New Scholarship Created For Whites Only
DOOManiac
Worst. Critic. Ever. Join Date: 2002-04-17 Member: 462Members, NS1 Playtester
Worst. Critic. Ever. Join Date: 2002-04-17 Member: 462Members, NS1 Playtester
in Discussions
<div class="IPBDescription">in protest to Affirmative Action</div><a href='http://www.cnn.com/2004/EDUCATION/02/15/whites.only.ap/index.html' target='_blank'>Full story here</a>
snip:
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->BRISTOL, Rhode Island (AP) -- A student group at Roger Williams University is offering a new scholarship for which only white students are eligible, a move they say is designed to protest affirmative action.
The application for the $250 award requires an essay on "why you are proud of your white heritage" and a recent picture to "confirm whiteness."
"Evidence of bleaching will disqualify applicants," says the application, issued by the university's College Republicans.
Jason Mattera, 20, who is president of the College Republicans, said the group is parodying minority scholarships.
"We think that if you want to treat someone according to character and how well they achieve academically, then skin color shouldn't really be an option," he said. "Many people think that coming from a white background you're automatically privileged, you're automatically rich and your parents pay full tuition. That's just not the case." <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I for one am glad this has finally happened. As a college student myself, it pisses me off so much that I can't get any scholarships because I'm not a minority.
So what do you guys think? I think its a pretty important topic, big enough for me to break my "stay the hell away from Discussion Forum" rule anyway. :P
snip:
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->BRISTOL, Rhode Island (AP) -- A student group at Roger Williams University is offering a new scholarship for which only white students are eligible, a move they say is designed to protest affirmative action.
The application for the $250 award requires an essay on "why you are proud of your white heritage" and a recent picture to "confirm whiteness."
"Evidence of bleaching will disqualify applicants," says the application, issued by the university's College Republicans.
Jason Mattera, 20, who is president of the College Republicans, said the group is parodying minority scholarships.
"We think that if you want to treat someone according to character and how well they achieve academically, then skin color shouldn't really be an option," he said. "Many people think that coming from a white background you're automatically privileged, you're automatically rich and your parents pay full tuition. That's just not the case." <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I for one am glad this has finally happened. As a college student myself, it pisses me off so much that I can't get any scholarships because I'm not a minority.
So what do you guys think? I think its a pretty important topic, big enough for me to break my "stay the hell away from Discussion Forum" rule anyway. :P
Comments
2. I find it hypocritical that Mattera, who's protesting scholarships based on minority status, accepted a scholarship based on minority status.
3. There are already scholarships for whites like the Mayflower Descendents scholarship.
I'm aware that they're trying to point out the concept of racism solving racism, but they don't do it in a particularly poignant way. Instead you have a bunch of collegiate level politicos who are clamoring for the coveted "oppressed" title.
Instead of actually searching for a solution that removes the ethnic aspect in favor of more important issues - such as, say, <i>abilities</i> or social status (the one thing that should in my opinion be levelled by affirmative actions) - both sides of the argument have long ago stalled and seem now quite content to label the relative other side as 'racist'.
All they are doing is showing that there are obnoxious jerks in every ethnic group.
Example:
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--><b>SEATTLE, Washington (AP) -- Campus bake sales by conservatives who oppose affirmative-action are cooking up discord -- and complaints about restrictions on free speech. </b>
Organizers charge white students $1 for a cookie, while blacks and other minorities pay 25 to 95 cents. Doughnuts are available for 50 cents to everyone except Asian Americans and whites, who cannot purchase them.
Unfair? So is affirmative action, organizers contend.
"It's a good example of what affirmative action does, judging people based on race," said Jason Chambers, president of the University of Washington College Republicans, which held a sale in October that shut down when some students began attacking the booth.
"People were upset. People did feel offended," said Anthony Rose, president of the UW Black Student Union. "You see something like that, you feel itemized." <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<a href='http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/West/12/24/affirmative.bake.sale.ap/' target='_blank'>CNN link</a>
Or this story from UC Irvine:
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--><b>Bake Sale Allowed to Continue </b>
A member of the College Republicans puts up a menu with prices for donuts in their Affirmative Action bake sale, Feb. 11 as a student passes. by.
