Law School Discussion

Specific Groups => Minority and Non-Traditional Law Students => Topic started by: Jay the Great on March 14, 2005, 11:01:54 AM

Title: Affirmative Action is for people not smart enough to get in without it
Post by: Jay the Great on March 14, 2005, 11:01:54 AM
Should I really feel sorry for you because you're an URM? Honestly. You have the same brain as anybody else don't you? Or are you admitting you're not as good? AA hurts applicants because in reality it's saying "you're black/hispanic/poor/etc therefore you need this little boost in order to get in." Not to mention the fact that for every person who gets in undeservingly from AA, there is another person who deserved it more who was denied in order to make room for you.

If I were black, I would hate AA more than I already do.
Title: Re: Affirmative Action is for people not smart enough to get in without it
Post by: anton on March 14, 2005, 11:08:55 AM
I second.  I'm definitely more deserving because I'm white, have a trust fund, and could afford to spend $5K on LSAT prep.  URM's and the poor should have had the good sense to be born white and rich.
Title: Re: Affirmative Action is for people not smart enough to get in without it
Post by: SleepyGuyYawn on March 14, 2005, 01:27:01 PM
Please nobody respond to this thread.  The author is a troll (somebody who only tries to elicit reactions).  Don't go for it.
Title: Re: Affirmative Action is for people not smart enough to get in without it
Post by: helendemilo on March 14, 2005, 01:29:03 PM
Affirmative Action is for people not smart enough to get in without it...


WHAT!?!?  This is BRAND NEW INFORMATION!!

How come I've never heard anything about this before??

 :o  :o  :o
Title: Re: Affirmative Action is for people not smart enough to get in without it
Post by: Jay the Great on March 14, 2005, 02:40:41 PM
Please nobody respond to this thread.  The author is a troll (somebody who only tries to elicit reactions).  Don't go for it.
I'm not a troll, you female dog. I'm a regular poster on this board and I just started a thread. Unfortunatly, nobody is taking this thread seriously which is a shame really.

Affirmative action is racist against the people it intends to help.
Title: Re: Affirmative Action is for people not smart enough to get in without it
Post by: SleepyGuyYawn on March 14, 2005, 02:43:47 PM
Even if you aren't, your post has a tone that's too incendiary for this topic.  It seems like you just want to start an argument -- not have a genuine discussion. 

And don't call me a b*tch.  It's not nice.
Title: Re: Affirmative Action is for people not smart enough to get in without it
Post by: Jay the Great on March 14, 2005, 02:49:00 PM
I'm just tired of hearing everybody and their mom exploit the AA system. It's out dated anyway. Minorities and the poor now have the same opportunity to attend college and excel as  anybody else. I'm sick of seeing people on this board asking if they apply for AA status because they're gay, or socially different, or their grandfather is half black, etc.


-edit-

Nevermind. I like AA now. I'll just slack off on my gpa and mark the "gay" box on the lsac so I can get into a top law school.
Title: Re: Affirmative Action is for people not smart enough to get in without it
Post by: ryanjm on March 15, 2005, 01:42:37 PM
Dude, read the other threads here about the same thing you're bitching about. Learn from people who've already discusse this topic with a lot more clarity and add something if you have an opinion that hasn't already been said 20 times.
Title: Re: Affirmative Action is for people not smart enough to get in without it
Post by: CounterPoint on March 15, 2005, 01:52:05 PM
I'm just tired of hearing everybody and their mom exploit the AA system. It's out dated anyway. Minorities and the poor now have the same opportunity to attend college and excel as  anybody else. I'm sick of seeing people on this board asking if they apply for AA status because they're gay, or socially different, or their grandfather is half black, etc.


-edit-

Nevermind. I like AA now. I'll just slack off on my gpa and mark the "gay" box on the lsac so I can get into a top law school.

Some people are known to check boxes that don't apply to them, like "hispanic", if they have any relatives by marriage who qualify (apparently if you write some BS addendum and send it to half the schools you apply to it's ethically OK).  Aside from such questionable practices I'm for AA, recognizing it as a necessary evil for the present time.
Title: Re: Affirmative Action is for people not smart enough to get in without it
Post by: Who's Crowdaddy on March 15, 2005, 02:03:43 PM
Your wrong, family connections are for people not smart enough to get in, like Mr. Bush. Affirmative Action is to help groups that don't get a fair shake, have schools with no books, are disadvantaged and marginalized by the power structure. I am not saying the recipients are always the ones that need it most, or that it isn't a flawed system, but clearly, it is not just about intelligence. Intelligence doesn't help everyone overcome institutionalized obstacles. It serves to increase representation of underrepresented groups.
Title: Re: Affirmative Action is for people not smart enough to get in without it
Post by: legallady on March 18, 2005, 08:51:17 AM
Nevermind. I like AA now. I'll just slack off on my gpa and mark the "gay" box on the lsac so I can get into a top law school.

Oh, man! You sure outed me!! I totally spent every night in college drinking and I slept through ALLLL of my classes (and all of my exams!) to graduate in the top 10% of my class. Phi Beta Kappa inducted me because of an error in their files!! All those awards I got? I don't know where they came from!! And the applications for the fellowships I was awarded must have filled THEMSELVES out. You're right, I haven't done a damn thing in my life, but (how lucky is this!?) 50+% of the country thinks I'm less than human, so Harvard Law, here I come!!!!!!
Title: Re: Affirmative Action is for people not smart enough to get in without it
Post by: Xony on March 18, 2005, 09:04:33 AM
Your wrong, family connections are for people not smart enough to get in, like Mr. Bush. Affirmative Action is to help groups that don't get a fair shake, have schools with no books, are disadvantaged and marginalized by the power structure. I am not saying the recipients are always the ones that need it most, or that it isn't a flawed system, but clearly, it is not just about intelligence. Intelligence doesn't help everyone overcome institutionalized obstacles. It serves to increase representation of underrepresented groups.

Ok fine, so if the underpriviledged get an easier time getting into undergrad, it should be fair game after that!  There is no reason for the AA to continue all through life.  AA in special High Schools, AA in College, then AA in law school, then AA in the job field?

Title: Re: Affirmative Action is for people not smart enough to get in without it
Post by: risingMC on March 18, 2005, 09:37:27 AM
Ok fine, so if the underpriviledged get an easier time getting into undergrad, it should be fair game after that!  There is no reason for the AA to continue all through life.  AA in special High Schools, AA in College, then AA in law school, then AA in the job field?

Assuming that AA was created and currently exists soley as a remedy of past inequalities or disadvantages, it would make sense that the "boost" one would get from AA would decrease from high school to college to grad school. However, that's a very big assumption, and completely disregards the simple value of racial diversity. The above assumption doesn't allow for one of the goals of AA to be an increase in the representation of racial/ethnic minorities within certain fields.

PS: This was argued much more eloquently in my initial post, which somehow got deleted. So it might not make sense.

PSS: From one girl to another, Xony, you are really, really pretty.
Title: Re: Affirmative Action is for people not smart enough to get in without it
Post by: Xony on March 18, 2005, 09:44:06 AM
why don't we see AA in the rap or hip hop music business?  why dont' we have AA in the NBA or football?  Those fields seem pretty dominated by african american people.  shouldn't we use the same arguement you have below to improve the diversity in these fields as well?

Or should it be best man gets picked for the job regardless of his race?
Title: Re: Affirmative Action is for people not smart enough to get in without it
Post by: yrbadluck on March 18, 2005, 09:51:02 AM
why don't we see AA in the rap or hip hop music business?  why dont' we have AA in the NBA or football?  Those fields seem pretty dominated by african american people.  shouldn't we use the same arguement you have below to improve the diversity in these fields as well?

Or should it be best man gets picked for the job regardless of his race?

i hope your kidding
Title: Re: Affirmative Action is for people not smart enough to get in without it
Post by: risingMC on March 18, 2005, 09:53:36 AM
why don't we see AA in the rap or hip hop music business?  why dont' we have AA in the NBA or football?  Those fields seem pretty dominated by african american people.  shouldn't we use the same arguement you have below to improve the diversity in these fields as well?

Seriously, what would happen if there was? Then white people and other non-URMs would have another field open to them ... and what? How would society benefit?

AA in the professional field is much, much more different than in the field of sports or music. The impact that the additional of even one black lawyer has on society is so much greater, and many more times greater still is the effect that this one person is going to have on the Black community. For example, take Condi Rice. And imagine belonging to an ethnic group that has never, ever seen themselves represented in such a high level of politics. Now you have someone to look up to, to serve as an inspiration to your friends, family, and community.
Title: Re: Affirmative Action is for people not smart enough to get in without it
Post by: yrbadluck on March 18, 2005, 10:02:42 AM
why don't we see AA in the rap or hip hop music business?  why dont' we have AA in the NBA or football?  Those fields seem pretty dominated by african american people.  shouldn't we use the same arguement you have below to improve the diversity in these fields as well?

Or should it be best man gets picked for the job regardless of his race?


AND... why do you single out african american people which is the focus of the typically neo-con argument.  many other groups of marginalized folk benefit and i dont see you honing in on them.  not to mention the group that has benefitted the most from affirmative action is actually white women. 
ps.  what happened to your cute puppy picture?
Title: Re: Affirmative Action is for people not smart enough to get in without it
Post by: bradzwest on March 18, 2005, 10:18:10 AM
I still think that AA is only effective/appropriate in the earlier tiers of education.  Give children opportunities/health care/good educations...when they are young if you want to truly address inequities.  Who needs more resource an at risk child or a grad student?  A minority in a position to apply to grad school is the exception, they'll find their way regardless of any preferential treatment.  If our goal is too address the problem, give the benefits where they can make a difference.  AA in higher education cheapens the achievements of people of color.  Whether it is valid or not URMs are assumed in many higher education arenas and professions to have had a "leg up."  Does that really help?  Regardless of feelings or politics, as long as AA rewards a minority of the minority....it doesn't work.  Give the advantages to children/family foundations instead of patting ourselves on the back or complaining when a few people receive a perceived benefit that at best maintains the status quo.
Title: Re: Affirmative Action is for people not smart enough to get in without it
Post by: I hear America singing on March 18, 2005, 11:18:08 AM
I can't imagine being in the cultural or racial minority for an extended period of time.  That would be hard enough.  Adding to that the fact that the racial majority once enslaved your people (or had them placed in prison camps, or kept them from voting) and you have a situation where success is not impossible, but all too often improbable.  Even though I grew up white and poor, I still realized that I had more advantages than the black and poor students who sat next to me.  In our society, white skin color is an asset.  It pushes us ahead every minute of our lives, even if we don't notice it.  Five centuries of cultural brainwashing has assured it.

This is why AA exists.  I don't presume to think one can calculate the detriment that racism causes, but I don't think that AA comes anywhere close to bridging the gap.  URM status still does not come close to the advantages I have just for being white.  That said, I think more should be done with AA, especially at the lower levels, when it could do the most good.

As a white person, AA doesn't bother me because it's an external factor I can't control.  My job (and every other applicant, regardless of URM status) is to present the best possible case for why we should be admitted.  If we are successful, and prepared well in the past, we will be rewarded with a spot.  But complaining about AA won't fix your problems- I suggest you take it to the legislative level if you're really intent on changing it.
Title: Re: Affirmative Action is for people not smart enough to get in without it
Post by: DJ-C on March 18, 2005, 11:53:26 AM
AA is absurd, and detrimental to minorities.  Holding different standards for different people is racism.  The only moral way to approach admissions is to hold everyone to the same objective standards.  If you aren't qualified to get into a particular law school, why not just attend a lesser school like everyone else in the same situation?  You are more likely to be successful if you attend a school better suited to your academic credentials.  For a good scholarly read on this subject, check out No Excuses: Closing the Racial Gap in Learning by Abigail Thernstrom & Stephan Thernstrom.  Another great read on the subject is The Quest for Cosmic Justice, by Dr. Thomas Sowell.
Title: Re: Affirmative Action is for people not smart enough to get in without it
Post by: Xony on March 18, 2005, 12:09:36 PM
people, I'm not bashing AA just for the sake of bashing AA.  What I am saying is that it is a non-effective way to achieve whatever equality it tried to achieve.  It aint working, so it's time to think of something else.  It is insulting, I would imagine, to a minority person to be told that they can enter a job/school/whatever only bcs they are a minority..but had they been white, they'd be not good enough.  It's racist against the  majority too.  I had to give up my spot in an elite high school bcs I am white - but some other person who performed worse than me and had a bit more melanin in their skin got in.   It isn't my fault that some person's parents had to work 3 jobs to make ends meet...why should my future suffer bcs of it?  It's the gov't fault...for having horrible welfare laws, pathetic minimum wages, taxing the poor and giving bill gates a tax break!  basicly, it's all the republican's fault  :)
Title: Re: Affirmative Action is for people not smart enough to get in without it
Post by: strouse on March 18, 2005, 12:35:12 PM
AA is demeaning and an insult to those it pretends to help.  (if you don't feel insulted, you should)
Title: Re: Affirmative Action is for people not smart enough to get in without it
Post by: DJ-C on March 18, 2005, 12:38:12 PM
The minimum wage laws are pathetic, they should be abolished.  They do a great job of creating unemployment (see Economics 101.)  The welfare state is horrible, and needs to be drastically reduced.  Bill Gates deserves a bigger tax break (we should encourage great inventors, not punish them) and so do the poor.  This country was founded on the basic idea of individual rights, and we should be working towards that ideal, not against it.  People need to take responsibility, not pass the buck.  And that's exactly what AA does -- it passes the buck.  It says that certain people aren't capable of being responsible for their own lives.  It is highly insulting to suggest that URMs cannot succeed without handouts.
Title: Re: Affirmative Action is for people not smart enough to get in without it
Post by: strouse on March 18, 2005, 12:41:13 PM
I wonder why race has to be used at all?  Wouldn't it be better to just exclude the question entirely?  With no interviews, there is complete equality in Apps.
Title: Re: Affirmative Action is for people not smart enough to get in without it
Post by: yrbadluck on March 18, 2005, 01:04:00 PM
I wonder why race has to be used at all?  Wouldn't it be better to just exclude the question entirely?  With no interviews, there is complete equality in Apps.

actually,  the same system of privilege would present itself in a "non-racialized" app system.   where you live, the schools you attended, issues of legacy, etc.  plus lower standarized test scores are typically reflective of years of preparation and resources not intelligence.  thats why people complain that URM's dont have the scores to get in. 
Title: Re: Affirmative Action is for people not smart enough to get in without it
Post by: Jay the Great on March 19, 2005, 02:15:29 AM
Oh, man! You sure outed me!! I totally spent every night in college drinking and I slept through ALLLL of my classes (and all of my exams!) to graduate in the top 10% of my class. Phi Beta Kappa inducted me because of an error in their files!! All those awards I got? I don't know where they came from!! And the applications for the fellowships I was awarded must have filled THEMSELVES out. You're right, I haven't done a damn thing in my life, but (how lucky is this!?) 50+% of the country thinks I'm less than human, so Harvard Law, here I come!!!!!!
Is that the reason you haven't been accepted to any law schools?
Title: Re: Affirmative Action is for people not smart enough to get in without it
Post by: NJHandyGirl on March 19, 2005, 05:48:44 AM
why don't we see AA in the rap or hip hop music business?  why dont' we have AA in the NBA or football?  Those fields seem pretty dominated by african american people.  shouldn't we use the same arguement you have below to improve the diversity in these fields as well?

Or should it be best man gets picked for the job regardless of his race?

I wasn't going to respond to this thread because quite frankly the entire discussion is getting old. However, this post caught my interest as, the poster is talking about the performers. Who are the owners of the NBA teams or football teams--predominantly non-URM; who owns the record companies--predominantly non-URM. The movie 8-mile, made it seem like Eminem "saved" rap music.

I am not a big fan of AA either. However, AA and programs like it are simply in place because of the lack of a level playing field. It is not just apparent in school or the workplace, it is also apparent in the housing industry and others. When I looked for an apartment in an upscale area of Long Island, despite my 6-figure income and stellar credit, there were times I would arrive to see a place and was not let in to see it. Then, when I decided to buy a house, instead of deal with those attitudes, I had a non-URM realtor take me only to "ghetto" type areas. Houses across from projects and vacant lots. I've never seen a project in my life! I ended up buying a house in a "tony" suburban of NJ, with a quarter acre lot. It made me want to take pictures and send them to all of the jerks I met during the process.

So, whether you like AA or not, programs such as it are necessary in order to prevent the type of discrimination which could be caused, simply by having the wrong person (with the wrong attitude) in charge of the hiring process, or the admissions process or the landlord process.
Title: Re: Affirmative Action is for people not smart enough to get in without it
Post by: I hear America singing on March 19, 2005, 10:18:05 AM
I find it humorous (and slightly pathetic on my part) that most of the people who can defend AA have chosen to leave this thread alone, because they realize that it would simply devolve into a whining fest.

Enjoy yourselves, gentlemen.
Title: Re: Affirmative Action is for people not smart enough to get in without it
Post by: zenbiddie on March 19, 2005, 03:07:35 PM
I still think that AA is only effective/appropriate in the earlier tiers of education.  Give children opportunities/health care/good educations...when they are young if you want to truly address inequities.  Who needs more resource an at risk child or a grad student?  A minority in a position to apply to grad school is the exception, they'll find their way regardless of any preferential treatment.  If our goal is too address the problem, give the benefits where they can make a difference.  AA in higher education cheapens the achievements of people of color.  Whether it is valid or not URMs are assumed in many higher education arenas and professions to have had a "leg up."  Does that really help?  Regardless of feelings or politics, as long as AA rewards a minority of the minority....it doesn't work.  Give the advantages to children/family foundations instead of patting ourselves on the back or complaining when a few people receive a perceived benefit that at best maintains the status quo.

as i stated in a different thread, AA is like a band-aid on gangrene.  it fails to solve the problem (eliminating inequity) and only exacerbates societal tensions.  the concept has outlived its usefulness.  i agree that if the goal is to level the playing field after centuries of systemic oppression then investment in the proper education of children is a critical part of the solution.  quotas and such need not be utilized to properly educate children. 

after all the children are properly educated and workforce ready, i wonder if parity in pay will be an issue.
Title: Re: Affirmative Action is for people not smart enough to get in without it
Post by: BoscoBreaux on March 20, 2005, 01:36:51 PM
The minimum wage laws are pathetic, they should be abolished.  They do a great job of creating unemployment (see Economics 101.)  The welfare state is horrible, and needs to be drastically reduced.  Bill Gates deserves a bigger tax break (we should encourage great inventors, not punish them) and so do the poor.  This country was founded on the basic idea of individual rights, and we should be working towards that ideal, not against it.  People need to take responsibility, not pass the buck.  And that's exactly what AA does -- it passes the buck.  It says that certain people aren't capable of being responsible for their own lives.  It is highly insulting to suggest that URMs cannot succeed without handouts.

Your theory regarding minimum wage increases is interesting--too bad it is wrong. Every time in US history minimum wage was increased, unemployment decreased. The last time miniumum wage was increased, in fact, the largest economic expanision in US history resulted. Any more Rupublican myths left to be dispelled? How about the "raise taxes raise unemployment" myth? The truth is, whether the Government or Enron spends money, it has the exact same effect on the economy--consumption. Whether the government spends the tax proceeds or Enron does, it all has the same effect, except that the Government almost ALWAYS spends/consumes, whereas corporations often times don't--other than hiring Arthur Anderson to concoct more tax evasion schemes involving Cayman Islands banks.  Your economic policies should not be couched with such bad theory--just say you believe some wealthy persons are good and everyone else bad and dispense with the pretense.
The notion that somehow tax policy should "reward" inventors is curious, since many of the rich persons I see, Anna Nicole Smith for one, and the countless "trust fund babies" I know, have invented nothing, but receive the same benefit. (It is the same argument as saying race should matter on an applilcation because of the effects of poverty, and then see Bill Cosby's son--hardly underprivileged--get accepted to Harvard on affirmative action gounds.)
Title: Re: Affirmative Action is for people not smart enough to get in without it
Post by: BoscoBreaux on March 20, 2005, 01:54:33 PM
Should I really feel sorry for you because you're an URM? Honestly. You have the same brain as anybody else don't you? Or are you admitting you're not as good? AA hurts applicants because in reality it's saying "you're black/hispanic/poor/etc therefore you need this little boost in order to get in." Not to mention the fact that for every person who gets in undeservingly from AA, there is another person who deserved it more who was denied in order to make room for you.

If I were black, I would hate AA more than I already do.
I think you could make your point a bit more sharp than that. The problem with academia's brand of "affirmative action," is its use of "affirmative discrimination" as the affirmative action of choice.  I believe that schools should seek students who bring diversity of experience and thought into the classroom.  Few persons, for example, believe that the work experience of classmates can bring depth to discussions about issues that surround law--taxation, contracts, etc. If a school wants to spend months recruiting at every predominantly Black college in America, or wishes to have wealthy donors help out poor Black areas, or even accept a Black person over a White person with similar numbers, then in the service of diversity, that is acceptable, or at least begrudginly tolerable. All are examples of affirmative actions.

But, law schools go beyond that.  Instead, they punish persons because of their race, regardless of whether the individual student is actually less privileged than even the most underprivileged Black candidate available for consideration. In short, in the affirmative action process, Black means poor and underprivileged, White means wealthy and privileged.  So, as far as law schools are concerned, Colin Powell's son (not even considering the legacy admission factor) would be considered underprivileged, but a White kid from a trailer park in Appalachia is privileged. The idiocy of such statements are self-evident. When proponents of Affirmative Action start addressing this point, and opponents of it stop engaging in a condescending instruction about how it is not really good for them, change will occur, eventually.
Title: Re: Affirmative Action is for people not smart enough to get in without it
Post by: Dano on March 21, 2005, 08:28:52 AM
It is insulting, I would imagine, to a minority person to be told that they can enter a job/school/whatever only bcs they are a minority..but had they been white, they'd be not good enough. 

I doubt minorities find this insulting.  Minorities embrace AA.
Title: Re: Affirmative Action is for people not smart enough to get in without it
Post by: NJHandyGirl on March 21, 2005, 08:31:26 AM
It is insulting, I would imagine, to a minority person to be told that they can enter a job/school/whatever only bcs they are a minority..but had they been white, they'd be not good enough. 

I doubt minorities find this insulting.  Minorities embrace AA.

That's a blanket statement and you will find that most of us DO NOT "embrace" AA.
Title: Re: Affirmative Action is for people not smart enough to get in without it
Post by: DJ-C on March 21, 2005, 10:14:02 AM
Quote
Your theory regarding minimum wage increases is interesting--too bad it is wrong. Every time in US history minimum wage was increased, unemployment decreased. The last time miniumum wage was increased, in fact, the largest economic expanision in US history resulted. Any more Rupublican myths left to be dispelled? How about the "raise taxes raise unemployment" myth? The truth is, whether the Government or Enron spends money, it has the exact same effect on the economy--consumption. Whether the government spends the tax proceeds or Enron does, it all has the same effect, except that the Government almost ALWAYS spends/consumes, whereas corporations often times don't--other than hiring Arthur Anderson to concoct more tax evasion schemes involving Cayman Islands banks.  Your economic policies should not be couched with such bad theory--just say you believe some wealthy persons are good and everyone else bad and dispense with the pretense.
The notion that somehow tax policy should "reward" inventors is curious, since many of the rich persons I see, Anna Nicole Smith for one, and the countless "trust fund babies" I know, have invented nothing, but receive the same benefit. (It is the same argument as saying race should matter on an applilcation because of the effects of poverty, and then see Bill Cosby's son--hardly underprivileged--get accepted to Harvard on affirmative action gounds.)
Quote
Hey John Keynes, when prices rise for a given product, the demand for that product decreases.  When the given product is labor, and an artificial price floor is implemented, unemployment occurs (some people aren't worth $6.75 per hour to an employer.)  That is the LAW of supply and demand applied to the minimum wage.  If this action occurs during a bull market, the unempoyment rate may still remain low, but not as low as it would have been in a free market.

