant declines in the number of minority freshmen admitted to the University of Texas at Austin (98 fewer) and Texas A&M University (160 fewer) (THECB, Enrollment).

Just found this really quickly on Hopwood. I don't think the effects of Hopwood can really be seen because of the 10% rule that was passed in 1997. We went basically 1 year without affirmative action or 10%. I think if we were working on year 5 we would see more dramatic results.

In addition, I posted an article here about A&M and in it they had a poll of it's students regarding racism at the school. The poll showed that the longer minorities were at the school the more racist they thought it was and the more uncomfortable they were with it. So even though underlying racial issues may educationally and economically prevent or discourage blacks from attending there is a component of outward racism involved at A&M that keeps it's black enrollment down. If you'll remember the cartoon was published there and that was part of the article that I posted.

Your points are very well taken though and are IMHO the key to solving the problem. Blacks likely are disproportionately educated at poor schools and disproportionately come from poor homes and the impact of that is only magnified as they reach college age and join the workforce. It's quite a large ripple effect.

So now the question is, why are inner-city schools so bad? That, I would argue, is a financial issue. Suburb schools (consisting primarily of whites) have higher income families and higher property taxes, which leads to more education spending and higher quality schools.

Well I know some years ago the state legislature passed a law referred to as Robin Hood. Basically redistributing the wealth from rich schools to poor ones but somehow I don't think that's being enforced too stringently.

I believe the core of the issue in education is that previous discrimination has led to lower incomes for minority families, which leads to lower quality primary and secondary education. That, in turn, leads to lower representation in Universities, and more specifically, higher level Universities. This is one reason I am for more state-control of education, based on state-wide taxes rather than individual local taxes where the rich get the best teachers.

I agree 100%.

A good test of this theory would be the level of representation of ALL students from inner-city schools at UT vs. suburbia or private schools. I'm guessing whites, blacks, asians, and hispanics would all be underrepresented from inner-city schools.

I think job discrimination beyond the collegiate level is far greater of a current discrimination issue. While a primary stated goal of major Universities like Texas is diversity (they fought Hopwood and are trying to find ways around it), ultimately, you can't force diversity by bringing in underqualified students at the expense of more qualified students. In the job market, however, individual underlying racism can more directly affect the ability of a minority to get a job.

I would love to see that kind of study done however I think even poor whites and asians would fare better than blacks and hispanics. Of course I can't prove that but just a gut feeling.

I think you're so right on about how the problem evolves and how it needs to be addressed. True affirmative action needs to take place in elementary school and high school to really see a dramatic change. As it is now those who are given an opportunity by affirmative action or the 10% rule are poorly equipped to succeed which gives affirmative action bashers their amunition to show why it doesn't work like in Hopwood.

Let me say one more thing though, I'd prefer to see blacks correctly represented in college than to have them there in lesser numbers. Even if half who wouldn't normally be there struggle, perform poorly, and fail there will be some who succeed. A startling figure for me while looking all this stuff up was that Harvard graduates 97% of it's students. That's astounding and I'd rather see 13% of their student body be black and some of them fail than to have 8% and see all of them succeed.

 

Be warned, it's long. Real long. Feels like I'm writing my senior honors thesis already. My fingers hurt from typing!

originally posted by Timing
What you said is that it meant nothing. Your exact words.
I never said insignificant. The word I used was meaningless and I said that in the very next sentence, or did you not read that?

Hands down the two largest and most well known schools in the state. Probably 90,000 students combined and over 12 times the size of TSU.
Universities obviously not on par with UT and A&M.
That's a brilliant assessment yet doesn't explain why blacks are under represented at UT and A&M.

Frist, you are combining two schools and comparing them to one. Two schools are 12 times the size of one. WOW, great thing to know.

Second, thank you for calling my school crap. I'm sure you don't think I'm getting a good education here, but U of H is a fine school. We are doing things here that I doubt you have the slightest clue about. And while I'm sure you think I'm here because I'm dumb, you're sadly mistaken. I am here because I didn't want to go to UT or A&M, both of which I was accepted to and offered scholarships, to TTU as well. I want to know what you think makes them good? Some college publications told you that, right? Have you actually been to all these schools? Have you looked at their programs and at the success of their graduates? I don't think so. I don't think U of H is the greatest school in the world because it's not. But it suits my needs and taste just fine. The school is very underrated.

