Dumbass Supreme Court

[Lewkowski]

Ugh, supreme court just ruled again that race can be used as a factor in determining college admission.

DumbAss court. Hopefully some liberals will retire and Bush will appoint hard line conservatives.

[Uber_olafsun]

You know if is was a policy that said the advantage went to white males thats racist. I can't belive the courts are that stupid. We keep hearing everyone is equal but then advantages are given to some. That is not equal. When I was in tech school there was a kid that should have been kicked out within the 1st month of being there. He graduated and when I talked to one of the instructors later and asked why I was told becuase he was a minority. For the tech school I went to the failure rate was about 50% of students. This guy was allowed retests and waivers just because of race. I hope the school gets sued the first time 2 equal student go up and one is picked over the other based on race.

[ductonius]

At least its not as bad as Canadian courts. Even the lowest level of judge can change the law irrespective of what parliment wants/rules.

appointed judges > elected officials.

[Dreadnaught]

Originally posted by Uber_olafsun
When I was in tech school there was a kid that should have been kicked out within the 1st month of being there. He graduated and when I talked to one of the instructors later and asked why I was told becuase he was a minority. For the tech school I went to the failure rate was about 50% of students. This guy was allowed retests and waivers just because of race. I hope the school gets sued the first time 2 equal student go up and one is picked over the other based on race.

That's not what affirmative action is supposed to be about. It's not about bending the rules of an institution because of race. It is about changing policies or requirements so that race can help one get in to that institution.

I'm rather suprised that the court upheld it. But I suppose they're using same logic that they used to uphold Roe V. Wade in 1992: stare decisis (sp?). They don't want to suddenly dismantle precedents that have been in effect because it would make the court look less legitimate and perhaps more politicised.

I'm still trying to figure out exactly what the rulings are, but it looks like the point system at Michigan (which is what I objected to) is the only thing that was stricken down. Affirmative action itself remains in place, which I believe has a greater final benefit through perhaps less-than-principled means.

[LittleFuzzy]

Originally posted by Lewkowski
Ugh, supreme court just ruled again that race can be used as a factor in determining college admission.

DumbAss court. Hopefully some liberals will retire and Bush will appoint hard line conservatives.

And this is different from UC Regents v Bakke how? Lewk, stare decisis is a powerful doctrine for the court, especially with the wing that would otherwise oppose Affirmative Action. The decision isn't a surprise.

[Lewkowski]

Suprised? No. Disappointed? Yes.

[Tontoe]

On the point that race shouldn't be an issue in college admissions, I totally aggree. However, until we elminate the other discriminating factors(money, amlunis, etc) it isn't fair to single out Affirmative action. I support a complete removal of all processes that give someone an unearned leg up, not just Affirmative action.

[-)AO(-Necron99]

Originally posted by Uber_olafsun
You know if is was a policy that said the advantage went to white males thats racist.

Although I disagree with the Supreme Court judgement, you have GOT to be kidding.

It was the unwritten policy of racism that brought affirmative action about to begin with.

How about we stop complaining about the solutions that dont work and get rid of the cause of the problem to begin with. Oh wait, racism will never stop so I guess this whole stupid thing will never end, unfortunatly.

Racism and affirmative action=:down:

[Lewkowski]

Affiramtive action is racisam. As long as we have it, there will always be racism.

[ductonius]

Originally posted by -)AO(-Necron99
Although I disagree with the Supreme Court judgement, you have GOT to be kidding.

It was the unwritten policy of racism that brought affirmative action about to begin with.

How about we stop complaining about the solutions that dont work and get rid of the cause of the problem to begin with. Oh wait, racism will never stop so I guess this whole stupid thing will never end, unfortunatly.

Racism and affirmative action=:down:

So, because of an underground and unaknowledged, and, what is in reality a conspiracy theory that says that non-white people will be discriminated against, we must have an offical and blatent system of discriminating aginst whites?

You have GOT to be kidding.

[Uber_olafsun]

Originally posted by -)AO(-Necron99
Although I disagree with the Supreme Court judgement, you have GOT to be kidding.

It was the unwritten policy of racism that brought affirmative action about to begin with.

How about we stop complaining about the solutions that dont work and get rid of the cause of the problem to begin with. Oh wait, racism will never stop so I guess this whole stupid thing will never end, unfortunatly.

Racism and affirmative action=:down:

You are giving one and advantage over another for just Race. This is what was going on before and it was found to be racists. Why when the shoe is on the other foot is it any different??? Also the % of white people in America is slowly decreasing. What happens when Whites are considered a minority? We want to have a system that says all are equal and it will amount to the work you do. Then we say thats true unless you are black, mexican, asian,etc. then you need to have an advantage.

[Loki]

Originally posted by -)AO(-Necron99
It was the unwritten policy of racism that brought affirmative action about to begin with.

How about we stop complaining about the solutions that dont work and get rid of the cause of the problem to begin with. Oh wait, racism will never stop so I guess this whole stupid thing will never end, unfortunatly.

Racism and affirmative action=:down:

Nice one. The way to stop an unwritten policy of racism is with a written policy of racism.:confused:

And for your information, benign racism is not working. Minorities are still significantly underrepresented in many important fields. If something doesn't work, how about trying something else instead?

[homercles]

Originally posted by Loki
Nice one. The way to stop an unwritten policy of racism is with a written policy of racism.:confused:

And for your information, benign racism is not working. Minorities are still significantly underrepresented in many important fields. If something doesn't work, how about trying something else instead?

Well, as i have said in other threads, we will NEVER have minorities fully represented in some fields (without quotas, that is). The issue is not who gets into what college, but rather that education is not a culturally strived for goal among minorities (blacks, latinos, etc). You cant change their culture by letting a few minorties into college.

[Loki]

Originally posted by homercles
Well, as i have said in other threads, we will NEVER have minorities fully represented in some fields (without quotas, that is). The issue is not who gets into what college, but rather that education is not a culturally strived for goal among minorities (blacks, latinos, etc). You cant change their culture by letting a few minorties into college.

Exactly. You have to change their culture. The government and the intellectuals who want equal minority representation should team up and start a huge propaganda campaign aimed at minority groups showing how education is more important than anything else. People nowadays do what the TV tells them to do more than what the government or history tells them to do. I'm sure there are some brilliant marketers out there who can send out the right message.

[Wormboy]

Originally posted by Tontoe
On the point that race shouldn't be an issue in college admissions, I totally aggree. However, until we elminate the other discriminating factors(money, amlunis, etc) it isn't fair to single out Affirmative action. I support a complete removal of all processes that give someone an unearned leg up, not just Affirmative action.

Bingo. There is still so much systematic and even institutionalized racism in the US (and no, not against whites :rolleyes: ) that the small leg up a student of color gets in college admission doesn't even come close to overcoming all of the hurdles that have been placed infront of them, and NOT infront of their white peers.

That said, I think AA should be based more on economic, and less on race, because I think that money is a biger facotr than race in general discrimination. Also, I think that much of the racism practiced might not be intentionally about race, but about money. The consequence ends up being racist, not the intent.

I've said it may times and I'll say it again: if there's a person of color as qualified for a job as I am, then they deserve it. Even if they came from the middle class, they have had to achieve much more than I did to reach the same place. And you know what? This doesn't even worry me. I don't personally know a single black colleague, after all these years in higher education (I know they are out there, but they are particularly under-represented in the sciences).

IMO, I'm glad the point system was tossed out. It made race such a strong factor that race was one of the main reasons a student was admitted AT ALL. I think race should only decide in an "all other things being equal" situation.

[Wormboy]

Originally posted by homercles
Well, as i have said in other threads, we will NEVER have minorities fully represented in some fields (without quotas, that is). The issue is not who gets into what college, but rather that education is not a culturally strived for goal among minorities (blacks, latinos, etc). You cant change their culture by letting a few minorties into college.

I think this is more economics than anything. When you look at Asian-Americans whose immigrant parents were NOT academics or professionals (for example, Vietnamese boat people), you find the achievement rate is similar to that of blacks or latinos. There has been this red-herring re: Asians in the US for a long time because except for out west, the large majority of the Asians immigrants were already part of the intellectual eltite. This is basically a sampling bias. When you look at a real cross -section, you see a group much closer to blacks and latinos in terms of achievement.

Also, never forget that you are comparing indigenous groups (relatively speaking, not absolutely speaking) to groups that have managed to get here across the Pacific ocean. Many people have made the point that the composition of Americas population is basically a Natural Selection process. The exceptions? Blacks and Latinos.

The general lower achievement of blacks and latinos mainly reflects their heritage: slavery and poverty. How is such a culture supposed to have a tradition of achievement? Sure, the slavery part is long-gone, but the legacy still lingers, in terms of what they have been able to make of themselves. More than half of Americans alive today actually remember the Civil Rights movement. So how can such a radically different way of doing things still be in recent memory, and not have an impact on a culture? Also, while the rights have been strengthened, the attitudes have changed more slowly. There's still a lot of racism out there, and the economic disparity is profound.

So while you point out a real phenomenon, Homercles, Look at the roots of the groups you are comparing. Are you comparing groups that are equivalent ecomomically? No. Socially? No. History of empowerment? No. Latinos and blacks have been at the bottom of the American food chain for so long that it's unreasonable to expect them to BANG! have a cultural identity of achievement so soon after the civil rights movement, and under the burden of extreme economic disparity.

[Uber_olafsun]

Originally posted by Wormboy


I've said it may times and I'll say it again: if there's a person of color as qualified for a job as I am, then they deserve it. Even if they came from the middle class, they have had to achieve much more than I did to reach the same place. And you know what? This doesn't even worry me. I don't personally know a single black colleague, after all these years in higher education (I know they are out there, but they are particularly under-represented in the sciences).



But the thing is why do they deserve the job over you? I hate to say that depending on where you live in this country you could be the minority even if you were white. Also the fact that no 2 people will ever be the exact same. It could be how they interview or skills but there will be differences. Why should someone have an advantage or disadvantage based on skin color? America in theory is the melting pot where everyone is supposed to be considered equal. That will never happen if one group has an advantage over another. Also how long should we have this policy? Untill every job or school has an exact % of each race in the school or business? Do we change it every year to reflect each race for that year?