*Sorry about the econ discourse in an AA thread.
Title: Re: Affirmative Action is for people not smart enough to get in without it
Post by: DunkinsFan on March 21, 2005, 11:18:55 AM
why don't we see AA in the rap or hip hop music business?  why dont' we have AA in the NBA or football?  Those fields seem pretty dominated by african american people.  shouldn't we use the same arguement you have below to improve the diversity in these fields as well?

Seriously, what would happen if there was? Then white people and other non-URMs would have another field open to them ... and what? How would society benefit?

AA in the professional field is much, much more different than in the field of sports or music. The impact that the additional of even one black lawyer has on society is so much greater, and many more times greater still is the effect that this one person is going to have on the Black community. For example, take Condi Rice. And imagine belonging to an ethnic group that has never, ever seen themselves represented in such a high level of politics. Now you have someone to look up to, to serve as an inspiration to your friends, family, and community.

Ummm.... bad example, IMO!  I don't think Condi ought to serve as a role model for anyone, black or otherwise.  Maybe you meant to say Barak Obama? ;-)
Title: Re: Affirmative Action is for people not smart enough to get in without it
Post by: Xony on March 21, 2005, 11:51:57 AM
there are tons of amazing black people who have achieved awesome things in life.  Condi IS one of them...and trust me, I am NOT a republican.  Barak is of course another..what about that guy who was on the Columbia shuttle, Michael Anderson?  He was amazing!!  So educated, so dedicated..and yet.. unfortunately little black children find it cool to idolize morons like Dennis Rodman..shaquille o'neil..instead of people like Mr. Anderson.

the problem isn't that black people can't achieve great things..the problem is that parents are forced to work retarded hrs just to make ends meet, and the kids are left raising themselves.  and when no one's there to point them in the right direction, they go to the "cool" direction and idolize movie stars and bball players.  Again, I think all our problems stem from our bad welfare system, our embarassingly horribl health care system, and our miserable minimum wage!  (thanks republicans)
Title: Re: Affirmative Action is for people not smart enough to get in without it
Post by: risingMC on March 21, 2005, 12:06:54 PM
Ummm.... bad example, IMO!  I don't think Condi ought to serve as a role model for anyone, black or otherwise.  Maybe you meant to say Barak Obama? ;-)

Well, that's more a matter of personal opinion, me thinks. Barak Obama is probably a better example, but I didn't want to let my liberal-hippie-bias shine through.

You really don't think Condi should be role model, though? Is this even with her politics aside? For reference: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/1561791.stm
Title: Re: Affirmative Action is for people not smart enough to get in without it
Post by: DunkinsFan on March 21, 2005, 12:16:18 PM
Ummm.... bad example, IMO!  I don't think Condi ought to serve as a role model for anyone, black or otherwise.  Maybe you meant to say Barak Obama? ;-)

Well, that's more a matter of personal opinion, me thinks. Barak Obama is probably a better example, but I didn't want to let my liberal-hippie-bias shine through.

You really don't think Condi should be role model, though? Is this even with her politics aside? For reference: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/1561791.stm

No, I really don't think she ought to be a role model.  I don't doubt that she's bright, but I just can't respect her after "That was a historical document" referring to the 8/6/01 Memo: "Bin Laden Determined to Strike Inside U.S." and all of her television appearances making the case for war with Iraq despite any credible evidence.  I also suspect that she was promoted for her loyalty more than her intelligence.  And loyalty at the cost of integrity and intellectual honesty not something I respect.

That said, I'm not terrified of what will happen to our country with her as Sec. of State-- I feel reasonably confident that she will be capable at handling situations like North Korea and others well.  But I woudln't have voted for her.

Oh, and while I'm sure my clash with her politics biases me, I do think that these issues cut deeper than just stances on a particular issues.
Title: Re: Affirmative Action is for people not smart enough to get in without it
Post by: I hear America singing on March 21, 2005, 03:08:43 PM
there are tons of amazing black people who have achieved awesome things in life.  Condi IS one of them...and trust me, I am NOT a republican.  Barak is of course another..what about that guy who was on the Columbia shuttle, Michael Anderson?  He was amazing!!  So educated, so dedicated..and yet.. unfortunately little black children find it cool to idolize morons like Dennis Rodman..shaquille o'neil..instead of people like Mr. Anderson.

the problem isn't that black people can't achieve great things..the problem is that parents are forced to work retarded hrs just to make ends meet, and the kids are left raising themselves.  and when no one's there to point them in the right direction, they go to the "cool" direction and idolize movie stars and bball players.  Again, I think all our problems stem from our bad welfare system, our embarassingly horribl health care system, and our miserable minimum wage!  (thanks republicans)

I can tell you as a high school teacher that white kids aren't any better- they idolize the same people you mentioned.  Can you imagine a world where kids wanted to be like Abraham Lincoln or Martin Luther King, Jr.?

Sigh.
Title: Re: Affirmative Action is for people not smart enough to get in without it
Post by: zenbiddie on March 22, 2005, 07:17:21 AM
the best thing we can do as parents is become role models for our children.  not an easy task but necessary.
Title: Re: Affirmative Action is for people not smart enough to get in without it
Post by: iwantin on March 29, 2005, 12:32:26 PM
I have to agree.  It's NOT fair for URM to get an extra "boost" in the admissions process.  I am a URM.  I did receive this "boost," not soley based on race, but as a result of AA.

However, it is NOT fair for people who come from families with "old money" and can afford the best educations/prep courses to get the advantage over me.  I couldn't afford to take the LSAT; I had to get a fee waiver.  I received fee waivers for ALL of my applications. 

Let's get SOMETHING straight.  AA is NOT soley based on race; it IS based on other circumstances, like socioeconomic status.  My understanding is that a white male living in poverty would benefit from AA just as much as a black woman from a middle class family. 

Think about it...would your experiences as a non-URM be different from others (URM or not) if you lived in poverty?  That's diversity...that's why we need AA.  (Just like one's experiences as a URM are different from the majority.)
Title: Re: Affirmative Action is for people not smart enough to get in without it
Post by: Dano on March 29, 2005, 07:29:40 PM
Let's get SOMETHING straight.  AA is NOT soley based on race; it IS based on other circumstances, like socioeconomic status.  My understanding is that a white male living in poverty would benefit from AA just as much as a black woman from a middle class family. 

I have not seen evidence of this on LSN.  Someone admitted with numbers WAY out of the normal range is almost always hispanic or black.
Title: Re: Affirmative Action is for people not smart enough to get in without it
Post by: iwantin on March 30, 2005, 01:44:09 PM
Oh, I'm sorry.  I wonder how many white people are living in poverty and trying to attend college or are FIRST GENERATION college students?  I think that's the better question to ask.  (That might help to explain why those numbers aren't out there at this point in time.)

I can count on one hand how many people that I know personally who fit the above criteria, and they did NOT have the average test scores/GPAs and received a significant amount of financial aid.
Title: Re: Affirmative Action is for people not smart enough to get in without it
Post by: zenbiddie on March 30, 2005, 01:50:36 PM
socioeconomic factors are def valid.
Title: Re: Affirmative Action is for people not smart enough to get in without it
Post by: Dano on March 30, 2005, 09:45:12 PM
Let's get SOMETHING straight.  AA is NOT soley based on race; it IS based on other circumstances, like socioeconomic status.  My understanding is that a white male living in poverty would benefit from AA just as much as a black woman from a middle class family. 

I have not seen evidence of this on LSN.  Someone admitted with numbers WAY out of the normal range is almost always hispanic or black.

This point would be valid if we could assume LSN to be an accurate demographic representation of the entire law school applicant pool.

So you would assume that lower socioeconomic white candidates are less represented on LSN?  I doubt it.  Refer to http://www.aahperd.org/iejhe/2004/ragon1/Internet%20Use%20Among%20College%20Students%20brAre%20There%20Differences%20By%20Race-ethnicity.htm

where it states the following:

Including households of all income levels, blacks and Hispanics are less than half as likely to use the Internet as whites.
Title: Re: Affirmative Action is for people not smart enough to get in without it
Post by: Ninja on March 30, 2005, 10:02:13 PM
Oh, I'm sorry.  I wonder how many white people are living in poverty and trying to attend college or are FIRST GENERATION college students?  I think that's the better question to ask.  (That might help to explain why those numbers aren't out there at this point in time.)

I can count on one hand how many people that I know personally who fit the above criteria, and they did NOT have the average test scores/GPAs and received a significant amount of financial aid.

Actually there are a lot more white people living under the poverty line than minorities.  I forget what the exact number is, but if you look at the census data, you will find that there are more than twice as many whites living under the poverty line than minorities.
Title: Re: Affirmative Action is for people not smart enough to get in without it
Post by: hilljack on March 30, 2005, 10:06:18 PM
Oh, I'm sorry.  I wonder how many white people are living in poverty and trying to attend college or are FIRST GENERATION college students?  I think that's the better question to ask.  (That might help to explain why those numbers aren't out there at this point in time.)

I can count on one hand how many people that I know personally who fit the above criteria, and they did NOT have the average test scores/GPAs and received a significant amount of financial aid.

Actually there are a lot more white people living under the poverty line than minorities.  I forget what the exact number is, but if you look at the census data, you will find that there are more than twice as many whites living under the poverty line than minorities.

If I am not mistaken, and I am unwilling to actually look up the numbers, there are more whites living under the poverty line than there are blacks period, or at least close.  But lets remember that the poverty line is not the 'poor line.'
Title: Re: Affirmative Action is for people not smart enough to get in without it
Post by: sweatsandtees on March 30, 2005, 10:17:46 PM
Well I must say Xony it seems like the only people that seem to benefit from AA in your eyes are black people. Calm down. Not all black people get in because of AA. Alot of white people do to. And not all Black parents are so poor that they have to work multiple jobs to make ends meet. I'm assuming you're not Black, so please if you don't know, keep your comments to yourself.

Also are we forgetting that many of these law schools reserve the right to choose students that they feel will help diversify their class? And the last time I checked, diversity was not restricted to race. They choose based on diversity in majors, work/life experiences, personal situations and many more factors. The LSAT is hardly an indicator of someone's success in Law School. Look how many people score in the 170's and can bare make a 2.5 let alone a 3.0. You can LEARN how to take the LSAT. That's why not all 180 scorers get into the best schools.

The problem all you AA haters have is that you/your friend/ cousin/mom/sister/etc. didn't get into a law school because you feel like some dumb URM kid took your spot with their low test scores and pathetic GPAs. But you were NEVER guaranteed admission to ANY school and each school has a 25% percentile rank to prove that scores and GPAs are not the sole factors in determining how well a student will do or fit into a law school.

 So if you feel you were so wronged because you had the perfect score and GPA and you got into all the Honor societies you could and joined all the clubs you could fit into your schedule and you still don't know whay you didn't get in, don't blame it on some URM student. Look back at your personal statement, your consistency and participation in extracurricular activities, your work experience, your reccommendation, and the fact that a sh#tload of people with the exact same credentials will be sending in the same application. Now ask yourself why any law school would want to produce a class full of clones.

Title: Re: Affirmative Action is for people not smart enough to get in without it
Post by: hilljack on March 30, 2005, 10:31:31 PM
The problem all you AA haters have is that you/your friend/ cousin/mom/sister/etc. didn't get into a law school because you feel like some dumb URM kid took your spot with their low test scores and pathetic GPAs. But you were NEVER guaranteed admission to ANY school and each school has a 25% percentile rank to prove that scores and GPAs are not the sole factors in determining how well a student will do or fit into a law school.

You lose credibility when you attack the person and not the position they take.

Quote
So if you feel you were so wronged because you had the perfect score and GPA and you got into all the Honor societies you could and joined all the clubs you could fit into your schedule and you still don't know whay you didn't get in, don't blame it on some URM student. Look back at your personal statement, your consistency and participation in extracurricular activities, your work experience, your reccommendation, and the fact that a sh#tload of people with the exact same credentials will be sending in the same application. Now ask yourself why any law school would want to produce a class full of clones.
Quote

I don't feel that using merit alone produces clones.  For example, I will get into a top law school on merit (I am a white man from a barely upper-middle class family) But I am a southerner and a conservative.  I know that this combination is unheard of, I will let it sink in for a second.  Anyway, there are not many people like me in top law schools, I gaurentee that, but that is not why I will get in, for me its numbers, and if it were numbers across the board, we would have a more efficient outcome.
Title: Re: Affirmative Action is for people not smart enough to get in without it
Post by: Dano on March 30, 2005, 10:43:40 PM
Well I must say Xony it seems like the only people that seem to benefit from AA in your eyes are black people. Calm down. Not all black people get in because of AA. Alot of white people do to. And not all Black parents are so poor that they have to work multiple jobs to make ends meet. I'm assuming you're not Black, so please if you don't know, keep your comments to yourself.

Do you have any statistics to prove that many white people get in with AA? 

Why do you make statements about whites when you dismiss Xony's statements about blacks?  Shouldn't you apply your own standard to yourself as well?

Also are we forgetting that many of these law schools reserve the right to choose students that they feel will help diversify their class? And the last time I checked, diversity was not restricted to race. They choose based on diversity in majors, work/life experiences, personal situations and many more factors. The LSAT is hardly an indicator of someone's success in Law School. Look how many people score in the 170's and can bare make a 2.5 let alone a 3.0. You can LEARN how to take the LSAT. That's why not all 180 scorers get into the best schools.

The problem all you AA haters have is that you/your friend/ cousin/mom/sister/etc. didn't get into a law school because you feel like some dumb URM kid took your spot with their low test scores and pathetic GPAs. But you were NEVER guaranteed admission to ANY school and each school has a 25% percentile rank to prove that scores and GPAs are not the sole factors in determining how well a student will do or fit into a law school.

Law schools MAY look for diversity other than race.  However, the spreads from the median seem much higher for URM's (according to LSN data).  Are there any other sources of information you are aware of?

Many whites don't like AA for the same reasons that blacks did not like segregation.  They are both forms of discrimination.

So if you feel you were so wronged because you had the perfect score and GPA and you got into all the Honor societies you could and joined all the clubs you could fit into your schedule and you still don't know whay you didn't get in, don't blame it on some URM student. Look back at your personal statement, your consistency and participation in extracurricular activities, your work experience, your reccommendation, and the fact that a sh#tload of people with the exact same credentials will be sending in the same application. Now ask yourself why any law school would want to produce a class full of clones.

Are you insinuating that all white people are clones coming from the same backgrounds?  Have you ever met or talked to a white person outside of the internet?
Title: Re: Affirmative Action is for people not smart enough to get in without it
Post by: Dano on March 30, 2005, 10:47:30 PM
So you would assume that lower socioeconomic white candidates are less represented on LSN?  I doubt it.  Refer to http://www.aahperd.org/iejhe/2004/ragon1/Internet%20Use%20Among%20College%20Students%20brAre%20There%20Differences%20By%20Race-ethnicity.htm

where it states the following:

Including households of all income levels, blacks and Hispanics are less than half as likely to use the Internet as whites.


Interesting article.  However, I'm not assuming anything.  I'm just saying that I don't think that LSN is a legitimate source from which anyone can legitimately make an argument regarding AA either way. 

Fair enough, but given that blacks and hispanics are 1/2 as likely to use the internet, it  seems less likely that the LSN data is skewed towards more URMs than low socioeconomic whites.
Title: Re: Affirmative Action is for people not smart enough to get in without it
Post by: Ninja on March 31, 2005, 05:24:27 AM
Oh, I'm sorry.  I wonder how many white people are living in poverty and trying to attend college or are FIRST GENERATION college students?  I think that's the better question to ask.  (That might help to explain why those numbers aren't out there at this point in time.)

I can count on one hand how many people that I know personally who fit the above criteria, and they did NOT have the average test scores/GPAs and received a significant amount of financial aid.

Actually there are a lot more white people living under the poverty line than minorities.  I forget what the exact number is, but if you look at the census data, you will find that there are more than twice as many whites living under the poverty line than minorities.

If I am not mistaken, and I am unwilling to actually look up the numbers, there are more whites living under the poverty line than there are blacks period, or at least close.  But lets remember that the poverty line is not the 'poor line.'

I looked at the data, and you are right.  Also, the poverty line is around $12K/year income for a for a person with one child.
Title: Re: Affirmative Action is for people not smart enough to get in without it
Post by: --------- on March 31, 2005, 06:01:00 AM
Oh, I'm sorry.  I wonder how many white people are living in poverty and trying to attend college or are FIRST GENERATION college students?  I think that's the better question to ask.  (That might help to explain why those numbers aren't out there at this point in time.)

I can count on one hand how many people that I know personally who fit the above criteria, and they did NOT have the average test scores/GPAs and received a significant amount of financial aid.

Yeah,hi.

I didn't get a boost in the admissions process.I am a white person w/a very unhappy background.I got a few 1k grants(gee,thanks!). Otherwise, I received nothing special.

I'm also not against AA, although I think the current system has more to do w/quotas than almost anything else. That's sad because I think diversity in the classroom is a great thing, and I agree that a large number of people of color are in worse circumstances than white people are. Even people of color who are in the same econ. area still have the added burden of racism to deal with. That's hard for a lot of white people to understand. Frankly, most white people,myself often included, really only notice racism when it's overt. We don't think about the smaller implications because we don't have to.
Title: Re: Affirmative Action is for people not smart enough to get in without it
Post by: sweatsandtees on March 31, 2005, 06:32:32 AM

Do you have any statistics to prove that many white people get in with AA? 
Quote



--You don't need statistics it is pure numbers. There are more white people in this country thus there are more disadvataged white people in this country. AA is to level the playing field not just for URMs, but  for all disavantaged people. For example, Harvard's free-tuition program for students from families with less than $40K income to me is AA. I personally feel that full-tuition given to anyone solely based on financial need is not cool, and you know that this is not just for URMs either. I know that all people benefit from it, despite their race/ethnicity. There will always be a more "qualified" student who will miss out on something due to AA, but like I said AA is meant to level the playing field not to punish people for not being poor/URM/etc. If a school chooses to increase diversity in whatever form of AA they choose, so be it. The only time people should really take issue is if it's a state school that your taxes are paying for. Otherwise a private institution has and reserves the right to do whatever they want as long as it is in accordance with the law.


Quote
Why do you make statements about whites when you dismiss Xony's statements about blacks?  Shouldn't you apply your own standard to yourself as well?
Quote

--And I never referred to white people in general as having or not having a problem with AA. I addressed all AA haters. I had a problem with Xony assuming that all Black people in a certain situation behave a certain way. I addressed him first but continued on to say how I feel about this argument.


Quote
Law schools MAY look for diversity other than race.  However, the spreads from the median seem much higher for URM's (according to LSN data).  Are there any other sources of information you are aware of?
Quote

--Like another poster said, LSN is hardly a representation of the law school applicant pool. And you can get information about this from many schools, if not all, of their websites.That is why I said that there is a 25% mark in general. Not everyone is a high scorer on the LSAT or has a 4.0 GPA. The full application is what they consider, not just the numbers.


Quote
Many whites don't like AA for the same reasons that blacks did not like segregation.  They are both forms of discrimination.
Quote


Quote
Are you insinuating that all white people are clones coming from the same backgrounds?  Have you ever met or talked to a white person outside of the internet?
Quote

--Never said anything about white people being clones I said some AA haters are clones. And as a matter of fact I have always been in predominately white school and have witnessed white kids getting benefits from affirmative action (i.e. white women getting into engineering schools with less than stellar grades/SAT scores to increase women in engineering). So please don't assume my comments don't have merit. And if what and how people choose to present to the ad comms is the same then that is why I consider them to be clones. Obviously no too human beings live the same life, despite having the same criteria. But if one person makes their situation alot more interesting than the other, who is the other person to think that because they have the same credentials they should be on the auto-admit list?
Title: Re: Affirmative Action is for people not smart enough to get in without it
Post by: sweatsandtees on March 31, 2005, 06:57:20 AM
Quote
You lose credibility when you attack the person and not the position they take.
Quote

--I wasn't attacking Xony with this post. first I dressed that he/she need not assume how all Black people in a certain situation live. After I addressed hinm I continued on with my input to the conversation.


Quote
I don't feel that using merit alone produces clones.  For example, I will get into a top law school on merit (I am a white man from a barely upper-middle class family) But I am a southerner and a conservative.  I know that this combination is unheard of, I will let it sink in for a second.  Anyway, there are not many people like me in top law schools, I gaurentee that, but that is not why I will get in, for me its numbers, and if it were numbers across the board, we would have a more efficient outcome.
Quote

-I can see where you're coming from but think about this. If after a while everyone URM or not has the same test scores and GPAs where then do you start to pick who you should take? I do agree to some extent with another poster when they say that it is probably more about quota than anything else, however wouldn't everyone be a clone then? That is why you have to factor in socioeconomic beckground, extracurriculars, work experience, and what have you. And in your case i doubt that it is all numbers. It is also presentation. I am not from the South nor am I conservative, but I can imagine that you definitely have a very unique perception of the world, considering your background, and I feel that all-around if you presented yourself favorably to whatever ad comms you would get accepted regardless of how your stats compare to others.]

Not to stray, but in my personal statemnt, I honestly addressed the fact that I disliked writing and avoided it for a while, but I then went on to talk about how engineering changed my perception and how technological advancements opened my eyes to the legal needs of may of the technology companies and how I could help. I also had 5 consistent years of extracurriculars, great reccommendations (including a personal one from the Dean of the College of Engineering), and about 2 years worth of work experience through co-ops at companies like Hewlett Packar and Raytheon. I will admit that my scores did fall below the 25% rank of some schools that I was accepted to, but I refuse to discredit my acceptance because of AA. I busted my behind to have a high engineering GPA (for EE) and continuously stayed involved in the community and employed.

Some people may read this and pass it off to AA, but if they never took a look at my numbers or race I am sure almost all the schools I applied to would accept me and I beleive that has been the case for others as well. I beleive that regardless of your scores your personality has to shine first and foremost if you want to get accepted. And to support my claim, there are a few white women (lawyergirl rings a bell) who do NOT have very high stats and still got into some great T1 schools based off of their credentials.