I'd attribute their under enrollment partly to the 10% rule. I don't know how many blacks are in the top 10%. But if it's not 12%, they need to start working harder (or protest to get their way). The state school have had to accept enormous numbers of applicants under this rule. And it has left them almost unable to admit anyone else (I know this because they made an error in processing my application and said they could not accept me because they have accepted more over their normal acceptance numbers due to the 10% rule, after which they sent me a letter apologizing for the error, since I was in the top 1%). If blacks aren't in the top 10%, they're going to have a harder time getting into the state school. Anyone not in the top 10% will have a harder time.

I also would attribute low black enrollment to low black applicant numbers. You can't get into a college if you don't apply there. I'm still looking for numbers on this one.
Did you look at the numbers of blacks that applied to UT and A&M or any other university for that matter?

Totally irrelevant.

Umm....now who's being naive? Applicant numbers do matter. How can these schools accept black students if they don't apply? For all you know, UT could have accepted *every* black applicant and they only made up that small percentage of the total enrollment. While this would be the extreme case, I'm willing to bet that blacks did not apply to UT and especailly not to A&M in the same percentages that whites did.

That's wonderful. Why don't we go find out the numbers and ratios of predominantly black universities like TSU that were created precisely because they were not allowed into predominantly white colleges. More brilliant stuff from you.

So what you're saying is that while blacks are under represented by 75% at the two largest universities in Texas that they're over represented by 10% at U of H? I definitely see your point. I guess all those white people are just at UT and A&M huh?

Well, since you were giving me numbers from predominantly white universities, I figured I could give you numbers from predominantly black ones. When people look for a university, they look for someplace they can get a good education and where they can be comfortable. I went to U of H because I was awarded a great scholarship (although others schools were offering them too) and I am very comfortable here. I went to a high school with a large black population. I now go to a college with a large black population. I love Houston. My mom went to school here. It was home for me. I didn't want to follow my stuffy, white suburban friends to UT and A&M, although I know not everyone at these schools are like this, just the ones I already knew. But UT and A&M both have large white suburban enrollments. I would guess that for some blacks, they would not want to be with these people, especially at A&M. I would think a black person would be more comfortable with other black students, since all of us white folks hate them, as you seem to think. People are drawn to their own kind. Black students still have black sororities because the people in them are like them (and I am not trying to dismiss the reason they were started).



When TSU and U of H are the largest schools in the state and are of similar quality then you'll not be dismissed.

Okay, I will dismiss them... boy will I DISMISS them. Here is a list from US World Report of the top 50 public universities in the US.

U of H is the third largest school in the state, by almost 10,000 people over Tech, I believe.

So, you don't think TSU is of the same quality as UT or A&M? I'm shocked. You think a white school is better than a black. So I guess that means that white professors and students are better than black ones. If not, that's what you're implying and that seems a little racist.

You can't see this as oppression of blacks because the Founding Fathers were too racist to think of blacks as people? LOL Geez... that's pretty funny.

You never seem to get it. I pointed that out because if I had just said "we have majority rule, not proportional representation" you would have said that whites did that to keep blacks out of office. In fact, that was just the way the Founders decided that the government would work. They made the law that way for WHITE, MALE, LANDOWNERS. They did not consider that people other than these men would ever be able to vote. I didn't say they weren't racist. I said they didn't do this to keep blacks out of offices.

It's also funny that you say under this system that minorities are under represented yet the other day you pointed out that women make up 52% of the population yet are under represented in the Senate. There goes your whole theory I guess.

Again, you fail to see the point. My examples shows that the majority does not always win. Women are the majority of the population and only have a minority representation. Minorities are in the minority and still have a minority representation. Can you see the difference?

Ah, but blacks don't make up the MAJORITY of people in POWER. Your lists of race related grievances is in no way, shape, or form consistent with that of African-Americans. You're trying to insinuate that whites need city representation when they have all kinds of representation in all seats of power. The President is white, the Vice-President is white, the Speaker of the House is white, the Governor is white, both Senators are white, the County Commissioner is white, if you live in Sugarland as I think you stated previously then the last time I checked Tom Delay is white.

