The W
Views: 100017264
Main | FAQ | Search: Y! / G | Calendar | Color chart | Log in for more!
24.10.14 2334
The W - Current Events & Politics - Bush plans to challenge program that gives preference to minority students
This thread has 97 referrals leading to it
Register and log in to post!
Pages: 1 2 3 4 Next(2332 newer) Next thread | Previous thread
User
Post (74 total)
Grimis
Scrapple








Since: 11.7.02
From: MD

Since last post: 1271 days
Last activity: 1068 days
#1 Posted on | Instant Rating: 7.29
Click Here

I think after discussing a lot of issues with those on both sides of the aisle, I hope that all of us can agree that state-sponsored racial quotas is wrong.



We need more like Senator Taft
Promote this thread!
CrosstownTraffic
Medisterpoelse








Since: 15.1.03
From: Raleigh, NC

Since last post: 4300 days
Last activity: 3530 days
#2 Posted on
Maybe the University of Michigan should run some checks and balances on the racial quotas of their men's basketball team, and give some Oriental, Caucasian, Hispanic, and Indian students more of an edge to play.



Huzzah.
calvinh0560
Boudin rouge








Since: 3.1.02
From: People's Republic of Massachusetts

Since last post: 562 days
Last activity: 29 min.
#3 Posted on | Instant Rating: 0.00
If there are better Oriental, Caucasian, Hispanic and Indian Players out there than those African American Players on the team now yes Michigan should run some Checks and balances. The problem with racial quotas is that there could be a possibility that the best people are not picked. Merit Should be the number 1 reason why anyone get any job or admitted into a college. Background can be a factor but it should not be such a large factor as it is today.
Pool-Boy
Lap cheong








Since: 1.8.02
From: Huntington Beach, CA

Since last post: 1317 days
Last activity: 83 days
AIM:  
ICQ:  
Y!:
#4 Posted on
Here here-
Affirmitive Action is INHERENTLY a racist policy, and if the goal is to be to eliminate racism, you have to start by tearing down those race-divisions that Affirmitive Action supports.
Isn't this what King wanted? No whites, blacks, Indians, etc, rather people?



Trees are for huggin'!
My attempt at a webpage


After a millineum, Keeper will return to save us all...
DrOp
Frankfurter








Since: 2.1.02

Since last post: 2236 days
Last activity: 1103 days
#5 Posted on
Wow, I don't think I've EVER heard such a misinterpretation of Dr. King in my life. He wanted people to not be judged by their differences (skin color, religion), but by character and content.

I think quotas are wrong, but the spirit behind affirmative action was good at the core. I don't think anyone should be favored, but there are many places/people that will hire someone that looks like them rather than someone that is different, even if they are equally qualified.

The inherent racial inequities that exist and are prepetuated in our culture through socialized messages in the media would have to be addressed in order to begin changing attitudes, me thinks.

DrOp




...And Marking Out
Slashwrestling.com
Wienerville
CrosstownTraffic
Medisterpoelse








Since: 15.1.03
From: Raleigh, NC

Since last post: 4300 days
Last activity: 3530 days
#6 Posted on

    Originally posted by Pool-Boy
    Isn't this what King wanted? No whites, blacks, Indians, etc, rather people?


    Originally posted by DrOp
    Wow, I don't think I've EVER heard such a misinterpretation of Dr. King in my life. He wanted people to not be judged by their differences (skin color, religion), but by character and content.
What is the difference between Pool-Boy's "misinterpretation" and your "interpretation" of MLK's philosphy?



Huzzah.
astrobstrd
Bockwurst








Since: 13.3.02
From: Loveland, OH

Since last post: 2582 days
Last activity: 2549 days
AIM:  
#7 Posted on
    Originally posted by CrosstownTraffic

      Originally posted by Pool-Boy
      Isn't this what King wanted? No whites, blacks, Indians, etc, rather people?


      Originally posted by DrOp
      Wow, I don't think I've EVER heard such a misinterpretation of Dr. King in my life. He wanted people to not be judged by their differences (skin color, religion), but by character and content.
    What is the difference between Pool-Boy's "misinterpretation" and your "interpretation" of MLK's philosphy?