In closing, I don't deny the existence of AA or even the inherent unfairness it sometimes has, but let us not forget that we are all individuals  with unique experiences and if we don't present ourselves that way then we can't expect the ad comms to assume it when evaluating applications. But we muist give proper credit to those who do succesfully.
Title: Re: Affirmative Action is for people not smart enough to get in without it
Post by: Dano on March 31, 2005, 07:30:57 AM
--You don't need statistics it is pure numbers. There are more white people in this country thus there are more disadvataged white people in this country. AA is to level the playing field not just for URMs, but  for all disavantaged people. For example, Harvard's free-tuition program for students from families with less than $40K income to me is AA. I personally feel that full-tuition given to anyone solely based on financial need is not cool, and you know that this is not just for URMs either. I know that all people benefit from it, despite their race/ethnicity. There will always be a more "qualified" student who will miss out on something due to AA, but like I said AA is meant to level the playing field not to punish people for not being poor/URM/etc. If a school chooses to increase diversity in whatever form of AA they choose, so be it. The only time people should really take issue is if it's a state school that your taxes are paying for. Otherwise a private institution has and reserves the right to do whatever they want as long as it is in accordance with the law.

Quote
Law schools MAY look for diversity other than race.  However, the spreads from the median seem much higher for URM's (according to LSN data).  Are there any other sources of information you are aware of?
Quote

--Like another poster said, LSN is hardly a representation of the law school applicant pool. And you can get information about this from many schools, if not all, of their websites.That is why I said that there is a 25% mark in general. Not everyone is a high scorer on the LSAT or has a 4.0 GPA. The full application is what they consider, not just the numbers.


I fail to see how LSN is not an indicator of the bias toward URM's.  What schools have statistics listing race, socioeconic level, and lsat scores for each candidate?  Aggregated numbers are not helpful since they cannot be attributed to particular candidates.  LSN has this information.  Furthermore, as I showed, college-level URM's are less likely to use the internet.  You guys can ignore the LSN data if you want, but you are only kidding yourselves.

Harvard is a definite exception.  Very few schools provide much need-based aid.

The playing field IS level.  Almost everyone receives discrimination at some point in their lives.  Every single white candidate is facing discrimination as we speak when they try to obtain jobs and/or enter law school.  Older people face age discrimination.  Irish Catholics face discrimination from Jewish firms.  American laborers are discriminated against in favor of illegal Mexican laborers.  I can keep going on and on and on.  American computer programmers are discriminated against in favor of H1-B and L-1 Visa holders.  Gays are discriminated against in certain occupations like the military and blue collar-oriented positions.

What makes the hispanic and black populations so special?  Basically, a loud and vocal community that ensures all are aware of their hardships in life.  Another thing.  As you stated, income alone is not a good factor for determing aid.  The COL in many URM communities is less allowing them to live a similar lifestyle to those living in more expensive communities.

URM's have specific organizations that help them obtain employment.  Blacks have specific schools they attend, which have almost all black students.  Where is the diversity there?  They have specific scholarships for them exclusively.  If anything, the playing field is tilted in favor of URM's.

AA actually unevens the playing field for URM's.  When they enter the workplace, many believe they got there without merit even when the URM was an exceptional performer.  Without AA, there would be no question about how someone got there.
Title: Re: Affirmative Action is for people not smart enough to get in without it
Post by: sweatsandtees on March 31, 2005, 08:20:36 AM

Quote
I fail to see how LSN is not an indicator of the bias toward URM's.  What schools have statistics listing race, socioeconic level, and lsat scores for each candidate?  Aggregated numbers are not helpful since they cannot be attributed to particular candidates.  LSN has this information.  Furthermore, as I showed, college-level URM's are less likely to use the internet.  You guys can ignore the LSN data if you want, but you are only kidding yourselves.
Quote

Harvard is a definite exception.  Very few schools provide much need-based aid.

--  Black people use the internet and there are a whole lot of them. Second I am tired of people making this seem like Black people are the only ones who benefit from AA. When you speak of AA don't forget the others who benefit. It is not ALL race biased that is why I brought up the Harvard example. Regardless of it is one school, it is still AA.

And LSN is NOT a good representation. If I did not find and use LSN that does not make me disappear nor does it indicate the lack of my computer savvy. Now put all law school applicants across the world on LSN then talk to me about it. Just because a bunch of non URM kids and a few URMs choose to post their info does by no means represent sh#t about the applicant pool. You're kidding yourself if you thin that all the internet using Black people applying to law school use LSN. And don't let me even go on about how it is the internet and there is no proof as to the validity of any of the information on LSN.


Quote
The playing field IS level.  Almost everyone receives discrimination at some point in their lives.  Every single white candidate is facing discrimination as we speak when they try to obtain jobs and/or enter law school.  Older people face age discrimination.  Irish Catholics face discrimination from Jewish firms.  American laborers are discriminated against in favor of illegal Mexican laborers.  I can keep going on and on and on.  American computer programmers are discriminated against in favor of H1-B and L-1 Visa holders.  Gays are discriminated against in certain occupations like the military and blue collar-oriented positions.

What makes the hispanic and black populations so special?  Basically, a loud and vocal community that ensures all are aware of their hardships in life.  Another thing.  As you stated, income alone is not a good factor for determing aid.  The COL in many URM communities is less allowing them to live a similar lifestyle to those living in more expensive communities.
Quote

--Ther you go again only addressing Blacks and Hispanics. Native American's benefit. Poor people benefit. And Black and Hispanic people do not think that they are "so special" as you say. The Black/Hispanic community doesn't have to say Sh#t about their struggles. Just walk into an impoverished Black/Hospanic community and see for yourself. And not all Black/Hispanic communities have a lower cost of living. Last time I check in Bosotn, Ma, the cost of living in the hood was just the same as it was in Downtown Boston. Just because people make do with what they have does not mean that it is an equivalent lifestyle. And many of your other seemingly racist comments about the Black and Hispanic communities I will not address. Obviously you blame AA way too mcuh for your problems or what you perceive to be your future problems.

Quote
URM's have specific organizations that help them obtain employment.  Blacks have specific schools they attend, which have almost all black students.  Where is the diversity there?  They have specific scholarships for them exclusively.  If anything, the playing field is tilted in favor of URM's.
Quote

--And white people don't? All those secret societies and country clubs where all the members are white and will continue to be white. Where the advantages are just the same. A group that helps to place URMs into the workforce, etc. is hardly lacking a promotion in diversity. Coming form a predominantly white city like Boston, many opportunities are obscured from URMs because we do not have the access to this information. Now if someone works to see to it that we are well informed of what's going on around us that ia hardly lacking in diversity. And just because an organization helps to get URMs work, etc. does not mean that they gaurantee it. Obviously these people need credentials and getting the door opened for an interview hardly means that if a company/school/etc. chooses to hire/admit/etc. URM it is because they are a URM. The playing field is far from level. There are many jobs that URM people apply for and do not get because of the color of their skin, or because of their ethnicities. Obviouly no one in their right mind would admit to that practice, but it still happens. I know classmates dumber than doorknobs with jobs lined up all because of WP so if AA must go, so should WP.

Quote
AA actually unevens the playing field for URM's.  When they enter the workplace, many believe they got there without merit even when the URM was an exceptional performer.  Without AA, there would be no question about how someone got there.
Quote

--Sounds easy in theory but is hardly practical. There are still super racist people in the world and they would defnitely discriminate if they had to in order to keep URMs out of thier companies/schools/etc. I do beleive that AA exists, but I hardly see it as a deciding factor in all URMs entering higher ed or applying for jobs requiring a great deal of qualifications. Some people hate outsourcing because their jobs are being sent to countries like India all to save $$ when qualified workers are here. AA is not discriminating against everyone. If you continue to think that every Black/Latino person that you come across in law school or in life only got their because of AA, but remember that AA doesn't keep people from getting fired/rejected/etc. It is being able to put in the work. AA is no different in that sense if a person is hired with less qualifications becase he/she is the son or daughter of the boss's best friend. You can get in the door, but ultimately you have to attain that and that is what I see URMs doing in higher ed and in the workplace.
Title: Re: Affirmative Action is for people not smart enough to get in without it
Post by: Dano on March 31, 2005, 10:01:07 AM

Quote
I fail to see how LSN is not an indicator of the bias toward URM's.  What schools have statistics listing race, socioeconic level, and lsat scores for each candidate?  Aggregated numbers are not helpful since they cannot be attributed to particular candidates.  LSN has this information.  Furthermore, as I showed, college-level URM's are less likely to use the internet.  You guys can ignore the LSN data if you want, but you are only kidding yourselves.
Quote

Harvard is a definite exception.  Very few schools provide much need-based aid.

--  Black people use the internet and there are a whole lot of them. Second I am tired of people making this seem like Black people are the only ones who benefit from AA. When you speak of AA don't forget the others who benefit. It is not ALL race biased that is why I brought up the Harvard example. Regardless of it is one school, it is still AA.

And LSN is NOT a good representation. If I did not find and use LSN that does not make me disappear nor does it indicate the lack of my computer savvy. Now put all law school applicants across the world on LSN then talk to me about it. Just because a bunch of non URM kids and a few URMs choose to post their info does by no means represent sh#t about the applicant pool. You're kidding yourself if you thin that all the internet using Black people applying to law school use LSN. And don't let me even go on about how it is the internet and there is no proof as to the validity of any of the information on LSN.

Your statements are based on little fact.  I showed a study that demostrates that URM's use the internet 1/2 as much as whites.  You ignore that and continue to argue about whether blacks use the internet or not.  I know they use it, but fewer do relative to the whites making the LSN data more compelling.



Quote
The playing field IS level.  Almost everyone receives discrimination at some point in their lives.  Every single white candidate is facing discrimination as we speak when they try to obtain jobs and/or enter law school.  Older people face age discrimination.  Irish Catholics face discrimination from Jewish firms.  American laborers are discriminated against in favor of illegal Mexican laborers.  I can keep going on and on and on.  American computer programmers are discriminated against in favor of H1-B and L-1 Visa holders.  Gays are discriminated against in certain occupations like the military and blue collar-oriented positions.

What makes the hispanic and black populations so special?  Basically, a loud and vocal community that ensures all are aware of their hardships in life.  Another thing.  As you stated, income alone is not a good factor for determing aid.  The COL in many URM communities is less allowing them to live a similar lifestyle to those living in more expensive communities.
Quote

--Ther you go again only addressing Blacks and Hispanics. Native American's benefit. Poor people benefit. And Black and Hispanic people do not think that they are "so special" as you say. The Black/Hispanic community doesn't have to say Sh#t about their struggles. Just walk into an impoverished Black/Hospanic community and see for yourself. And not all Black/Hispanic communities have a lower cost of living. Last time I check in Bosotn, Ma, the cost of living in the hood was just the same as it was in Downtown Boston. Just because people make do with what they have does not mean that it is an equivalent lifestyle. And many of your other seemingly racist comments about the Black and Hispanic communities I will not address. Obviously you blame AA way too mcuh for your problems or what you perceive to be your future problems.

Quote
URM's have specific organizations that help them obtain employment.  Blacks have specific schools they attend, which have almost all black students.  Where is the diversity there?  They have specific scholarships for them exclusively.  If anything, the playing field is tilted in favor of URM's.
Quote

--And white people don't? All those secret societies and country clubs where all the members are white and will continue to be white. Where the advantages are just the same. A group that helps to place URMs into the workforce, etc. is hardly lacking a promotion in diversity. Coming form a predominantly white city like Boston, many opportunities are obscured from URMs because we do not have the access to this information. Now if someone works to see to it that we are well informed of what's going on around us that ia hardly lacking in diversity. And just because an organization helps to get URMs work, etc. does not mean that they gaurantee it. Obviously these people need credentials and getting the door opened for an interview hardly means that if a company/school/etc. chooses to hire/admit/etc. URM it is because they are a URM. The playing field is far from level. There are many jobs that URM people apply for and do not get because of the color of their skin, or because of their ethnicities. Obviouly no one in their right mind would admit to that practice, but it still happens. I know classmates dumber than doorknobs with jobs lined up all because of WP so if AA must go, so should WP.

Quote
AA actually unevens the playing field for URM's.  When they enter the workplace, many believe they got there without merit even when the URM was an exceptional performer.  Without AA, there would be no question about how someone got there.
Quote

--Sounds easy in theory but is hardly practical. There are still super racist people in the world and they would defnitely discriminate if they had to in order to keep URMs out of thier companies/schools/etc. I do beleive that AA exists, but I hardly see it as a deciding factor in all URMs entering higher ed or applying for jobs requiring a great deal of qualifications. Some people hate outsourcing because their jobs are being sent to countries like India all to save $$ when qualified workers are here. AA is not discriminating against everyone. If you continue to think that every Black/Latino person that you come across in law school or in life only got their because of AA, but remember that AA doesn't keep people from getting fired/rejected/etc. It is being able to put in the work. AA is no different in that sense if a person is hired with less qualifications becase he/she is the son or daughter of the boss's best friend. You can get in the door, but ultimately you have to attain that and that is what I see URMs doing in higher ed and in the workplace.


Of course other groups are part of AA, but listing them all would get exhaustive.  I'll stick to the 2 primary groups benefiting from it.  Native Americans are not represented as well as blacks and hispanics.  They are not constantly whining about their status on the media.  They might whine but their whining is more subdued because their numbers are smaller.

If the cost of the ghetto is the same as better areas of Boston, why are people staying in the ghetto?  I think you're full of it on that one.

There are plenty of super-racist Blacks and Hispanics as well.  I've run into quite a few.  Racism cuts many ways ... all the wrong way. 

I don't continue to believe that every Black and Hispanic got there via AA.  Read my post and you will see that.  I state that AA is a facilitator to that type of sterotyping and have no qualms with URM's that are qualified.

I am equally against nepotism (except for family businesses where it makes sense) as I am against AA.
Title: Re: Affirmative Action is for people not smart enough to get in without it
Post by: sweatsandtees on March 31, 2005, 11:26:48 AM

Of course other groups are part of AA, but listing them all would get exhaustive.  I'll stick to the 2 primary groups benefiting from it.  Native Americans are not represented as well as blacks and hispanics.  They are not constantly whining about their status on the media.  They might whine but their whining is more subdued because their numbers are smaller.
Quote

--A few Black or Hispanic people whining is hardly enough to say that the masses whine. And I do recall a great deal of white people whining about AA.....

Quote
If the cost of the ghetto is the same as better areas of Boston, why are people staying in the ghetto?  I think you're full of it on that one.
Quote

--There is a huge housing crunch in Boston. Alot of elderly people and older families uprooted in Boston have been living in the same places form decades and they happen to be the places where most people (esp. college students) want to live. This then causes the price of rent and housing to increase due to the demand. My father is in real estate in MA so I am not full of it. I know exactly what I am talking about. If you look into some of the poorest neighborhoods you either have people of all nationalities and ages living in subsidized housing (an option many landlords like because at lead 80% of the rent is guaranteed and paid by the state), or they are living in sh*tholes that cost $700+ per person and to top it off they share 1 bathroom.

Quote
There are plenty of super-racist Blacks and Hispanics as well.  I've run into quite a few.  Racism cuts many ways ... all the wrong way.
Quote

--I wonder why they are super racist??? 

Quote
I don't continue to believe that every Black and Hispanic got there via AA.  Read my post and you will see that.  I state that AA is a facilitator to that type of sterotyping and have no qualms with URM's that are qualified.
Quote

--If you have no qualms, please don't generalize about Black and Latino people. I agree that there are plenty of URMs who are against AA, but like I will always say it comes in many forms so if people are that ignorant to beleive that someone is where they are because of AA with no facts to base it on, then let them stay ignorant. The world will keep passing them by. I do think that as the gap in education and opportunity closes we will get closer to an end of AA. But you have to admit that AA's intentions were never to reverse discriminate or to give preferential treatment. That is why I feel like many people who do not get what they think that deserve are so quick to assume AA if a URM got what they wanted instead. I am not saying that you are racist or that you are wrong in your disapproval of AA, however, you do need to realize like with anything given a bad reputation, the positive aspects of AA will be far outweighed by the perceived negative aspects. I hardly beleive that underqualified people of color have stormed into higher education or into the workforce only because of their color. It can be argued that the entire process of selection is like AA. Why choose one thing over another if they are both identical?? In the real world all selection is based on several criteria that some may see as fair and others not.

And just a question to ponder: Had AA not been a whole publicized program, would you guess that the URM candidate that got the job or got acceptance to a certain school because of race?? I personally think not. Media has made a big deal out of AA like it is something that will ruin the country. There are hardly enough Black people in the US, let alone qualified enough, to benefit from AA to take all the jobs from white people.

As for your comment on Black and the internet again, There is a significantly smaller number of Black people in the US and an even smaller amount who use the internet. FIne. But to say that the fact that half of Black people use the internet than white people still does not make LSN an accurate depiction of the pool of Black applicants for law school, let alone all applicants, and thus boggles my mind that you find that data compelling. There is no correlation between the use of the internet and the accuracy of LSN. Some guy started LSN so people could have a place to compare and contrast their #'s stats, etc. I am 100% certain that he doesn't run background checks to validate all users. Even some of the non URM iusers of LSN alter or withold information about themselves. But if you feel that Black people are accurately depicted by LSN, keep on beleiving that. But do remember that there are so many unclassified and incorrectly classified people on LSN.


Quote
I am equally against nepotism (except for family businesses where it makes sense) as I am against AA.
Quote

--Well Dano, nice to know we agree on something ;)

I truly enjoy this debate and I definitely hope you're not getting all fired up about it. I respect your opinions and I appreciate your rebuttal skills. You will make a fine lawyer Dano!!
Title: Re: Affirmative Action is for people not smart enough to get in without it
Post by: angmill08 on March 31, 2005, 12:21:03 PM
Almost everyone receives discrimination at some point in their lives.  Every single white candidate is facing discrimination as we speak when they try to obtain jobs and/or enter law school.  Older people face age discrimination.  Irish Catholics face discrimination from Jewish firms.  American laborers are discriminated against in favor of illegal Mexican laborers.  I can keep going on and on and on.  American computer programmers are discriminated against in favor of H1-B and L-1 Visa holders.  Gays are discriminated against in certain occupations like the military and blue collar-oriented positions.

Most of these groups have not demonstrated a pattern of discrimination spanning generations which has led to an ongoing underrepresentation of members of said group in the field you mention. This is the crucial distinction that makes AA different from, say, Jim Crow segregation. Both are systems which take race into account, yes, and some people have a problem with that, period. But these two systems do not have the same causes or the same effects.

Now for some of the groups you mention -- gays in the military, for one -- there is a documented, long term pattern of discrimination which has led to an ongoing underrepresentation. Why has AA not been implemented there? Well, the gay rights movement didn't reach the national stage until the 1970s. The civil rights movement reached the national stage in the early 1960s... some might say much earlier, if you include the abolition movement... But if more and more GLBTs desire military careers and advocate for the right to pursue that, I predict that over the next 20 years we'll see a change in military policy (becoming fully open to GLBTs) or, in the absence of that, some kind of policy mandate, like AA.
Title: Re: Affirmative Action is for people not smart enough to get in without it
Post by: Dano on March 31, 2005, 02:43:42 PM
There are plenty of super-racist Blacks and Hispanics as well.  I've run into quite a few.  Racism cuts many ways ... all the wrong way.

--I wonder why they are super racist??? 

Because they are ignorant bigots.  Maybe they think that all white people have screwed them somehow and they are going to get ahead by hating all of them.  A similar pattern occurs with all racists.

--If you have no qualms, please don't generalize about Black and Latino people. I agree that there are plenty of URMs who are against AA, but like I will always say it comes in many forms so if people are that ignorant to beleive that someone is where they are because of AA with no facts to base it on, then let them stay ignorant. The world will keep passing them by. I do think that as the gap in education and opportunity closes we will get closer to an end of AA. But you have to admit that AA's intentions were never to reverse discriminate or to give preferential treatment.

AA (particularly as it relates to law school entrance) is implicitly discriminatory.  Not seeing that was a major oversight.  I believe that the educational gap has been closed (or at least access to it).  There are also major cultural reasons for certain groups remaining behind in these areas.  AA will never change that.  Poverty is the primary reason for deficiencies in these areas anyway.  Yet, AA (as it is practiced) does not focus on  socioeconomic factors.  Race is the primary factor.  That is where we primarily disagree.

As for your comment on Black and the internet again, There is a significantly smaller number of Black people in the US and an even smaller amount who use the internet. FIne. But to say that the fact that half of Black people use the internet than white people still does not make LSN an accurate depiction of the pool of Black applicants for law school, let alone all applicants, and thus boggles my mind that you find that data compelling. There is no correlation between the use of the internet and the accuracy of LSN. Some guy started LSN so people could have a place to compare and contrast their #'s stats, etc. I am 100% certain that he doesn't run background checks to validate all users. Even some of the non URM iusers of LSN alter or withold information about themselves. But if you feel that Black people are accurately depicted by LSN, keep on beleiving that. But do remember that there are so many unclassified and incorrectly classified people on LSN.

Again, we will have to disagree on this.  I think LSN is a useful tool and see no reason for people in general to materially misrepresent their numbers.  Maybe change them slightly so that adcoms cannot guess who they are, but overall I believe the numbers stated on the site are probably reasonably accurate.  Even small attempts at transparency is a good thing.

I am equally against nepotism (except for family businesses where it makes sense) as I am against AA.

--Well Dano, nice to know we agree on something ;)

I truly enjoy this debate and I definitely hope you're not getting all fired up about it. I respect your opinions and I appreciate your rebuttal skills. You will make a fine lawyer Dano!!

Likewise.  We seem to agree on where we want to end up.  It is the methodology of AA and the vicious circle it creates that I dislike.
Title: Re: Affirmative Action is for...
Post by: angmill08 on March 31, 2005, 08:48:35 PM
I believe that the educational gap has been closed (or at least access to it).  There are also major cultural reasons for certain groups remaining behind in these areas.  AA will never change that.  Poverty is the primary reason for deficiencies in these areas anyway.  Yet, AA (as it is practiced) does not focus on  socioeconomic factors.  Race is the primary factor.  That is where we primarily disagree.

But racism, past and present, is the primary reason for the high poverty rate among blacks & Native Americans. And racism & the attending poverty is a major force in creating the culture of undervaluing education.

There are many good reasons to criticize AA. But saying that racism doesn't exist anymore or that the playing field is already level aren't good reasons because they are false statements.
Title: Re: Affirmative Action is for...
Post by: Dano on March 31, 2005, 09:30:32 PM
I believe that the educational gap has been closed (or at least access to it).  There are also major cultural reasons for certain groups remaining behind in these areas.  AA will never change that.  Poverty is the primary reason for deficiencies in these areas anyway.  Yet, AA (as it is practiced) does not focus on  socioeconomic factors.  Race is the primary factor.  That is where we primarily disagree.

But racism, past and present, is the primary reason for the high poverty rate among blacks & Native Americans. And racism & the attending poverty is a major force in creating the culture of undervaluing education.

There are many good reasons to criticize AA. But saying that racism doesn't exist anymore or that the playing field is already level aren't good reasons because they are false statements.

As long as you believe that racism is the primary problem, the poverty will continue. 

Many whites are poor as well.  Did they get that way due to racism?  What about a lack of fathers in the household and an overblown fascination with singers and sports stars?  Is that due to racism as well?  How about illegal immigrants taking the decent blue collar jobs and depressing wages?  Is that due to racism as well?  I would venture that these factors have a far greater impact on poverty than any racism.  I would rather see efforts to fix those problems, which will have an impact beyond the lucky few that benefit from AA.

