Originally posted by Bogey Please, completely off subjuct. It's perfectly on subject. Perhaps you didn't read the race taunting from Pole concerning his perception that Asians and African-Americans have equal opportunity in this country. 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. You're ignorant of the realities concerning wealth and education in this country. Do I need to prove to you that Bush Sr. got Dubya out of military service too?
Class rank, SAT's, GPA, etc. isn't merit enough? We need a double merit system? Is this big government conservatism again? More bureaucracy to admit the same people who were getting in anyway? What a revolutionary concept!
The statement in itself might be reasonable however when you look at the history of Bush and the Republicans I don't find it reasonable from them. Bush has stated frequently that he is in favor of diversity and has propped up his 10% plan in Texas as proof of it when in fact 10% has not been a success at all and it's a bold faced lie to say it has been. I don't believe AA discourages or prevents us from dealing with the problem. It's simply an imperfect remedy and in my view a necessary evil. I mean we could play Republican politics here. Label, mislabel, demonize, sterilize, create new terminology, and play games. We can with this Michigan case for example, change the criteria and remove race and just call it Affirmative Opportunity. Instead we'll give 10 points to applicants from single parent families, blacks benefit more because there are 3 times the amount of black single parent families as white. Then we can give 10 points to applicants who's single parent family median income is x and who's two parent family median income is y, with x and y just happening to be the median incomes for blacks/hispanics which are far lower than for whites. Then we can give 10 more points to kids from underperforming high schools, knowing that those schools are likely in poor areas which would likely be overrepresented by minorities. We can play all those games and add the bureaucracy but it's all the same thing, Affirmative Action.
And what exactly are her "immediate self-interests?" There you go, you just see a name and make assumptions. You don't know anything about this woman and just assume she's hispanic, whatever that is. She could be Spanish, which would maker her caucasian. I'm almost surprised you didn't applaud her for not using "spanglish" in her article. Please do us all a favor and explain "self-interest," I like to base my feelings and thoughts towards people on the what's going on upstairs.
She is widely regarded as being a Republican shill. She has received tremendous flack from LULAC, et al for those beliefs. Every time she prints an article like that she puts hersefl further under the microscope. That's just my thought on her self interests...I have no idea what T_J was referring to.
It has been clear to many that you simply don't like white people for a while now. Then you make these charged statements and remove all doubt. Thanks for clarifying.
I hate to say this but I believe Bush is right on this point. Affirmative Action itself should not be used because it's not equitable under any standard. The Top 10% rule is fair because it allows underprivileged kids an opportunity to get into schools they may have otherwise not gotten in based on any SAT biases. It may not be fair to compare SAT scores from kids with good teachers, supplies, and a healthy learning environment to those in dilapidated schools, poorly trained teachers and hallways filled with violence. However, If youre not doing as well as the kid sitting across the desk from you within your own educational environment, why should you get into the school of your choice just because of your race. Excelling within your own personal environment should be the measuring stick. The key is if you want to get into a good school, you should have to compete against your peers.
I read posts from people like TJ and Pole and even rH recently who you, along with the vast majority of the rest of this board, allow to make these incredibly insulting and blatant race baiting statements time and again under the guise of being politically incorrect and I'm the one who hates here? If you're unable to grasp the context of my response to TJ then you need to read what he wrote on this first page of this thread regarding Linda Chavez and her remarkable ability to look past her Hispanic heritage and argue on principle as if somehow that's unusual from minorities. In addition, I'm 1/4 English and 1/4 Swedish so you really don't know what the **** you're talking about with this hating white people bull****. Save me your lame ass attacks and come back with something intelligent regarding the topic if you wish to participate.
Whatever Timing. You’re completely innocent in those regards. Oh yeah, I forgot; you can’t be a racist when you’re black. Perpetuate racism into eternity for all I care. You reap what you sow. As long as you insist on being treated differently, I can assure you that you will be.
It's pretty clear to me. Affirmative action is meant to redress minority groups who are systematically disadvantaged earlier in the educational system. That is the real issue: are minorities systematically disadvantaged in the educational system, and if so, how do we repair the wrongs? I.e., if you accept that minority kids don't get the schooling of others, the first 'wrong' was committed by our society. The whites railing against how affirmative action is racist whould address that issue...first.
So now Timing is black and rH is white? Man you guys are an odd bunch. Stupid white people (Timing has some in him...so he counts).