Heads turned once again on Feb. 11 as the UCI College Republicans held a bake sale designed to demonstrate their position against Affirmative Action. This sale came after a similar, highly controversial bake sale conducted last September which was stopped by the dean of students following student complaints.
Krispy Kreme donuts were sold at different prices to customers, depending on a combination of one’s race and gender.
The College Republicans were aware that there could have been possible conflict with other groups and individuals this time around, as seen with the events that followed the first bake sale.
In September, individuals angered by the sale got in heated arguments with members of the College Republicans and one student tore down a sign made by the club. Yet, despite the potential controversy, the group felt that they needed to have a second demonstration because of recent studies suggesting that Affirmative Action still occurs within the UC system. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<a href='http://horus.vcsa.uci.edu/article.php?id=1028' target='_blank'>Article link</a>
Considering the philosophical demeanor of most university professors, it's amazing these students actually graduate.
OT: I noticed something special about any UC Irvine students we may have on these forums:
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->UC Berkeley has an average SAT score of 1,337.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> gg <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.natural-selection.org/forums/html//emoticons/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif' /><!--endemo-->
2. I find it hypocritical that Mattera, who's protesting scholarships based on minority status, accepted a scholarship based on minority status.
3. There are already scholarships for whites like the Mayflower Descendents scholarship.
I'm aware that they're trying to point out the concept of racism solving racism, but they don't do it in a particularly poignant way. Instead you have a bunch of collegiate level politicos who are clamoring for the coveted "oppressed" title. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
2. Being white is a minority in America? Since when...?
2. I find it hypocritical that Mattera, who's protesting scholarships based on minority status, accepted a scholarship based on minority status.
3. There are already scholarships for whites like the Mayflower Descendents scholarship.
I'm aware that they're trying to point out the concept of racism solving racism, but they don't do it in a particularly poignant way. Instead you have a bunch of collegiate level politicos who are clamoring for the coveted "oppressed" title. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
2. Being white is a minority in America? Since when...? <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Mattera, who is of Puerto Rican descent, is himself a recipient of a $5,000 scholarship open only to a minority group.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Edit: And being white <b>is</b> actually a minority in America, concidering just Brazil and Mexico have some 300 million people combined. USA and Canada has nothing on the whole America.
2. I find it hypocritical that Mattera, who's protesting scholarships based on minority status, accepted a scholarship based on minority status.
3. There are already scholarships for whites like the Mayflower Descendents scholarship.
I'm aware that they're trying to point out the concept of racism solving racism, but they don't do it in a particularly poignant way. Instead you have a bunch of collegiate level politicos who are clamoring for the coveted "oppressed" title. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
2. Being white is a minority in America? Since when...? <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Mattera, who is of Puerto Rican descent, is himself a recipient of a $5,000 scholarship open only to a minority group.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Edit: And being white <b>is</b> actually a minority in America, concidering just Brazil and Mexico have some 300 million people combined. USA and Canada has nothing on the whole America. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
By America, it's obviously meant USA
And furthermore, Canada + USA > Mexico + Brazil
USA + Canada = 312464757
Mexico + Brazil = 279429725
People don't realize this, but <a href='http://www.nationmaster.com/graph-T/peo_pop' target='_blank'>the USA is the 3rd most populated country in the world.</a>
Maybe I'm just simple minded, but to me any discrimination based on the color of a person's skin, either in their favor or against them, just isn't right. Its just as wrong deny someone something because of their skin color as it is to grant them a benefit because of it. Same goes for a person's gender.
Maybe I just have too simple of a mind to overanalyze apparently obvious things...
Depends on where you live. In Los Angelas whites are currently a minority.
In any case affirmative action is basically government sponsored racism. It usually has the exact opposite effect of its intention: it creates more racism and widens the rich and poor gap.
People get resentful when a certain ethnic group gets hand outs. Furthermore the one's benefiting from affirmative aren't usually poor to begin with.