[Wormboy]

Originally posted by Uber_olafsun
But the thing is why do they deserve the job over you? I hate to say that depending on where you live in this country you could be the minority even if you were white. Also the fact that no 2 people will ever be the exact same. It could be how they interview or skills but there will be differences. Why should someone have an advantage or disadvantage based on skin color? America in theory is the melting pot where everyone is supposed to be considered equal. That will never happen if one group has an advantage over another. Also how long should we have this policy? Untill every job or school has an exact % of each race in the school or business? Do we change it every year to reflect each race for that year?

As was pointed out, until some step is made to adress the extremely gross and institutionalized racism regarding how primary and secondary schools are funded, I will support a mild form of AA (not the extreme ones-I'm glad the SC threw out the MI point system). When the playing field is level ins schools, then 14 years later I will agree to ending AA.

As for what I said, yeah, if the black or latino is as good as I am in my profession, then s/he doubtlessly actually achieved more, since s/he very likely started out at a lower place and had to do more to get there.

No problem with employers picking somebody who has done more. Achievment is the name of the game, after all.

[Lewkowski]

think this is more economics than anything. When you look at Asian-Americans whose immigrant parents were NOT academics or professionals (for example, Vietnamese boat people), you find the achievement rate is similar to that of blacks or latinos. There has been this red-herring re: Asians in the US for a long time because except for out west, the large majority of the Asians immigrants were already part of the intellectual eltite. This is basically a sampling bias. When you look at a real cross -section, you see a group much closer to blacks and latinos in terms of achievement.

Post where you found these stastics right now, if you can.

[Loki]

Originally posted by Lewkowski
Post where you found these stastics right now, if you can.

I read two books about the Chinese immigrants to America (and New York City in particular) and my professor is an expert in the field of Chinese immigration, and he says the same thing as Wormboy. I could give you the name of his book, and the two books I read, but I doubt you'll want to read them.;)

[Lewkowski]

I read two books about the Chinese immigrants to America (and New York City in particular) and my professor is an expert in the field of Chinese immigration, and he says the same thing as Wormboy. I could give you the name of his book, and the two books I read, but I doubt you'll want to read them.

Not what I'm asking for. Books are subjective, and professors have their own personal agenda. I want hard facts. No hard facts, no proof, = talking out of your ass.

[Dreadnaught]

Originally posted by Wormboy
That said, I think AA should be based more on economic, and less on race, because I think that money is a biger facotr than race in general discrimination. Also, I think that much of the racism practiced might not be intentionally about race, but about money. The consequence ends up being racist, not the intent.

I agree. Economics is beginning to really overreach race. If the two (economics and race) are so intertwined, then one who is successful economically has indeed also surmounted a great barrier racially (if they are not white). That said, I've seen a lot of rich kids of color get an extra advantage that poor kids of color don't get.

[Parmenio]

*Looks at Wormboy* Again you site conspiracy without facts. There is no massive underground racist agenda to keep minorities out of higher education. Wake up, or tell me one damn school that supported eliminating AA, I haven't heard of one. To me that says that higher learning is as far from racist as you can get, but that's the facts for ya.:rolleyes: Yeah racism exists, no arguments there, but I don't see any (outside of reverse discrimination) in this particular area.


To the rest of the people, you need to read between the lines. As expected O'Conner was the swing vote, and also as expected she two fisted us. She gave with one hand while trying to take away with the other.

Here is the most important part of Sandra's opinion, and also the majority here: "We expect that 25 years from now, the use of racial preferences will no longer be necissary to further the interest approved today". It is on page 30 just before article IV.

Basically she at least relized that we aren't the same today as we were 25 years ago and that we have made a ton of progress. I am of the opinion that it is time to take the training wheels off and let things go, some will fall but I think that is healthy for everyone involved.

Also the court struck down the undergrad policy of rewarding points "solely" on race. This is huge because it says that giving someone 20 points out of 150 is wrong (you are basically in the school if you get 100 so that accounts for 20% of the score).

Sandra went a little wierd on us for a time too, on about page 10 she refers to the fact that the Law school has some kind of "holistic" way of dealing with race, but the undergrad school doesn't. :rolleyes:

I don't have to tell you that, to me, that reasoning sucks. All the law school does is hide it's quota in some bs, non binding, reasoning (as a law school should know how to follow the letter of the law but not the intent).

Here (http://www.supremecourtus.gov/) is the decisions, I haven't fully finished them yet(only had time for a quick summary but don't worry I will finish them). Gratz is the undergrad, and Grutter is the Law school.

[Parmenio]

Originally posted by Wormboy
I think this is more economics than anything. When you look at Asian-Americans whose immigrant parents were NOT academics or professionals (for example, Vietnamese boat people), you find the achievement rate is similar to that of blacks or latinos. There has been this red-herring re: Asians in the US for a long time because except for out west, the large majority of the Asians immigrants were already part of the intellectual eltite. This is basically a sampling bias. When you look at a real cross -section, you see a group much closer to blacks and latinos in terms of achievement.


Homercles is refering to a socialogical study he read somewhere.

But your point doesn't hold up Worm. We had this argument last time. It isn't racist to discriminate on the basis of FINANCE. If rich Asians can come here and get into school then why can't poor ones? I told you to call it what it is, but here you are giving the same tried reasoning. :confused:

Also if you want to really get into cause and effect you still can't blame it on them being poor. Fact of the matter is that educated parents place a higher amount of importance on education than poor ones (generalization true, so don't bring that up). So saying that poor people are discriminated against unfairly is still not accurate.

I also addressed your argument that the way we fund our schools isn't racist, but you probably forgot all about it, just follow the same logic above.

It isn't racism! If they want to get out they can, but they are going to have to put forth the effort worthy of digging themselves out of where they are.

Again you bring up your "rich white guilt" thing. If you feel guilty, fine, but don't go and tell me that I have too. If you are sincere then go and give some minority a big hug, and your next paycheck with it (whenever you get off disabilty;) )

[Chronus]

Originally posted by Lewkowski
Affiramtive action is racisam. As long as we have it, there will always be racism.

The other way around, actually. Affirmative action exists because :
a) you can't fight THE social factors that put minorites into a lower social order
b) racism exists

Is it really necessary to recall the actual number of black people prevented from entering your Universities just because they were black?

I agree that this AA scheme is unfair to those people who do not belong to a minority group and are refused their applications to college just because of their being white and even though their marks are up to those colleges standards, but the heart of the matter is that your society hasn't come up with a way to improve the chances of minorities to a better living.

Evening up the scores through AA is a bad but workable solution to a prevasiveproblem. Unfortunately, one more of those situations:"Do the ends justify the means?"

It's a difficult call.

One question for you: ok, Affirmative Action is bad, you say, the Supreme Court was wrong not to dismiss it, but...WHAT DO YOY PROPOSE? Or are you once again stating "hey, I don't care, it's simply wrong, I don't have to present alternatives"?

Chronus

[Parmenio]

Originally posted by Chronus
a) you can't fight THE social factors that put minorites into a lower social order
b) racism exists

To a) yes you can fight the social factors, it is called hitting the books, go to a library etc.

to b): Yes it does exist. But it isn't even close to the way it used to be, and I have yet to see any in higher education.

Is it really necessary to recall the actual number of black people prevented from entering your Universities just because they were black?

No it isn't necissary. Why, you ask? Well because black people that were prevented in the past don't give a free pass to the current generation. If you use that logic everyone in society has a case, gays, women, blacks, chinese, Italians, Jews, Catholics, etc etc.

[Loki]

Originally posted by Parmenio
But your point doesn't hold up Worm. We had this argument last time. It isn't racist to discriminate on the basis of FINANCE. If rich Asians can come here and get into school then why can't poor ones? I told you to call it what it is, but here you are giving the same tried reasoning. :confused:


There are two types of Asians who come to America (almost all of them being Chinese, so I'll refer to Chinese from now on). The first type is from Hong Kong and Taiwan (and some from South Korea). These people are from the middle class. They are educated, know English, and have at least some wealth. The second type is from mainland China. These people are not educated or skilled. They do not know English and have a very hard time learning it. They are for the most parts illegals, and had to pay as much as $50,000 to get to America. It takes them a decade of working 6 days a week, 3 shifts a day to pay that money back. Their children usually have to work as well to help pay off that huge sum. At best, the third generation goes to high school.

When comparing that second category of Asians to Hispanics and Africans, you'll find that their income and education levels are very similar. The first category is well educated and highly motivated, and on average are better educated and receive more income than white Americans.

If you really want to, you can read The New Chinatown (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0809015854/qid=1056502740/sr=8-3/ref=sr_8_3/103-9427630-3632648?v=glance&s=books&n=507846) by Peter Kwong and here's a plug for my former professor's book (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0814731546/qid=1056502805/sr=2-3/103-9427630-3632648?v=glance&s=books) :)

[Parmenio]

Loki why were you addressing me?

I never said all Asians were rich, or that all got into colleges. What I did say was that it wasn't racist. Big difference.

Odd that if you come to this country speaking the language, have an education, and maybe some money that you succeed:rolleyes:. That only proves my point, think about it for a second.

[Loki]

Originally posted by Parmenio
Odd that if you come to this country speaking the language, have an education, and maybe some money that you succeed:rolleyes:. That only proves my point, think about it for a second.

Just showing that Asians aren't any better than any other minority given equal circumstances.

There's the point that if you're extremely poor you either can't afford to finish school (you need a job) or you can't finish school (not enough time dedicated to learning, which can be the result of bad living conditions).

I do think that there is equal opportunity in the North at the very least. Asking for equal results is silly, undemocratic, and against every principle of capitalism.

[homercles]

Originally posted by Loki
When comparing that second category of Asians to Hispanics and Africans, you'll find that their income and education levels are very similar. The first category is well educated and highly motivated, and on average are better educated and receive more income than white Americans.

If you really want to, you can read The New Chinatown (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0809015854/qid=1056502740/sr=8-3/ref=sr_8_3/103-9427630-3632648?v=glance&s=books&n=507846) by Peter Kwong and here's a plug for my former professor's book (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0814731546/qid=1056502805/sr=2-3/103-9427630-3632648?v=glance&s=books) :)

Im not arguing with the idea that there may be different types of immigrants. When did i ever say taht?! In fact, a close friend's wife is from mexico and she has a number of friends, all of whom are immigrants, all of whom went to college. Education was important in their family, but NOT their culture.