I don't assume to speak for drOp here, but I think that what he was objecting to was that it seemed from Pool-Boy's quote that King wanted us to ignore whether a person was black, hispanic, asian, etc. While drOp is stating that you shouldn't ignore the fact, but not judge based on it. At least that's the difference in the quotes to me.

It seems like a small difference, but one takes into account financial and cultural disadvantages suffered by larger percentages of certain groups (hispanics, blacks, appalachians), while the other says, "Everything is fine and we are all on equal footing."

(edited by astrobstrd on 15.1.03 1246)


"All we are is meat."

-The Deftones
Pool-Boy
Lap cheong








Since: 1.8.02
From: Huntington Beach, CA

Since last post: 1317 days
Last activity: 83 days
AIM:  
ICQ:  
Y!:
#8 Posted on
I did not misinterpret Dr. King at all.
I never claimed his idea was to completely erase any notion of ancestery. OF COURSE you should be proud of your heritage and culture.
But what Dr. King wanted was to take superficial descriptions like "skin-color" and make them mere descriptive qualities, akin to eye color and height.
Today you have "the black community" and so forth. This sort of thing is DEFINITY not in the realm of Dr. King's philosophy. The mere act of diving people into groups based on skin color is furthering the "racial" divisions in our country.
Dr. King would not support Affirmative Action, or anything remotely resembling it.
"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."
Any group or program that differentiates, or makes decisions (or acceptances) based on skin color is BLATANTLY in contradiction to this statement. When you make these divisions based on race, you are judging that someone of a different skin color does not belong in your community. I can't think of any interpretation that would have Dr. King supporting something like this.

EDIT- oh, and my opinion on the whole "disadvantage take" is what is so wrong with addressing the problem of the "poor" instead of the "Poor blacks?" who cares what race they are if they are disadvantaged. Help them. Classifying them as blacks or whites or latinos does nothing to fix the problem. If you have a group of disadvantaged people, the problem cannot be solved by addressing their race...

(edited by Pool-Boy on 15.1.03 0952)


Trees are for huggin'!
My attempt at a webpage


After a millineum, Keeper will return to save us all...
PalpatineW
Lap cheong








Since: 2.1.02
From: Getting Rowdy

Since last post: 2831 days
Last activity: 2674 days
AIM:  
#9 Posted on | Instant Rating: 5.44

    Originally posted by DrOp
    Wow, I don't think I've EVER heard such a misinterpretation of Dr. King in my life. He wanted people to not be judged by their differences (skin color, religion), but by character and content.

    I think quotas are wrong, but the spirit behind affirmative action was good at the core. I don't think anyone should be favored, but there are many places/people that will hire someone that looks like them rather than someone that is different, even if they are equally qualified.

    The inherent racial inequities that exist and are prepetuated in our culture through socialized messages in the media would have to be addressed in order to begin changing attitudes, me thinks.

    DrOp



A.) What is the spirit behind affirmative action? To me, it seems to reward unqualified minorities at the expense of everyone. If you want to solve the problem, you make sure everyone has equal opportunity to education, etc. You give these people a chance to get qualified; you don't simply give them things they aren't qualified for. That's insulting to everyone, including those you purport to help. I mean, come one. We won't fix the DC school districts, but we'll let your kids into college anyway.

B.)What racist messages is the media pumping out these days, that are so "socialized" in our culture? Is there a new FOX sitcom where Bernie Mac puts on a minstrel show and serves his white master? Am I missing something?

C.) You think quotas are wrong, but the spirit behind affirmative action is good? So, what would you support? Giving people of a favored skin color an advantage, as long as there wasn't a set number of people to give that advantage to?

"Affirmative action" is textbook racism, bottom line.



Damn your eyes!
DrOp
Frankfurter








Since: 2.1.02

Since last post: 2236 days
Last activity: 1103 days
#10 Posted on
Quotas have been illegal for 15 years.

Using the term "quotas" is a way for the President and his spin doctors to alarm people.

G.W. Bush Jr., is himself, a beneficiary of quotas (also known as legacy preference) as he would never have gotten in the colleges and grad schools he got in without his father's legacy, seeing as how they admit that he wasn't the "brightest candle in the bunch." Have we forgotten that?

DrOp--or did this argument only apply to minorities?