BTW, will you provide some specific examples of racism you have encountered that have prevented you from obtaining a decent education or job?  Did someone bar you from attending school or specifically exclude you from a position solely based on your race?  If so, has it been so prevalent to prevent you from obtaining your goals?
Title: Re: Affirmative Action is for...
Post by: angmill08 on April 01, 2005, 12:30:36 AM
Many whites are poor as well.  Did they get that way due to racism?  What about a lack of fathers in the household and an overblown fascination with singers and sports stars?  Is that due to racism as well?  How about illegal immigrants taking the decent blue collar jobs and depressing wages?  Is that due to racism as well?  I would venture that these factors have a far greater impact on poverty than any racism.  I would rather see efforts to fix those problems, which will have an impact beyond the lucky few that benefit from AA.

BTW, will you provide some specific examples of racism you have encountered that have prevented you from obtaining a decent education or job?  Did someone bar you from attending school or specifically exclude you from a position solely based on your race?  If so, has it been so prevalent to prevent you from obtaining your goals?


Of course not everyone who is poor is poor because of racism. But I think the disproportionate amount of non-whites living below the poverty level is due to racism, past and present.

The substandard public services -- including public schools -- in most majority-minority neighborhoods help create an environment where many kids are discouraged from obtaining a decent education, which leads to fewer job prospects. Racism today is more subtle than "whites only" water fountains, or KKK members blocking access to schools, but the effects of that type of racism still exist. Additionally, a more subtle racism perpetuates our highly segregated neighborhoods, schools, and public life.

And I do think that the concentration of single parent families and a fascination with sports stars in majority-minority neighborhoods is related to the history of racism. My friend teaches at an inner city high school, and a suprising number of her students cite becoming a rapper as their main career goal. They honestly think they are more likely to suceed as a rapper than as a lawyer. This is due to short-sightedness, yes, but also cultural conditioning & role modeling, which are shaped by... yes, racism. The effects of racism are complex, and differ from person to person. Racism is not the only factor that shapes anyone's life. But it exists, especially visibly for people in majority-minority neighborhoods.

I'm surprised that we can't agree on that.
Title: Re: Affirmative Action is for people not smart enough to get in without it
Post by: PreProfessional on April 02, 2005, 08:01:18 PM
That is a very pesimistic intrepretation of what Affirmative Action  !  >:( 1) In order to even apply to law school you have to take the lsat. This means at the very least that have fuflilled the 1st requirement. 2) Affrmative Action is a preventative tatic. It says that hey, dont skip over this person because they are of a particular race,gender, or class. Does it have problems, yes...what doesn't? Dont know if you have ever taken an American History class but there was this whole period in the beginning of this country where they treated anyone not 100% white was considered to be 2/3 human, or better stated as property. There are lasting effects of that behavior and Affirmative Action just allows more minorites to be considered.  I encourage you to seek out minorites and talk to them. What you will find is alot of people who are sitll displeased with the current system and want more but will admit that it has helped.   


Should I really feel sorry for you because you're an URM? Honestly. You have the same brain as anybody else don't you? Or are you admitting you're not as good? AA hurts applicants because in reality it's saying "you're black/hispanic/poor/etc therefore you need this little boost in order to get in." Not to mention the fact that for every person who gets in undeservingly from AA, there is another person who deserved it more who was denied in order to make room for you.

If I were black, I would hate AA more than I already do.
Title: Re: Affirmative Action is for people not smart enough to get in without it
Post by: The Federal Farmer on April 03, 2005, 08:38:41 PM
What past inequalities or disadvantage is AA really trying to remedy?  Bringing people for a third world uncivilized nation like Africa to the the United States?  Trying to teach them skills and a valuable trade.  The importance of a solid work ethic?  If anything the United States should be receiving something in return for going out of their way to help the less fortunate.
Title: Re: Affirmative Action is for people not smart enough to get in without it
Post by: _BP_ on April 03, 2005, 10:00:45 PM
What past inequalities or disadvantage is AA really trying to remedy?  Bringing people for a third world uncivilized nation like Africa to the the United States?  Trying to teach them skills and a valuable trade.  The importance of a solid work ethic?  If anything the United States should be receiving something in return for going out of their way to help the less fortunate.

Hahahahaha....this is some classic sh*t.

I will personally say "f*ck off" to the next person that posts on this or any other A.A thread.....
The oracle has spoken.
Title: Re: Affirmative Action is for...
Post by: Dano on April 04, 2005, 12:27:57 AM
Of course not everyone who is poor is poor because of racism. But I think the disproportionate amount of non-whites living below the poverty level is due to racism, past and present.

The substandard public services -- including public schools -- in most majority-minority neighborhoods help create an environment where many kids are discouraged from obtaining a decent education, which leads to fewer job prospects. Racism today is more subtle than "whites only" water fountains, or KKK members blocking access to schools, but the effects of that type of racism still exist. Additionally, a more subtle racism perpetuates our highly segregated neighborhoods, schools, and public life.

And I do think that the concentration of single parent families and a fascination with sports stars in majority-minority neighborhoods is related to the history of racism. My friend teaches at an inner city high school, and a suprising number of her students cite becoming a rapper as their main career goal. They honestly think they are more likely to suceed as a rapper than as a lawyer. This is due to short-sightedness, yes, but also cultural conditioning & role modeling, which are shaped by... yes, racism. The effects of racism are complex, and differ from person to person. Racism is not the only factor that shapes anyone's life. But it exists, especially visibly for people in majority-minority neighborhoods.

I'm surprised that we can't agree on that.


I agree that racism EXISTS, but I disagree that it is currently the primary source of the educational and economic issues facing many minority communities.

Also, I was not just referring to URM's when I talked about the cultural problem(s).  Poor whites are also likely to have unrealistic dreams of being singers and/or sports stars along with a higher incidence of single parenthood.  My point is that poverty strikes hard across all races resulting in similar problems.  This is why I doubt that racism is a large part of the problem.

You bring up a good point regarding inferior schools in poor neighborhoods.  I think that is largely true.  This is typically caused by the best teachers and administrators obtaining positions in the best neighborhoods.  However, that alone is not enough to discourage kids from trying to succeed.  BTW, rural redneck schools in the South and elsewhere are equally deplorable. 

The cultural conditioning and lack of decent role models is largely determined by the minority communities themselves.  Rappers, ball players, performers, and others have millions of dollars and a chance to send the RIGHT message.  Many choose not to do that.  I keep hearing the excuse "It is a representation of our inner city communities ... A reflection of our current culture".  Why do the youth need to mirror what they see every day?  Shootings, drugs, domestic violence, etc..  Look out the freaking window!  Why don't the rich performers use their millions to introduce more positive messages about overcoming such obstacles instead of reveling in them?  It doesn't take a genius IQ to figure out that the messages being sent are harmful to their communities.  The degradation of women is absolutely appalling in many of the music videos.  The extreme focus on flashy cars and clothes is also damaging to their target audience which consists of many poor kids that will destroy their financial futures trying to "keep up with the Rappers".

A fresh approach is needed.  The focus on racism is just not working.
Title: Re: Affirmative Action is for...
Post by: _BP_ on April 04, 2005, 07:05:27 AM
Of course not everyone who is poor is poor because of racism. But I think the disproportionate amount of non-whites living below the poverty level is due to racism, past and present.

The substandard public services -- including public schools -- in most majority-minority neighborhoods help create an environment where many kids are discouraged from obtaining a decent education, which leads to fewer job prospects. Racism today is more subtle than "whites only" water fountains, or KKK members blocking access to schools, but the effects of that type of racism still exist. Additionally, a more subtle racism perpetuates our highly segregated neighborhoods, schools, and public life.

And I do think that the concentration of single parent families and a fascination with sports stars in majority-minority neighborhoods is related to the history of racism. My friend teaches at an inner city high school, and a suprising number of her students cite becoming a rapper as their main career goal. They honestly think they are more likely to suceed as a rapper than as a lawyer. This is due to short-sightedness, yes, but also cultural conditioning & role modeling, which are shaped by... yes, racism. The effects of racism are complex, and differ from person to person. Racism is not the only factor that shapes anyone's life. But it exists, especially visibly for people in majority-minority neighborhoods.

I'm surprised that we can't agree on that.


I agree that racism EXISTS, but I disagree that it is currently the primary source of the educational and economic issues facing many minority communities.

Also, I was not just referring to URM's when I talked about the cultural problem(s).  Poor whites are also likely to have unrealistic dreams of being singers and/or sports stars along with a higher incidence of single parenthood.  My point is that poverty strikes hard across all races resulting in similar problems.  This is why I doubt that racism is a large part of the problem.

You bring up a good point regarding inferior schools in poor neighborhoods.  I think that is largely true.  This is typically caused by the best teachers and administrators obtaining positions in the best neighborhoods.  However, that alone is not enough to discourage kids from trying to succeed.  BTW, rural redneck schools in the South and elsewhere are equally deplorable. 

The cultural conditioning and lack of decent role models is largely determined by the minority communities themselves.  Rappers, ball players, performers, and others have millions of dollars and a chance to send the RIGHT message.  Many choose not to do that.  I keep hearing the excuse "It is a representation of our inner city communities ... A reflection of our current culture".  Why do the youth need to mirror what they see every day?  Shootings, drugs, domestic violence, etc..  Look out the freaking window!  Why don't the rich performers use their millions to introduce more positive messages about overcoming such obstacles instead of reveling in them?  It doesn't take a genius IQ to figure out that the messages being sent are harmful to their communities.  The degradation of women is absolutely appalling in many of the music videos.  The extreme focus on flashy cars and clothes is also damaging to their target audience which consists of many poor kids that will destroy their financial futures trying to "keep up with the Rappers".

A fresh approach is needed.  The focus on racism is just not working.

First off, F*ck off Dano..nothing personal, I just said I would do it.

So you doubt racism is a large part of the problem right?  What a surprise!   It always amuses me when white people try to diminish the scourge of racism and its effects.  How they speak with such authority on something they read about in text books, and discount the reports from people who actually live it.   It would be like me shooting you in the knee with a shotgun and then saying 20 years later,  “well, I shot him 20 years ago, there’s no way Dano’s knee could still be hurting him… if he had taken better care of his body, he wouldn’t be walking with a limp!”
Title: Re: Affirmative Action is for people not smart enough to get in without it
Post by: DJ-C on April 04, 2005, 11:13:19 AM
Dano is money.  It is peculiar that people automatically discount the opinions of white people when discussing racial issues, as if they are obviously biased and incapable of looking at a situation involving race objectively.
Title: Re: Affirmative Action is for...
Post by: angmill08 on April 04, 2005, 02:25:34 PM
My point is that poverty strikes hard across all races resulting in similar problems.  This is why I doubt that racism is a large part of the problem.

But Dano, poverty does not strike equally hard across all races. As others have noted, there are more whites living in poverty than blacks. But the percentage of poor blacks out of the total black population is substaintially higher than the percentage of poor whites out of the total white population. The same is true for Hispanics and Native Americans. The rate of poverty among different races is not constant. Do you understand what I mean?

Poverty and race are linked. Any effort to increase access to educational and economic opportunity should consider poverty and race, how they are linked, and situations where they are not (the concentration of white poverty in Appalachia comes to mind.)

Clearly, this connection is a topic which interests me. I am glad to continue this discussion with anyone who is also interested, despite the Oracle's opposition. :)
Title: Re: Affirmative Action is for people not smart enough to get in without it
Post by: _BP_ on April 04, 2005, 05:22:21 PM
Angmill...it's not the topic of race relations that throws me off, but the never-ending drivel driven discussion on A.A.

m-d-c , I think every one has the ability to look at the topic of race objectively, regardless of skin color.  Examining a topic objectively and speaking with authority are two completely different things.  It comes down to this: don't try to convince me that my shoes are comfortable if you haven't walked a day in them!  That's my beef.
orright I'm done. 
Peace.
Title: Re: Affirmative Action is for...
Post by: Dano on April 04, 2005, 08:59:11 PM
But Dano, poverty does not strike equally hard across all races. As others have noted, there are more whites living in poverty than blacks. But the percentage of poor blacks out of the total black population is substaintially higher than the percentage of poor whites out of the total white population. The same is true for Hispanics and Native Americans. The rate of poverty among different races is not constant. Do you understand what I mean?

Poverty and race are linked. Any effort to increase access to educational and economic opportunity should consider poverty and race, how they are linked, and situations where they are not (the concentration of white poverty in Appalachia comes to mind.)

Clearly, this connection is a topic which interests me. I am glad to continue this discussion with anyone who is also interested, despite the Oracle's opposition. :)

Of course poverty strikes equally amongst all races, all races suffer if they don't have enough to eat.  All races suffer if they cannot locate decent, safe housing.  Why is it that Asians have poverty rates (11.8 percent) much lower than blacks (24.4 percent) and hispanics (22.5 percent) according to the 2003 Census data?  Haven't Asians been victims of racism as well?  It seems there is more than racism involved here.  The poverty figures for Hispanics and Blacks are possibly slanted due to new poor immigrants from Haiti, Mexico, and other countries.  There are fewer poor white immigrants entering the country.  Furthermore, recent census data suggests that black poverty rates are stabilizing while white poverty rates have increased.  This is not necessarily a great thing, but at least it demonstrates that the trends of poverty are impacting both groups.

In response to the so called Oracle ... how does one become an Oracle with such a restrictive mentality?
Title: Re: Affirmative Action is for...
Post by: _BP_ on April 04, 2005, 09:46:22 PM
But Dano, poverty does not strike equally hard across all races. As others have noted, there are more whites living in poverty than blacks. But the percentage of poor blacks out of the total black population is substaintially higher than the percentage of poor whites out of the total white population. The same is true for Hispanics and Native Americans. The rate of poverty among different races is not constant. Do you understand what I mean?

Poverty and race are linked. Any effort to increase access to educational and economic opportunity should consider poverty and race, how they are linked, and situations where they are not (the concentration of white poverty in Appalachia comes to mind.)

Clearly, this connection is a topic which interests me. I am glad to continue this discussion with anyone who is also interested, despite the Oracle's opposition. :)

Of course poverty strikes equally amongst all races, all races suffer if they don't have enough to eat.  All races suffer if they cannot locate decent, safe housing.  Why is it that Asians have poverty rates (11.8 percent) much lower than blacks (24.4 percent) and hispanics (22.5 percent) according to the 2003 Census data?  Haven't Asians been victims of racism as well?  It seems there is more than racism involved here.  The poverty figures for Hispanics and Blacks are possibly slanted due to new poor immigrants from Haiti, Mexico, and other countries.  There are fewer poor white immigrants entering the country.  Furthermore, recent census data suggests that black poverty rates are stabilizing while white poverty rates have increased.  This is not necessarily a great thing, but at least it demonstrates that the trends of poverty are impacting both groups.

In response to the so called Oracle ... how does one become an Oracle with such a restrictive mentality?

Restrictive to what? Your "it seems to me" analysis, combined with statistics that reach no real conclusion?  It's interesting that that was your response to me, while ignoring the meat of what I had to say....
oh well.
Title: Re: Affirmative Action is for...
Post by: Dano on April 04, 2005, 10:57:23 PM
Restrictive to what? Your "it seems to me" analysis, combined with statistics that reach no real conclusion?  It's interesting that that was your response to me, while ignoring the meat of what I had to say....
oh well.

There was no "meat" to what you had to say.  It was essentially a short, childish rant blabbing about how you are the only one with the right to a perspective on this issue followed by a silly declaration against all people that post to this thread.
Title: Re: Affirmative Action is for...
Post by: hilljack on April 04, 2005, 11:29:00 PM
Restrictive to what? Your "it seems to me" analysis, combined with statistics that reach no real conclusion?  It's interesting that that was your response to me, while ignoring the meat of what I had to say....
oh well.

There was no "meat" to what you had to say.  It was essentially a short, childish rant blabbing about how you are the only one with the right to a perspective on this issue followed by a silly declaration against all people that post to this thread.

Sometimes outmatched individuals will resort to back and forth palavering.  Dano, this does not refer to you, but to the person who has no legitimate response to what you say.
Title: Re: Affirmative Action is for...
Post by: _BP_ on April 04, 2005, 11:31:01 PM
Restrictive to what? Your "it seems to me" analysis, combined with statistics that reach no real conclusion?  It's interesting that that was your response to me, while ignoring the meat of what I had to say....
oh well.

There was no "meat" to what you had to say.  It was essentially a short, childish rant blabbing about how you are the only one with the right to a perspective on this issue followed by a silly declaration against all people that post to this thread.

You are a joke. I give up.
Title: Re: Affirmative Action is for...
Post by: hilljack on April 04, 2005, 11:45:42 PM
Restrictive to what? Your "it seems to me" analysis, combined with statistics that reach no real conclusion?  It's interesting that that was your response to me, while ignoring the meat of what I had to say....
oh well.

There was no "meat" to what you had to say.  It was essentially a short, childish rant blabbing about how you are the only one with the right to a perspective on this issue followed by a silly declaration against all people that post to this thread.

You are a joke. I give up.

This is a typical response of a person who is unwilling to accept equality of process.
Title: Re: Affirmative Action is for...
Post by: angmill08 on April 05, 2005, 02:55:03 PM
Why is it that Asians have poverty rates (11.8 percent) much lower than blacks (24.4 percent) and hispanics (22.5 percent) according to the 2003 Census data?  Haven't Asians been victims of racism as well? 

Now this, to me, is an interesting question, because it gets to the connection between race & poverty and the divergences between the two. My first response to your question, Dano, would be that residential segregation for blacks has been more extreme and more complete than for any other ethnic group in the history of the US. Given that where you live will determine what school you attend and what political representation you have, and that these two issues have ripple effects on many other aspects of your life, the effect of residential segregation is big. I didn't come up with this idea myself -- I highly recommend a book called "American Apartied" which covers this topic in depth and presents a lot of data on it. The book puts forth a compelling argument that economic and education opportunites for African Americans have been restricted to an extent that those for other ethnic groups have not. Reading it really gave me a new perspective on this issue.

As for the Oracle's comments and the responses... it seems to me that the meat of the Oracle's post was frustration with whites who feel they can authoritatively claim that "the playing field is level" or otherwise discount the effects of racism on others, when they themselves have no experience with it. (And by "it" I mean racism in the racism = prejudice + oppression way.) During some of the discussions on this board, when (white) people ask for "proof" that racism still exists, I sometimes wonder why they can't just take black people's word for it. Or take that word, in conjunction with the legions of sociological studies, in addition to the scholarly analysis of  the effects of historical racism.
Title: Re: Affirmative Action is for people not smart enough to get in without it
Post by: idontknow on April 05, 2005, 07:21:18 PM
people, I'm not bashing AA just for the sake of bashing AA.  What I am saying is that it is a non-effective way to achieve whatever equality it tried to achieve.  It aint working, so it's time to think of something else.  It is insulting, I would imagine, to a minority person to be told that they can enter a job/school/whatever only bcs they are a minority..but had they been white, they'd be not good enough.  It's racist against the  majority too.  I had to give up my spot in an elite high school bcs I am white - but some other person who performed worse than me and had a bit more melanin in their skin got in.   It isn't my fault that some person's parents had to work 3 jobs to make ends meet...why should my future suffer bcs of it?  It's the gov't fault...for having horrible welfare laws, pathetic minimum wages, taxing the poor and giving bill gates a tax break!  basicly, it's all the republican's fault  :)

Reducing a person's race/ethnicity to melanin levels is utterly ridiculous.
Title: Re: Affirmative Action is for people not smart enough to get in without it
Post by: psr13 on April 06, 2005, 10:17:45 AM
I want to know why when people look at hockey they say it is a racist sport because most of the people are white, but when they look at basketball or football they don't say that. They samething goes with entertainment. It is fine for something to be all black, but it can't be anywhere near all white. Many people grow up in the same situations as URM's but don't get the boost. The only difference may be that the person is white. In a lot of these situations it is a disadvantage to be white. Another problem is that this is not only to right past wrongs. If it were then Asians would still benefit. They were greatly discriminated against, but since they work hard to become successful they get nothing.
Title: Re: Affirmative Action is for people not smart enough to get in without it
Post by: _BP_ on April 06, 2005, 10:20:05 AM
I want to know why when people look at hockey they say it is a racist sport because most of the people are white, but when they look at basketball or football they don't say that. They samething goes with entertainment. It is fine for something to be all black, but it can't be anywhere near all white. Many people grow up in the same situations as URM's but don't get the boost. The only difference may be that the person is white. In a lot of these situations it is a disadvantage to be white. Another problem is that this is not only to right past wrongs. If it were then Asians would still benefit. They were greatly discriminated against, but since they work hard to become successful they get nothing.

Daymn I had resigned myself not to post on this thread again, but this was hilarious..Who the hell looks at hockey and call it a racist sport?   :D Where did you get this from? Your black friends? hahahah
Title: Re: Affirmative Action is for people not smart enough to get in without it
Post by: dbgirl on April 06, 2005, 10:33:48 AM
That's true Oracle ...

I have never heard anyone complain that there aren't enough blacks in hockey! But hey, as long as we're complaining about
racist sports ... I nominate skiiing. Oh, and swimming!
And if we didn't have Tiger Woods I'd complain about golf too.

I don't know where some of these arguments come from.
Title: Re: Affirmative Action is for people not smart enough to get in without it
Post by: Xony on April 06, 2005, 10:42:11 AM
I want to know why when people look at hockey they say it is a racist sport because most of the people are white, but when they look at basketball or football they don't say that. They samething goes with entertainment. It is fine for something to be all black, but it can't be anywhere near all white. Many people grow up in the same situations as URM's but don't get the boost. The only difference may be that the person is white. In a lot of these situations it is a disadvantage to be white. Another problem is that this is not only to right past wrongs. If it were then Asians would still benefit. They were greatly discriminated against, but since they work hard to become successful they get nothing.

This is true.  Jews are a minority, have been discriminated for the past 3500 yrs - you don't see them getting AA benefits.  They didn't whine and demand special priviledges..they did it for themselves.  Asians-same thing.  I've said this already, and I'll say it again.  If AA worked, I'd be all for it.  But it doesn't.  AA exists in High School, AA exists in college, AA exists in Law School, and let's not forget that AA exists in the job field.  If AA really worked, then someone benefiting from it got into highschool, or college, or even law school - it would all be fair game after that.  But alas, it isn't so....AA continues to every level of professional development, and people get judged on the color of their skin and not the contents of their character. 
Title: Re: Affirmative Action is for people not smart enough to get in without it
Post by: thefaceman on April 06, 2005, 10:45:29 AM
I want to know why when people look at hockey they say it is a racist sport because most of the people are white, but when they look at basketball or football they don't say that. They samething goes with entertainment. It is fine for something to be all black, but it can't be anywhere near all white.

umm, I hope you are joking.  

But if you are'nt...BECAUSE ALL PROFESSIONAL SPORTS IN AMERICA WERE STARTED BY WHITE PEOPLE, AND MANY WERE EXCLUSIVELY WHITE TO BEGIN WITH.  Blacks were forced to start their own leagues even though they often had better players.

As for entertainment...if I have to see one more show about or starring all white people I am going to kill my TV.  It is not that there are not black stars, but just think about it,  when was the last time you saw a black person on any of the shows you watch?  I don't watch much TV, but I do watch the news.  How about a national news anchor, strike one.  My wife watches Gilmore Girls, totally honky, Desperate Houswives, honky, all the other shows on the WB like the OC, the Mountain, Smallville, honky, honky, honky.  My favorite is Extrememe Make-over Home Edition, white people to the rescue!!!!  