To address your point above: why, even in these poor, uneducated immigrant asians does it only take a couple generations at most (im TOTALLY not buying your "at best 3rd generation goes to HS" cr@p*) for them to end up with an education? WHile we are expected to wait around indefinately while blacks and latinos change their ENTIRE culture and start emphasizing education?! :sour:

*I seriously hope youre not trying to argue against statistics which show (im sure im can find them) that Asians, even 1st generation Asians constitute the second largest student body in the US (behind whites). I have to admit that personal experience (based on my time at UG, berkeley, and now as a postdoc) is often rather powerful--so convince me.

Ooops, just read that and it sounds like i dont support AA, which i do, but only in a mild form. Which would also give the same "boost" based on socioeconomic status among white students.

[Loki]

Originally posted by homercles
Im not arguing with the idea that there may be different types of immigrants. When did i ever say taht?! In fact, a close friend's wife is from mexico and she has a number of friends, all of whom are immigrants, all of whom went to college. Education was important in their family, but NOT their culture.

True, changing that culture to promote education should be a priority.

To address your point above: why, even in these poor, uneducated immigrant asians does it only take a couple generations at most (im TOTALLY not buying your "at best 3rd generation goes to HS" cr@p*) for them to end up with an education? WHile we are expected to wait around indefinately while blacks and latinos change their ENTIRE culture and start emphasizing education?! :sour:

Tis true. Asians from the mainland are as likely to be educated as Hispanics and blacks. Whether or not they change after several generations is hard to determine. How many Chinese immigrants do you know? There are at least a million in New York City, and you'd be surprised how much violence and crime happens in the poor Chinese neighborhoods (most of it is aimed at other Chinese immigrants, which is why this rarely makes the news).

*I seriously hope youre not trying to argue against statistics which show (im sure im can find them) that Asians, even 1st generation Asians constitute the second largest student body in the US (behind whites). I have to admit that personal experience (based on my time at UG, berkeley, and now as a postdoc) is often rather powerful--so convince me.

Those statistics are distorted. Like I said, the Chinese people from Taiwan and Hong Kong are more likely than the white people in America to be educated. But the majority are as educated as blacks and Hispanics. Perhaps you can ask all those Asians if any of them were born in mainland China?

[homercles]

Originally posted by Loki
Tis true. Asians from the mainland are as likely to be educated as Hispanics and blacks. Whether or not they change after several generations is hard to determine. How many Chinese immigrants do you know? There are at least a million in New York City, and you'd be surprised how much violence and crime happens in the poor Chinese neighborhoods (most of it is aimed at other Chinese immigrants, which is why this rarely makes the news).

So what about he profoundly high asian college admission rates with respect to ALL other minorities? Seems like were agreeing here. Are you suggesting that there is a negative correlation here: High levels of poor asians in high crime rate areas, plus high levels of asian admittance to college :: high levels of poor blacks/latinos, low levels of black/latino admittance to college. Based on this reasoning, we should decrease asian admittance to college, no?



Those statistics are distorted. Like I said, the Chinese people from Taiwan and Hong Kong are more likely than the white people in America to be educated. But the majority are as educated as blacks and Hispanics. Perhaps you can ask all those Asians if any of them were born in mainland China?

Trust me, when i say that i can tell the differnce between someone from mainland china and one from hong kong/taiwan. Granted most of my friends were from the latter, but i have met PLEANTY of students from the mainland who were ALL 1st generation. Plus, i have heard those students talk about their families, EDUCATION is ALWAYS of utmost importance. If i had ONE example i would gladly share, but alas....:(

Youre not doing a very good job of convincing me Loki....

[Parmenio]

Anyone that hasn't checked out that link, and actually cares about this discussion should. Read the opinions, the only one that I haven't is the dissent by Rhenquist. Scalia and Thomas made separate dissents too, and they are magnificient (Thomas in particular makes the most well thought out points I have seen on this issue)

Just to share with you some of Scalia's comments, they are just too real and funny, I never expected someone to make a point like this at the SC.

His dissent is sarcastic as hell, you can just see the little :rolleyes: icons in his small section. He refers to the "mystical", "sham", and "fabled" aspect of critical mass (CM), and says that it challenges even the most "gullible mind" to defend CM.:D

He also states that "diversty" isn't a citical aspect of the state law school, what are you going to grade someone on "works well with others B+" or ask an exam of "500 words of less on your cross-racial understanding". His point that you can't teach racial diversity.

My favorite sarcastic remark is this: "The nonminority individuals who are deprived of a legal education, a civil service job, or any job at all by reason of their skin color will surely understand". The only thing missing at the end is :rolleyes:.:haha:

He concludes that you can't discriminate no exceptions. :up:


I will hit Thomas's latter, his is a lot deeper, and makes too many great points for me to go over right now, so perhaps in a day or two.

[-)AO(-Necron99]

Originally posted by Uber_olafsun
You are giving one and advantage over another for just Race. This is what was going on before and it was found to be racists. Why when the shoe is on the other foot is it any different???

I knew no one actually read the post, I said I dont agree with affirmative action and have always said that, I just said that racism was the excepted norm up until AA was implemented and had this not been the case, there would have been no need for it BACK IN THE SEVENTIES.

Its just like all other forms of forced legislation, if people would use their brains on their own an act like responsible adults and respect each other on their own, we wouldnt have the government coming up with programs like this.

[Chronus]

Originally posted by Parmenio
To a) yes you can fight the social factors, it is called hitting the books, go to a library etc.


Simplistic reasoning.

Social factors may lead to youngsters begin work earlier than they should or get into gangs and drugs in order to support a family. I've seen it, you've seen it.

Some can hit the books, others have their lives too difficult to do it.


to b): Yes it does exist. But it isn't even close to the way it used to be, and I have yet to see any in higher education.


You have yet to see it in higher education because AA exists. Otherwise, you'd see it a LOT in the southern states of your country...at the very least.

I've seen a 60 minutes presentation regarding the rise of racism. It's there, it's growing, it's becoming ever more powerful. and it's scary because some people don't even acknowledge it (fear, interests?).




No it isn't necissary. Why, you ask? Well because black people that were prevented in the past don't give a free pass to the current generation. If you use that logic everyone in society has a case, gays, women, blacks, chinese, Italians, Jews, Catholics, etc etc.

No. This issue, this racism is merelly dormant in your country's society. And it is dormant much because there are laws or impositions such as AA that prevent that racism to take over sectors of your society.

The only way to deal with it is to face it and brush aside (not under) those individuals that are stirring racism. Brush them aside or arrest them.

As long as you don't face the hidden enemy, Affirmative Action and other measures remain necessary.

Chronus

[Uber_olafsun]

Originally posted by Chronus
Simplistic reasoning.

Social factors may lead to youngsters begin work earlier than they should or get into gangs and drugs in order to support a family. I've seen it, you've seen it.

Some can hit the books, others have their lives too difficult to do it.


to b): Yes it does exist. But it isn't even close to the way it used to be, and I have yet to see any in higher education.


You have yet to see it in higher education because AA exists. Otherwise, you'd see it a LOT in the southern states of your country...at the very least.

I've seen a 60 minutes presentation regarding the rise of racism. It's there, it's growing, it's becoming ever more powerful. and it's scary because some people don't even acknowledge it (fear, interests?).




No it isn't necissary. Why, you ask? Well because black people that were prevented in the past don't give a free pass to the current generation. If you use that logic everyone in society has a case, gays, women, blacks, chinese, Italians, Jews, Catholics, etc etc.

No. This issue, this racism is merelly dormant in your country's society. And it is dormant much because there are laws or impositions such as AA that prevent that racism to take over sectors of your society.

The only way to deal with it is to face it and brush aside (not under) those individuals that are stirring racism. Brush them aside or arrest them.

As long as you don't face the hidden enemy, Affirmative Action and other measures remain necessary.

Chronus

I thnk the problem is growing because of issues like this. A.A. was necessary and I must concede that in certains states it is still needed. But it may be needed in a way that the law is not written for in others.

The laws intent was to help minorities catch up with white america. That is where I see a problem. I live in an area that is mostly black and I am white. I have been subject to racism and treated very poorly in some places because of it. Yet I would still be at a disadvantage if I applied to a school in the area with this policy in effect. That is discrimnating against me based on skin color. I am sorry if tests and applications are done to get in school and people don't get in. That means work harder next time. You are giving or taking away because of something a person has no control over at all.

Here is an example of how backwards we are in this country. We can have an all black or all women school but then we say that we have to also support them in the other schools. There can not be an all white male school. If there was it would be closed as soon as it opened.

I don't want to come off as a racist or sexist but I think that each person should be judged by the same scale. Test scores and grades. Not who your daddy was or what color your skin is. Welcome to an equal world. You have to compete on the same level playing field.

[Wormboy]

Originally posted by Dreadnaught
I agree. Economics is beginning to really overreach race. If the two (economics and race) are so intertwined, then one who is successful economically has indeed also surmounted a great barrier racially (if they are not white). That said, I've seen a lot of rich kids of color get an extra advantage that poor kids of color don't get.

True, any system will be abused. But back in high school I knew several black middle class kids who still had the deck stacked against them more than I did. Granted, my high school and college admissions experience are way out of date, so there may be a lot more middle class and wealthy black kids getting an edge, and things might not be as tough for them as they used to be.

I think that much of the "racism" ends up being "classism", though perhaps not intentionally so. Either way, making AA more economic based would still have the effect of helping those who are truly working against the odds, and at the same time not give an unfair advantage to the middle and upper class minorities you mention. That would be the major way that I, personally, would tweak AA.

[Wormboy]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Parmenio
*Looks at Wormboy* Again you site conspiracy without facts. There is no massive underground racist agenda to keep minorities out of higher education. Wake up, or tell me one damn school that supported eliminating AA, I haven't heard of one. To me that says that higher learning is as far from racist as you can get, but that's the facts for ya.:rolleyes: Yeah racism exists, no arguments there, but I don't see any (outside of reverse discrimination) in this particular area.

:confused: Generally, speaking, I think most conspiracy theories are garbage/paranoia.

Where did I imply some huge sort of conspiracy in education? I did not, at all. In fact, I think there are more educators in favor of AA than perhaps in any segment of society, though that's just a guess.

Nonetheless, racism is still very widespread IMO. I think it is much milder than it used to be, but is still a factor, and all over the place. Most of the minorities I know in science (and a fair number of the women) have stories of being discouraged from doing science by some teacher, and many times peers and family. Sad.