(edited by DrOp on 15.1.03 2223)



...And Marking Out
Slashwrestling.com
Wienerville
TheBucsFan
TheChiefsFan








Since: 2.1.02

Since last post: 74 days
Last activity: 74 days
#11 Posted on | Instant Rating: 4.42
This relates to an observation I made after hearing a Disney commercial on the radio. Disney always closes their ads by saying, "Disney is an equal opportunity employer, drawing creativiy from diversity."

How can they guarantee diversity if they are "equal opportunity"? What if every single qualified potential employee (or even applicant, for that matter) is a single, middle aged white male with a wife, two sons and a daughter, a dog and two cars in the garage?

DrOp, the "legacy preference" is done by private institutions and is not regulated by the government. Things like affirmative action and title IX are government sponsered programs designed to take emphasis off production, qualifications and worthiness and onto not hurting somebody's feelings.
PalpatineW
Lap cheong








Since: 2.1.02
From: Getting Rowdy

Since last post: 2831 days
Last activity: 2674 days
AIM:  
#12 Posted on | Instant Rating: 5.44

    Originally posted by DrOp
    Quotas have been illegal for 15 years.

    Using the term "quotas" is a way for the President and his spin doctors to alarm people.

    G.W. Bush Jr., is himself, a beneficiary of quotas (also known as legacy preference) as he would never have gotten in the colleges and grad schools he got in without his father's legacy, seeing as how they admit that he wasn't the "brightest candle in the bunch." Have we forgotten that?

    DrOp--or did this argument only apply to minorities?

    (edited by DrOp on 15.1.03 2223)



Yes, this argument is only about minorities. Admitting people based on legacy might be stupid, but at least it's not racist. Did you know that the admissions process at the University of Michigan law school awards 12 points for a perfect SAT, and 20 points for being of a favored skin color, in this case black or brown? Do you think that's good? Do you think we should be in the business of awarding points for skin color?



Damn your eyes!
rockdotcom_2.0
Frankfurter








Since: 9.1.02
From: Virginia Beach Va

Since last post: 583 days
Last activity: 198 days
AIM:  
#13 Posted on
I have to agree with drop that affirmative action was good at the core. Wasnt affirmative action started because large corporations and universities run and controlled by white males were excluding all minorities regardless of qualifications? They were simply not hiring blacks, latinos women strictly because of race or gender? So Affirmative Action was set in place to say "yes you will hire qualified minorities because its right thing to do". Thats the way Ive always seen it. But it seems to me that people have twisted it to be reverse racism against whites.

But I do think that AA has probably become outdated as the years have gone by. The world has changed quite a bit since it was first put into law. So an evolution of affirmative action needs to be put in place, but thats just my opinion.



Ya know how we do it, big balling and big blingin'....
TheBucsFan
TheChiefsFan








Since: 2.1.02

Since last post: 74 days
Last activity: 74 days
#14 Posted on | Instant Rating: 4.42
No, instead the government needs to stay out of it altogether. If a certain minority doesn't like a buisness' hiring practice, they can boycott, protest or campaign against it. But private business should not be influenced by the government.

Being racist is not (or at least should not be) illegal.
DrOp
Frankfurter








Since: 2.1.02

Since last post: 2236 days
Last activity: 1103 days
#15 Posted on
PalpatineW: No, I (as a minority) would not want to be awarded points for being one.

The crux of this argument is if the Michigan system is a quota is disguise. I can't really speak on that other to say again that I think quotas are wrong and that if their system is a quota, it should be changed.

I kind of bugs me when non-minorities scream racism as if they have any real clue or have truly experienced it firsthand. I'm not trying to offend any one, but how many of you have been followed and had your tags run by police officers?

Happened to me as a teacher all the time as I drove my Acura Integra.

How many of you ever have to stand in line in the grocery store and watch some person turn around, notice its you and then close their wallet pocket or clutch their purse?

Happens to me regulary (weekly even), and I don't wear baggy jeans and what not. I'm a professional, wearing Perry Elis and Kenneth Cole and yet the socialization and perpetuation of age old steretypes causes me to be treated at times) like a potential criminal.

Those same stereotypes (including those about limited and/or lesser intelligence) are what the spirit of AA was trying to target. "Let's try to recruit talented minorities", because for little children seeing people that look like them in positions of power and prestige is very important.