If you are allowed into a University based on the color of your skin, and not your academic mettle, you will commonly fail and drop out. How does this help anyone?
I agree 100%. "Racism" you say? You bet. But racist people are racist, and you can't force someone to be un-racist, just deter their racist actions. However racism-based-hiring should not be illegalized, why?
Because by being racist you are automatically excluding certain ethnicities, one's that may out perform your current racial preference. For examples asians and Indians are widely known for being highly educated. Do you want to eliminate them as a potential employee? In doing so you give up an advantage over your competitors, and you will probably lose your business.
This is far better than having laws to prevent racism. With legislation, people believe that the government is against them, which only emboldens their racist beliefs. However if their racist actions fail in practice by their OWN accord, they will see the folly in such antiquated thinking.
Additionally, legistlation has a history of prosecuting perfectly UNRACIST companies solely because they hired more men then women, when in fact there were more men than women that applied.
FYI I'm against affirmitive action, but what this guy did just aggravates me to no end.
If you got ****, then you missed the point. The objective WAS to **** people off and see how ludicrous affirmative action is. It's a much more proactive statement then a lot of the rhetoric that comes from both sides of the issue. It was a parody, and like all parodies, it exagerates the idiocies of the original.
It's a system to give blacks a fair shake at something they might not have otherwise. While the point that not all whites have their parents pay for tuition is a valid one, whites weren't systematically kept down both socially and economically for hundreds of years, even for a century after slavery was abolished. Per capita, blacks <i>are</i> poorer than whites.
Schools in impoverished neighborhoods produce students who don't perform as well on tests like the SATs. Blacks are more likely to live in those neighborhoods since rent/mortgage payments are cheaper (we've established that blacks don't make as much). People in poverty are less likely to place a high priority on academic studies, which don't have immediate benefits. Things like jobs, which provide shelter, food and clothing, will take priority.
It's hard to understand systems of poverty without being a sociology student (which I'm not, I just took a few courses). So...
<a href='http://www.understandingprejudice.org/readroom/articles/affirm.htm' target='_blank'>10 Myths About Affirmative Action</a>
The main problem is schools in poor areas, which we've established, one big problem is that the state and local government aren't taking care of things and the national government is ineffective when it comes to education. When the national government gets involved it's like trying to pick up a needle with boxing gloves, it just doesn't work.
Another problem is that students who make it in to the college don't necessarily succeed, throwing a bunch of sub-par students in a harder college doesn't make them better. Many AA students fail and never move on, while some do succeed, which is good, but AA is a rather clumsy approach to solving the problem. The best thing to do is similar to Texas' system, which I believe rewards the top 10 or so students of every school, regardless of where it is and lets them pick a college. (Check this if this doesn't sound right but it is very similar if I'm incorrect.) The whole AA point system is really weird too.
So the way to fix this is to bolster them over any other disadvantaged group, allow them to pass with lower standards into high paying jobs, such as medicine, and then not get hired anyway, because everyone knows they got through on a lower standard than everyone else?
What a brilliant idea.
Although this statement sounds intuitively plausible, the reality is that color-blind policies often put racial minorities at a disadvantage. For instance, all else being equal, color-blind seniority systems tend to protect White workers against job layoffs, because senior employees are usually White (Ezorsky, 1991). Likewise, color-blind college admissions favor White students because of their earlier educational advantages. Unless preexisting inequities are corrected or otherwise taken into account, color-blind policies do not correct racial injustice -- they reinforce it. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Lesson 1: Don't use seniority systems either. They suck too. Choose the best qualified and keep them, choose the least qualified and let them go. (pretty much clears up my take on unions)
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Myth 2: Affirmative action has not succeeded in increasing female and minority representation.