I'm guessing that you looked at my "institutionalized racism" comment. But if you look at it, it refers to FUNDING of primary and secondary schools. What I mean is this: schools in this country are funded primarily through property taxes (some fed and state funding goes directly to schools, but the lion's share is through regional property taxes). Consequently, the funding level of a school is determined primarily by the tax base it represents. In other words, the wealthy get awesome schools with tons of money, and the poor get crappy schools. This is primarily a classist practice, but effectively it becomes racist as well, since blacks and latinos are very disproportionately under-represented in the middle and (especially) upper class. Also, minorities tend to seggregate themselves in enclaves (a very tough and complicated issue I don't think we should get into here), and the effect of this is that you get black and /or latino schools being funded at a far lower level than white schools.

I lived in berkeley, CA recently, and I volunteered in Oakland schools occasionally. You would be mortified by the state of those schools, and then you would be further appalled at the contrast between them and the mostly white schools in the hills and suburbs IN THE SAME CITY. The contrast in money available is sickening.

So you have a system guaranteed to stack the deck against minorities. It may not be directly intended as such in general (though I damn well bet it used to be), but in practice it is racist.

Of course, I kind of doubt this will ever change. It is mostly the wealthy that become politicians, and none of them are going to change the way dollars are allocated for schools. So you will continue to get stupendous schools in middle-class and wealthy (and predominantly white) neighborhoods, and crappy schools in poor (and predominantly minority) neighborhoods.

P.S. It is true that poor whites (say, in Appalachia) suffer from the same system. so it is not exclusively racist at all.


To the rest of the people, you need to read between the lines. As expected O'Conner was the swing vote, and also as expected she two fisted us. She gave with one hand while trying to take away with the other.

Here is the most important part of Sandra's opinion, and also the majority here: "We expect that 25 years from now, the use of racial preferences will no longer be necissary to further the interest approved today". It is on page 30 just before article IV.

Basically she at least relized that we aren't the same today as we were 25 years ago and that we have made a ton of progress. I am of the opinion that it is time to take the training wheels off and let things go, some will fall but I think that is healthy for everyone involved.

Also the court struck down the undergrad policy of rewarding points "solely" on race. This is huge because it says that giving someone 20 points out of 150 is wrong (you are basically in the school if you get 100 so that accounts for 20% of the score).

I came to the same conclusion here as you did, I think.

Sandra went a little wierd on us for a time too, on about page 10 she refers to the fact that the Law school has some kind of "holistic" way of dealing with race, but the undergrad school doesn't. :rolleyes:

I don't have to tell you that, to me, that reasoning sucks. All the law school does is hide it's quota in some bs, non binding, reasoning (as a law school should know how to follow the letter of the law but not the intent).

Here (http://www.supremecourtus.gov/) is the decisions, I haven't fully finished them yet(only had time for a quick summary but don't worry I will finish them). Gratz is the undergrad, and Grutter is the Law school.

IMO the SC is trying to recognize the value of diversity, and that a school with an agenda of turning out the best possible undergrads OR professionals, has a vested interest in maintaining some racial diveristy. It's trying to maintain some middle ground. To use your metaphor, the training wheels have been taken off, but it is still a one speed bike the 5 year old is riding, not a 15 speed full-size mountain bike.

I think this reflects the gradual change in the amount of racism (and economic inequality) currnetly present in the US. Without a doubt, there is much less racism than there was in the 70s, the last time this issue was addressed. Also without a doubt, there is still some serious racism in this country, and some serious inequities in terms of what kids froom different backgrounds have access to in primary and secondary school. So I think it's entirely appropriate that a more moderate policy be staked out.

I think it's kind of paranoid (conspiracy? LOL j/k) of you to think that the law school will continue some sort of "quota" system. My bet is that after this, any school that can be reasonably accused of having any type of quota will get nailed (and rightly so) by the courts.

What I have no problem with is if you get students who are the same on paper, and one is a minority, then the minority is generally admitted. This does 3 things: 1) it recognizes that minorities, evenm if they have a fair amount of money, still struggle against racism in our society. 2) it recognizes that minorities are still vastly underrrepresented in the sctors of our society with lots of money (the Huxtables notwithstanding), and 3) having more racial and cultural diversity in a school actually churns out students with better educations. This last is pretty controversial, and I remember reading something about it, but it's DAMN HARD to find any sources online with the scads of articles about race and AA. DOH! Anyway, take it as an unsupported assertion.

As a result, I am pretty comfortable with what the court decided. I would have done EXACTLY the same thing if it had been my call. Like I've said many times, if a latino or black is as qualified for the same job as I am, let em have it. They doubtlessly out-achieved me just to get to that place. I'm a gracious loser as well as winner.

[Chronus]

Originally posted by Uber_olafsun
I thnk the problem is growing because of issues like this. A.A. was necessary and I must concede that in certains states it is still needed. But it may be needed in a way that the law is not written for in others.

The laws intent was to help minorities catch up with white america. That is where I see a problem. I live in an area that is mostly black and I am white. I have been subject to racism and treated very poorly in some places because of itI don't want to come off as a racist or sexist but I think that each person should be judged by the same scale. Test scores and grades. Not who your daddy was or what color your skin is. Welcome to an equal world. You have to compete on the same level playing field.

Uber, I am white. I was born in Mozambique, former Portuguese colony.

By 1972, Portugal was in a deep hole: social convulsions, bad economy, a HUGE gap between us and the rest of Europe (socially and economically), and our colonies were starting to be controlled by either the soviets or by the CIA/US State Department.

Although we were the minority, we treated and were treated by black people in a civil way. The UN did a report about racism in Portugal's colonies once, and the conclusions were quite clear: some incidents apart, there was virtually no racism between blacks and whites.

That is...until the Soviet Union and the CIA started intefering with the colonies. What happened then was incredible: blacks being the majority (95%), they started treating whites (portuguese, british, rodesians, south africans, etc) as trash, and started treating indians (people from India who had immigrated to the south of Africa) as enemies.

I know what racism is. My family knows that, as do thousands of other families who had lived in Africa for many generations and never explored the black people. But I also know of black people standing up to defend white people.

Affirmative Action is a measure adopted to fight racism and social-economic problems (a State Department's official's definition). It's far from being a good measure, but it's the only one that can ensure black people the right to apply to colleges without being selected out for their skin or social-economic class.

As for schools not accepting white people and schools being black people only...I didn't know any state or even the federal law allowed that. It's also discriminatory.

But cases such as this or AA don't fuel racism on the part of white people. Those that hate other people on the basis of color don't need any legal proceedings to do it, they don't need disagreements with the law to do it: they just hate people different from them.

One thing that's quite disturbing is these White Supremacism groups appearing and gaining strenght all over the US. Even more disturbing the extent to which they are willing to go in order to sabotage the government (Timothy McVeigh and his ilk).

Chronus

[Wormboy]

Originally posted by Parmenio
I will hit Thomas's latter, his is a lot deeper, and makes too many great points for me to go over right now, so perhaps in a day or two.

The irony of course being that there would be no CLarence Thomas on the SC if not for AA. I remember it all from his confirmation hearings, but I dunno if I can find a source.

1) he wasn't a great student, and almost certainly got into law school based on AA.

2) He wasn't a great jurist either, and the case can be made that his success was largely due to a perception that there needed to be more blacks on the bench.

3) Bush I publicly said that the US needed to have a black SC justice. Many other commentators said the same thing. In fact, I remember commentators saying that if Thomas had been white, he wouldn't have survived the Anita Hill thing, but he got the benefit of the doubt because of a perception of a need for a black SC justice.

Finally, his record as a justice suggests that this is all true: he rarely says a word or questions peoples' presentations, he rarely writes an opinion, they aren't particularly deep or meaningful writings in general etc etc


One could say that this is evidence that AA is BS (and I would actually agree, for the STRONG, quota version of AA). Could be, but I think it's mainly a function of how difficult it was to find a black judge in 1991 who was also VERY conservative :D There are plenty of brilliant black jurists, but predominantly moderate or liberal.

[Uber_olafsun]

Originally posted by Wormboy
[
As a result, I am pretty comfortable with what the court decided. I would have done EXACTLY the same thing if it had been my call. Like I've said many times, if a latino or black is as qualified for the same job as I am, let em have it. They doubtlessly out-achieved me just to get to that place. I'm a gracious loser as well as winner.

Isn't that an assumption based on race? In your own statement you say that it could be the same problme no matter what race you are depending on where you live. Wouldn't it make more sense to help all poor students without regard to race then to say we are only helping these poor ones becasue of skin tone?

[Wormboy]

Originally posted by Uber_olafsun
Here is an example of how backwards we are in this country. We can have an all black or all women school but then we say that we have to also support them in the other schools. There can not be an all white male school. If there was it would be closed as soon as it opened.

I don't want to come off as a racist or sexist but I think that each person should be judged by the same scale. Test scores and grades. Not who your daddy was or what color your skin is. Welcome to an equal world. You have to compete on the same level playing field.

Actually, if there was a school THAT WOULD ALLOW NO WHITE STUDENTS, then it would also be unconstitutional. There is no double standard here. There are plenty of schools that are all-white (I suggest you check out large swaths of the midwest sometime). There are plenty of schools that are all-black. but the point is you can't plan a school to be exclusive (black or white). No double standard.


I'm sympathetic with your experience of racism. But the fact remains that even in a predominantly black community, doubt you had teachers subconciously discouraging you from doing things (because they subconciously think you just plain CAN'T DO THEM). Also, you have only to step outside of your community and the chips will fall your way, including applying to a lot of colleges.

If you see it as a problem, incorporate your experience of reverse-racism in your college admission essay (be careful, of course). The irony is that you could almost certainly turn your (unusual and rare) experience as a white recipient of racism into an enormous advantage.

I don't mean to be insensitive to your situation at all, but you are such a profundly unusual case, IMO, and it almost always it works the other way around.

[Wormboy]

Originally posted by Uber_olafsun
Isn't that an assumption based on race? In your own statement you say that it could be the same problme no matter what race you are depending on where you live. Wouldn't it make more sense to help all poor students without regard to race then to say we are only helping these poor ones becasue of skin tone?

I have clearly stated that I think AA would be best implemented based on income rather than skin color. If I could, I would change the laws accordingly. Given the system we have, I am most comfortable with exactly what was decided.