I don't think for a second that I've gotten to move from teaching assisant to assistant principal for any other reason that I was quialified, hard working and talented. And I wouldn't want anything handed to me. I dropped out of University of Cinncinati partially because I felt the fellowship they ofered me was beased more on my skin color than my credentilas and grades. The spirit of AA was in making sure that a person like me got an opportunity. rockdotcom has valid points.

DrOp--thinks Bush should have not decided to do this tit-for-tat thing in the wake of Trent Lott.



(edited by DrOp on 16.1.03 0901)



...And Marking Out
Slashwrestling.com
Wienerville
MoeGates
Andouille








Since: 6.1.02
From: Brooklyn, NY

Since last post: 3 days
Last activity: 2 days
#16 Posted on | Instant Rating: 6.73
I think after discussing a lot of issues with those on both sides of the aisle, I hope that all of us can agree that state-sponsored racial quotas is wrong.

You haven't pulled the "we can all agree on what I think, but said non-controversaly" thing in a while.

My ideas:

#1 - eliminate legacy admision, the single policy most responsible for unqualified people getting into college.

#2 - implement the best idea Junior ever had - guaranteed admission for the top 10% (or whatever percent) of graduates from every public high school in to the state school system. University of California has a similar thing going I think.

#3 - if you're doing a points thing, add points for first-generation students, (students who's parents didn't go to college). A lot of colleges do this already.

I think a big perception (I don't know if it's true or not) among middle-class people is that you have to be either really privilaged or really underprivilaged to get into top schools, and the middle-class gets squeezed out. I, of course, think that this should be avoided by taking more slots out of the "privilaged" end, but the popular trend seems to be the other way at the time. Hopefully there will be a grassroots movement against legacy admissions, 5-point grading scales, and other stuff that gives the privilaged an unfair advantage sometimes soon, but right now I think people are resigned to the fact that if Daddy gave a wing of the building, there's not much you can do about his idiot kid getting in when he shouldn't. It's easier just to scream "reverse racism!" at the problem.



It seems that I am - in no particular order - Zack Morris, John Adams, a Siren, Aphrodite, Cletus the Slack Jawed Yokel, Amy-Wynn Pastor, Hydrogen, Spider-Man, and Boston.
PalpatineW
Lap cheong








Since: 2.1.02
From: Getting Rowdy

Since last post: 2831 days
Last activity: 2674 days
AIM:  
#17 Posted on | Instant Rating: 5.44
DrOp - It's unfortunate that people look at you funny because you are a minority. I suspect people that look at you that way are largely ignorant. Do you think Affirmative Action will make ignorant people more accepting of you, or less accepting? I'm willing to wager that these people are just going to resent you more, so let's not use affirmative action as a tool for changing people's attitudes.

And why is the crux of the argument about quotas? It's wrong to set aside 25 places for minority students, but it is correct to award 20 points based on skin color, as long as we don't have a set quota? We can give preferences based on race, as long as there are not set limits on those awarded preferential treatment? You seem to say both that you would rather win on your own merit than be awarded points for your skin color, but also that we should award other people points for their skin color. If you wouldn't accept this advantage yourself, why would you want to give it to others?

And what do you mean, "tit-for-tat thing"? And why not in the wake of Trent Lott? Bush's stance here is principled, and, in my opinion, moral. It's more important now than ever that the race debate in this country isn't surrendered to people like Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson, who care more about their own fame and wallets than they do other people, black or white. Those guys are about as legitimate as Benny Hinn, fer Pete's sake. Yes, Lott is an idiot who said stupid and very likely racist things. But that has little to do with Bush, who has publicly repudiated the guy, and even less to do with affirmative action, which many people (myself included) think is more racist than that buffoon Lott.

And Moe - Instead of your plan of "taking away slots" for "privileged" people, why not set objective standards for merit, and then only accept people (of all backgrounds) who meet those standards? When you're assembling a fire department, do you worry that you have too many Irish, too many working-class kids? Or do you simply worry about getting qualified firefighters? This social engineering we all seem to want to engage in is absurd.

(edited by PalpatineW on 16.1.03 1047)


Damn your eyes!
Grimis
Scrapple








Since: 11.7.02
From: MD

Since last post: 1271 days
Last activity: 1068 days
#18 Posted on | Instant Rating: 7.29
Please, take away the prviledged slots. Take away the points. Keep the quotas away.