ADMISSIONS CRITERIA At the University of Michigan, minority undergraduate applicants to the College of Literature, Science and the Arts receive a 20-point bonus on the basis of race out of a 150-point system, which takes into consideration other criteria, including academics. Scholarship athletes, for example, get 20 points. Race is covered in a category called "other factors." The point system includes: Geography 10 points - Michigan resident 6 points - Underrepresented Michigan county 2 points - Underrepresented state Alumni 4 points - "Legacy" (parents, step-parents) 1 point - Other (grandparents, siblings, spouses) Essay 1 point - Outstanding essay (since 1999, 3 points) Personal achievement 1 point - State 3 points - Regional 5 points - National Leadership and service 1 point - State 3 points - Regional 5 points - National Miscellaneous 20 points - Socio-economic disadvantage 20 points - Underrepresented racial-ethnic minority identification or education 5 points - Men in nursing 20 points - Scholarship athlete 20 points - Provost's discretion Source: Center for Individual Rights ADMISSIONS CRITERIA Here is the admission criteria for the University. As you see: Socio-econimic disadvatage and being in a minority get you WAY more points to get into the University that Leadership and Service, Personal Achievement, your Essay, and your alumni legacy COMBINED. Shouldn't personal achievement and Leadership and Service be way more important than race?
The reason why your argument here is dead wrong is the following: Whites do not vote as a single voting block, as do blacks and to a lesser extent hispanics. If you look at black voting records, they are over 90% democrats. Whites are much more evenly divided between the parties and the issues -- not minorities as you erroneously claim. This is the point I was making earlier, there is *a very large* percentage of whites who support affirmative action, despite it disadvantaging them in many respects. There is a *miniscule* number of blacks and hispanics who oppose affirmative action. Linda Chavez has a hispanic background. She would benefit from affirmative action policies, such as the one at the University of Michigan. For her to argue against this policy shows that she is capable of seeing past her immediate self-interest (the benefit received through AA) and is able to take a principled stand on the issue. I really don't think this is a difficult concept to grasp. I oppose affirmative action because I think admissions and job selection should be color blind and dependent upon things we can control. For over 70% of the poll to support Bush's stance on the issue means that many democrats are behind him on this. Timing, I sense a growing frustration with your posts (more name calling, insults, cursing -- less substance (if that's even possible)). To accuse Pole and myself of "race-baiting" is laughable. You started the thread and we have chimed in with rationale, objective comments -- without engaging in 3rd grade insults. Your behavior can not be characterized in the same fashion -- which is most likely the result of immature thought development and the inability to control your own emotions.
If you don't mind, I'd like to make a correction to your assertion. The correct sentence should read: As you see: Socio-economic disadvantage OR being in a minority gets you WAY more points to get into the University than Leadership and Service, Personal Achievement, your Essay, AND your alumni legacy COMBINED. The answer to your following question is a subjective one. Very obviously, I feel one way, and Timing et al feel another. The squeaky wheel gets the 'grease'n or so I've been told. You can see how squeaky Timing's group must have been to get such ridiculous favoritism. If you see this as ridiculous too, it’s time you should start making some noise because it’s only gonna get worse I’m so damn sick of “gimme, gimme gimme! The statistics say I don’t have as much as you, so gimme more.” BULL****!!! It’s time for SOME people to start looking within for the root of their problems.
Here's a funny thing. My Dad's family was dirt poor, his Dad had died and the only money they made for a while was a small pension from the railroad and whatever his Mom could make as a Clerk at Woolworth's. They were also a minority in El Paso, they were white. At the time they held about 30% of the population in El Paso. He didn't get help into College, he had to bust his hump in high school, volunteer and do well on his tests to get into college, THEN, in college he had to work nights and weekends just to pay his tuition at UTEP (still a minority compared to Hispanics). Nothing was given to him, he never got a break, he worked hard and is a successful businessman. Sometimes hard work can make up for a lot of social inequalities. Case in point: My Dad has lots of hispanics that work for him, not because of racial preference, but because they are the only ones that seem to want to do hard labor. All of them either came from Mexico, or their parents did...dirt poor (yes, they are legal). Just about EVERY one of them has worked their A$$ES off and sent their kids or grandkids to college. My Dad's painter has a son whose going to law school. My Dad's bricklayer has a daughter whose a CPA. My Dad's trim carpenter has 3 sons...one is going to A&M, one going to UT, and one who is a Financial analyst in New York. Nothing was given to them, some won scholarships (if you win 'em, you deserve 'em), but they got into school and got good jobs from HARD WORK, not hand outs. Its mostly these examples of people pulling themselves from below poverty and past racial barriers that show me that anybody can do it...and if they need some scholarships to help them do it...give it to them...but just admitting them to school even if they don't deserve it based on race over hard work...I don't agree with that at all.
At one time in history at the beginning of the Civil Rights movement, minorities were not given a fair chance to get into Universities, now they are. They have just as good a chance as white people do, and in the some cases a better chance, everything besides race being equal.
