I have a dream that my four children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character. -MLK, August 28, 1963 I'm with him.
That doesn't prove MLK would have supported or been against affirmative action. It was a completely different time. He was speaking about segregation.
you're right...you can't make that conclusive statement...but i could take those same words today and make a pretty strong case against quotas. if you're denying people a spot at a public university because of the color of their skin, that's a problem.
I don't want to get full blown into this issue but a few points: The Michigan plan (just flat adding points) doesn't seem well thought out at all. You can see why the Bushies decided it was better to have Linda Chavez on the outside of the Admin rather than on the inside--she can make quite a good "bad cop" but you don’t want her being too closely aligned. I think anyone who thinks it is more just to allow alumi's kids to get "additional favoralble consideration" on their admissions into public graduate programs than it is to allow such consideration for being an underrepresented (key word) minority or for being from a family of poorer background has a really skewed view of fairness . There is a basic flaw with the affirmative access plan (top 10% by school) in Texas, or one like it, in trying to reach the same goal for undergraduate admissions as for graduate admissions because there isn't nearly the diversity in social class or ethnicities within colleges as there are of diversity of high schools. Regardless of your position on Texas use of the affirmative access plan (I think there is a lot going for it though I don't see it or any other single minded approach as a panacea for diversity or for increasing oppertunities to families of all ethnicities with less resources) it is plainly obvious it makes no sense as an approach to graduate admissions.
I disagree. Colleges have a big interest in having family legacies. It adds tradition and loyalty. And more importantly, the Civil Rights Act mentioned race, sex, and religion, not legacy.
Originally posted by Pole The aides said Bush plans to point to an “affirmative access” program he championed as governor of Texas. It guaranteed state-college admission to the top 10 percent of each high school graduating class, regardless of race. Why even have a 10% rule if you're truly for a merit based system? Sounds like he's trying to give the appearance of giving a damn without actually giving a damn. That sounds like a merit based system. How embarassing for you to have to champion a race based system. Poor pitiful wittle me; my race is x percent of the overall population, but my race is only y percent of the school's students. Please make it easier for me to get in.....relative to those nasty people in the majority. (But Shsss! Don't talk about those Asian Americans though...because as a group, they've QUIETLY gotten to the point where their numbers as a group are almost equal to their overall college age population...AND what's worse: a larger percentage of their group makes it to graduation over that nasty white majority) How many Asians are descendants of American slavery? How many Asians have been degraded by the US Majority Leader? How many Asians are victims of class warfare by Republicans? How in the hell do you NOT expect to get pushback on such a ridiculous idea? Nothing, and I mean NOTHING will perpetuate racism like moronic ideas such as affirmative action. All this will do is create resentment and increase the gap in mutual understanding between the races. Having all the statistical advantages of being white in America, if you're not getting a position because of Affirmative Action then maybe YOU should just work a little harder and not file lawsuits because you're among the least qualified white students. Oh, I like that one a lot. It falls right in line with that just work harder argument from you fellas. Maybe this white cheerleader from Michigan thinks playing the race card works better than hard work? I think we already have a pretty good understanding. It's okay for white people to have legacies (George Dubya? Gee...) when it's statistically much less likely for minorities due to racism, it's okay for whites to take advantage of an economic/power infrastructure that they've have unfettered opportunity to build in this country while minorities have not due to racism yet when we talk about rectifying a situation it's discrimination to suppot Affirmative Action. That sure doesn't make much sense to me. Tell me Timing, say we let more students enroll based on race over merit? If that's the case, that should generally indicate that their student ranking was lower. What happens when it comes time to grade their papers? Should there be a race-curve? What about graduation? Do they need the same amount of hours? What about after graduation.....do we take merit out of the hiring process? Oh....silly me......I already knew your answer to that one. I tell you when it ends, when all kids of all races have the same statistical chance to go to good elementary schools, good high schools, and good colleges. It ends when white kids like George Dubya don't get admitted to schools because their daddy's went there. It ends when everyone of every race has relatively the same chance to succeed. I know that's such a horrible idea but damn I think it's worthy.
http://www.msnbc.com/news/859854.asp?0cv=CA01#survey This poll has some interesting findings. 71% agree with Bush when I last checked. By the way, Timing, your last post made zero sense.
Please, completely off subjuct. Affirmative action is the opposite of your statement. At one time there was a need for affirmative action. I think that time has passed. By the way, are you sure our president just got into school b/c of his dad. I'd really like to see the proof of that.
This is the funniest thing I have read in a LONG time!!!! Gee Timing...I have NO idea why I would think that being in the top 10% of your high school class has anything to do with academic merit.
So you think it is ok for public institutions to favor alumni kids and those from politically/economically powerful families other qualifications being similar, but not ok for them to consider ethnicity or social class. I give you credit for being honest, though I still say you have a pretty skewed idea of fairness and I doubt many people even flat out against all forms of affirmative action/access support your position.
Let's face it after the Trent Lott fiasco,which forced the Republicans to demote Trent to just a primo committee chairmanship, they had to do something to signal the racists,who make up a key part of their coalition, that they are still the party who the racists should support. Attacking affirmative action and quotas is the ideal way to do it without appearing to be an old fashioned racist ala Trent Lott's friends.. This works because you can use the rhetoric of equality and there are legitimate problems with affirmative action as a permanent remedy for slavery and past discrimination.
Please explain why you at one time thought there was a need for affirmative action but there isn't today. I can understand, even if I don't fully agree, the position that affirmative action was a fundementally misguided and compromising approach from the start. But saying it was OK before and not now--I have no idea where that could come from.
Actually there are plenty of people opposed to affirmative action, not just the racists. And the only reason the Democrats support it is because of the NAACP and other special interest groups. The whole "code language" stuff applied to Trent Lott but it's not a one-size-fits-all analysis of every political situation. Work a little harder.
I think you are pretty much right on except for the sentence I put in italics. I believe most Demos support affirmative action, many Republicans do as well (just ask Colin Powell), it is just some forms of it that some moderates & liberals may have problems with. For instance I support many forms of it, but don't agree at all with the U Michigan's +20 points Law school admission scheme.
Yeah, you're right, I exaggerated a bit. Though the Dems are the ones with the special interests lobbying them on the issue, I think many people support affirmative action.
<I><B>You can believe in diversity and be against affirmative action. That's not hard to understand. </B></I> <B> Yeah, like you can give tax cuts that favor the wealthy and then talk about your empathy for the poor?</B> I think its perfectly reasonable to believe that the current lack of diversity is an issue but that affirmative action is not the solution. There's nothing incompatible with those beliefs - some people (myself included) simply feel that affirmative action does nothing to address the true problem (a lack of quality primary & secondary school education ). I believe the negatives of AA outweigh any positives it may have, and it prevents us (or gives us an "out clause") from dealing with the core problem.
Certainly mrclutch. I support affirmative action, and I never get the $95 of pizza and buckets of Chicken. I want my... I want my... I want my K-F-C. Look at them yoyos, that's the way you do it. Get a napkin and eat your K-F-C... That ain't cooking, that's the way you do it...
And 70% of America is white. Minorities are quite split on it so that means whites are heavily against it. Can I go along the lines of your classic sentence, white people are unable to see past their own self-interest to debate an argument based on principle? You're incapable of understanding much TJ. You might just want to sit this one out and hope for a thread on property value maximization, ie kidnapping homeless people off street corners and dropping them off in poor neighborhoods.