From one white person to another, you really need to wake up to reality.  Your argument in these areas is groundless.
Title: Re: Affirmative Action is for people not smart enough to get in without it
Post by: Xony on April 06, 2005, 10:49:33 AM
Dude..there's a whole channel devoted to black entertainment. BET.  I guess you and your wife never flipped your channels that far huh?  You must have also forgotten The cosby show, fresh prince of bel air, family matters, hangin' with mr. cooper.

wtf are you talking about??!?
Title: Re: Affirmative Action is for people not smart enough to get in without it
Post by: _BP_ on April 06, 2005, 10:56:02 AM
Dude..there's a whole channel devoted to black entertainment. BET.  I guess you and your wife never flipped your channels that far huh?  You must have also forgotten The cosby show, fresh prince of bel air, family matters, hangin' with mr. cooper.

wtf are you talking about??!?

One out of 200, everything else is W.E.T hahaha...orright let me stop messing with you guys.
Peace and love
Title: Re: Affirmative Action is for people not smart enough to get in without it
Post by: thefaceman on April 06, 2005, 10:58:26 AM
Dude..there's a whole channel devoted to black entertainment. BET.  I guess you and your wife never flipped your channels that far huh?  You must have also forgotten The cosby show, fresh prince of bel air, family matters, hangin' with mr. cooper.

wtf are you talking about??!?

Yeah, I watch dance 360 too.  You missed my point.
Title: Re: Affirmative Action is for people not smart enough to get in without it
Post by: Xony on April 06, 2005, 10:59:15 AM
do not forget that blacks make up 12% of the population.  To expect 50% black shows would be stupid.  If there was a demand for more black shows, there would be more black shows.  I can't think of a single all asian-cast-show.

so now they should get AA too?  So does this mean americans are discriminating against asians?  this is ridiculous.
Title: Re: Affirmative Action is for people not smart enough to get in without it
Post by: thefaceman on April 06, 2005, 11:03:19 AM
do not forget that blacks make up 12% of the population.  To expect 50% black shows would be stupid.  If there was a demand for more black shows, there would be more black shows.

I am sure they are reminded daily.  Thanks.
Title: Re: Affirmative Action is for people not smart enough to get in without it
Post by: Xony on April 06, 2005, 11:04:26 AM
I doubt that not having 50% black shows on TV is the biggest problem facing the african-american population. 
Title: Re: Affirmative Action is for people not smart enough to get in without it
Post by: thefaceman on April 06, 2005, 11:08:44 AM
I doubt that not having 50% black shows on TV is the biggest problem facing the african-american population. 

I don't think so either, psr13 was calling reverse racism in entertainment.
Title: Re: Affirmative Action is for people not smart enough to get in without it
Post by: _BP_ on April 06, 2005, 11:09:23 AM
I doubt that not having 50% black shows on TV is the biggest problem facing the african-american population. 

You're right, far from it.  I just chimed in when someone said:

"I want to know why when people look at hockey they say it is a racist sport because most of the people are white, but when they look at basketball or football they don't say that."

And your reply was, "that's true".  I can't say that that reply included agreeance (yes it's a word..haha) with that particular line, so feel free to clear this up.
Title: Re: Affirmative Action is for people not smart enough to get in without it
Post by: thefaceman on April 06, 2005, 11:11:51 AM
I doubt that not having 50% black shows on TV is the biggest problem facing the african-american population. 

You're right, far from it.  I just chimed in when someone said:

"I want to know why when people look at hockey they say it is a racist sport because most of the people are white, but when they look at basketball or football they don't say that."

And your reply was, "that's true".  I can't say that that reply included agreeance (yes it's a word..haha) with that particular line, so feel free to clear this up.

What he said.
Title: Re: Affirmative Action is...
Post by: angmill08 on April 06, 2005, 02:26:10 PM
Jews are a minority, have been discriminated for the past 3500 yrs - you don't see them getting AA benefits.  They didn't whine and demand special priviledges..they did it for themselves.  Asians-same thing. 

So Xony, what is your response to my comment on this issue that I posted just a few days ago on this same thread? I see that these discussions tend to cycle over the same points over and over...
Title: Re: Affirmative Action is for people not smart enough to get in without it
Post by: Xony on April 06, 2005, 02:31:25 PM
I didn't read your previous comment.  I think I tuned in today..I'm beginning to regret that I did.  If you repeat, I might have a comment.  thanks
Title: Re: Affirmative Action is for...
Post by: faith2005 on April 07, 2005, 09:53:27 AM
Why is it that Asians have poverty rates (11.8 percent) much lower than blacks (24.4 percent) and hispanics (22.5 percent) according to the 2003 Census data?  Haven't Asians been victims of racism as well? 

Now this, to me, is an interesting question, because it gets to the connection between race & poverty and the divergences between the two. My first response to your question, Dano, would be that residential segregation for blacks has been more extreme and more complete than for any other ethnic group in the history of the US. Given that where you live will determine what school you attend and what political representation you have, and that these two issues have ripple effects on many other aspects of your life, the effect of residential segregation is big. I didn't come up with this idea myself -- I highly recommend a book called "American Apartied" which covers this topic in depth and presents a lot of data on it. The book puts forth a compelling argument that economic and education opportunites for African Americans have been restricted to an extent that those for other ethnic groups have not. Reading it really gave me a new perspective on this issue.

As for the Oracle's comments and the responses... it seems to me that the meat of the Oracle's post was frustration with whites who feel they can authoritatively claim that "the playing field is level" or otherwise discount the effects of racism on others, when they themselves have no experience with it. (And by "it" I mean racism in the racism = prejudice + oppression way.) During some of the discussions on this board, when (white) people ask for "proof" that racism still exists, I sometimes wonder why they can't just take black people's word for it. Or take that word, in conjunction with the legions of sociological studies, in addition to the scholarly analysis of  the effects of historical racism.

this is an old post, but i thought it was interesting. and this article is in a related vein. i think that wealth disparity is largely tied to the situation with home ownership and other related issues. its not new information, but i think its apart of the reason why aa continues today as a method of stopping the lasting effects of past discrimination.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/afp/20050406/ts_alt_afp/ussocialrace_050406212912
Title: Re: Affirmative Action is for...
Post by: angmill08 on April 07, 2005, 11:22:21 AM
Faith2005,

This is an interesting article. On a related note, I was really disappointed to see that Bush cut back the reach of the Community Reinvestment Act within the past year, because that act spurred banks to make loans in formerly red lined areas, which has led to an increase in homeownership in the inner city. I am afraid that as interest rates rise and the pressure of the CRA decreases, we'll see less investment capital (i.e., business and mortgage loans) in the central city.
Another thing I would like to learn more about is the unemployment situation in the inner city. I'd like to read more about possible causes and possible solutions. I was planning to read "When Work Disappears" by William Julius Wilson but I started on one of his other books and found it very dry and hard to slog through.  Anyone have book recs?
Title: Re: Affirmative Action is for people not smart enough to get in without it
Post by: psr13 on April 07, 2005, 12:46:19 PM
I didn't say who they were started by. Maybe basketball and football were started by whites, but they are now dominated by blacks. Many people refer to sports such as hockey as racist. I hear it all the time. Saying that my argument is ridiculous is completely and utterly wrong. We are around different people and hear different things. Don't say what I have and have not heard. I don't try to tell people I don't know what they have and have not heard.

Onto the TV show thing again because the argument did not seem to be fully stated. There is a black person on Gilmore Girls. Yes, I know that it is only one person. The show takes place in a town in Connecticut that is fairly well off. The premis of the show is in an area that would be mostly white in reality. Aslo, the other shows are mostly set in well off places. The OC. Newport Beach. Hello, there are not going to be very many black people in that show. They probably could put more Asians though and still make it realistic. The people on Extreme Makeover and those shows are the best for the job. Is is hard to believe that of the  people who tried to get on the show that the most skilled ones were white? Maybe others did not try for it.  I've seen plenty of black news anchors. I've seen plenty of Asian ones.I've seen plenty of Hispanic ones.
Title: Re: Affirmative Action is for people not smart enough to get in without it
Post by: thefaceman on April 07, 2005, 02:38:12 PM
Onto the TV show thing again because the argument did not seem to be fully stated. There is a black person on Gilmore Girls. Yes, I know that it is only one person. The show takes place in a town in Connecticut that is fairly well off.

Do they refer to him as the town "negro?"

People that are racists and don't even know it amuse me.
Title: Re: Affirmative Action is for people not smart enough to get in without it
Post by: shiveringjenny on April 07, 2005, 04:39:03 PM
bump for unreads.
Title: Re: Affirmative Action is for people not smart enough to get in without it
Post by: Gary Glitter on April 07, 2005, 08:34:50 PM
the problem with affirmative action is that it breeds acrimony and animosity amongst middle class white americans, particularly middle class white males. affirmative action only propagates what it seeks to undo. whenever you take one group, ascribe certain attributes to it, statistical or otherwise, and then confer an advantage to that group based on these attributes for the sole purpose of empowerment on a superficial level then there will be an equal degree of disadvantage doled out to the reciprocal group. this naturally breeds unrest.

i'm an african american male.  i believe that the days of the racist white power structure ruling over admissions boards and employment centers have long since passed. it seems that the only color that really matters anymore is green. if you show a penchant for success, a talent that can be utilized for profit, then someone will hire you, accept you, whatever.

yes, undoubtedly there are troubling discrepancies in terms of accomplishment between racial groups in the united states today. yes, the issue needs to be addressed. affirmative action, however, is not the solution that african americans are looking for. it is a superficial fix, super glue thrown at a critical fissure. this issue requires more vigilance, more attention that just a mere lowering of standards based on race. in the fall i will be attending a top tier law school, and i know regardless of performance or shown skill there will be those who doubt my place amongst them. i do not blame them for this, given the nature of affirmative action, it is only a natural reaction, in fact, a human reaction.

i hope that someday affirmative action will be removed for admissions process. america is the land of the self-made man, the land where the most qualified man will get the job. but now there are certain institutions that threaten the foundations that have made the country what it is today. affirmative action is one of those institutions. it demeans me, as an african american, but there is more, indeed, it demeans the american dream.

Title: Re: Affirmative Action is for people ...
Post by: angmill08 on April 07, 2005, 09:04:25 PM
it demeans me, as an african american, but there is more, indeed, it demeans the american dream.

AA does rest on the premise that the American dream is not equally available to all. But from where I sit, I'd say that's a sad reality, not a demeaning falsehood. Addressing this situation would mean healing the critical fissure you mention, instead of shopping for a new super glue, which I think most AA supporters (and tolerators) would appreciate.
Title: Re: Affirmative Action is for people not smart enough to get in without it
Post by: _BP_ on April 08, 2005, 06:49:59 AM
I didn't say who they were started by. Maybe basketball and football were started by whites, but they are now dominated by blacks. Many people refer to sports such as hockey as racist. I hear it all the time. Saying that my argument is ridiculous is completely and utterly wrong. We are around different people and hear different things. Don't say what I have and have not heard. I don't try to tell people I don't know what they have and have not heard.

I'm not saying what you have or have not heard.  I simply asked you if you heard it from your black friends? I seriously doubt it, on sooo many levels. Hahahaha.  What weight does it hold if you heard it from Xony?  See what I mean?

edit: If I've been around black people every single day of my life and have never heard the sentiment that people consider hockey as a racist sport, why should I defer to you on this?  You must be kidding me.  Sounds like another case of "well everyone knows that...". 

It comes down to this: not only are you guys trying to convince me that you are an authority on the state of the black community and the roots of the problems therein ( and ofcourse how those problems are not linked to this country’s racist past present- by present I don’t mean gift), you are now trying to convince me that you are up on the sentiments of the black community as well.
Title: Re: Affirmative Action is for people not smart enough to get in without it
Post by: _BP_ on April 08, 2005, 06:55:26 AM
the problem with affirmative action is that it breeds acrimony and animosity amongst middle class white americans, particularly middle class white males. affirmative action only propagates what it seeks to undo. whenever you take one group, ascribe certain attributes to it, statistical or otherwise, and then confer an advantage to that group based on these attributes for the sole purpose of empowerment on a superficial level then there will be an equal degree of disadvantage doled out to the reciprocal group. this naturally breeds unrest.

i'm an african american male.  i believe that the days of the racist white power structure ruling over admissions boards and employment centers have long since passed. it seems that the only color that really matters anymore is green. if you show a penchant for success, a talent that can be utilized for profit, then someone will hire you, accept you, whatever.

yes, undoubtedly there are troubling discrepancies in terms of accomplishment between racial groups in the united states today. yes, the issue needs to be addressed. affirmative action, however, is not the solution that african americans are looking for. it is a superficial fix, super glue thrown at a critical fissure. this issue requires more vigilance, more attention that just a mere lowering of standards based on race. in the fall i will be attending a top tier law school, and i know regardless of performance or shown skill there will be those who doubt my place amongst them. i do not blame them for this, given the nature of affirmative action, it is only a natural reaction, in fact, a human reaction.

i hope that someday affirmative action will be removed for admissions process. america is the land of the self-made man, the land where the most qualified man will get the job. but now there are certain institutions that threaten the foundations that have made the country what it is today. affirmative action is one of those institutions. it demeans me, as an african american, but there is more, indeed, it demeans the american dream.


 :D Okay, you must be kidding me right...hahhaah  Let me maintain my C average in college, I'm sure to be in running for the presidency in a few years.

Oh, and how interesting it is to see an African American who has lurked all this time but decided that your first few posts would outline how AA demeans the american dream.  Welcome African American guy... :D
Title: Re: Affirmative Action is for people not smart enough to get in without it
Post by: Dano on April 08, 2005, 10:44:11 PM
None of you AA supporters have provided one single example of how you were prevented from obtaining a suitable education.

All I hear are racist comments that can be summarized as follows:

"You are white.  You don't know anything about OUR SECRET LIFE." 

Come on give us a break.  All of us spend the vast majority of our waking hours in society around other people both black AND white.  When else would you be discriminated against anyway?  While you were in the comfort of your home with family and friends?  Are the racist forces reaching you through some invisible communications mode only reserved for Oracle and friends?  As the old lady said in the old commercial at drive thru, "Where's da beef?"  We are training to be lawyers and most arguments require evidence. 
Title: Re: Affirmative Action is ...
Post by: angmill08 on April 09, 2005, 01:32:35 AM
None of you AA supporters have provided one single example of how you were prevented from obtaining a suitable education.

All I hear are racist comments that can be summarized as follows:

"You are white.  You don't know anything about OUR SECRET LIFE." 

It's not that the schools in majority minority neighborhoods "prevent" kids from getting a suitable education, but that often, they are not conducive to one. Focus on education is made difficult by the level of violence in the school and neighborhood. It is made difficult by the difficulty of finding good teachers, and overcrowding (too many kids, too few books, desks, etc.) Also by the pressures of poverty, which drives parents to focus on crisis management, instead of ongoing projects like being involved in their kids' education.

This is obvious to most people familiar with life in a neighborhood like this. From your posts, I assume you are not one of those people. Your posts, and others advocating that "the playing field is level" emphasize to me how segregated our lives can be, by race and by class. It's not really a secret life, just a life that you seem unaware and skeptical of.

And you're not alone. Although you state "all of us spend the vast majority of our waking hours in society around other people both black and white," the majority of white people actually spend most of their waking hours in overwhelmingly white schools, churches, neighborhoods and recreational facilities. I think if more white people spent more time in majority black/brown environments, and if there was more open inter-racial/inter-class dialog about this integration, then the work of the "racist forces" and the "invisible communications" that perpetuate discrimination would be a lot easier for them to see. 

Or you could take the word of people who've been there, or read books by people who have studied this, but I sense that you are not interested in that.
Title: Re: Affirmative Action is for people not smart enough to get in without it
Post by: psr13 on April 09, 2005, 09:48:39 AM
Onto the TV show thing again because the argument did not seem to be fully stated. There is a black person on Gilmore Girls. Yes, I know that it is only one person. The show takes place in a town in Connecticut that is fairly well off.

Do they refer to him as the town "negro?"

People that are racists and don't even know it amuse me.

No, they do  not refer to him as the negro. He is well-respected and loved by many of the town. I sincerely hope that you are not calling me racist also in the above comment.
Title: Re: Affirmative Action is ...
Post by: Dano on April 10, 2005, 12:08:11 AM
None of you AA supporters have provided one single example of how you were prevented from obtaining a suitable education.

All I hear are racist comments that can be summarized as follows:

"You are white.  You don't know anything about OUR SECRET LIFE." 

It's not that the schools in majority minority neighborhoods "prevent" kids from getting a suitable education, but that often, they are not conducive to one. Focus on education is made difficult by the level of violence in the school and neighborhood. It is made difficult by the difficulty of finding good teachers, and overcrowding (too many kids, too few books, desks, etc.) Also by the pressures of poverty, which drives parents to focus on crisis management, instead of ongoing projects like being involved in their kids' education.

This is obvious to most people familiar with life in a neighborhood like this. From your posts, I assume you are not one of those people. Your posts, and others advocating that "the playing field is level" emphasize to me how segregated our lives can be, by race and by class. It's not really a secret life, just a life that you seem unaware and skeptical of.

And you're not alone. Although you state "all of us spend the vast majority of our waking hours in society around other people both black and white," the majority of white people actually spend most of their waking hours in overwhelmingly white schools, churches, neighborhoods and recreational facilities. I think if more white people spent more time in majority black/brown environments, and if there was more open inter-racial/inter-class dialog about this integration, then the work of the "racist forces" and the "invisible communications" that perpetuate discrimination would be a lot easier for them to see. 

Or you could take the word of people who've been there, or read books by people who have studied this, but I sense that you are not interested in that.

OK.  I see.  You have no examples of racism preventing you from obtaining an education.  Everything that you mention regarding poor schools, lack of good teachers, crime, etc. also occurs in "white neighborhoods".  Maybe not in the richest of white neighborhoods.  But ... newsflash ... the majority of all white people are not rich despite what you might think.  Many whites also face the same issues of crime, lack of good teachers, etc. 

Furthermore, if the schools suck so bad ... move.  It's that simple.  If your parents insist on keeping you in crappy neighborhoods with low performing schools then leave.  This is not an issue of racism.  It's an issue of fear and inaction.

Again ... for the third time ... can anyone provide concrete examples of how they were discriminated against in a manner that prevented them from obtaining a suitable education?
Title: Re: Affirmative Action is for people not smart enough to get in without it
Post by: twarga on April 10, 2005, 08:24:37 AM
I saw a really great documentary a few years ago in a Sociology class I was taking.  It was about the racial divide in public schools and it really opened my eyes.  The difference between the poor inner city/rural schools and the mostly white/affluent ones was incredible.  The underlying message given to the kids in the run-down, roof leaking, books falling apart, overcrowded, dingy, nobody caring schools was "You're not worth the extra money or effort it takes to educate you."  This breeds low self esteem which contributes to the low scores and high drop out rate.  The kids in the schools with money for good programs and fresh paint on the walls had a better feeling about education altogether.

I'll look and see if I can find the name of the documentary.  It was a real eye-opener!
Title: Re: Affirmative Action is for people not smart enough to get in without it
Post by: twarga on April 10, 2005, 08:35:21 AM
I looked for it, and I'm not sure if this is the same thing.  It's a book called Savage Inequalities: Children in America's Schools by Jonathan Kozol.  Like the documentary, it shows how schools, even as close as two miles apart can be worlds apart as far as the education its students receive.  I used to think like you, Dano, until I saw this documentary (which this book is probably be based on).
Title: Re: Affirmative Action is for people not smart enough to get in without it
Post by: _BP_ on April 10, 2005, 05:05:20 PM
Dano wrote: If your school sucks, move, it's that simple.

Haha, I just had to see that again.  Good to see you are so in touch with the real world Dano.
Title: Re: Affirmative Action is for people not smart enough to get in without it
Post by: dbgirl on April 10, 2005, 05:54:02 PM
I think Dano should be an inspirational speaker for ghetto youth.
Title: Re: Affirmative Action is for people not smart enough to get in without it
Post by: dbgirl on April 10, 2005, 06:01:26 PM
Seriously Dano, do you think ANYONE would live in a poor neighborhood with bad schools just for fun?

And how, exactly, do propose that poor children going to bad schools just "move."

I am reminded of that skit I saw on Mad TV, the fake infomercial: "More and more people are discovering the power of money ... Simply figure out how much money it will take to solve your problem and give the money to person who can solve your problem."












Title: Re: Affirmative Action is for people not smart enough to get in without it
Post by: Dano on April 11, 2005, 09:47:28 PM
Seriously Dano, do you think ANYONE would live in a poor neighborhood with bad schools just for fun?

And how, exactly, do propose that poor children going to bad schools just "move."

I am reminded of that skit I saw on Mad TV, the fake infomercial: "More and more people are discovering the power of money ... Simply figure out how much money it will take to solve your problem and give the money to person who can solve your problem."


Umm ... get in a car or bus and move your lazy a$$ to a new locale.  How hard is that?  Homeless people do it all the time migrating from city to city with leftover money from handouts.  They go south in the winter to Atlanta or Miami and back north to Boston or New York in the summer.  If a drug-addicted, booze-hampered homeless dude can do it, why can't a clear-headed minority do it?

You think it is better to keep your kids in a rathole?  Are you waiting for the government or some kind, random soul to take interest and move your family to a better place?  Sometimes we have to make sacrifices removing ourselves from familiar surroundings to better ourselves.  The same applies to poverty-stricken minorities located in crime-ridden cesspools. 

Ghettos in cities are just as expensive, if not more, than many rural or suburban towns with much better schools.   Sorry, I just don't buy the "How can we move?" excuse.

As far as the documentary regarding sad city schools, so what?  There are equally sad schools in rural, majority white neighborhoods as well.  It is a matter of poverty (leading to low tax revenues) and crime-ridden schools where many good teachers do not want to work--not racism.
Title: Re: Affirmative Action is for people not smart enough to get in without it
Post by: psr13 on April 11, 2005, 10:44:22 PM
We mention the quality of the schools again. Well, I come from schools that give people extra points and are considered urban. I get no special conisderation just because I am white. Other people who go to the schools and actually were more well-off than I was got special consideration based on their skin color. Also, people always refer to affluent schools as being all white. Many of these schools include numerous Asians also, but no one wants to mention that fact.

I was asked if it my black friends were the ones who said that hockey was racist. Actually, it was my Hispanic friends who mostly said that. There were not too many black people where I grew up.  Most of my friends were Hispanics and Vietnamese people. Just so you know, I can greatly identify with what the low-income Hispanics and Asians feel because that is the environment I grew up in. I was not richer than they were, and I really did not receive special treatment. In many ways it was better if you were a minority because it was easier to get help from people. People saw me and automatically assumed I was a racist, rich, white girl. That definitely is not the case.
Title: Re: Affirmative Action is for people not smart enough to get in without it
Post by: hilljack on April 11, 2005, 11:22:30 PM
Dano wrote: If your school sucks, move, it's that simple.

Haha, I just had to see that again.  Good to see you are so in touch with the real world Dano.