[Uber_olafsun]

But putting anything like that into an essey would go against my own principles (plus I am done with my college stuff for awhile). Thats why I served in the Air Force. You are supposed to be judged by your own merit. Think of the opening of Full Metal Jacket and the speech about race. He was saying that you were no longer identified by your race. You were identified by what you are becoming. I have been in almost every state in this country and a few others and It sad how different or behind the times each can be.

My father lives in a little town called Dyersville, IA. If your wondering this is the town that the baseball field from Field of Dreams is in. I remember when the first Black guy moved into town and the mixed responses that he got. Some were happy, angry or indifferent. It was a fairly big deal for this town. This is a town that also only had one stop light in it.

My mother lives in Victorville CA. Pretty diverse city consisiting of White Black Mexican Asians etc. At the time there was only one public high school that everyone went to.

Using these I would have to agree that the guy where my dad lives could have some issues with being in the town and getting a job, school etc. But also why should someone who lives where I went to high school in California have an advantage based on race when we all got the same treatment?

[homercles]

Originally posted by Chronus
Affirmative Action is a measure adopted to fight racism and social-economic problems (a State Department's official's definition). It's far from being a good measure, but it's the only one that can ensure black people the right to apply to colleges without being selected out for their skin or social-economic class.

I found this "offical definition" interesting.

IMHO, this is precisely whats wrong with AA, it is only addressing HALF of its offical definition. :confused: At least indirectly that is, as there are no direct implications for poor whites. If AA truly intended to fight socioeconomic problems then any poor folks regardless of race could benefit, but AFAIK this is simply not the case after that big a$$ race sticker was thrown on the damn thing.

Oddly enough, at berkeley when AA was banned the Asian student body got larger while the white one got smaller.

[Chronus]

I have clearly stated that I think AA would be best implemented based on income rather than skin color. If I could, I would change the laws accordingly. Given the system we have, I am most comfortable with exactly what was decided.

A good alternative, indeed. :up:

So, why didn't they think of that? Or is this alternative already inserted in Affirmative Action as it is?

Chronus

[Wormboy]

Originally posted by homercles
Oddly enough, at berkeley when AA was banned the Asian student body got larger while the white one got smaller.

The minority student body got larger than the white student body BEFORE the ban on AA. I don't know if the minority proportion continued toincrease. However, it is immaterial. Most of that is asians, and in many schools in the country (and definitely in CA), asians get no advantage whatsoever in undergrad admissions. The AA effects for Berkeley undergrads were for blacks and Latinos mostly, which are still dramatically under-represented and have actually declined since the ruling.

Also, the areas the UCB administration were most concerned about, like the law school, have actually shown a marked decline in non-white composition since the AA rule.

[Wormboy]

Originally posted by Chronus
A good alternative, indeed. :up:

So, why didn't they think of that? Or is this alternative already inserted in Affirmative Action as it is?

Chronus

Ironically, the SC can't make laws, only interpret pre-exisiting laws (at least that's my impression). So I don't think they could do that.

But before that I would want equity in school funding.

[Ganon]

When a black person gets a seat in college just because he's black, that's discrimination.

[Wormboy]

Originally posted by Ganon
When a black person gets a seat in college just because he's black, that's discrimination.

maybe you missed the point. Even now, nobody "gets a seat" JUST because they are black. And the part that gave them a large edge was tossed out.

I think the application will now be this: all other things (grades, extras, recs, test scores) being equal, the minority applicant will generally get the position.

I have no problem with that, since IMO the vast majority of the time THINGS WEREN'T EQUAL FOR THEIR WHOLE PREVIOUS LIVES.

[Ganon]

Originally posted by Wormboy
maybe you missed the point. Even now, nobody "gets a seat" JUST because they are black. And the part that gave them a large edge was tossed out.

I think the application will now be this: all other things (grades, extras, recs, test scores) being equal, the minority applicant will generally get the position.

I have no problem with that, since IMO the vast majority of the time THINGS WEREN'T EQUAL FOR THEIR WHOLE PREVIOUS LIVES.

Er actually, that second part there is what I was referring to. "Oh, well, they both have equal grades, extra curriculars, and... well, they're pretty much identical! Which one do we choose?" *Affirmative Action Man steps in* "Why, you fool! They aren't identical! One of them deserves to be admitted more! Take a closer look at the photos they sent you!" "Oh, one of them is black!" "That's right! So admit him, and screw the whitey! Ha ha ha!"

[Wormboy]

Hmm, yes, I'm sure that's exactly how it works. :rolleyes:

[Ganon]

Originally posted by Wormboy
Hmm, yes, I'm sure that's exactly how it works. :rolleyes:

Pretty much. At least that's how you said it works now.

[homercles]

Originally posted by Wormboy
The minority student body got larger than the white student body BEFORE the ban on AA. I don't know if the minority proportion continued toincrease. However, it is immaterial. Most of that is asians, and in many schools in the country (and definitely in CA), asians get no advantage whatsoever in undergrad admissions. The AA effects for Berkeley undergrads were for blacks and Latinos mostly, which are still dramatically under-represented and have actually declined since the ruling.

Also, the areas the UCB administration were most concerned about, like the law school, have actually shown a marked decline in non-white composition since the AA rule.

Yes, youre right the minority student body is bigger than the white at berkeley. My first year there the Asian student body ALONE was bigger than the white.

Asians dont tend to get any advantages from AA because they are competing with other asians (visit ANY college campus in teh US to see this--as you know Wormy). However, they are still considered a minority that are surely victims of racism and if there werent so many qualified asians could definately take advantage of AA. If were going to talk about AA we have to include Asians as they (with rare exceptions) also reap the benefits of AA. If i had a nickel for every story about a well-off asian playing up the minority card i would have at least a quarter....:D

My point in bringing up the increase in asians and decrease in whites was to demonstrate that obviously AA was not working. The year following the ban latino and black admisssions dropped, but this was largely due to "protest" by admitted students who decided to go else where (this was also true of Boalt--the law school), as they felt that a school without AA was going to be a hostile environment (source was the Berkeleyan). HOwever, a couple years after the ban black and latino numbers are higher than pre-ban numbers (iirc). Granted the admissions process became profoundly more complicated but the net result was that MORE minorities were admitted AND went to berkeley without the "crutch" of AA.

Additionally, out-reach programs were constructed to get the idea of going to college into the heads of black and latino youth. No need to do so in the white and asian communities as they already had cultural pressure to do so. I hate to harp on this piont, but i wonder if expectations of minority enrollment are unrealistic. WHat exactly constitutes "diversity?" The same number of students from EVERY ethnic group? The problem with this is, as i have said before, education is simply not a culturally enforced goal for blacks and latinos. As an example, berkeley high is considered to be the most integrated high school in the nation (read this in the ebay express), yet less than 5% of all blacks and latinos go on to college while >90% of whites and Asians do. Theyre all receiving the same education yet the end result is totally opposite. I have already covered this in an old thread, plus the follow up with parents/relatives of black and latino students at berkeley, but the conclusion was that education is simply not a goal a large number of blacks and latinos strive for.

[Wormboy]

Like I said, I don't believe asians are getting AA breaks in most of the UC system anymore. they certainly shouldn't be, IMO.


I recommend the recent fils "Real women have curves."

Much danger in basing decisions on social issues on a film (even an independent that isn't usual Hollywood pap). But this film brought up interesting points.

If you are poor, college is not an atractive option. It is something the wealthy do, because they don't need that salary RIGHT NOW.

The only way my father could go to college was the army. If it weren't for that, he would have never afforded it, and would be working some menial job in Nebraska.

If you are poor, you are likely to be uneducated as well, and don't appreciate that a college education can make your kids NOT POOR. Also, if you come from another country, you appreciate this fact less.

Finally, going to college can seem to be playing the game with the oppressor (for those with a paranoid feel). Basically: sucking up to The Man. I've heard this from blacks before.

It's totally true that latino and black cultures don't have educational expectations. Neither do many dirt poor whites, so I think it's an economic culture thing and not a race culture thing.

So, like I said, switch AA to primarily economics, and you will address much of the racism, and also address much of the occasional wealthy or middle class minority exploitation of the system.

[Loki]

Originally posted by Wormboy
So, like I said, switch AA to primarily economics, and you will address much of the racism, and also address much of the occasional wealthy or middle class minority exploitation of the system.

This was tried in Cuba and failed miserably. There are almost no blacks in the government, even though the state gave money to all needy people equally.

[Chronus]

Originally posted by Wormboy
Ironically, the SC can't make laws, only interpret pre-exisiting laws (at least that's my impression). So I don't think they could do that.



Not referring to the Supreme Court. As your system is one where precedents act almost as laws (correct me if i'm wrong), why hasn't any state court come up with this? It could be a major improvement over the existing AA, right?

Chronus

[homercles]

Originally posted by Wormboy
Like I said, I don't believe asians are getting AA breaks in most of the UC system anymore. they certainly shouldn't be, IMO.

I guess i didnt explain very well in my last post. Asians are actually *hindered* by AA in the UC sys. The reason asian admittance went up when AA was banned was because there is literally a "surplus" of well qualified asians. So many in fact, that they didnt really compete with other ethnicities under AA as much as with themselves in the UC sys.

I recommend the recent fils "Real women have curves."

Much danger in basing decisions on social issues on a film (even an independent that isn't usual Hollywood pap). But this film brought up interesting points.

If you are poor, college is not an atractive option. It is something the wealthy do, because they don't need that salary RIGHT NOW.

Yea, i have been thinking about checking out that movie. If youre into indies check out Raising Victor Vargas. :up:

Also, i grew up in a poor environment (i would say upper-lower class) and im quite aware of such pressures. I had to work 30+ hours a week while going to school full-time. But i had a desire to go that sort of hit me after a graduated from HS. :(

If you are poor, you are likely to be uneducated as well, and don't appreciate that a college education can make your kids NOT POOR. Also, if you come from another country, you appreciate this fact less.

From what i have heard this is definately not the case with Asians. WHo when even dirt poor recognize that education can elevate their socioeconomic status.

It's totally true that latino and black cultures don't have educational expectations. Neither do many dirt poor whites, so I think it's an economic culture thing and not a race culture thing.

So, like I said, switch AA to primarily economics, and you will address much of the racism, and also address much of the occasional wealthy or middle class minority exploitation of the system.