When the President, Vice-President, Speaker of the House, the whole Senate, the Governor, and County Commissioner are all black then we'll revisit your need for a white mayor to suit your needs of representation. In fact I'm sure the black community wouldn't think twice about trading you Lee Brown for the list above.

Let's see. The Supreme Court has a black member, which is 11.1% of the seats. Seems pretty close to proportional to me. And the House has about 10% black representatives. And Bush's cabinet has a black member, and he's even a Republican, who are thought of as less concerned about minorities. Blacks are not as underrepresented on the national level as you say they are. Notice that I do know they are still underrepresented. I would attribute part of it to blacks not running at numbers equal to whites (percentage wise). I know that part of the reason women are underrepresented is that they do not run as frequently as men, so I would assume the same for minorities, until you prove me wrong.

Another reason is incumbancy. Once a member gets elected, it's hard to beat them. About 90% of the elections involve incumbants. And since some have been in office for *many* terms, it's hard for anyone to beat them. When women run for open seats, they win just as often as men. However, they rarely get to run for open seats. Here too, I would assume this is at least partially true for blacks, although I have not taken a course in African-Americans and Politics as I did Women and Politics. Blacks, whites, women, men-very few can win against an incumbant. All of them have a better chance in an open seat election.


He doesn't. In the last election blacks voted overwhelmingly for Al Gore despite the likelihood that Colin Powell was going to be tapped as Secretary of State. In the last vote for Houston mayor hispanics voted for Lee Brown over Orlando Sanchez, not sure of the figures however.

We have yet to have a black President and as I pointed out above blacks voted overwhelmingly for Bill Clinton and Al Gore. They would seem to qualify as someone representing out of their own race.

Blacks voted Democratic. There was no black candidate, so they fall back on party ID. Minorities will more times than not a) vote for their race or b) vote for their party (as will whites). And Powell was not on the ticket.

Hispanics voted for Sanchez. And whites mostly voted for Bell or Sanchez. Whites crossed the race line here. Blacks and Hispanics did not. Race trumps party ID. They voted for Clinton because he more closely represented them. They had no black candidate to vote for.

I don't believe that the ideas of black Americans will be ignored simply because there are no black people in the Senate.

A very naive statement.

We won't find out. Blacks will elect a black person over anyone because they feel they will be better represented. Why does race mean they understand each other? I understand that blacks share a very pained and unique history and culture. The blacks who run for office are not the blacks from Third Ward, so how does he know those people better than a white man? I'm guessing it's just because he's black. Why would the white man know-he's the one to blame for their lot in life?

LMAO Oh man... are you serious? Blacks voting for blacks are discriminating against whites? Geeeeez... since when was personal preference on voting issues considered discriminatory? So when Exxon encourages it's employees to vote for George Bush over Al Gore because Bush is an oil guy they're committing discrimination? How about campaign contributions? When labor unions campaign for Democratic candidates who they identify with are they discriminating? When women campaigned for Hillary Clinton were they discriminating?

"personal preference"-Personal preference should be considered racist to you. I recall someone saying that when you don't find someone of another race attractive, it's racist because your personal preference is based on race.

The women campaigning for Hillary ONLY because she was a woman I could call discrimination under this. Personally, I don't like her at all. She's whiny and smug and I don't agree with her views. She would never get my vote. The women who voted for her because she was a woman are fooling themselves. Be true to who you are and vote for someone you believe in and agree with.

And thus have the POWER to vote any woman into office at any time. Blacks make up 13% of the population not 52%. Blacks have no representation in the Senate, none. Zero, nada, zilch.

But they have representation at numbers closer to the population percentages than women have. Women are underrepresented by LARGE amount in EVERY office at EVERY level. Blacks have the power to vote blacks into office as well. District lines are allowed to be drawn so that blacks are in the majority but not so that they are ALL in one district. This allows for them to have enough people in a district to elect their representative but not so many that they only can carry one district. Lines are not allowed to be drawn this way for whites.

Geez... they make up an under represented minority in national government. Particularly the most powerful parts of national government.

Geez...blacks make up an underrepresented minority in national government. Particularly the most powerful parts of national government.

Why is it that you won't acknowledge racism against blacks but you'll rail on and on about women who make up the MAJORITY? If 52% of the population votes the same they win every time. Do the math.