I have to agree, although I have agreed w/ Dano in the past.  Moving is not simple, since most people live paycheck to paycheck, and finding a job in a new better location is very hard, especially for the down-and-out.

Even if you find a job that is just as good, moving requires new expenses, including depostits, that many people cannot afford.

I am not agreeing w/ the people are victims of circumstance argument, but lets consider all factors.  That will lead to legitimate ideas of reform.
Title: Re: Affirmative Action is for people not smart enough to get in without it
Post by: Dano on April 11, 2005, 11:40:11 PM
Dano wrote: If your school sucks, move, it's that simple.

Haha, I just had to see that again.  Good to see you are so in touch with the real world Dano.

I have to agree, although I have agreed w/ Dano in the past.  Moving is not simple, since most people live paycheck to paycheck, and finding a job in a new better location is very hard, especially for the down-and-out.

Even if you find a job that is just as good, moving requires new expenses, including depostits, that many people cannot afford.

I am not agreeing w/ the people are victims of circumstance argument, but lets consider all factors.  That will lead to legitimate ideas of reform.

When I was young and poor, it was much easier for me to move from place to place than now.  I disagree that it is harder for the down-and-out to find a job.  The down-and-out work at mostly menial jobs that are easy to find.  It is more difficult for the high-income person that is saddled with large mortgages, car payments, etc. to move and find a comparable position.

Title: Re: Affirmative Action is for people not smart enough to get in without it
Post by: hilljack on April 11, 2005, 11:53:30 PM
Dano wrote: If your school sucks, move, it's that simple.

Haha, I just had to see that again.  Good to see you are so in touch with the real world Dano.

I have to agree, although I have agreed w/ Dano in the past.  Moving is not simple, since most people live paycheck to paycheck, and finding a job in a new better location is very hard, especially for the down-and-out.

Even if you find a job that is just as good, moving requires new expenses, including depostits, that many people cannot afford.

I am not agreeing w/ the people are victims of circumstance argument, but lets consider all factors.  That will lead to legitimate ideas of reform.

When I was young and poor, it was much easier for me to move from place to place than now.  I disagree that it is harder for the down-and-out to find a job.  The down-and-out work at mostly menial jobs that are easy to find.  It is more difficult for the high-income person that is saddled with large mortgages, car payments, etc. to move and find a comparable position.



That is somewhat correct.

But, it is hard for the poor to move far; notice that often when the poor move it is to a near location w/in the state.

Also, concider those whose 'menial' jobs prevent them from searching for new work; also the argumenmt it seems was centered around kids; it is much harder to move w/ kids.

Also, I do not feel the least bit sorry for the high income person who is 'saddled'
That is the result of poor planning and "living beyond one's means"
Title: Re: Affirmative Action is for people not smart enough to get in without it
Post by: Dano on April 12, 2005, 12:06:39 AM
Dano wrote: If your school sucks, move, it's that simple.

Haha, I just had to see that again.  Good to see you are so in touch with the real world Dano.

I have to agree, although I have agreed w/ Dano in the past.  Moving is not simple, since most people live paycheck to paycheck, and finding a job in a new better location is very hard, especially for the down-and-out.

Even if you find a job that is just as good, moving requires new expenses, including depostits, that many people cannot afford.

I am not agreeing w/ the people are victims of circumstance argument, but lets consider all factors.  That will lead to legitimate ideas of reform.

When I was young and poor, it was much easier for me to move from place to place than now.  I disagree that it is harder for the down-and-out to find a job.  The down-and-out work at mostly menial jobs that are easy to find.  It is more difficult for the high-income person that is saddled with large mortgages, car payments, etc. to move and find a comparable position.



That is somewhat correct.

But, it is hard for the poor to move far; notice that often when the poor move it is to a near location w/in the state.

Also, concider those whose 'menial' jobs prevent them from searching for new work; also the argumenmt it seems was centered around kids; it is much harder to move w/ kids.

Also, I do not feel the least bit sorry for the high income person who is 'saddled'
That is the result of poor planning and "living beyond one's means"

I know a single mother that managed to move over 20 times all over the country with 2 kids and no child support or college education.  It may take sacrifice, but it can be done.  It's really not that hard to do if you just plan a tiny bit.  Many apartments have no deposit with free months rent.  If you have credit probs, find a private home owner that will rent to you.  Wining and complaining just won't get it done.

You don't have to live beyond your means for it to take longer to find a high paying job.  But you DO usually have to sell your house whether it is either paid off or mortgaged with a 125% loan-to-value ratio.
Title: Re: Affirmative Action is for people not smart enough to get in without it
Post by: hilljack on April 12, 2005, 12:25:59 AM
That is the exception, perhaps not the rule; moving is hard.  Don't be close minded.
Title: Re: Affirmative Action is for people not smart enough to get in without it
Post by: angmill08 on April 12, 2005, 11:36:26 AM
"Nickel and Dimed" is an interesting story of one reporter's struggle to get by moving around, working customer service jobs, and not having a cushion of family or much savings to cover moving expenses. I'm not saying it's a perfect book (what is?) but it details many of the hidden costs that face low income people. Again Dano, I suggest to read some of the vast amount of literature out there on these topics if you are really interested.
Title: Re: Affirmative Action is for people not smart enough to get in without it
Post by: DodgerLaw on April 12, 2005, 12:56:22 PM
Dano my friend,

Without commmenting one way or the other on AA, I don't think you know what you are talking about.

How is a child supposed to just move? Should a 6-year-old get a job and an apartment? This is good advice for an adult, perhaps even an emancipated 17-year-old, but is obviously not an option for those receiving an elementary education?

I've taught in schools up and down the economic scale from the affluent suburbs to the heart of the inner city. A The difference is stunning! Extreme! Startling!

Local tax revenue has little to do with it. In fact, in California schools in poorer neighborhoods receive more funding than those in affluent ones. No doubt this is mitigated by donations made by parents and other members of the local community, often by newer facilities, nevertheless I can assure you that school funding is far from the primary problem. Now, how are education tax dollars are spent is another problem for a different discussion, but those problems apply to all schools.

There can be no doubt that children attending inner-city schools receive a far inferior education. Is the child to be blamed for this?!

As to moving to rural areas, it's a nice idea, but has at least one major drawback. The reason they are rural areas is because few people live there. Correspondingly, there are few jobs there.

Also, racism is real. Personally I'm always stunned and surprised when I encounter someone who is actively racist. It's just so ignorant that I can't believe it. Nevertheless, it exists.

In my view, the biggest reason inner-city schools fail to give a good education is that some of the parents are not much good at parenting, generally because their own lives are a mess for various reasons, and their children are not prepared to learn. This negativley affects not only the children whose parents are failing, but his/her classmates as well. (By the way please don't take the previous paragraph to be without feeling for the parents who were themselves powerless children not so long ago.)

I guess there are two groups as far as AA or any other plan to improve the lives, opportunities, and education of those who have not benefited from the same advantages as most Americans:

1) Adults who have already received their sub-standard public education.

2) Children who as yet have a chance to get a good education.

This post, in response to Dano, addresses the needs of the second group who have little if any control over their own lives.
Title: Re: Affirmative Action is for people not smart enough to get in without it
Post by: thefaceman on April 12, 2005, 01:02:59 PM
First of all, Dodger, what in the world is going on with our boys in blue?  Who'd a thought they would win this many games all year?

Second, Danno, I want to move to Beverly Hills, good schools there.  Can you give me any pointers?  Maybe help me out?
Title: Re: Affirmative Action is for people not smart enough to get in without it
Post by: dbgirl on April 12, 2005, 01:20:31 PM
First, I have agree with DodgerLaw. Dano, it appears in your post that you are suggesting that CHILDREN move, not adults with children.

I also have to disagree with you holding a person who moved her children 20 times as a positive example for others to follow. My parents moved me all over the place and it did me far more harm than good.
Title: Re: Affirmative Action is for people not smart enough to get in without it
Post by: _BP_ on April 12, 2005, 01:34:12 PM
Good post Dodger Law.


<---------Dano         Reality---------->
Title: Re: Affirmative Action is for people not smart enough to get in without it
Post by: Dano on April 12, 2005, 10:40:17 PM
Quit being so pedantic people.  Of course I don't expect the freaking 6 year old to get an apartment and organize the family finances.

I laugh at the post that essentially says "racism exists because I've seen racists".  So you feel that AA is necessary simply because racism exists?  It seems to me that the intention of AA is to counteract the malicious effects of racism not simply eradicate all racists.  Stay focused.

A family is a unit that operates together or it faces a more difficult time.  We accept that right?  If the parents realize at some point that they are in a disadvantaged school system, they should take the necessary steps to move to another neighborhood.  If the children are older and they realize the situation, perhaps they can request their parents to move. 

The extreme example about Beverly Hills was just plain stupid.  We are talking about the bottom schools here ... almost any other schools system would be an improvement over a system that, as you indicate, caused such irreparable harm to the students.  By the way, there are many communities (like the one I am in) where students can transfer out of failing schools and attend the better schools.  It's not as hopeless as you people make it sound.  Quit being such a pack of whiners.
Title: Re: Affirmative Action is for people not smart enough to get in without it
Post by: Ladyday on April 13, 2005, 07:53:56 AM
Dano, come on now. Maybe it's easy for u to speak on what people "should do" as you are not in their situation. It's always easier to judge from the outside. People don't want to live in poverty, obviously, if they had the resources they would move. I've lived in both experiences (predominantely white and predominately black neighborhoods) and the differences are striking. Black people and white people, for the most part, are living 2 very different experiences and under 2 different consciousnesses. What I get from many white Americans is that they want to forget that slavery and institutionalized racism ever existed, like an ugly old memory. They want to "move on" b/c it was so long ago and in the "past". When #1-- it really wasn't that long ago, and #2 when you look at the historical context and it's effects, it shows why things are the way they are. I for one don't feel that I need to "explain" to you how I have been negatively affected by racism, I nor any other black people don't owe you an explaination, as u don't seem to be genuinely interested in being educated and aware, but instead confrontational. If you are however, then maybe u should take the advice of some of the other posters and do some reading and research into how the system of racism laid the groundwork for much of Black Americans' present realities, you may become very enlightened. 

This post isn't meant to defend AA or even discuss it, I'm just responding to some of the later posts. And it isn't meant to "go off" on you Dano, just trying to come to a level of understanding.
Title: Re: Affirmative Action is for people not smart enough to get in without it
Post by: Julie Fern on April 13, 2005, 08:17:13 AM
book 'em, dano.  (had to go there.)
Title: Re: Affirmative Action is for people not smart enough to get in without it
Post by: hilljack on April 13, 2005, 01:54:46 PM
Aren't there a lot of black scholars trying to get away from the 'blame racism' attitude.

I think Bill Cosby has spoken on this a few times.  I think the point is not to ignore history or even to say that racism is gone, but to focus on solutions that are feasible and being accountable.
Title: Re: Affirmative Action is for people not smart enough to get in without it
Post by: Ladyday on April 13, 2005, 02:45:02 PM
Aren't there a lot of black scholars trying to get away from the 'blame racism' attitude.

I think Bill Cosby has spoken on this a few times.  I think the point is not to ignore history or even to say that racism is gone, but to focus on solutions that are feasible and being accountable.

I'm not exactly sure if you're responding directly to me, but if the only thing u got out of my post is "blame racism" then unfortunately u missed the point and I posted in vain.
Title: Re: Affirmative Action is for people not smart enough to get in without it
Post by: hilljack on April 13, 2005, 03:29:22 PM
Actually I got an inference that I should feel, in some way, responsible for what happened in the past.  Not responsible for what I did, but for people shaded the way I am did to people shaded the way you are.  It was in the past, I have relatives who have been screwed over too; and I know these people.  But I don't think that because my family was treated like second-class citizens, you should feel responsible to learn about it and treat me differently because of it.

You said there is a white experience and a black experience; that is ridiculous. I have been to New York and Boston, and trust me, the trailor parks and country towns down south are not experiencing the same thing. 


Anyway, that was just one point I wanted to make, not to say that it was all you said. 
Title: Re: Affirmative Action is for people not smart enough to get in without it
Post by: Ninja on April 13, 2005, 03:54:51 PM

You said there is a white experience and a black experience; that is ridiculous. I have been to New York and Boston, and trust me, the trailor parks and country towns down south are not experiencing the same thing. 

 

Until 7th grade, I was in a fairly poor rural school district.  The district was almost completely white, and despite this, of the students that managed to graduate, very few of them were college caliber.  The problems with the district weren't with violence, but with girls getting pregnant and dropping out or kids just not caring about school at all.  While I was there, I was given an IQ test and somehow marked as talented.  The principal wanted to either skip me two grade levels ahead or have my parents send me to private school.  We couldn't afford private school and I don't think that skipping ahead would have really solved much.  Luckily, at this point, an opportunity arose for us to move to a fairly well-off suburban area.  The new district was much better, as the students were more motivated, which forced the school to cater to these motivated students.

I guess the point of this example is that the student body is what really drives a school to be better.  I think some cities are addressing this problem by creating magnet schools where talented and motivated students can go so that their abilities can be better cultivated.  Also, some cities are pushing a voucher program, where you can pretty much pick which school you want to attend.
Title: Re: Affirmative Action is for people not smart enough to get in without it
Post by: Ladyday on April 13, 2005, 04:00:39 PM
Actually I got an inference that I should feel, in some way, responsible for what happened in the past.  Not responsible for what I did, but for people shaded the way I am did to people shaded the way you are.  It was in the past, I have relatives who have been screwed over too; and I know these people.  But I don't think that because my family was treated like second-class citizens, you should feel responsible to learn about it and treat me differently because of it.

No, I'm absolutely not saying that you should feel responsible, nor that I as a black american should be treated any different than any other american. Actually, what I do ask is to be treated the same. However, if you are going to ask questions pertaining to why black americans "lag behind" any other racial group, then it is your responsibility to learn about the situations and conditions that are largely responsible for today's reality, before making assumptions or asking questions that u have the ability to help answer by doing your own research.

You said there is a white experience and a black experience; that is ridiculous. I have been to New York and Boston, and trust me, the trailor parks and country towns down south are not experiencing the same thing.

What does this mean  ???. I'm sorry but this statement makes absolutely no sense to me. B/c you've visited certain parts of the country, and see that people in different areas have different experiences, discounts that fact that you as a white american and I as a black american also would have different experiences? I'm sorry, but that "idea" is ridiculous. You and I could have potentially grown up in the same neighborhood and have similiar experiences, but also have different ones just based on skin color. And I'm not saying that that's right. If anything, that's part of the problem and a underlying disease of this nation that I wish would change, and hope to help change.
Title: Re: Affirmative Action is for people not smart enough to get in without it
Post by: hilljack on April 13, 2005, 04:08:15 PM

No, I'm absolutely not saying that you should feel responsible, nor that I as a black american should be treated any different than any other american. Actually, what I do ask is to be treated the same. However, if you are going to ask questions pertaining to why black americans "lag behind" any other racial group, then it is your responsibility to learn about the situations and conditions that are largely responsible for today's reality, before making assumptions or asking questions that u have the ability to help answer by doing your own research.

I agree, you should be treated the same.  I don't need to do any research to know that.  One of the problems is that some groups are more profitible and gain more power by saying, "it is all white peoples fault" and crying racism.  And if you criticize these people, well you have become a "racist."  As a white person, it is difficult to avoid that label unless you just nod your head and agree.



Quote
What does this mean  ???. I'm sorry but this statement makes absolutely no sense to me. B/c you've visited certain parts of the country, and see that people in different areas have different experiences, discounts that fact that you as a white american and I as a black american also would have different experiences? I'm sorry, but that "idea" is ridiculous. You and I could have potentially grown up in the same neighborhood and have similiar experiences, but also have different ones just based on skin color. And I'm not saying that that's right. If anything, that's part of the problem and a underlying disease of this nation that I wish would change, and hope to help change.
Quote

My point was that there are a hell of a lot more experiences than 1 black experience and 1 white experience.
Title: Re: Affirmative Action is for people not smart enough to get in without it
Post by: Ladyday on April 13, 2005, 04:15:44 PM

No, I'm absolutely not saying that you should feel responsible, nor that I as a black american should be treated any different than any other american. Actually, what I do ask is to be treated the same. However, if you are going to ask questions pertaining to why black americans "lag behind" any other racial group, then it is your responsibility to learn about the situations and conditions that are largely responsible for today's reality, before making assumptions or asking questions that u have the ability to help answer by doing your own research.

I agree, you should be treated the same.  I don't need to do any research to know that.  One of the problems is that some groups are more profitible and gain more power by saying, "it is all white peoples fault" and crying racism.  And if you criticize these people, well you have become a "racist."  As a white person, it is difficult to avoid that label unless you just nod your head and agree.

Well, for me personally, I don't agree with people who subscribe to that level of thinking, I think that they are more of a detriment than helpful. But for curiosity's sake, what groups do u think espouse that type of rhetoric? The black community as a whole? Or other groups??

My point was that there are a hell of a lot more experiences than 1 black experience and 1 white experience.

Well duh, I know that, and I wasn't attempting to say that there wasn't. I was making the statement that for the most part, white americans and black americans live 2 very different experiences and are on 2 very different levels of consciousness. This is very significant to the discourse of "race" as a whole.
Title: Re: Affirmative Action is for people not smart enough to get in without it
Post by: hilljack on April 13, 2005, 04:19:11 PM
I don't think the community as a whole does, but I think many people who are known as civil rights leaders do, which makes it harder, because they take up air time and do influence the black and white community.  I don't want to make this an argument about specific people, but Jesse Jackson, I beleive has done more harm to blacks.
Title: Re: Affirmative Action is for people not smart enough to get in without it
Post by: _BP_ on April 13, 2005, 07:03:33 PM
Aren't there a lot of black scholars trying to get away from the 'blame racism' attitude.

I think Bill Cosby has spoken on this a few times.  I think the point is not to ignore history or even to say that racism is gone, but to focus on solutions that are feasible and being accountable.

ummm I wouldn't use Bill Cosby and "black scholars" in the same thought.
Title: Re: Affirmative Action is for people not smart enough to get in without it
Post by: hilljack on April 13, 2005, 08:50:45 PM
Bill Cosby has a doctorate; is he not black?
Title: Re: Affirmative Action is for people not smart enough to get in without it
Post by: _BP_ on April 14, 2005, 05:22:09 AM
Bill Cosby has a doctorate; is he not black?

Is every white person with a doctorate degree a "White Scholar" and someone to be quoted and deferred to on issues in the white community?
Is a doctorate degree the hurdle needed to be called a scholar?  When you think black scholar, you don't think Bill Cosby.  When you think of black comedian or entertainer then Bill Cosby comes to mind.    Interestingly enough he becomes a scholar when he says things that whites can latch onto.  Since in your mind there are a lot of black scholars trying to get away from the "blame racism attitude", then quote some of those instead of someone that is really not seen as a scholar (read critical thinker) in the community.

A little on Bill:
Bill Cosby dropped out of high school(after failing the 10th grade twice) to enter the Navy.  Got his equivalency diploma through a correspondence course after he was finished.  Went to Temple on a track scholarship.  Dropped out of Temple to get into show biz.  Because he never earned a Bachelor of Arts degree, he used his celebrity status (and the school's knowledge that big bucks were to follow-just reality people) to eventually gain entrance to a doctorate program. For his doctorate in education, his dissertation was titled, "An Integration of the Visual Media via Fat Albert and the Cosby Kids into the Elementary School Curriculum as a Teaching Aid and Vehicle to Achieve Increased Learning."

Title: Re: Affirmative Action is for people not smart enough to get in without it
Post by: hilljack on April 14, 2005, 04:19:25 PM
I didn't mean "black scholar" to mean that he had some great knowledge of blacks; just that he is an educated man who happens to have experienced being black.

And you assume to much-when I was in seventh grade, my English teacher had us read an essay on parenthood by Dr. Cosby; if I were asked, "is Bill Cosby a scholar" from then on, I would respond in the affirmitive.

So, congratulations on proving that you know more about Cosby than I do.  I can only assume that you know more about "black scholars" than I do as well.  I do not remember any names, but I have heard similar stances elsewhere; you have not answered my question though, instead you attacked Bill Cosby; that does not make very much sence to me.
Title: Re: Affirmative Action is for people not smart enough to get in without it
Post by: _BP_ on April 14, 2005, 04:46:52 PM
I didn't mean "black scholar" to mean that he had some great knowledge of blacks; just that he is an educated man who happens to have experienced being black.

And you assume to much-when I was in seventh grade, my English teacher had us read an essay on parenthood by Dr. Cosby; if I were asked, "is Bill Cosby a scholar" from then on, I would respond in the affirmitive.

So, congratulations on proving that you know more about Cosby than I do.  I can only assume that you know more about "black scholars" than I do as well.  I do not remember any names, but I have heard similar stances elsewhere; you have not answered my question though, instead you attacked Bill Cosby; that does not make very much sence to me.

What was your question?  And did I attack Bill Cosby or merely stated facts?  Who is assuming too much now?
Title: Re: Affirmative Action is for people not smart enough to get in without it
Post by: blk_reign on April 14, 2005, 04:51:26 PM
hmmm looks like facts to me Oracle  :D ..
Title: Re: Affirmative Action is for people not smart enough to get in without it
Post by: hilljack on April 14, 2005, 04:55:08 PM
It seemed as if you were attacking him.

Aren't there a lot of black scholars trying to get away from the 'blame racism' attitude.

I think Bill Cosby has spoken on this a few times. I think the point is not to ignore history or even to say that racism is gone, but to focus on solutions that are feasible and being accountable.

ummm I wouldn't use Bill Cosby and "black scholars" in the same thought.


The question is would it be wise for blacks to not 'blame racism' even though obviously it does exist.  As a southerner, many people expect me to be stupid and backward, but I won't let that stop me.  I am not saying that blacks should deny racism exists (although to what extent is another question).  I am saying that a 'blame racism' attitude defers attention away from such things as the disproportionate number of blacks who have absent fathers, are born out of wedlock, drop out of school, etc.  Problems that could conceivibly be solved w/in the community.  Just a thought.
Title: Re: Affirmative Action is for people not smart enough to get in without it
Post by: blk_reign on April 14, 2005, 05:03:51 PM
Reality is Racism still exists... it's not going anywhere anytime soon...it exists in the stores one shops in.. even exists at the damn gas station.. i was pumping some gas the other day and this white guy was there bumping some music.. this white woman saw me standing there.. walked up to him and asked him loud as hell.. "are you white or black".. i'm standing there looking like wtf is that supposed to mean? she wouldn't look me in the face of course... but the point is.. it's everywhere...


i don't think that people are going to be in your presence and say.. you must be dumb because you're from the south.. but people are bold and insensitve when it comes to racial issues..

Title: Re: Affirmative Action is for people not smart enough to get in without it
Post by: _BP_ on April 14, 2005, 05:27:21 PM
It seemed as if you were attacking him.

Aren't there a lot of black scholars trying to get away from the 'blame racism' attitude.

I think Bill Cosby has spoken on this a few times. I think the point is not to ignore history or even to say that racism is gone, but to focus on solutions that are feasible and being accountable.

ummm I wouldn't use Bill Cosby and "black scholars" in the same thought.