Several studies have documented important gains in racial and gender equality as a direct result of affirmative action (Bowen & Bok, 1998; Murrell & Jones, 1996). For example, according to a report from the U.S. Labor Department, affirmative action has helped 5 million minority members and 6 million White and minority women move up in the workforce ("Reverse Discrimination," 1995). Likewise, a study sponsored by the Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs showed that between 1974 and 1980 federal contractors (who were required to adopt affirmative action goals) added Black and female officials and managers at twice the rate of noncontractors (Citizens' Commission, 1984). There have also been a number of well-publicized cases in which large companies (e.g., AT&T, IBM, Sears Roebuck) increased minority employment as a result of adopting affirmative action policies.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Affirmative Action may have given these people jobs, but the individuals are the ones who advanced their careers, not the AA providers. And I'd like to see something that says none of these people would have been hired without AA.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Myth 3: Affirmative action may have been necessary 30 years ago, but the playing field is fairly level today.
Despite the progress that has been made, the playing field is far from level. Women continue to earn 76 cents for every male dollar (Bowler, 1999). Black people continue to have twice the unemployment rate of White people, twice the rate of infant mortality, and just over half the proportion of people who attend four years or more of college (see Figure 1). In fact, without affirmative action the percentage of Black students at many selective schools would drop to only 2% of the student body (Bowen & Bok, 1998). This would effectively choke off Black access to top universities and severely restrict progress toward racial equality.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
A glorious assumption that all administrators and employers are inherently sexist and rascist. Go team!
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Myth 4: The public doesn't support affirmative action anymore.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Statistics. meh.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Myth 5: A large percentage of White workers will lose out if affirmative action is continued.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Never heard this myth. Displacement, yes. Large percentage, no.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Myth 6: If Jewish people and Asian Americans can rapidly advance economically, African Americans should be able to do the same.
This comparison ignores the unique history of discrimination against Black people in America. As historian Roger Wilkins has pointed out, Blacks have a 375-year history on this continent: 245 involving slavery, 100 involving legalized discrimination, and only 30 involving anything else (Wilkins, 1995). Jews and Asians, on the other hand, are populations that immigrated to North America and included doctors, lawyers, professors, and entrepreneurs among their ranks. Moreover, European Jews are able to function as part of the White majority. To expect Blacks to show the same upward mobility as Jews and Asians is to deny the historical and social reality that Black people face. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
This bit struck me as ethnocentric. Transcontinental railroad anyone? The Irish, the Native Americans, etc. Plenty of cases can be made for them as well. When does the transition end?
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Myth 7: You can't cure discrimination with discrimination.
The problem with this myth is that it uses the same word -- discrimination -- to describe two very different things. Job discrimination is grounded in prejudice and exclusion, whereas affirmative action is an effort to overcome prejudicial treatment through inclusion. The most effective way to cure society of exclusionary practices is to make special efforts at inclusion, which is exactly what affirmative action does. The logic of affirmative action is no different than the logic of treating a nutritional deficiency with vitamin supplements. For a healthy person, high doses of vitamin supplements may be unnecessary or even harmful, but for a person whose system is out of balance, supplements are an efficient way to restore the body's balance. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
"Instead of a policy that makes everyone equal, let's have a policy that makes some people special. But it's not exclusionary or discriminitory." meh.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Myth 8: Affirmative action tends to undermine the self-esteem of women and racial minorities.
Although affirmative action may have this effect in some cases (Heilman, Simon, & Repper, 1987; Steele, 1990), interview studies and public opinion surveys suggest that such reactions are rare (Taylor, 1994). For instance, a 1995 Gallup poll asked employed Blacks and employed White women whether they had ever felt others questioned their abilities because of affirmative action (Roper Center for Public Opinion, 1995d). Nearly 90% of respondents said no (which is understandable -- after all, White men, who have traditionally benefited from preferential hiring, do not feel hampered by self-doubt or a loss in self-esteem). Indeed, in many cases affirmative action may actually raise the self-esteem of women and minorities by providing them with employment and opportunities for advancement. There is also evidence that affirmative action policies increase job satisfaction and organizational commitment among beneficiaries (Graves & Powell, 1994). <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Without reading these referenced texts, I see nothing that states an investigation of actual AA recipients. Only that people were questioned about effects. Funny how that bit was left out.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Myth 9: Affirmative action is nothing more than an attempt at social engineering by liberal Democrats.