College admissions should be abot nothing other than merit. It's that whole "equality of opportunity" thing where everbody is evaluated on their merits rather than color/ethnicity/gender/lineage.

What's the problem with that?



"Prsent day writers, especially of the Socilaist school of thought- base their various theories upon one common hypothesis: They divide mankind into two parts. People in general- with the exception of the writer himself- from the first group. The writer, all alone, forms the second and most impportant group. Surely ths is the weirderst and most conceited notion that ever entered a human brain!"
- Frederic Bastiat, The Law, 1850
MoeGates
Andouille








Since: 6.1.02
From: Brooklyn, NY

Since last post: 3 days
Last activity: 2 days
#19 Posted on | Instant Rating: 6.73
When you're assembling a fire department, do you worry that you have too many Irish, too many working-class kids?

Well, actually yes here in New York. The Vulcan society (the black firefighters association) was very close to filing a discrimination lawsuit against the FDNY, but backed off when the FDNY went on a big minority recruitment thing. The Vulcan society realizes it's tough. Their president, Paul Washington, said that the biggest recruitment tool for the FDNY was having a firefighter as a family member, which is something not many black people have. The FDNY (and NYPD) have also upped the education requirement to 60 college credits or two years of military service, wheras it used to be high scholl graduate. I don't know if that's worried about "too many working-class kids" or not.

In a perfect world, the whole "let's do away with everything but merit" would be great. That's easy to do with, say, kitchen appliances, or racehorses. But that's really tought to do with people. especially with somethingas vague as "education." In the end, you are always going to have a lot of subjectivity to who gets picked and who doesn't. You are always going to have kids who get an unfair advantage over others. One guidance counselor's policy is to always write glowing reccomendations, while another is tougher. One kid has the opportunity to take 5-point AP classes while others don't. One kid's a great sax player, while another's gaining grand master points in chess. How do you decide stuff like "merit." There's always going to be complaints about unfairness and subjectivity, because that's what college admissions are: subjective and often unfair, froma variety of viewpoints.

Please, take away the prviledged slots

See, conservatives always say "yeah, I guess that should be done away with too" when I bring this up. But nobody ever makes a fuss about it. I don't see the Heritage foundation backing lawsuits about it. If conservatives paid more than just lip service to this issues, I'd take their affirmative action complaints a lot more seriously.

It's a lot like how if conservatives didn't give the Pentagon money they didn't even ask for and back ridiculous pork spending in their districts as much (if not more) as Democrats I'd take their arguements about cutting government spending a lot more seriously.



It seems that I am - in no particular order - Zack Morris, John Adams, a Siren, Aphrodite, Cletus the Slack Jawed Yokel, Amy-Wynn Pastor, Hydrogen, Spider-Man, and Boston.
calvinh0560
Boudin rouge








Since: 3.1.02
From: People's Republic of Massachusetts

Since last post: 562 days
Last activity: 29 min.
#20 Posted on | Instant Rating: 0.00
I donít have a problem with college looking at background (not race) as a way to decide on two equal candidates. You want your college you go to be as diverse as possible. So if College A has a student population made up of mostly small town kids and you have two equal candidates 1 from a small town and 1 from a big city the college should take the student from the city (it does not matter if he is White, Black, or Asian). The problem I (and I think most people) have with AA is that it is not being used a tie-breaker for equal candidates and that race, not background is the major factor. What about the poor inner city white kids who have to go to the same crappy school as the minorities that AA was designed to help?
Pages: 1 2 3 4 Next
Pages: 1 2 3 4 NextThread ahead: New Michigan law - Strippers must be at least 3 feet from all patrons
Next thread: Enviro-fraud
Previous thread: In VA, it's illegal to be drunk in a bar.
(2332 newer) Next thread | Previous thread
As a former Georgia native, current Florida resident I can't help but chime in and say while this sounds ludicrous I support it whole-heartedly. Sweet-tea for President.
The W - Current Events & Politics - Bush plans to challenge program that gives preference to minority studentsRegister and log in to post!

The W™ message board

ZimBoard
©2001-2014 Brothers Zim

This old hunk of junk rendered your page in 0.197 seconds.