That's my point though. You're saying the majority is oppressive, the white majoirty. I'm saying the minority, by sex, is in charge. The point is that women don't always vote based on their sex (sex is the determinant in their underrepresented). Women can find a candidate outside of their sex that still understands them and represents them. I'm only complaining about it on here to show you an example. I would like to see more women in offices because it could get some ideas out. It will not drastically change policy to have more women in office though. Women could be complaining like the minorities that they are underrepresented. Instead though, they realize that men CAN represent them. Blacks feel that they will ONLY be understood by being represented by blacks. Do you think that if the number of blacks in the House and Senate increases to 12%, things will be better? I doubt it, but I would be interested in seeing proof that it would be better.

As a side note, I am all for increasing diversity in office. The more different ideas on the floor, the better. I’m happy that women are in office. I don’t think though that women NEED to hold 52% of the offices. I am not JUST a woman. I am a woman, a republican, a 20 year old, a white person, a child of a divorce, a suburbanite, I am pro-choice (which goes against my party), I don’t drink, I believe in pre-marital sex….the list goes on. I vote on who BEST fits me, whoever that may be. Minorities vote for their own race. Their race trumps everything else, and I have heard that time and time again.

Gender and race shouldn't matter in elections but they obviously do... wake up.

Oh, I get it. That’s a HUGE issue in my major. Gender and race should matter. Too much influence is put on them. Voting and representation should be based on everything. Can all black people be represented by 12% of Congressional members who are black. NO! Just because the person is black does not make him represent all those people. The fact that all are black could in fact be the only thing they have in common.

 

Originally posted by Princess
I never said insignificant. The word I used was meaningless and I said that in the very next sentence, or did you not read that?

The American Heritage Dictionary

Meaningless(adj) - Having no meaning or SIGNIFICANCE.

Insignificant(adj) - 1a. Not significant. b. Trivial. 2. Small 3. MEANINGLESS.

Did you read THAT? For someone who was top 5 of her class and has all of these honors you sure have trouble with basic stuff.

Frist, you are combining two schools and comparing them to one. Two schools are 12 times the size of one. WOW, great thing to know.

I used two schools to prove my point and you defended yours by using one school that was a hell of a lot smaller than the combined size of the two schools I used. Basically you used a tiny ass sample size to dispute my big ass sample size. Nice try...

Second, thank you for calling my school crap. I'm sure you don't think I'm getting a good education here, but U of H is a fine school. We are doing things here that I doubt you have the slightest clue about. And while I'm sure you think I'm here because I'm dumb, you're sadly mistaken. I am here because I didn't want to go to UT or A&M, both of which I was accepted to and offered scholarships, to TTU as well. I want to know what you think makes them good? Some college publications told you that, right? Have you actually been to all these schools? Have you looked at their programs and at the success of their graduates? I don't think so. I don't think U of H is the greatest school in the world because it's not. But it suits my needs and taste just fine. The school is very underrated.

Is this you getting a complex about your university? LMAO!!

I didn't call your school crap, the US News called your school crap and I reiterated their opinion. I have no personal opinion on the quality of U of H, never been there though it's pretty easy to get in to... at least when I was graduating high school.

I'd attribute their under enrollment partly to the 10% rule. I don't know how many blacks are in the top 10%. But if it's not 12%, they need to start working harder (or protest to get their way). The state school have had to accept enormous numbers of applicants under this rule. And it has left them almost unable to admit anyone else (I know this because they made an error in processing my application and said they could not accept me because they have accepted more over their normal acceptance numbers due to the 10% rule, after which they sent me a letter apologizing for the error, since I was in the top 1%). If blacks aren't in the top 10%, they're going to have a harder time getting into the state school. Anyone not in the top 10% will have a harder time.

Oh yes, you don't know how many blacks are in the top 10% yet you'll partly attribute their under enrollment to the 10% rule. That's just straight logic you have going there I see. This of course shows nothing about why prior to 1997 blacks were under represented at Texas colleges, unless you're seriously going to claim that blacks were at 13% and then suddenly fell to 3% after the 10% rule which was instituted interestingly enough to allow more blacks into UT and A&M after the abolition of affirmative action which was created to boost minority enrollment. This brings up another great question as to why the state legislature would feel the need to enact the 10% rule to allow more black enrollment if black enrollment was just fine to begin with. OOPS!