In truth, affirmative action programs have spanned nine different presidential administrations -- six Republican and three Democratic. Although the originating document of affirmative action was President Lyndon Johnson's Executive Order 11246, the policy was significantly expanded in 1969 by President Richard Nixon and then Secretary of Labor George Schultz. President George Bush also enthusiastically signed the Civil Rights Act of 1991, which formally endorsed the principle of affirmative action. Thus, affirmative action has traditionally enjoyed the support of Republicans as well as Democrats.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
All true. And most of it took place over 30 years ago. The Civil Rights Act of '91 focussed mostly on people with special needs and the handicapped.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Myth 10: Support for affirmative action means support for preferential selection procedures that favor unqualified candidates over qualified candidates.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Once again leaving the assumption that all adminstrators and employers are inherently bigotted. I just wish they would say what they mean. Why try to hide behind a glass wall.
Have I taken a position yet? Just checking.
If you got ****, then you missed the point. The objective WAS to **** people off and see how ludicrous affirmative action is. It's a much more proactive statement then a lot of the rhetoric that comes from both sides of the issue. It was a parody, and like all parodies, it exagerates the idiocies of the original. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Actually, I got the point. How you assume that I don't is puzzling. My problem is his hypocrisy.
*NOTE* I'm taking a break from discussions as people get a little too crazy over it. Its frankly becomming a very hostile place.
2. I find it hypocritical that Mattera, who's protesting scholarships based on minority status, accepted a scholarship based on minority status.
3. There are already scholarships for whites like the Mayflower Descendents scholarship.
I'm aware that they're trying to point out the concept of racism solving racism, but they don't do it in a particularly poignant way. Instead you have a bunch of collegiate level politicos who are clamoring for the coveted "oppressed" title. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
2. Being white is a minority in America? Since when...? <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Since there are more blacks and hispanics than whites. I think the term minority is a bunch of crap though <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif' /><!--endemo--> <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Could someone please look up the demographics of America please? <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif' /><!--endemo-->
I'd do it, but no time right now
Schools in impoverished neighborhoods produce students who don't perform as well on tests like the SATs. Blacks are more likely to live in those neighborhoods since rent/mortgage payments are cheaper (we've established that blacks don't make as much). People in poverty are less likely to place a high priority on academic studies, which don't have immediate benefits. Things like jobs, which provide shelter, food and clothing, will take priority.
It's hard to understand systems of poverty without being a sociology student (which I'm not, I just took a few courses). So...
<a href='http://www.understandingprejudice.org/readroom/articles/affirm.htm' target='_blank'>10 Myths About Affirmative Action</a> <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Maybe you should explain to me why a black guy from the exact same background as me should have a better chance at getting into a good college.
Maybe you should also explain why a black guy in poverty should have a better chance of getting into a good college than a white guy in poverty.
I'd do it, but no time right now <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
<a href='http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/QTTable?_bm=y&-geo_id=01000US&-qr_name=DEC_2000_SF1_U_QTP5&-ds_name=DEC_2000_SF1_U&-_lang=en&-redoLog=false&-_sse=on' target='_blank'>2000 Census racial demographics</a>
<a href='http://factfinder.census.gov/home/saff/main.html?_lang=en' target='_blank'>Census homepage</a>
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->
WHITE
Total population (all races)
281,421,906
100.0%
White alone or in combination1
216,930,975
77.1%
White alone
211,460,626
75.1%
White in combination1
5,470,349
1.9%
Not White alone or in combination1
64,490,931
22.9%
BLACK OR AFRICAN AMERICAN
Total population (all races)
281,421,906
100.0%
Black or African American alone or in combination1
36,419,434
12.9%
Black or African American alone
34,658,190
12.3%
Black or African American in combination1
1,761,244
0.6%
Not Black or African American alone or in combination1
245,002,472
87.1%
AMERCIAN INDIAN AND ALASKA NATIVE
Total population (all races)
281,421,906
100.0%
American Indian and Alaska Native alone or in combination1
4,119,301
1.5%
American Indian and Alaska Native alone
2,475,956
0.9%
American Indian and Alaska Native in combination1
1,643,345
0.6%
Not American Indian and Alaska Native alone or in combination1
277,302,605
98.5%
ASIAN
Total population (all races)
281,421,906
100.0%
Asian alone or in combination1
11,898,828
4.2%
Asian alone
10,242,998
3.6%
Asian in combination1
1,655,830
0.6%
Not Asian alone or in combination1
269,523,078
95.8%