The question is would it be wise for blacks to not 'blame racism' even though obviously it does exist.  As a southerner, many people expect me to be stupid and backward, but I won't let that stop me.  I am not saying that blacks should deny racism exists (although to what extent is another question).  I am saying that a 'blame racism' attitude defers attention away from such things as the disproportionate number of blacks who have absent fathers, are born out of wedlock, drop out of school, etc.  Problems that could conceivibly be solved w/in the community.  Just a thought.

Okay, I see your question. 
If racism is to blame then why hold back.  Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that racism is to blame for all of our ills, but indeed racism and its cohorts (poor education, work place discrimination, inadequate healthcare, discriminatory lending practices, discriminatory housing practices, the break down of the family structure (rooted in slavery), the mental scourge of forced religion, the annihiliation of pride in our history and people....and so on and so on) affect us today.  Now. April 14th 2005.

As for your follow on question, take a look at an excerpt from this article:

 The birthrate for unmarried black women--especially vilified by racist rhetoric--is at a forty-year low and the rate of babies born to black teens hasn’t gone up one iota since 1920.  Centers for Disease Control.

And speaking of teens, only six-tenths of one percent of black babies are born to women under the age of fifteen, and the birthrate for black teens 15-19 has dropped by a third since 1991. Overall, more than eight in ten black babies are born to mothers in their twenties or older, and the teen birthrate has fallen faster among black youth than any other racial group over the last decade.

The parallel belief that black women have too many children--at whatever age--and therefore can’t properly care for them is equally mythical. The average number of minor children in white households and black households is identical, and for female-headed black and white households the difference is statistically insignificant. Contrary to the widespread notion that black women typically have four or five children (if not more), only one in twenty black female headed families have four or more kids.

Even for families receiving public assistance--and even before welfare “reform” bumped tens of thousands off the rolls and restricted eligibility for benefits--the typical “welfare family” of whatever race included only a mother and two children and was actually slightly smaller than the typical non-welfare family.

Of course I can hear the voices of racial apoplexy now. “What about the skyrocketing rate of out-of-wedlock births in the black community?” Doesn’t that indicate the sexual irresponsibility of black females and their male compradors, one might ask?

Well no. In fact, not even close.

The reason for the increase in the share of black children born out-of-wedlock in recent decades is that two-parent black couples are having fewer children than ever, meaning that a growing share of the children who are born in the black community will be out-of-wedlock, even though sexual behavior hasn’t changed, and fertility rates among single black women have been falling.

Indeed, eighty percent of the increase in out-of-wedlock childbirths in the black community is because of the falloff in children born to intact black families: a falloff that has been even steeper than the decline among single moms.


Title: Re: Affirmative Action is for people not smart enough to get in without it
Post by: _BP_ on April 14, 2005, 05:30:47 PM
Continuation of the article, just to further clear up some myths:

Although blacks and Hispanics tend to try drugs for the first time at a slightly younger age than whites, by the end of high school, whites have caught up and surpassed them in every drug category. White seniors are a third more likely to have smoked pot in the past year, seven times more likely to have used cocaine, three times more likely to have used heroin, and nine times more likely to have used LSD. And it's not just that there are more white users, as this would reflect mere population percentages, but rather, that the white rate of use is that much higher than the rate for blacks.

It's the same story for young adults. Whites are 66% of 18-25 year olds, but 70% of drug users that age. Blacks are 13.5% of persons in that age cohort, but only 13% of young adult users, while Hispanics are nearly 15% of that age group, but only 12% of drug users 18-25.

When it comes to drug dealing, the picture changes only slightly. According to the Justice Department, drug users tend to buy from same-race dealers. So the nearly three-quarters of users who are white, mainly rely on white dope peddlers, not the Jamaicans or Dominicans of popular imagery. And when it comes to drugs like Ecstasy--a hot product for the Virginia cartel--the dealers and users have long been known to be mostly white, middle class males between 14 and 32.
Title: Re: Affirmative Action is for people not smart enough to get in without it
Post by: thefaceman on April 14, 2005, 06:03:31 PM
Touche
Title: Re: Affirmative Action is for people not smart enough to get in without it
Post by: hilljack on April 14, 2005, 06:52:30 PM
First of all, I have heard, "you sound funny" "you sound retarded" plenty, but I was not trying to say that prejudice against southerners is as great as prejudice against blacks.

I feel as if you ignored the fact that gov't assistance to single parents w/ children increased dramatically during the 60s, corresponding w/ an increase in single parent (usually mother) families.

A lot of what you said is good information, but some of it was not about anything that I said, nor about the issue of problem solving.  Furhtermore, many of those conditions you wrote of (poor health care, education, etc.) were precisely the conditions my parents grew up in; its not all about race, its mostly socio-economic status.  If you are wealthy and black you are better off than if you are poor and white.  You have more educational opportunities, better health care, etc.  I beleive there is a marginal difference b/t blacks and whites of the same income level, which could be attributed partially to racism, but the lack of role models and hip hop culture don't help things.

Anyway, a lot of what you said is just good news; Juan Williams did an article last year or year before about America since the Civil Rights Act; in this article he cited statistics similar to what you cited.  Basically saying that although the gap (in a variety of indicators) between whites and blacks is still there, it is much smaller.

My question is this ;
Someone said, "If racism is to blame, then why hold back."  If it is in your best interest to do so.  Let me let you in on something.  Most white people are not racist.  But at the same time, they hate being called racist and do not like people who they perceive to be "crying racism."  Just as you are black and know more about how black people feel, I can tell you that this is the attitude of most whites in the south.  If its different elsewhere, I don't really know. 

I will leave you with this.  Some people have argued that asians have done well, why not blacks or hispanics.  This is somewhat unfair because of the millions of Asians in Asia, most of the immigrants are intelligent, but even the decendents are doing well.  I think that they have, to some degree, put there culture to the side and embraced American culture.  Anyway, this post is suffering from DMR, so I will quit.
Title: Re: Affirmative Action is for people not smart enough to get in without it
Post by: _BP_ on April 14, 2005, 07:44:14 PM
You made some good points as well hilljack.  A couple of quick things:

You wrote: many of those conditions you wrote of (poor health care, education, etc.) were precisely the conditions my parents grew up in.

While this is true, many of the conditions I mentioned were not conditions your parents grew up in.  I am sure your parents did not have to worry about applying for a home loan and paying a higher interest rate than someone with an identical Fico score (because of their skin color).  See ongoing litigation against JP Morgan for charging higher interest rates to blacks with identical risk profiles as their white counterparts.

You wrote: Let me let you in on something.  Most white people are not racist.  But at the same time, they hate being called racist and do not like people who they perceive to be "crying racism."

I am confident that most white people are not racist, and ofcourse no one wants to be called racist.  Just don't forget that only in your grandparents (and maybe even your parents) lifetimes, many whites would have hated to be called a "n-word lover", to be called non-racist.

You wrote I will leave you with this.  Some people have argued that asians have done well, why not blacks or hispanics.  This is somewhat unfair because of the millions of Asians in Asia, most of the immigrants are intelligent, but even the decendents are doing well.  I think that they have, to some degree, put there culture to the side and embraced American culture[/b]

At least Asians largely had a choice in the matter.  Blacks were systematically robbed of  their culture, history, and religion and taught to not only worship their white masters, a white God, but everything white in between.  You're right, now we do have a choice in the matter, and I would rather die than have to "put my culture to the side and embrace American culture", whatever that is.

Anyhow, I see alot of your points, and I guess we can just agree to disagree and whatever is left.
Peace to you.




Title: Re: Affirmative Action is for people not smart enough to get in without it
Post by: hilljack on April 14, 2005, 08:10:16 PM
If you are unwilling to go to the mainstream, often times you are left behind.

Many people in my family value living in the hills; they are poor, don't go to college and work bad jobs.  Are they less intelligent than the average person?  Probably not, but they value their culture in much the same way you seem to value yours.  They will never meet their economic potential because of this, and perhaps blacks who heavily value 'black' culture will have difficulty meeting their's.  I would not tell a black person who values keeping strong ties to his culture not to any more than I would tell the people in my family to leave the hills.  But I think it is a partial explanation for some inequalities.
Title: Re: Affirmative Action is for people not smart enough to get in without it
Post by: Ladyday on April 14, 2005, 08:48:24 PM
Please explain the characteristics of the "mainstream culture" that u speak of, that u think more black americans need to adopt.
Title: Re: Affirmative Action is for people not smart enough to get in without it
Post by: hilljack on April 14, 2005, 09:56:59 PM
If you are unwilling to go to the mainstream, often times you are left behind.

Many people in my family value living in the hills; they are poor, don't go to college and work bad jobs. Are they less intelligent than the average person? Probably not, but they value their culture in much the same way you seem to value yours. They will never meet their economic potential because of this, and perhaps blacks who heavily value 'black' culture will have difficulty meeting their's. I would not tell a black person who values keeping strong ties to his culture not to any more than I would tell the people in my family to leave the hills. But I think it is a partial explanation for some inequalities.

Need to?

Hmm

Title: Re: Affirmative Action is for people not smart enough to get in without it
Post by: blk_reign on April 14, 2005, 10:08:40 PM
If you are unwilling to go to the mainstream, often times you are left behind.

Many people in my family value living in the hills; they are poor, don't go to college and work bad jobs.  Are they less intelligent than the average person?  Probably not, but they value their culture in much the same way you seem to value yours.  They will never meet their economic potential because of this, and perhaps blacks who heavily value 'black' culture will have difficulty meeting their's. I would not tell a black person who values keeping strong ties to his culture not to any more than I would tell the people in my family to leave the hills.  But I think it is a partial explanation for some inequalities.


that isn't for any of us to say but one can argue that the fact that they are content with being poor will affect the generations to come out of their family...but that does bring me to ask you this question.. why are they content with being poor??

there are definintely socioeconomic disparities within all ethnicities however it is a lot easier for for a white person to rise out of that situation than blacks..

a study done by Stephen Steinberg in his book Turning Back:  The Retreat from Racial Justice in American Thought and Policy shows that 37.2% of black children lived in poverty as did 36.8% of Hispanic children..but only 16.1% of white children grew up in poverty.. Those figures reflect blacks' disproportionate presence at the lowest rungs of the economic hierarchy...

to add to that... the median hourly wage for whites is $18.20 while it's $12.92 for blacks.. while there has been an increase in jobs....black workers are overrepresented in the service sector where low wages are a given...

the average wealth in black households (stocks, bonds, savings etc) is $23,300 compared to $198,400 in white households... home ownership is 2/3 less than it is for whites..

the economic realities that i've described mean that many societal goods (housing, health care and good edu) remain out of reach for a large portion of African Americans.

as Oracle pointed out earlier... racial discrimination plays no small part in determining access to jobs..credit..bank loans..housing...legal representation and so on... Skin-color prejudice perpetuates occupational...residential... and recreational segregation and fosters average socioeconomic inequalities between whites and blacks...

i can go on and on about this....but i'll wait to see what responses will rebutt the facts that i've stated...

now as for your second statement that i've bolded... what u stated cannot be further from the truth.. we embrace our culture.. do what we can to further our education and careers.. all the while helping those that are suffering through poverty and the other issues that have been mentioned attain their goals..and get to where they want and need to be in this society... we aren't only going to school for ourselves ..or for our families... there are some changes that need to be made and we are the ones that have accepted the challenge and will make the difference..
 
Title: Re: Affirmative Action is for people not smart enough to get in without it
Post by: hilljack on April 14, 2005, 10:31:53 PM

that isn't for any of us to say but one can argue that the fact that they are content with being poor will affect the generations to come out of their family...but that does bring me to ask you this question.. why are they content with being poor??

there are definintely socioeconomic disparities within all ethnicities however it is a lot easier for for a white person to rise out of that situation than blacks..
a study done by Stephen Steinberg in his book Turning Back:  The Retreat from Racial Justice in American Thought and Policy shows that 37.2% of black children lived in poverty as did 36.8% of Hispanic children..but only 16.1% of white children grew up in poverty.. Those figures reflect blacks' disproportionate presence at the lowest rungs of the economic hierarchy...

to add to that... the median hourly wage for whites is $18.20 while it's $12.92 for blacks.. while there has been an increase in jobs....black workers are overrepresented in the service sector where low wages are a given...

the average wealth in black households (stocks, bonds, savings etc) is $23,300 compared to $198,400 in white households... home ownership is 2/3 less than it is for whites..

the economic realities that i've described mean that many societal goods (housing, health care and good edu) remain out of reach for a large portion of African Americans.

as Oracle pointed out earlier... racial discrimination plays no small part in determining access to jobs..credit..bank loans..housing...legal representation and so on... Skin-color prejudice perpetuates occupational...residential... and recreational segregation and fosters average socioeconomic inequalities between whites and blacks...

i can go on and on about this....but i'll wait to see what responses will rebutt the facts that i've stated...

now as for your second statement that i've bolded... what u stated cannot be further from the truth.. we embrace our culture.. do what we can to further our education and careers.. all the while helping those that are suffering through poverty and the other issues that have been mentioned attain their goals..and get to where they want and need to be in this society... we aren't only going to school for ourselves ..or for our families... there are some changes that need to be made and we are the ones that have accepted the challenge and will make the difference..
 

Many people are content w/ being poor; this number increases as the gov't hands out welfare checks, medicaid, etc.

This makes it possible for some people to have large amounts of free time and still have some compensation.  I geuss the question is: would you rather receive the equivilent of 10000/yr and not work or 20000/yr working 40hr/wk.  Different people have different answers to that question, or any similar question that relates package A(more$-less free time) to package B(less$-more free time)


I would like an explaination of how some minority groups, including some who have been victims of discrimination, have done reletively better than others.  I honestly do not know.  I only assume that factors such as hip hop or street culture play some factor.  I could be wrong though.


Third block: I just don't agree that this is the result of racism

Last block: I just don't agree w/ that mindset, maybe its the economist in me, but not being self-interested is another good way to get left behind--but that is way off the subject


Here are my questions:
You feel that racism is pervasive (assumption)
1. Is the irradication of racism neccesary for blacks to be successful?
2. Have efforts to stop racism been successful?  To what extent? Are the efforts in vain?
3. Hypothetically, if racism did not exist, but one race still had greater income, wealth, etc.--would this be okay?
4. Is the black community/black leaders at all responsible for its ills?  Or are they at all responsible for fixing them?
Title: Re: Affirmative Action is for people not smart enough to get in without it
Post by: Cyndra on April 14, 2005, 11:16:49 PM

Dude..there's a whole channel devoted to black entertainment. BET.  I guess you and your wife never flipped your channels that far huh?  You must have also forgotten The cosby show, fresh prince of bel air, family matters, hangin' with mr. cooper.

wtf are you talking about??!?

Just reading up on this thread and I've seen a lot of rediculous things. Sorry if this response is kind of late, I know the discussion has since turned, but um, those are all cancelled shows. What are you talking about ??!?

Oh, and in case you didn't know, BET may feature black entertainment, but there are whites behind it too.
Title: Re: Affirmative Action is for people not smart enough to get in without it
Post by: Cyndra on April 15, 2005, 12:10:46 AM
millions of Asians in Asia, most of the immigrants are intelligent, but even the decendents are doing well.  I think that they have, to some degree, put there culture to the side and embraced American culture.  Anyway, this post is suffering from DMR, so I will quit.

Not to attack you, but you have a small view of the world if you think this is true. Many Asian Americans work lower paying jobs in cleaners, convenience stores, restaurants, etc., speaking their own languages and maintaining their cultural identities by refusing to join "mainstream" America. And I do think that blacks are indeed a part of mainstream America, whatever that construct is, but happen to belong to a subsect of it. Whether or not that is by choice (doubt it) or not is not the argument.

Face it, the American standard is a middle-aged white male. And every other group that deviates from that standard could be said to have their own subsect and still be a part of "mainstream America." Older people criticize the youths as being "wild" and "out there." Immigrants who reside in big cities often have sections of town that cater to their ethnic diversity, whereby some can subsist w/o learning "the language (English)" or having to assimilate at all. To deviate in particular areas of life from what you, as a white, Southern male might call "mainstream" isn't the same as not embracing mainstream America.

And by the way, while I don't feel this way, I'm sure a minority out there might (I know my father does). Have you ever tried to hug a huge ball of thorns? Whether you like it or not, whether or not you believe it exists, for some people, embracing a culture that they feel isolates and deprives them isn't an option--it's suicide because if you hug a ball of thorns, you're going to get hurt. Just because you don't believe in the existence of racism, don't discount others' feelings by denying that it exists. Just admit that you don't know any instances of it, because as you so emphatically stated above, you yourself aren't a racists and you're not a minority, so neither are you doling it out, nor are you taking it in on a daily basis.

There are things that go on in this world right under your nose that, while you may not know of them, does not discount that fact that they do indeed occur.
Title: Re: Affirmative Action is for people not smart enough to get in without it
Post by: Dano on April 15, 2005, 07:17:20 AM
You made some good points as well hilljack.  A couple of quick things:

You wrote: many of those conditions you wrote of (poor health care, education, etc.) were precisely the conditions my parents grew up in.

While this is true, many of the conditions I mentioned were not conditions your parents grew up in.  I am sure your parents did not have to worry about applying for a home loan and paying a higher interest rate than someone with an identical Fico score (because of their skin color).  See ongoing litigation against JP Morgan for charging higher interest rates to blacks with identical risk profiles as their white counterparts.


Must be nice that owning a home is the issue here.  My family never owned a home.  How does that prevent you from obtaining a decent education?  Also, are you sure that race was required on the loan applications?  Did whites in the same neighborhoods as those blacks studied also receive unfavorable consideration from loan companies? 

The thing that is most troubling about this whole discussion to me is the myopic view represented by several of the posters.  They are only looking at poverty and strife within the filtered lenses of race and history.  All I ask is to consider the fact that other groups of people have been wronged by classism, hiring quotas, affirmative action, age discrimination, and other equally potent factors as racism.  Are we to open the floodgates and give them special status too?

I asked a simple question several times regarding the topic of this thread, which addresses getting into law school.  Noone could provide an answer to that question other than references to studies, books, and history.  If this is such a permeating problem TODAY that requires a boost to get into law school or other universities, it would seem that many of the AA supporters would be chiming in with concrete, specific as possible examples of how racism has caused them to not be able to receive a decent education?  Poor neighborhoods have bad schools across racial makeup, so I do not accept the "But my school sucked!" argument.   

Title: Re: Affirmative Action is for people not smart enough to get in without it
Post by: _BP_ on April 15, 2005, 07:24:36 AM
Dano, it's interesting that you bring up myopia, because you seem to be unable to see that these issues are way bigger than A.A and your admittance into law school. 

To answer your question on hip hop culture hilljack (thanks by the way for keeping the debate cordial without the usual degeneration that we usually see on these boards):

Blaming the ills of the black community on hip-hop culture is akin to blaming the pervasiveness of the white dominated prostitution/porno industry on strip club culture.  Yes strip clubs are a feeder for the porno industry, but blaming it on “strip-club culture” would be to ignore all the other factors that bring women  into that life in the first place.  So you can’t start with the strip club if you want to analyze the problem, you have to dig deeper.  People have a tendency to want to ignore the bodies buried under the floor, and blame the smell on the carpet (hip hop culture in this case).  Bad analogy I know, but you get the point.

The thought of blaming hip-hop culture on our ills becomes more absurd when you start to really think about it.  Hop-hop only became a viable movement in the late 80’s.  We would then have to assume that the problems in the black community started in the late 80’s, and it was all roses and peaches before that.  For the people who are still adamant that hip-hop culture is to blame, I guess we can then blame “reggae culture” for drug use, the country music “cowboy culture” as the reason Texas executes people at a higher rate than any other state in the country, the “death metal” (via Marilyn Manson) culture for the Columbine school shootings…and so on.  Think it all the way through.

edit: it's worth noting that whites are the largest stakeholders, and by far the largest consumers of hip hop.

Title: Re: Affirmative Action is for people not smart enough to get in without it
Post by: Dano on April 15, 2005, 07:41:00 AM
Dano, it's interesting that you bring up myopia, because you seem to be unable to see that these issues are way bigger than A.A and your admittance into law school. 


You seem to be unable to focus on a topic.

Then you go on to make excuses for a music culture that denigrates women and exalts in money and flashy cars as the secrets too success.  That is the wrong kind of message to bring to the youth that need to be focused on their LSAT score, afterall.

Title: Re: Affirmative Action is for people not smart enough to get in without it
Post by: _BP_ on April 15, 2005, 07:59:26 AM
Dano, it's interesting that you bring up myopia, because you seem to be unable to see that these issues are way bigger than A.A and your admittance into law school. 


You seem to be unable to focus on a topic.

Then you go on to make excuses for a music culture that denigrates women and exalts in money and flashy cars as the secrets too success.  That is the wrong kind of message to bring to the youth that need to be focused on their LSAT score, afterall.

Which industry denigrates women more, the porno industry (which dwarfs the entire music industry and the entire movie industry), or hip hop music?  Let me know.

Does the movie industry exalt any less in money and flashy cars?

I wonder where you would be directing your venom if whites made up the hop hop industry while blacks were the biggest players in the porno industry.

You wrote: Also, are you sure that race was required on the loan applications?  Did whites in the same neighborhoods as those blacks studied also receive unfavorable consideration from loan companies? 

And look who is talking about excuses.  You seem unable to fathom that this behaviour is still happening.  The charges were brought by a white Attorney General, maybe you should ask him these questions because he obviously has no idea what he's doing.

edit: and it's not a matter of my defending hip hop, but just because you have a passionate view on a subject does not make it the most sound one.
Title: Re: Affirmative Action is for people not smart enough to get in without it
Post by: blk_reign on April 15, 2005, 08:29:35 AM
Dano, it's interesting that you bring up myopia, because you seem to be unable to see that these issues are way bigger than A.A and your admittance into law school. 


You seem to be unable to focus on a topic.

Then you go on to make excuses for a music culture that denigrates women and exalts in money and flashy cars as the secrets too success.  That is the wrong kind of message to bring to the youth that need to be focused on their LSAT score, afterall.

Which industry denigrates women more, the porno industry (which dwarfs the entire music industry and the entire movie industry), or hip hop music?  Let me know.

Does the movie industry exalt any less in money and flashy cars?

I wonder where you would be directing your venom if whites made up the hop hop industry while blacks were the biggest players in the porno industry.

You wrote: Also, are you sure that race was required on the loan applications?  Did whites in the same neighborhoods as those blacks studied also receive unfavorable consideration from loan companies? 

And look who is talking about excuses.  You seem unable to fathom that this behaviour is still happening.  The charges were brought by a white Attorney General, maybe you should ask him these questions because he obviously has no idea what he's doing.

edit: and it's not a matter of my defending hip hop, but just because you have a passionate view on a subject does not make it the most sound one.

sage words...you know i always find it to be quite interesting when people bring data and fact into their arguments that the only rebuttal is "gosh that rap music"...


hilljack..the question that i was asking you is why YOUR family choses to be poor..i'm assuming this based on the example that you provided...

it isn't my job to give you an explanation about other minority groups.. you'd have to pick up some books or address them specifically to get that answer...

you don't have to agree that these issues are a result of racism.. that doesn't mean that they aren't...

i'm pretty sure that there will never be an irradication of racism... No the efforts to end racism haven't been successful.. see above example of me going to the gas station a few days ago...

look at the things that are said on this board regarding some of the black people getting into Tier 1 law schools.. is it not racist to say.. hey they got in because they're URM when many times a white counterpart has gotten in with the same exact #s?

and who made these people that you refer to as black leaders by the way?

i already addressed fixing the problem when i stated...

we do what we can to further our education and careers.. all the while helping those that are suffering through poverty and the other issues that have been mentioned attain their goals..and get to where they want and need to be in this society...

there are some changes that need to be made and we are the ones that have accepted the challenge and will make the difference..