I also would attribute low black enrollment to low black applicant numbers. You can't get into a college if you don't apply there. I'm still looking for numbers on this one.

Oh very clever. I'd attribute low black ownership of Ferraris to lack of trips to the Ferrari dealership but of course I know better than to think blacks are under represented because they didn't fill out a damn application.

Umm....now who's being naive? Applicant numbers do matter. How can these schools accept black students if they don't apply? For all you know, UT could have accepted *every* black applicant and they only made up that small percentage of the total enrollment. While this would be the extreme case, I'm willing to bet that blacks did not apply to UT and especailly not to A&M in the same percentages that whites did.

You're being naive by even posing the question. If UT accepted every black applicant and it amounted to 4% what does that say? To you it may say that blacks just aren't filling out the applications but I'll delve a touch deeper. Filling out an application means you're in a position to apply, to attend, to pay for, to succeed, etc. Why don't you go down to the 5th ward and just tell some of the people there they could have been a college graduate if they'd just filled out that dastardly application.

Well, since you were giving me numbers from predominantly white universities, I figured I could give you numbers from predominantly black ones. When people look for a university, they look for someplace they can get a good education and where they can be comfortable.

Why can't blacks be comfortable at schools that give the best educations? Hmmmm...

You make it sound like blacks are choosing to go to Brown over Harvard because they're just more comfortable at Brown. Would you be more comfortable riding in a Lexus or a Ford Festiva? TSU or A&M?

I went to U of H because I was awarded a great scholarship (although others schools were offering them too) and I am very comfortable here. I went to a high school with a large black population. I now go to a college with a large black population. I love Houston. My mom went to school here. It was home for me. I didn't want to follow my stuffy, white suburban friends to UT and A&M, although I know not everyone at these schools are like this, just the ones I already knew. But UT and A&M both have large white suburban enrollments. I would guess that for some blacks, they would not want to be with these people, especially at A&M. I would think a black person would be more comfortable with other black students, since all of us white folks hate them, as you seem to think. People are drawn to their own kind. Black students still have black sororities because the people in them are like them (and I am not trying to dismiss the reason they were started).

So you think that black students don't want to be around white students so they stay away from A&M? The racist cartoons and confederate flags wouldn't have anything to do with that would it? That may have something to do with it at A&M specifically but it surely doesn't explain why 24 of the top 25 public schools and all of the top 10 private schools listed by US News have blacks under enrolled.

People are drawn to their own kind and since blacks don't fill out the applications to go to good schools they go to poorer schools. Gotcha.

U of H is the third largest school in the state, by almost 10,000 people over Tech, I believe.

And?

So, you don't think TSU is of the same quality as UT or A&M? I'm shocked. You think a white school is better than a black. So I guess that means that white professors and students are better than black ones. If not, that's what you're implying and that seems a little racist.

Verrrrrrrrry weak of you to pussyfoot around and throw out racist allegations over this data. According to US News, TSU is not anywhere near the quality of UT and A&M. You email them and tell them they're racist if you feel like it. When they laugh you down then come back and admit what a pathetic insinuation you've just made.

Again, you fail to see the point. My examples shows that the majority does not always win. Women are the majority of the population and only have a minority representation. Minorities are in the minority and still have a minority representation. Can you see the difference?

The majority can always win if it votes together. The minority can never win without outside help. See that point? Women have representation in the Senate, blacks have none. Do you see that point? There is a difference between under representation with a majority electorate and no representation with a minorty electorate. You're trying to compare apples with asteroids.

Let's see. The Supreme Court has a black member, which is 11.1% of the seats. Seems pretty close to proportional to me. And the House has about 10% black representatives. And Bush's cabinet has a black member, and he's even a Republican, who are thought of as less concerned about minorities. Blacks are not as underrepresented on the national level as you say they are. Notice that I do know they are still underrepresented. I would attribute part of it to blacks not running at numbers equal to whites (percentage wise). I know that part of the reason women are underrepresented is that they do not run as frequently as men, so I would assume the same for minorities, until you prove me wrong.

So you don't want to trade Lee Brown for President, Vice-President, two US Senators, the Governor, and the County Commissioner?