NATIVE HAWAIIAN AND OTHER PACIFIC ISLANDER
Total population (all races)
281,421,906
100.0%
Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander alone or in combination1
874,414
0.3%
Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander alone
398,835
0.1%
Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander in combination1
475,579
0.2%
Not Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander alone or in combination1
280,547,492
99.7%
SOME OTHER RACE
Total population (all races)
281,421,906
100.0%
Some other race alone or in combination1
18,521,486
6.6%
Some other race alone
15,359,073
5.5%
Some other race in combination1
3,162,413
1.1%
Not Some other race alone or in combination1
262,900,420
93.4%<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Another problem is that students who make it in to the college don't necessarily succeed, throwing a bunch of sub-par students in a harder college doesn't make them better.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The students are "sub-par" because there was never the opportunity for them to be par or better. Local governments in poor areas don't have the resources to improve schools. The money has to come from somewhere.
There are students who get into college without AA that don't succeed as well. My first semester of college I flunked all of my classes, dropped out and joined the Army. I'm aware that an anecdote isn't evidence, but it's just an example.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->So the way to fix this is to bolster them over any other disadvantaged group, allow them to pass with lower standards into high paying jobs, such as medicine, and then not get hired anyway, because everyone knows they got through on a lower standard than everyone else?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
That's not how AA works. It's not against affirmative action to hire a white guy with a masters over a black guy with an associates degree. Affirmative action is a concious effort to include racial minorities and women, who are qualified. High school drop outs aren't going to get into Harvard just because they're black. Once they're in a college or job, it's up to them to succeed within the same standards as others.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Lesson 1: Don't use seniority systems either. They suck too. Choose the best qualified and keep them, choose the least qualified and let them go. (pretty much clears up my take on unions)<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
That completely disregards experience. Somebody with 10 years of experience is more capable of running something than somebody with no experience whatsoever.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Affirmative Action may have given these people jobs, but the individuals are the ones who advanced their careers, not the AA providers. And I'd like to see something that says none of these people would have been hired without AA.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
When AA was implemented, minority hiring went up. Is there any reason to think that the system would have changed on its own? Personnel files don't have "charity case" stamped on them, so determining who wouldn't have been hired is impossible.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->A glorious assumption that all administrators and employers are inherently sexist and rascist. Go team!<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
People are more likely to assist or choose people who are like themselves. Office politics are part of working for a company and it's unlikely that a middle-class, white male is going to relate well to a lower-class, black female. It's not an intentional thing, but it happens none-the-less.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->This bit struck me as ethnocentric. Transcontinental railroad anyone? The Irish, the Native Americans, etc. Plenty of cases can be made for them as well. When does the transition end?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The Irish are white. While there was initial discrimination, that disappeared. American Indians are frequently impoverished and many tribes depend on tourism and casino gambling to support the community.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Maybe you should explain to me why a black guy from the exact same background as me should have a better chance at getting into a good college.
Maybe you should also explain why a black guy in poverty should have a better chance of getting into a good college than a white guy in poverty.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Total meritocracies favor whites. Blacks often have to go to schools that don't have the same resources that predominantly white areas have and consequently produce lower test grades. College degrees are almost required for middle class employment, so how does one get blacks out of poverty without education?
You're looking at AA as an individualistic approach. It's not. It's a social problem. It's to give blacks (and women and other groups) who would normally be passed over a chance at social mobility. AA isn't a system to screw you out of your college slot by handing it over to a bisexual transgender Eskimo. It's about trying to fix significant racial and gender inequalities. In 1999, the median household income for blacks was about $28,000. For whites, the median income was about $42,500. That discrepancy can't be explained away by saying "Oh, they're lazy" or "They should work harder".