Well, this is where we are disagreeing. From what i have read and experienced, blacks and latinos do not have a strong cultural system that supports and encourages education. We do however, agree that basing AA on socioeconomic status is one direction to go. Yet, i have reservations whether this will lead to diversity on college campuses. Its not like AA is a free-ride, its just preferential treatment for admission. Is this sufficient an incentive to change the cultural milieu of blacks and latinos with respect to education? I really dont know, yet i doubt it. What if AA was based exclusively on socioeconomic status and latino and black admissions went down? WHile asian and white admissions went up? What then?

You know what i would really like to see is some data which describes applied verus admitted rates across ethnicity at major universities. Are there equal numbers of blacks and whites applying to colleges while white are accepted 10:1? Or is the application rate more like 10 whites to one black?

[Dreadnaught]

Originally posted by Uber_olafsun
But putting anything like that into an essey would go against my own principles (plus I am done with my college stuff for awhile). Thats why I served in the Air Force. You are supposed to be judged by your own merit.

Actually, one of the most powerful briefs submitted to the court in this case supporting affirmative action came from many branches in the the military. They all said that preserving their ability to create a balanced, diverse officer corps was so important for morale that the status of affirmative action was essentially a matter of national security.

[homercles]

Originally posted by Dreadnaught
Actually, one of the most powerful briefs submitted to the court in this case supporting affirmative action came from many branches in the the military. They all said that preserving their ability to create a balanced, diverse officer corps was so important for morale that the status of affirmative action was essentially a matter of national security.

Sure Dread, thats true. But making soldiers is a far cry from making intellectuals. I saw a piece on 60 minutes about this and it makes complete sense that an army needs to have a completely integrated population. Furthermore, what they didnt tell you is that the army admission statistics differ GREATLY from college admissions--far more minorities in the army.

[Wormboy]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by homercles
I guess i didnt explain very well in my last post. Asians are actually *hindered* by AA in the UC sys. The reason asian admittance went up when AA was banned was because there is literally a "surplus" of well qualified asians. So many in fact, that they didnt really compete with other ethnicities under AA as much as with themselves in the UC sys.

OW! OK, yes, I did misunderstand you.

Yea, i have been thinking about checking out that movie. If youre into indies check out Raising Victor Vargas. :up:

Heard good things about it, I'm sure Ill see it.

Well, this is where we are disagreeing. From what i have read and experienced, blacks and latinos do not have a strong cultural system that supports and encourages education. We do however, agree that basing AA on socioeconomic status is one direction to go. Yet, i have reservations whether this will lead to diversity on college campuses. Its not like AA is a free-ride, its just preferential treatment for admission. Is this sufficient an incentive to change the cultural milieu of blacks and latinos with respect to education? I really dont know, yet i doubt it. What if AA was based exclusively on socioeconomic status and latino and black admissions went down? WHile asian and white admissions went up? What then?

You know what i would really like to see is some data which describes applied verus admitted rates across ethnicity at major universities. Are there equal numbers of blacks and whites applying to colleges while white are accepted 10:1? Or is the application rate more like 10 whites to one black?

I'd like to see this data too.

I think a big part of the picture is also to keep a college education affordable. That's why I started the recent thread on loans and grant decreases in the US. I think it's critical that somebody be able to get a decent college education without going TO FAR into debt. If you come from a poor family, then you know how intimidating a large debt load can really be.

I honestly think the thing with value of education in black and latino cultures will come gradually along with empowerment and a larger middle class. In traditionally oppressed cultures, they need to see what spells success. I think another generation will make a big difference. There are FAR more black and latino role models than there were 20 years ago, and I think another 20 years will see a similar positive shift.

[Uber_olafsun]

Originally posted by Dreadnaught
Actually, one of the most powerful briefs submitted to the court in this case supporting affirmative action came from many branches in the the military. They all said that preserving their ability to create a balanced, diverse officer corps was so important for morale that the status of affirmative action was essentially a matter of national security.

Doh my bad. I meant in the enlisted ranks. Th officers have so much BS they have to deal with its nuts. I think that its hilarious the number of briefings we had to go to about race, culture and everyone being equal then the military says they need it to preserve the integrity of the officers.

As long as there any advantage or disadvantage to a race there will be racism and people to fight it.

Even though we are all part of the human race in various configurations:weird:

[-)AO(-Necron99]

Originally posted by Ganon
Er actually, that second part there is what I was referring to. "Oh, well, they both have equal grades, extra curriculars, and... well, they're pretty much identical! Which one do we choose?" *Affirmative Action Man steps in* "Why, you fool! They aren't identical! One of them deserves to be admitted more! Take a closer look at the photos they sent you!" "Oh, one of them is black!" "That's right! So admit him, and screw the whitey! Ha ha ha!"

Obviously you never heard about life in this country before the mid seventies, it was exactly the opposite of youre sarcastic example, hence affirmative action.:rolleyes:

[TheToadWarrior]

Originally posted by Loki
Nice one. The way to stop an unwritten policy of racism is with a written policy of racism.:confused:

And for your information, benign racism is not working. Minorities are still significantly underrepresented in many important fields. If something doesn't work, how about trying something else instead?

Why must there be X amount of minorities in every field? Could it be thta there just aren't enough minorities in every state to fill that quota or the minorities just don't want those jobs.

It's like a lot of things. There's just some things certain people don't do. Most girls aren't into gaming or at least a lot of genres. I doubt you'll find that many black people into country music...not that there's many intelligent white people into country music either. There's just not much that can be done to change these things aside from forcing it on people which is not productive at all.

All black "stars", so to speak, are sports people, muscians or comedians. That is what young black people are going to aspire to be. THey won't all reach it but that's what they want. It'll just take someone in the computing industry to really stand out. Like a black Bill Gates or Black Miyamoto to want a good majority of blacks to look at computing as cool or something they wanna do.

To be honest, I don't blame people for not wanting to do computing. No other job can screw up y our hands, back and make you fat, like computing does. No wonder American is getting fatter.

At the end of the day there are a lot of jobs that are seen as uncool. A lot of girls, blacks and even whites will not go for them. Some will and yes, maybe more will be white but that more because there's more white people by far.

These things sort themselves out on their own eventually.

[Parmenio]

Originally posted by Chronus
Simplistic reasoning.

Social factors may lead to youngsters begin work earlier than they should or get into gangs and drugs in order to support a family. I've seen it, you've seen it.

Some can hit the books, others have their lives too difficult to do it.

There is nothing simplistic about your reasoning, it is just flat out wrong.

You can say that, but saying it doesn't prove your point, last time I checked a lot of people had crap to deal with, are you telling me that white people don't have crap to deal with?

I know people that have had to work early on to help their family, and they still had time to go to school, if theres a will theres a way.

You have yet to see it in higher education because AA exists. Otherwise, you'd see it a LOT in the southern states of your country...at the very least.

Prove it. You can say that, but frankly I don't believe it, you are giving me a tired unprovable theory. To use a Simpsons analogy:)

Lisa talking to Homer:
Homer: Well that bear tax is working wonders.
Lisa: That's facetious reasoning. By your logic I can claim this rock *picks up a rock* is keeping away tigers.
Homer: Really how does that rock work
Lisa: It doesn't it is just a rock, but you don't see any tigers around do you?
Homer: No I don't. I would like to buy your rock:rolleyes:.

If you still don't get it, your Homer.

I've seen a 60 minutes presentation regarding the rise of racism. It's there, it's growing, it's becoming ever more powerful. and it's scary because some people don't even acknowledge it (fear, interests?).

I think I have seen that same presentation. It is OK to get information on basics from those places, but don't just buy into whatever they are selling.

But I am sure you didn't even get what they were probably talking about, because I think that you misinterpreted it. I have seen stuff about how some white people resent the fact that they are held to a higher standard and they don't like it. (Wormboy and the other guilt ridden whites aside)

But if you are going to tell me that racism is on the rise, fine, give me something concrete, from what I see around me and in the news it is negligable.

No. This issue, this racism is merelly dormant in your country's society. And it is dormant much because there are laws or impositions such as AA that prevent that racism to take over sectors of your society.

Racism is dormant in your society? Don't tell me what is dormant in my society, that is the worst form of armchair psycho bable I have seen. If I knew what society you lived in I could do the same thing to you and yours.

Point is that you don't know jack, how does one quantify this dormant racism, do I just take you word for it?

The only way to deal with it is to face it and brush aside (not under) those individuals that are stirring racism. Brush them aside or arrest them.

Well that is free speach for ya', in this country you can be a blatant racist if you want, and there is nothing you can do. But this new form of dormant racism, well that is deffinatly unquatifiable and unqualifiable, so I am going to vote no for this new opinion police. :confused:

As long as you don't face the hidden enemy, Affirmative Action and other measures remain necessary.

Beside your Gestapo police to root out racism, how does one fight this unconcious dormant enemy?

[Wormboy]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Parmenio
You can say that, but saying it doesn't prove your point, last time I checked a lot of people had crap to deal with, are you telling me that white people don't have crap to deal with?

I know people that have had to work early on to help their family, and they still had time to go to school, if theres a will theres a way.

Well I am American, and I have seena lot of racism. I must admit that it's all anecdotal tho. I'm not sure what figures (if any) would satisfy you. Are you contending that racism isn't a big deal in the US? I'm not clear....

Prove it. You can say that, but frankly I don't believe it, you are giving me a tired unprovable theory. To use a Simpsons analogy:)

Lisa talking to Homer:
Homer: Well that bear tax is working wonders.
Lisa: That's facetious reasoning. By your logic I can claim this rock *picks up a rock* is keeping away tigers.
Homer: Really how does that rock work
Lisa: It doesn't it is just a rock, but you don't see any tigers around do you?
Homer: No I don't. I would like to buy your rock:rolleyes:.

LOL I remember that episode.

But I am sure you didn't even get what they were probably talking about, because I think that you misinterpreted it. I have seen stuff about how some white people resent the fact that they are held to a higher standard and they don't like it. (Wormboy and the other guilt ridden whites aside)


Is that what I am? Hmm, I just thought I was trying to be a fair person (my life's goal, frequently failed).

See, that's insulting. It's kind of funny to hear you accuse somebody else of making assumptions. How in the world could you possibly know what motivates me? The answer: you can't. It's hot air.