Interesting that you would give examples of black representation in Clarence Thomas and Colin Powell who are both Republicans. See when black people get representation it's from the party they voted 4-1 against in the last election. Thomas and Powell are quite clearly not very representative of the politics of the majority of the black community. How ironic huh?

Another reason is incumbancy. Once a member gets elected, it's hard to beat them. About 90% of the elections involve incumbants. And since some have been in office for *many* terms, it's hard for anyone to beat them. When women run for open seats, they win just as often as men. However, they rarely get to run for open seats. Here too, I would assume this is at least partially true for blacks, although I have not taken a course in African-Americans and Politics as I did Women and Politics. Blacks, whites, women, men-very few can win against an incumbant. All of them have a better chance in an open seat election.

White America is the incumbent and it's damn hard for anyone to compete with them too. Recognize...

We won't find out. Blacks will elect a black person over anyone because they feel they will be better represented. Why does race mean they understand each other?

Race is a characteristic that can provide shared experiences, heritage, culture, and ideas.

"personal preference"-Personal preference should be considered racist to you. I recall someone saying that when you don't find someone of another race attractive, it's racist because your personal preference is based on race.

It's not a personal preference based on race it's a personal preference based on common ideas and experiences. If Alan Keyes was running against Bill Clinton there would be less knowing black people voting for Keyes just because he's black. Just like if Colin Powell were to run against Pat Buchanan I'm sure there would be less knowing white people voting for Buchanan. You know you sure want to call a lot of things racist for someone who never sees anything racist when things are brought up here. Very peculiar stuff.

But they have representation at numbers closer to the population percentages than women have. Women are underrepresented by LARGE amount in EVERY office at EVERY level. Blacks have the power to vote blacks into office as well. District lines are allowed to be drawn so that blacks are in the majority but not so that they are ALL in one district. This allows for them to have enough people in a district to elect their representative but not so many that they only can carry one district. Lines are not allowed to be drawn this way for whites.

You'll be hardpressed to convince me that 0% of 13% is less than 12% of 52%. Zero is zero. You can claim that women are more under represented but what does that matter to people who have no representation at all? None is none. And yes thank goodness for racial gerrymandering (even if it's probably illegal) because without it there'd be even less minority representation in Congress. Lines aren't drawn that way for whites because they have plenty of representation. Duh...

That's my point though. You're saying the majority is oppressive, the white majoirty. I'm saying the minority, by sex, is in charge. The point is that women don't always vote based on their sex (sex is the determinant in their underrepresented). Women can find a candidate outside of their sex that still understands them and represents them. I'm only complaining about it on here to show you an example. I would like to see more women in offices because it could get some ideas out. It will not drastically change policy to have more women in office though. Women could be complaining like the minorities that they are underrepresented. Instead though, they realize that men CAN represent them. Blacks feel that they will ONLY be understood by being represented by blacks. Do you think that if the number of blacks in the House and Senate increases to 12%, things will be better? I doubt it, but I would be interested in seeing proof that it would be better.

I think you're missing the point that women aren't discriminated against anywhere near on par with blacks. Women appear in college just as they appear in population. The fact that they don't appear in government at the same rates is simply residue of past discrimination towards them. In addition, a white man is likely to represent a white woman better than a black man. I think that if the number of blacks in the House and the Senate were at 12% then it would be better because blacks would have a voice to share their views, questions, and vision. It would mean that blacks are finally getting a fair share of the government pie.

As a side note, I am all for increasing diversity in office. The more different ideas on the floor, the better. I’m happy that women are in office. I don’t think though that women NEED to hold 52% of the offices. I am not JUST a woman. I am a woman, a republican, a 20 year old, a white person, a child of a divorce, a suburbanite, I am pro-choice (which goes against my party), I don’t drink, I believe in pre-marital sex….the list goes on. I vote on who BEST fits me, whoever that may be. Minorities vote for their own race. Their race trumps everything else, and I have heard that time and time again.

Perhaps if blacks were represented well by whites they wouldn't use race as a determining factor and there wouldn't be a need for black colleges, black churches, black sororities, and the Negro Leagues. Oops, the Negro Leagues are gone because they finally got a fair chance. Imagine that?

 

Ladies and Gentlemen...

Welcome to the Princess and Timing show!!! They're angry. They're combantant. They're willful. They're down right silly.