More whites graduate from high school and college than any other minority group. It's a problem with society, not any specific individual. Also, this doesn't even begin to scratch the surface of educational problems relating to hispanics.
The system as it is employed is so full of holes that it ceases to be beneficial to anyone. The fact that there are quotas to meet disregards the very idea it is trying to promote, and because of this city offices and universities just hire/enroll minorites rapidly untill their quotas are full and then take NO MORE. Period.
There have been numerous investigations that evnetually debunked the "point" system that was used in universites (although it is replaced only by name with the "margin" system) where people would fill out applicaitons and be awarded points, the nationality section would be worth three times more than SAT scores and essay. Berkly was forced to change this system after a black student brought up the fact that she was not enrolled because they met their quota, and the three consecutive students enrolled before her (also black) all had lower GPAs and test scores.
As long as it is a required system employers will just meet the quotas (whether racist or not) to save time, and if they are racist to avoid promoting any sort of benefit to minorites and avoid breaking the law.
You're looking at AA as an individualistic approach. It's not. It's a social problem. It's to give blacks (and women and other groups) who would normally be passed over a chance at social mobility. AA isn't a system to screw you out of your college slot by handing it over to a bisexual transgender Eskimo. It's about trying to fix significant racial and gender inequalities. In 1999, the median household income for blacks was about $28,000. For whites, the median income was about $42,500. That discrepancy can't be explained away by saying "Oh, they're lazy" or "They should work harder".
More whites graduate from high school and college than any other minority group. It's a problem with society, not any specific individual. Also, this doesn't even begin to scratch the surface of educational problems relating to hispanics. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You missed my point. Suppose my neighbor is black and I'm white. Suppose we went to the same schools all throughout our lives, and have families with the same values and income levels. Suppose we have virtually identical grades, accomplishments, and skills. How do you justify him getting preferential treatment? He isn't going to get 'passed over' any more than I am.
Why on earth do you think we need to get black people out of poverty? We need to get PEOPLE out of poverty, it doesn't matter whether they are black or not.
You seem to be thinking of people only as members of groups. The fact that a black person is impoverished doesn't justify preferential treatment towards a different black person who isn't impoverished. They aren't the same person.
It is racist even to say that being black is a demographic. It's nothing more than a skin color. Black people in urban poverty aren't a different demographic than white people in urban poverty. Affluent black people aren't a different demographic than affluent white people. They shouldn't be treated as separate groups in sociology.
The students that are sub-par are sub-par because they received crummy education from both their parents and their school system. The fault lies with the public education system. The amount of money poured into a school system has almost no correlation with improvement. Class sizes are also irrelevent, this applies to both white and black schools.
" Affirmative action is a concious effort to include racial minorities and women, who are qualified."
And what IS this concious effort? If affirmative action was simply an ideal or laudable goal, then fine. But they FORCE people to use quotas. When this occurs, racism is emboldened.
Of course affirmative action would increase minority hiring, but did they get the job because they performed better than someone else? Generally no. And that is the problem
Do people prefer to work with members of their own race? Of course, but in terms of business, people will hire whoever is best for the job. Companies that like to pick and choose based on race inevitably fail.
Make no mistake, blacks, and hispanics are not poor because of racism, but because of the nature of their culture. Don't try and make me believe that Indians and Asians don't experience the same racism, if not moreso, than blacks do. The secret to their success is no secret at all; they work their **** off, and make sure their kids do too. Stereotyping? Sure, but stereotypes are generally true to an extent.
Affirmative Action's objective, and its emperical result are completly different. First we have to analyze how it's actually implemented. It's not a fuzzy idea but a legislated policy. "You must have x number of minority workers". If the employer would have hired that many minority workers in the first place, then no harm is done and AA has accomplished nothing. However if the quota is not fulfilled, they MUST displace other more qualified workers to do the job. This only CAUSES racism, and even worse, businesses suffer internationally when they have to hire based on quotas, and subsequently fail.
If you explain a system of AA not based on quotas I'd be happy to hear (and summarily discredit it <!--emo&;)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/wink.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink.gif' /><!--endemo--> )