I don't have this opinion because of guilt. What have I got to be guilty of? But I (and the rest of my family) have generally worked in areas where we help the community in general--this is called many things: civic mindedness, conscientiousness, etc. I am certainly smart enough to make millions, but I chose to do something more constructive: education and med research. My politics reflect this attitude about one's place in the world.

I see many black and latino peers of mine not having the opportunities I had. That's not fair, and it's based partly (though certainly not exclusively) on their race. The mild AA we have now will never make up for what they grew up with, but a leg up once or twice at key times can make a difference in leveling the playing field. Also, I believe it will ultimately make our society a better place for all parties, which I think is a worthy goal. This pretty much sums up my politcal motivations. Guilt has nothing to do with it. It's called altruism.

But if you are going to tell me that racism is on the rise, fine, give me something concrete, from what I see around me and in the news it is negligable.

I must say my own personal impression is that racism is NOT on the rise, in general (though there may be an increase in hate groups, but they've always been there, and they are arguably much weaker than they were not so long ago when blacks were lynched with some frequency--the last one I remember is a few years ago when two guys in texas chained a black guy to the back of their car and drove off :( But I think these are pretty rare events now)

Racism is dormant in your society? Don't tell me what is dormant in my society, that is the worst form of armchair psycho bable I have seen. If I knew what society you lived in I could do the same thing to you and yours.

Point is that you don't know jack, how does one quantify this dormant racism, do I just take you word for it?

Insults aside, I think some data would be a good idea here.



Well that is free speach for ya', in this country you can be a blatant racist if you want, and there is nothing you can do. But this new form of dormant racism, well that is deffinatly unquatifiable and unqualifiable, so I am going to vote no for this new opinion police. :confused:

Beside your Gestapo police to root out racism, how does one fight this unconcious dormant enemy?

I missed this: who said anything about thought police or gestapo? I think making some strides towards eliminating bigotry in our country through more productive means (like education, economic and physical integration, etc) is the way to go. To make some progress towards both economic and physcial integration, I (and apparently the majority of our SC) think that another 10 or 20 years of a much milder form of AA is appropriate. I would certainly prefer that it be based on more of an economic model, but perhaps that will come soon.

[Parmenio]

Originally posted by Wormboy
Where did I imply some huge sort of conspiracy in education? I did not, at all. In fact, I think there are more educators in favor of AA than perhaps in any segment of society, though that's just a guess.

You seem to espouse what Chronus does, that racism is rampant and or dormant, and that every black has the deck stacked against them when in reality *factually* it is stacked in their favor, AA is a manifestation of that fact.

So when we have actuall laws and policies that favor one as opposed to the other, based on ethnicity, how is the deck stacked against them?

Nonetheless, racism is still very widespread IMO. I think it is much milder than it used to be, but is still a factor, and all over the place. Most of the minorities I know in science (and a fair number of the women) have stories of being discouraged from doing science by some teacher, and many times peers and family. Sad.

This is outlook for you, I can't really refute opinion, but I can give you a dose of reality. Fact is that blacks have more today than ever before, I see less real life barriers than I have ever seen.

I know that racism exists, but I see it in trailer parks and in an extremely fringe minority of the population. I am also sure that some sucessful people are racists, but I also place them in the extreme minority. You see one individual do something *like drag a black man behind his truck*, and then use that individual to say that everyone else must think like him but they just don't show it.

Read my Simpsons analogy, you too seem to be Homer too.

But if you look at it, it refers to FUNDING of primary and secondary schools. What I mean is this: schools in this country are funded primarily through property taxes (some fed and state funding goes directly to schools, but the lion's share is through regional property taxes). Consequently, the funding level of a school is determined primarily by the tax base it represents. In other words, the wealthy get awesome schools with tons of money, and the poor get crappy schools. This is primarily a classist practice, but effectively it becomes racist as well, since blacks and latinos are very disproportionately under-represented in the middle and (especially) upper class. Also, minorities tend to seggregate themselves in enclaves (a very tough and complicated issue I don't think we should get into here), and the effect of this is that you get black and /or latino schools being funded at a far lower level than white schools.

I remember this argument from that last AA thread, but perhaps you should refresh your memory on what I told you in those discusions?

It isn't racist, I told you to call it what it is, classist will work if you want. Also you are showing a blatant disreguard for actual meanings and deffinitions of words, I expect more from someone with a Phd.

Racism is discrimination because of a persons race or ethnicity. That doesn't mean that if a policy has an unintentional *general* byproduct that also effects race, that it is racist. As you said this is about property classes, if a black person lives in a place with high property taxes, and the school forced him to go to a poor school, that would be racist, but the last time I heard there are no laws that prevent blacks from moving into a neighborhood. So how is this racist?

They aren't preventing someone from living in thier hood, they are preventing poor people from living there.

*this is a fair system if you ask me, if this wasn't the case rich people would not send their kids to public school at all, if they were all dropped to the lowest common denominator. I see no problem with a person with means wanting their kid to get the best education that they can. I would wager that the community in a rich place puts more time and effort into their school than poor ones. *

Reality is a b!tch sometimes, deal with it, don't try to equalize everyone, if that is what you want go live in some commy country because you don't get what this country is about.

I lived in berkeley, CA recently, and I volunteered in Oakland schools occasionally. You would be mortified by the state of those schools, and then you would be further appalled at the contrast between them and the mostly white schools in the hills and suburbs IN THE SAME CITY. The contrast in money available is sickening.

I comend the fact that you volunteered, I love it when people stop whinning and pony up. :up:

But you need to take other factors into consideration too, how many of those students have two parent households, how many of their parents place a high value on the education of their kids, how many of their parents actually have a college degree?

None of those eliminate completly in rich places, but I would wager my next paycheck that all of those factors would go in the rich areas favor. Also all of those factors indicate priorities and should exist in a free country, at least IMO. Sucks I know, some good kids will fall through, but that is life for you.

So you have a system guaranteed to stack the deck against minorities. It may not be directly intended as such in general (though I damn well bet it used to be), but in practice it is racist.

No, it stacks the deck against people who are poor. Even in poor areas like those there are ways to get out, there are so many good people out there that would be willing to help out, but they are going to have to try to get after it. If they expect stuff to fall in their lap that is their fault.

Of course, I kind of doubt this will ever change. It is mostly the wealthy that become politicians, and none of them are going to change the way dollars are allocated for schools. So you will continue to get stupendous schools in middle-class and wealthy (and predominantly white) neighborhoods, and crappy schools in poor (and predominantly minority) neighborhoods.

I don't think that it will change either, this is not a socialistic and communistic country. We don't pull all our resources for the benefit of others, but we still let people have a chance.

I went to one of the poorer schools in my area, all things considered I think it was a decent school though, but there is no way that I can had what the rich kids on the other side of town had.

But I have a few friends that went to the worst schools in my state, high crime, high minority %, and all the other crap that goes along with it. One guy is actually a rich white kid, his dad is VP of the company I work for. When he graduated from High school he had 2 years of college credit, and then got his BA in Econ in 2 years of college, and now he is about to start his third year at Harvard Law.

The difference is that his parents placed a high bar for him, he has a mom and dad, and beat the grass for ways to advance in the classroom as opposed to other areas. There is nothing, and I mean nothing that he got that others couldn't have capitalized on that the school provided. *his parents expectations can't be given to another* The opportunity is there, that is all that should be provided.

P.S. It is true that poor whites (say, in Appalachia) suffer from the same system. so it is not exclusively racist at all.

Good at least you are starting to understand it.

IMO the SC is trying to recognize the value of diversity, and that a school with an agenda of turning out the best possible undergrads OR professionals, has a vested interest in maintaining some racial diveristy. It's trying to maintain some middle ground. To use your metaphor, the training wheels have been taken off, but it is still a one speed bike the 5 year old is riding, not a 15 speed full-size mountain bike.

Yeah I know what they were trying to do, but where in the law does it say that diversity should be considered? Or are they just inventing what they want the law to say and do?

If I were African American I would resent the hell out of being compared to a 5 year old. I have heard many a black person (typically they are the ones that don't like AA, but this is one of the reasons) resent the fact that they don't get the respect they think they deserve because of AA. That lack of respect is a by product of the lowered bar (this also discounts the whites that want to give all blacks a big hug as penance for slavery, like you Wormboy).

I think this reflects the gradual change in the amount of racism (and economic inequality) currnetly present in the US. Without a doubt, there is much less racism than there was in the 70s, the last time this issue was addressed. Also without a doubt, there is still some serious racism in this country, and some serious inequities in terms of what kids froom different backgrounds have access to in primary and secondary school. So I think it's entirely appropriate that a more moderate policy be staked out.

I see your reasoning, but I don't see racism as too much of a problem, I just don't. If you really care about school choice, then do you support vouchers? Many a poor minority actually likes that as a way out of the ghetto, but the same guilt ridden whites are the ones that don't want to use that. :confused:

I think it's kind of paranoid (conspiracy? LOL j/k) of you to think that the law school will continue some sort of "quota" system. My bet is that after this, any school that can be reasonably accused of having any type of quota will get nailed (and rightly so) by the courts.

This isn't a "quota" this is "critical mass" slight difference, but similar result. You are like Sandra Day, you think that lowing the bar mechanically is "blatantly" illegal, but lowering the bar "holisticly" is good and should be praised.

I look at the point and the result, you care about the aethetics.

This does 3 things: 1) it recognizes that minorities, evenm if they have a fair amount of money, still struggle against racism in our society. 2) it recognizes that minorities are still vastly underrrepresented in the sctors of our society with lots of money (the Huxtables notwithstanding), and 3) having more racial and cultural diversity in a school actually churns out students with better educations. This last is pretty controversial, and I remember reading something about it, but it's DAMN HARD to find any sources online with the scads of articles about race and AA. DOH! Anyway, take it as an unsupported assertion.

Interesting points.

1) Racism exists, but there is no way that it is needed as much now as in the past, also this isn't qualifiable. What about the blacks that never really experienced it, or didn't let it hold them down? Should that person based on what you expect him to have experienced get the gold ring?

2) The fact that someone is underrepresented is not an indication of racism or something that a capitalistic society should try to correct. If that is so then you should be calling for 50/50 representation in the female dominated Educational degrees, or the male dominated Sciences. I find the equalization argument to be intellectually void, and communistic to boot.

3) Yes you can't qualify this. But if you read Justice Thomas's desent you would have found some of what you are looking for, but it wouldn't agree with you.