And now here's your host, the opposite of whoever posted last...

<font size=1>bandwidth eaters</font>

 

This kind of remark is why Major gets my vote for poster of the year every year.

That's the heart of the problem, right there. We're not doing a good enough job of educating minority students at the pre-college levels. That should be the focus of our efforts-- producing an equal number of qualified applicants from all races.

 

Timing-I know the definition of the words, thank you. I was merely pointing out I did not use the one you said. I would appreciate if you say that I said something, use the correct words.

 

Gotta go. I'll finish later.

 

I don't disagree with you that the problem lies in grade school rather than college. The education system needs to do a better job, but could it be that some minority students aren't trying? The Asians are in a minority but they were brought up differently. They are taught to have an extreme amount of discipline and work ethic. At Clements High School, a school in Ft. Bend ISD and a rival at my school, there were very few white people in the top 10% (ratio wise) compared to the number of Asians. Some races have different customs that teach them different things.

The Jews are not the majority (that I know of) and they are known to become doctors in large numbers.

I don't think it's solely the fault of the education system, although it does contribute. I would put some of it on cultures.

 

So basically, Princess, African-Americans are lazier than other minorities? T-minus 10 minutes before treeman comes in here calling me a PC mother****er.

How many Asians are there in the inner-cities, where schools are at their worst? How many Jews? I think it's obvious that the reason that African-Americans aren't well represented in many top-tier universities is because many of them go to bad schools that don't have near the resources that most suburban schools have. If it's a matter of not trying, it's only because there's almost no point in trying.

 

Not necessarily, RM95. Kagy just said we need to work harder at educating minorities. I was just pointing out that not all minorirties are not getting good good education.

For the record though, I could not have graduated in the top 1% at Clements, where there is a large Asian population. They are too smart (hard working, not necessarily intelligence).

I'm am not saying they are lazy. I think some of them might be (hell, I'm lazy). I think some of them don't want to try, but I think that's true of a lot of people.

I think poor people do not always try hard enough because they don't think they can do it (and I will talk about poor people all I want because I am one -suburbanites are not always well off). It's hard to be motivated when you don't see any hope. So *if* the majority of the people going to inner city schools are poor black people, I could see how they could not try. I would think anyone in an inner city school who was poor would not try. Many black people at my school did work hard. One of my good black friends is at Stanford right now. He deserved it. He's a wonderful, smart, intelligent, well rounded person.

I probably explained that really poorly, so please ask if you need clarification. I'm really sick and tired

 

serenity now serenity now...

 

This goes waaaaaaaaaaaaay back to what I was saying. Jesus, that seems like eons ago. No one's asking for equality of outcome, just equality of opportunity. Hell just give me the chance to fail or succeed.

 

Whooaaa, big generalizations. Most (not all of course, sub Asians subgroups provide notable exceptions) of the minority sub-groups that have come here and been very economically successful right away had come from the upper economic rung where they came from. The earlier Cuban immigrants, many Asian and Pacific Islander sub-groups, many Jewish. They might not have come here with anything, but many of they did have money/goods, had been on top before (had the skills to move up socially), or already with higher education and advanced job skills.
Likewise, the same can't be said for most Puerto Ricans, later Cuban immigrants, most recent Mexican immigrants, and some Asian immigrants. For instance in California there are Vietnamese sub-group communities living in some of the most impoverished and violent conditions in the US. There are also White sub-group economically even poorer (in Appalachia)--is their fate because of insufficiencies in the priorities of White culture or just because these folks aren't smart? Or could it be something else like they have always been exploited (many in mines or mills), face discrimination, get little from their "public" education systems, and have few other oppertunities.

To blur the attributes of these groups to "cultural characteristics" and overlook the historical and socioeconomic conditions of more specific sub-groups ignores the more important factors that drive their success. It also leads to negative stereotypes about groups that are inaccurate, not thoughtful and damaging.

Another factor on top of this especially prominent for African Americans, many Latino groups (especially Mexicans) and Native Americans is systematic discrimination that for centuries have knocked them down when they have tried to get ahead economically. This was done via outright harassment, killing, or "legal" swindling through fixed/loaded juries and judges. That is a whole other layer on why they haven't economically advanced that has nothing to do with "culture" that isn't just washed away with some significant legal and social changes over the last 40 years.