If diversity has some form of effect why do we have Historically Black Colleges that have white populations that are under 1% (one was like .1%)? Or does it only benifit whites to enroll blacks and not blacks whites?

Also in the dissent Thomas sited a socialogical brief that concluded that many blacks when they got into the good white schools, they suffered academically. And that blacks that went to HBC's scored better and achieved more than their peers that went to white schools unprepared. It is all right there for you to read.

As a result, I am pretty comfortable with what the court decided. I would have done EXACTLY the same thing if it had been my call. Like I've said many times, if a latino or black is as qualified for the same job as I am, let em have it. They doubtlessly out-achieved me just to get to that place. I'm a gracious loser as well as winner.

I have heard you say that you would give some minority your job, the fair thing to do is let you do that, give someone a decision, tell them that it is between you and this minority, even though you are more qualified. I am sure you aren't in the minority in the fact that you claim you would have no problem (if it was your ability to provide food for your family I would find that as very irrational). :rolleyes:

You are the nut case here, Scalia said that same thing: "The nonminority individuals who are deprived of a legal education, a civil service job, or any job at all by reason of their skin color will surely understand".

Speak for yourself, not me and the other rational people out there.

[Parmenio]

Originally posted by Wormboy
Is that what I am? Hmm, I just thought I was trying to be a fair person (my life's goal, frequently failed).

Wormboy, I was refering to Chronus in that entire post. I have a completely different set of names for you.:p I was going to take you to task, but that is an honest mistake.

[MEGACHIHUAHUA]

Originally posted by LittleFuzzy
And this is different from UC Regents v Bakke how? Lewk, stare decisis is a powerful doctrine for the court, especially with the wing that would otherwise oppose Affirmative Action. The decision isn't a surprise.

Thats the guy who got into med school based on affirmitive action and was so incompetant he killed people, right?

[Wormboy]

Originally posted by Parmenio
You seem to espouse what Chronus does, that racism is rampant and or dormant, and that every black has the deck stacked against them when in reality *factually* it is stacked in their favor, AA is a manifestation of that fact.

I'm confused. rampant and dormant have nearly opposite meanings....

So when we have actuall laws and policies that favor one as opposed to the other, based on ethnicity, how is the deck stacked against them?

Like I said, racism is practically instiutionalized in the way we fund our schools. This harms a lot of poor white as well, but I bet proportion-wise it is a profoundly bigger effect on minorities.

This is outlook for you, I can't really refute opinion, but I can give you a dose of reality. Fact is that blacks have more today than ever before, I see less real life barriers than I have ever seen.

I'm not sure you read my posts carefully. I think that racism has been on the decline steadily since the civil rights movement. I also said I doubt there is a resurgence now. BUT, I still think it exists, tho in a weaker form perhaps.

I know that racism exists, but I see it in trailer parks and in an extremely fringe minority of the population. I am also sure that some sucessful people are racists, but I also place them in the extreme minority. You see one individual do something *like drag a black man behind his truck*, and then use that individual to say that everyone else must think like him but they just don't show it.

Actually, I stated very clearly that these kind of events are MUCH MORE RARE than they used to be, as evidence that racism is less than it used to be. Please re-read my post carefully

Read my Simpsons analogy, you too seem to be Homer too.

Is there a clever Simpsons scenario where Homer doesn't actually hear what was said to him, but is carrying on a debate with himself, based on what he expects to hear? :D Like I said, you are responding to points I didn't make. please re-read.

It isn't racist, I told you to call it what it is, classist will work if you want. Also you are showing a blatant disreguard for actual meanings and deffinitions of words, I expect more from someone with a Phd.

You are now resorting to insults, which is unwarranted, especially from somebody who didn't appear to read my whole post, or who had poor retention of it's meaning (not to mention an insult about word definitions from sombody who has apparently conflated "dormant" and "rampant"). Hence, I won't be responding to any of your posts on this thread after this.


...

Lots more stuff that I didn't even read. You see, when you don't bother to read carefully what somebody says, and then you flame them and fling insults (totally unprovoked, I might add), you cause people not to listen to you. I won't put you on ignore, as that would be childish and I value your future comments on other threads. But since you have been abusive and condescending on this thread, the conversation is over, and I read nothing after the insult. This is called "negative reinforcement." Good day, sir.

[Parmenio]

Originally posted by Wormboy
I'm confused. rampant and dormant have nearly opposite meanings....

Let me clarify, I don't think I did that very well. You think that racism is on the rampage, but it isn't obviously on the rampage (we can't see it), it is sinister and unconcious. Basically the rampage is in the unconcious supresion of our obvious racism.

Neither of you points and says "well this is why racism is such a huge problem", you say well it is a problem, but in the absense of hard core evidence it is there only unconcious or dormant. (meaning that it is there but has only gone into hibernation and we need to have AA because it will come back if that isn't in place, or that the AA is a manifestation of our supressed racism).

That is the conclusion I have seen from what you both seem to espousse. I hope I misinterpreted it.

Like I said, racism is practically instiutionalized in the way we fund our schools. This harms a lot of poor white as well, but I bet proportion-wise it is a profoundly bigger effect on minorities.

I addressed this point in detail, if you found a flaw with that reasoning then point it out. I never said that minorities weren't effected, I said that it isn't racist it is "richist" or whatever. (see I could claim you don't read either, but I don't sulk and walk away, I clarrify and carry on)

I'm not sure you read my posts carefully. I think that racism has been on the decline steadily since the civil rights movement. I also said I doubt there is a resurgence now. BUT, I still think it exists, tho in a weaker form perhaps.

OK you think that racism is less than in the past, but you still think that we have to use the same tactics that we used 25 years ago? Does that let you see my point?

If it is less, then less is needed today, than in the past. You say that racism is less, but then you seem to say that we have to use the same tactics that we used when it was more prevalent. That makes no consistent sense to me.

You are now resorting to insults, which is unwarranted, especially from somebody who didn't appear to read my whole post, or who had poor retention of it's meaning

Insults, what insults, is the fact that I do expect more from you an insult? You are not using words correctly, I pointed that out in detail, if you expect me to tip toe around it, well that just isn't me.

(not to mention an insult about word definitions from sombody who has apparently conflated "dormant" and "rampant").

I see why you were confused, that is why if something doesn't make sense to someone they rebut, and then allow the other party to clarrify. I clarrfied that.

Hence, I won't be responding to any of your posts on this thread after this.

Don't act like a child. The insults are less in this than I have used in the past without someone saying they didn't want to play with me.

I read your post and responed in detail, if I wanted I could accuse you of the same thing, it is a commone occurance in forum discussions. It is all there, if I need to clarrify or I misinterpreted something, tell me. I will go back and recant, if necissary, and or restructure my argument.

Lots more stuff that I didn't even read. You see, when you don't bother to read carefully what somebody says, and then you flame them and fling insults (totally unprovoked, I might add), you cause people not to listen to you. I won't put you on ignore, as that would be childish and I value your future comments on other threads. But since you have been abusive and condescending on this thread, the conversation is over, and I read nothing after the insult. This is called "negative reinforcement." Good day, sir.

:haha: I give you a freebie, when you took what I said to Chornus, and treated it as if I said it, and this is your response?

I don't know what to say, "pot, kettle, black" come to mind, but I don't even think you realize what you did, because you seem to have quit reading the rest of my post, and also didn't see my post right after that. :cool:

Also I don't even insult to insult, I make a point, and then usually toss in some little snide remark for fun. Don't take it personally, I have been called tons of names on this forum, it happens. If someone only insults and doesn't make a point, then I zip past their posts, but I have never been that person.

I will give you some time to cool off, perhaps it is because you are still sick or something, I am patient. :weird:

[Wormboy]

No, you were a jerk, condescending and arrogant through most of your post. I only read the end of your last one. I'll have debates will people, not clever one-upmanship contests. If you can't stay civil, you can tango by yourself.

I used to respond to insults like that by insulting in return. I've decided that is childish. negative reinforcement works much better.

So when people get abusive towards me, I will generally just walk away from now on. Call it what you like. I call it growing up.

[Parmenio]

*bump*I also have to respond, I hate to leave things unsaid.

Originally posted by Wormboy
No, you were a jerk, condescending and arrogant through most of your post. I only read the end of your last one. I'll have debates will people, not clever one-upmanship contests. If you can't stay civil, you can tango by yourself.

How long have you been in this forum, that is all you get one-upmanship, that is called debating. You say something, I disagree, instead of calling you names *although I can call you a name and then proceed to my arguments ;)* I walk you through my reasoning. Then you go, then I go, etc, etc. What the hell is a debate if not making the other guy rethink he efforts, or discredit his efforts by making a fool of him.

I used to respond to insults like that by insulting in return. I've decided that is childish. negative reinforcement works much better.

What insult? Do you want me to tell you a lie, that I think your opinions are well thought out and brilliant? Or do you want the truth, that I find them weak and pooryly reasoned?

So when people get abusive towards me, I will generally just walk away from now on. Call it what you like. I call it growing up.

I will call it "someone sees their points blasted out of the water and can't retort logically, so they decide to try to run away".

The reason I say that is because 1) I have been on these forums longer than you, and have seen real flame wars, 2) I have been called far more and worse things than you and I have yet to quit and go home, unless I get no points to argue with only insults.

What you did was not "growing up" it was childish, and gutless. The adult thing to do is tell me where I was wrong. If your thoughts are not illogical and poorly thought out, respond, and show me how they work, because for the life of me I can't get them.

I haven't been here much lately, but I haven't seen Wormboy. I didn't see this last post of his, so I had to respond in turn, I just can't let someone of his capacity get a last word like this in.

Although if anyone else wants to point out my flawed arguments, feel free.

[Dreadnaught]

He's been gone for almost two months.:weird:

[Lewkowski]

Anyone want to continue the discussion again?



.....

.....



The supreme Court is being stupid and racist? Do you agree or disagree?

[Parmenio]

Originally posted by Dreadnaught
He's been gone for almost two months.:weird:

Yeah , but I didn't see this little pansya$$ shot he left me with. Looking at my last post, I would like someone to attempt to rebut, my post seems so logical and undefeatable..:cool:

Also why did he leave, I remember something he said like "I am sick and don't want to continue here untill I get better" or something like that. Did he just bail, or leave a parting shot (I hope it was something I said:) )

[Dreadnaught]

I think he was working on an article that never seemed to really got finished...