 

there are MANY black people making power moves.. just because we aren't in front of a camera doesn't mean that it isn't being done..
Title: Re: Affirmative Action is for people not smart enough to get in without it
Post by: hilljack on April 15, 2005, 10:07:29 AM
Okay, I have gotten behind and I will try to catch up

First to the guy who complained about BET:  correct me if I am wrong; isn't BET owned by Bernard Johnson (the guy who was the first black man to own an NBA team)

Second: the depiction of asians as doing poorly is false in regard to education.  Asians are consistantly overrepresented to a greater degree than any racial group.  Yes, some work menial jobs and still speak their native language, but doesn't that support my argument about 'acceptance of American culture.'

Hip Hop: I don't think hip hop is good for anyone of any race, but ussually hip hop depicts black men engaging in questionable behavior.  This would lead me to beleive it may have a greater impact on black youths than white youths.  I would also like to add, that I have seen some hip hop that does not have all the negative images, but the lion's share seems to be very negative.

Other bad influences: Look, I am against heavy metal, porn, etc. as well.  I have seen the effects of these things and they are not good.  Rap music, I beleive, more than these other things has an ill effect on black youths, perhaps heavy metal or whatever (I honestly don't listen to any of it) has a similar effect on white youths.

And the question regarding my family.  My immediate family is actually educated and fairly well off, it is my extended family (aunts,uncles,cousins) that are voluntarily, for lack of a better word, poor.  I think my previous post adressed why.  They would rather keep their culture and be poor than lose it and gain wealth.  I, nor my parents suffered from this inposition.

blk_reign.esq--Who made these people black leaders was your question.  That is a good question.  I beleive it is the black man who 'sells out' to white, corporate America who often becomes a 'leader' because of exposure--not because his ideas win out over his counterparts.  This, of course, is only a partial explanation.  I do believe it would behoove the black community as a whole to not accept negative hip hop or these supposed leaders, but this will require a very pro-active measure by responsible, and well-meaning members of said communtity.

I could go on, but I hit on the things I really wanted to.
Title: Re: Affirmative Action is for people not smart enough to get in without it
Post by: _BP_ on April 15, 2005, 11:13:50 AM
You wrote:
Hip Hop: I don't think hip hop is good for anyone of any race, but ussually hip hop depicts black men engaging in questionable behavior.  This would lead me to beleive it may have a greater impact on black youths than white youths.  I would also like to add, that I have seen some hip hop that does not have all the negative images, but the lion's share seems to be very negative.

I understand why you would think that the lion's share of hip-hop seems to be very negative.  Just like the Lion's share of news on tv is very negative.  That's what sells.  What shocks.  What tittilates.  Someone helping a little old lady cross the street is not news.  Someone beating and robbing that little old lady is going to be the lead story on all the local news stations.  That's what the public demands.  You wouldn't say then that watching the news is not good for anyone of any race.  Sex and violence is what sells, regardless of the genre.  This is manifested in hip hop, rock music and blockbuster movies, across all genres and across all races.  But when the societal thirst for mayhem is quenched in a genre dominated by blacks, suddenly all hell breaks loose.  If a rapper says "F*ck the police" he gets a letter from the FBI (like one rap group did), but if a white movie maker shows a movie in which a police officer is tortured and murdered (Reservoir Dogs) he gets critical acclaim.  Just the facts. Like Chris Rock said, it's okay for white people to make guns and sell them at Walmart.  But let a black person say the word "gun" and you'll have a congressional hearing.

So the reason why you think most hip hop is negative is due to the fact that negative hip hop is popular, and popular hip hop tends to be negative.  That's societal, and only represents a minute percentage of the hip hop out there, while the positive hiphop would never end up on the Billboard charts or on the radio.
By the way, BET was sold to Viacom (MTV).   
Title: Re: Affirmative Action is for people not smart enough to get in without it
Post by: hilljack on April 15, 2005, 11:39:04 AM
I don't think the news glorifies antisocial behavior the way hip hop music does; that is probably the most striking of many differences.

And I am not a supporter of kids being exposed to movies like Resevoir Dogs either; just as in hip hop, a well adjusted adult can view a violent movie or listen to negative music and it won't effect them the way it does an impressionable 12 year old who may not have a strong male role model.

Your point is well taken; the discussion of negative media should not be limited to hip hop, but I think it should be included.

Pornagraphy on the other hand, although I don't think its Constitutional to outright ban it, is harmful to anyone.  Ask Ted Bundy.
Title: Re: Affirmative Action is for people not smart enough to get in without it
Post by: Cyndra on April 15, 2005, 02:45:00 PM
Okay, I have gotten behind and I will try to catch up

First to the guy who complained about BET:  correct me if I am wrong; isn't BET owned by Bernard Johnson (the guy who was the first black man to own an NBA team)

Um, no. It's owned by Viacom now.

Second: the depiction of asians as doing poorly is false in regard to education. Asians are consistantly overrepresented to a greater degree than any racial group. Yes, some work menial jobs and still speak their native language, but doesn't that support my argument about 'acceptance of American culture.'

I never said Asians do "poorly... in regard to education."  You said,
Quote
I think that they have, to some degree, put there culture to the side and embraced American culture.
What I was trying to explain is that this comment is a gross overgeneralization. I'm not sure I understand what you mean by "embracing American culture" and "put[ting] ther culture to the side" means though, because speaking your native language instead of learning English doesn't sound like one is leaving their culture behind to embrace mainstream America. And BTW,  I think it's a great thing to be able to hold onto your culture despite the pressures around you.

I don't know. I may be reading you incorrectly, but it sounds like you're saying that if one wants to be included, it's necessary to abandon the native culture in an effort to be more "white" (I say white because you say blacks don't make this effort to be a part of mainstream America).
Title: Re: Affirmative Action is for people not smart enough to get in without it
Post by: _BP_ on April 15, 2005, 02:58:26 PM
Some stats for you:

-Americans spend more on strip clubs than they spend on theater, opera ballet, jazz, and classical-music concerts combined.

-Americans spend more on porno movies than they spend on maintream Hollywood movies, by far.

-In less than 30 years the porno industry has grown from less than $10 million to over $13 billion a year.

-The Playboy Internet site currently averages more than 5 million visits each day!

-US News and World Report February issue: A well run strip club makes $5 million per year.

-top porn stars earn $20,000 per week dancing

This is America people.  We thirst for sex and violence.  So It's almost laughable to hear people going on about how hip hop degrades women. Well some artist do, I agree.  But don't ignore the elephant standing in your living room while reminding me of the cockroach in mine.

Okay, have a good weekend.



-
Title: Re: Affirmative Action is for people not smart enough to get in without it
Post by: Cyndra on April 15, 2005, 03:08:25 PM
Some stats for you:


-US News and World Report February issue: A well run strip club makes $5 million per year.

-top porn stars earn $20,000 per week dancing

Damn :o... I'm in the wrong business!
Title: Re: Affirmative Action is for people not smart enough to get in without it
Post by: zenbiddie on April 15, 2005, 03:09:46 PM
an abundance of good points have been made throughout this thread [madd love to Oracle].  

im glad you are sticking with this discussion, hilljack, because there is much to be gained here.  understanding is difficult to obtain so i applaud your curiosity whereas others might close their minds.  

you mentioned a salient fact: "a well adjusted adult can view a violent movie or listen to negative music and it won't effect them the way it does an impressionable 12 year old who may not have a strong male role model."

as you may know, black males are disproportionately represented in the prison system.  according to the us dept of justice, at the end of 2003, black inmates represented an estimated 44% (586,300) of all inmates with sentences of more than 1 year, while white inmates accounted for 35% (454,300) and Hispanic inmates, 19% (251,900).  

among black males age 25 to 29, 9.3% were in prison at the end of 2003, compared to 2.6% of Hispanic males and about 1.1% of white males of the same age group. although incarceration rates drop with age for all other groups, the percentage of black males age 45 to 54 in prison in 2003 was nearly 3.5% - more than 3Xs the highest rate for whites.  

the us census bureau reported in 2000 there were about 16 million black males (46% of the black population) and about 104 million white males (49% of the white population).  it can roughly be figured based on the above data that in 2003, 9Xs more black males were incarcerated for sentences of more than 1 year than white males (this figure doesnt even include all sentences).

all of this to say, when a significant proportion of black males are removed from society, positive male role models within the black community begin to dwindle.  any strong civilization is based on an intact family unit.  i could go on, but you are right hilljack.  without strong male role models, youth are vulnerable to a plethora of negative influences which ensure the vicious cycle continues.

the million dollar question is why the disparity in sentencing?  something like 54% of all drug sentences go to black male offenders.  do black males break the law more often than whites?  sell more drugs?  get arrested more frequently?

i realize this does not address the AA topic directly [i for one am not a proponent].  but it does, i hope, shed some light on the baffling, elusive, often subtle nature of racism -  incarceration rates are but one element of the big picture.  and in this democratic system [love it or hate it], things continue to evolve -- thank God for the 13/14/15th Amendments and Civil Rights Acts of '57 & '64.  im optimistic about what the future holds and hope to become an effective vehicle for change. it'd be a grand thing to witness in this lifetime.
Title: Re: Affirmative Action is for people not smart enough to get in without it
Post by: Xony on April 15, 2005, 03:26:11 PM
zen.  think about the flip side of your arguement.  you talked about how tons and tons of black males are in prison, and then went on to say that it's too bad so many potential male black roll models are in prisons.  I could argue that if those men were out of jail, perhaps the situation would even be worse!  Racism isn't the problem here.  And yes, I do believe racism exists.  In my opinion, there is a lack of parental supervision and push for their kids' education.  I believe it's a cultural difference - and I believe our government is partially to blame.  Had we had free health care for all, had welfare not been set up the way it is.. perhaps things would be different.

and, there are tons of amazing black people who have accomplished so much - unfortunately those aren't the folks youngsters look up to.  Why?  Just watch BET and you'll see why.
Title: Re: Affirmative Action is for people not smart enough to get in without it
Post by: hilljack on April 15, 2005, 03:52:17 PM
Okay, I am going to try to stick to the hip hop/porn argument.

First of all, I don't think it is correct to say that viewing one thing should not be criticized because something else that is just as bad or worse is veiwed by more people.

Quesitons:

Does a young person viewing glorification of antisocial behavior hurt that young person?
If you answered yes, you either would not want young people exposed to 50 Cent, etc. or you don't beleive that these artists glorify antisocial behavior. If you answer no, then it wouldn't matter whether or not they were.

The more prudent question, I believe, would be to what extent.
Would a young black male, who does not have strong male role models, be better off; worse off; or no better or worse off if he were not exposed to hip hop?

How much?
And along those lines, I would expect that the degree of the harm that a person feels young, black males receive form this exposure would be related to what the person feels should be done about it.

I think that a lot of people seem to think that this exposure is bad, but only a small factor compared to education, etc.  I don't think this can justify support for it.

The argument would go something like this: "Well, hip hop is bad, but there are a lot of things that are worse, so we don't need to worry about hip hop."  You can justify focusing efforts elsewhere, but defense is more difficult, unless you don't see any harm.




To Ctc44: You mentioned that a lot of Asians work menial jobs and maintain their culture--this would provide support for my argument.  Asians attempting to adapt to American culture and working menial jobs would provide evidence against it.  From my experience, Asians I know do not turn their backs on their heritage or their culture, but they do make adjustments.

Look, I have had to do the same thing.  I want to practice law on the east coast.  You can practice law in small, southern towns and use southern dialogue and maneurism, but I have accepted that I will not be able to 'be myself' because I wouldn't be accepted.


Title: Re: Affirmative Action is for people not smart enough to get in without it
Post by: dbgirl on April 15, 2005, 04:05:22 PM
Look, I have had to do the same thing. I want to practice law on the east coast. You can practice law in small, southern towns and use southern dialogue and maneurism, but I have accepted that I will not be able to 'be myself' because I wouldn't be accepted.

Ok hilljack ...

First, I disagree that you have to lose your Southerness to be a success (although I do think refraining from certain phrases might be useful). My father decided that he must "lose" his Southern accent and I think that's quite sad. I'm pretty sure he would have done just fine in life with a twang (Although terms like "could have went" probably sound bad. My boyfriend still has his accent and it hasn't hurt him one bit.

Second, what is a maneurism? Is that a Southern thing? (sorry, couldn't help myself).
Title: Re: Affirmative Action is for people not smart enough to get in without it
Post by: hilljack on April 15, 2005, 04:08:25 PM
Like I have said before, I don't write my posts on Microsoft Word and I certainly refuse to look up words, so please excuse me.

And, I am not talking about an accent, I said dialogue.
Title: Re: Affirmative Action is for people not smart enough to get in without it
Post by: zenbiddie on April 16, 2005, 02:48:24 AM
zen.  think about the flip side of your arguement.  you talked about how tons and tons of black males are in prison, and then went on to say that it's too bad so many potential male black roll models are in prisons.  I could argue that if those men were out of jail, perhaps the situation would even be worse!  Racism isn't the problem here.  And yes, I do believe racism exists.  In my opinion, there is a lack of parental supervision and push for their kids' education.  I believe it's a cultural difference - and I believe our government is partially to blame.  Had we had free health care for all, had welfare not been set up the way it is.. perhaps things would be different.

and, there are tons of amazing black people who have accomplished so much - unfortunately those aren't the folks youngsters look up to.  Why?  Just watch BET and you'll see why.

i appreciate your honesty xony.  it would be a terrifying thought to have 500,000 wild black criminals running loose on the streets.  this sort of fear is at the root of the problem.  perhaps, please bear with me, a flaw in the judicial system is at fault moreso than the character of these incarcerated men [the us sentencing commission was formed to study this http://www.cccr.org/justice/issue.cfm?id=19]?  i don't deny that all law breakers should be punished, but argue that not all law breakers are punished to the same extent. 

i also question why urban schools are in such disarray [plenty of money is pumped into these districts].  yes, policies exist which may allow some lucky students to transfer out, but the lion's share of urban youth are trapped w/in failing schools.  what caused predominantly black schools to become so dysfunctional post-desegregation?

you refer me to BET for a sample of who young people idolize.  i agree, it's destructive that popular black culture is depicted in that way.  unfortunately, blacks do not control the media.  though im not a cable subscriber, negative images regarding black culture are difficult to ignore. yet another piece of the puzzle.

as for the "tons of blacks who have accomplished so much" - i appreciate your kudos, but are you referring to famous entertainers, athletes, activists?  who specifically would you place in this category? 

if we're talking about power figures [specifically black males], barack obama comes to mind or colin powell [retired], john conyers, louis farrakhan...clarence thomas :-[...the list is certainly not a long one.  i personally would  not  include jesse jackson or al sharpton :-[.  considering that blacks have been in the trenches [and quite literally  dug   the trenches] with the pilgrims since the birth of this nation, it strikes me as odd that there has never been a black president.  i don't mean to diminish the accomplishments of legends like crispus attucks, frederick douglass, w.e.b. dubois, or harriet tubman but why after all this time, never a black president?   

i agree, there is a lack of parental supervision.  many dads are behind bars or busy trying to avoid incarceration. many moms are raising kids alone, doing what they can to juggle work and family obligations.  the children definitely get the short end of the stick.  many are out there fending for themselves - attempting to get an education, attempting to avoid gangs, attempting to not enage in criminal behavior, attempting to not get pregnant, attempting to feel pride, while watching BET and eating McDonalds.   

i dont think free health care or welfare even begins to scratch the surface.  more layers of bureaucracy merely adds fuel to the fire.

the million dollar question goes unanswered [hilljack, did you bail on me  :o]....     
Title: Re: Affirmative Action...
Post by: angmill08 on April 16, 2005, 02:57:24 AM
I don't think hip hop, or heavy metal, is bad. As kids mature and spend more time out of their parents' immediate control, they will hear these things more and more frequently, and may even seek them out. This is normal, and parents can use objectionable messages in pop culture as a dialog opener for family conversations about values.  I remember a discussion my dad and I had about the Dead Kennedys along these lines.

Even musicians with strong anti-social messages can also project useful messages, most importantly, that someone else understands the frustration, fear, lonliness and anger people who listen to this music feel, and that music can be an outlet for these feelings. Much hip hop speaks about facets of the black urban experience emotionally, plainly, without sugarcoating, and, originally, without concern for how whites would react. Hip hop is a forum orginally created by otherwise disempowered kids/young adults to comment publicly on their lives. In this way, it can be an empowering outlet for expression and affirmation.

To say that music is the cause of some problem in society is backwards. Too many poor kids today think it is more likely that they'll be sucessful rappers than lawyers or doctors. The solution is not to curb or berate music, but to increased the effectiveness and influence of education.

In a free society, information circulates, people view it critically, and decide for themselves what to accept or reject. If rap music is hurting anyone it is because listeners have not learned to listen critically. Parents & teachers need to help kids develop this ability -- this is a crucial part of education. Of course, if the parents themselves don't have this skill, it will be hard to pass it on, and too often, it seems like schools fail to teach this adequately. The problem is that too many kids are not getting a thorough education -- not from their parents, not from their teachers.


 
Title: Re: Affirmative Action is for people not smart enough to get in without it
Post by: Xony on April 16, 2005, 08:46:29 AM
Music is not the cause of the problem.  It is the rappers that kids idolize and strive to be like, that IMO, are the danger here.  A lot are involved in gangs, drugs, lotsa bling,... u know the types I'm talking about.  It is just sad that youngsters look up to those fools instead of people who have actually done something amazing in this world.  That to me is sad.
Title: Re: Affirmative Action is for people not smart enough to get in without it
Post by: angmill08 on April 16, 2005, 12:15:27 PM
It is the rappers that kids idolize and strive to be like, that IMO, are the danger here.  A lot are involved in gangs, drugs, lotsa bling,... u know the types I'm talking about.  It is just sad that youngsters look up to those fools instead of people who have actually done something amazing in this world.  That to me is sad.

Any artist who expresses emotion/experience in a way that resonates with complete strangers has done something amazing. Of course, such a person may do all kinds of other things that are not so amazing, and may in fact be totally disappointing. It is important to be able to discern the difference.

It seems to me that this concern about the impact of hip hop is beside the point. Hip hop is not the problem, and I feel like sometimes people bring it up as a scapegoat.
Title: Re: Affirmative Action is for people not smart enough to get in without it
Post by: _BP_ on April 16, 2005, 02:31:11 PM
Music is not the cause of the problem.  It is the rappers that kids idolize and strive to be like, that IMO, are the danger here.  A lot are involved in gangs, drugs, lotsa bling,... u know the types I'm talking about.  It is just sad that youngsters look up to those fools instead of people who have actually done something amazing in this world.  That to me is sad.

You have a point here.  The history of Rock music is no different though.  "Sex, drugs and Rock & Roll Baby!"  And how many young girls look up to Paris Hilton, Britney Spears, and the Sex in the City/Desperate Housewives characters.  Every teenie bopper magazine has these little sex vixens on the cover talking about their latest sexual exploits or 24 hour marriage.  Let's also decry these breast implanted sluts that have hijacked the psyche of young girls.  I still think there is a huge double standard.  White America applauded the sex and drug era of Rock & Roll but are somehow "shocked and appalled" by the same thing in hip hop.  They heartily applaud these Sex in the City/Desperate Housewives floosies f*cking every man they come in contact with, but a depiction of a much tamer version of that behaviour in a commercial that just happens to involve a black man elicits a public outcry.  Hilarious.
Title: Re: Affirmative Action is for people not smart enough to get in without it
Post by: hilljack on April 16, 2005, 03:03:43 PM
Okay, first the million dollar question:

I can start by saying that I have nothing close to a complete answer.  Many people explain it as the number of blacks who live in poverty and people living in poverty (for a number of reasons) are likely to commit crimes.  But there are more whites living in poverty than blacks. So this is an incomplete explaination from the very start.  Some of it is the criminal code.  Drugs that blacks use are often treated as more criminal than 'white' drugs.  Another factor, in my opinion, is that whites, in general, fear prison more than blacks.  Obviously, almost no person would prefer prison, but look at the prison rape statistics, and you will see one facet of what I am talking about.  So in brief I have three possible partial explainations
1. poverty rate
2. criminal code
3. disinsentives

I didn't mention hip hop or lack of male role model because I beleive that has already been addressed in this thread.  But you could make those 4 and 5 if you want, and I am sure that there are more and that some people would disagree with the five I mentioned.  Sorry I don't have a better answer.


To Xony:
I think your point about the affect of Hilton, Spears, etc. actually provides further evidence for what I said.  It is a seperate, but equivilent representation of glorification of poor decisions and bad attitudes that is negatively affecting kids.  And like hip hop, it affects the unsupervised, the fatherless, the poor, at the highest rate.

It may be a double standard for those people who do it, but I am a person who will not participate.  The issue is who is viewing/listening to it.  Just because I played Mortal Combat and watched Total Recall and never became I violent person, doesn't mean that a person with less supervision and less structure and less disciplined parents would not be negatively affected by it.


Another issue that has not been discussed is the fact that in black neighborhoods, the police do very little about gangs.  They will arrest a few people, but never really attack the gangs, the way they go after terrorists.  The same thing is true of Mexican gangs in California.
Title: Re: Affirmative Action is for people not smart enough to get in without it
Post by: Cyndra on April 16, 2005, 10:10:21 PM
From my experience, Asians I know do not turn their backs on their heritage or their culture, but they do make adjustments.

Look, I have had to do the same thing.  I want to practice law on the east coast.  You can practice law in small, southern towns and use southern dialogue and maneurism, but I have accepted that I will not be able to 'be myself' because I wouldn't be accepted.

Ok, so now I'm finally getting what you're saying. So, by working menial jobs Asians are assimilating. But you say blacks don't make the effort to join mainstream America. Are you saying that they don't work menial jobs?? I'm sure you are not, so please explain what it is you are trying to say. What is it, in your opinion, that blacks are not doing whatever it is Asians have managed to in order to join mainstream America?

I'd say blacks make "adjustments" everyday in order to "fit in". As a white Southerner, you may have to change some things that make you who you are (it's sad that anyone has to) but black people do it all the time. Isn't this fact proof that blacks make the same "adjustments" you, as a white Southerner, and Asians have made to "fit in"?

And BTW, I think making changes in yourself because of regional differences in regard to mannerisms etc. is not the same as having to change characteristics that are stereotyped as negative attributes belonging to an entire race.
Title: Re: Affirmative Action is for people not smart enough to get in without it
Post by: Dano on April 16, 2005, 10:54:26 PM
You have a point here.  The history of Rock music is no different though.  "Sex, drugs and Rock & Roll Baby!"  And how many young girls look up to Paris Hilton, Britney Spears, and the Sex in the City/Desperate Housewives characters.  Every teenie bopper magazine has these little sex vixens on the cover talking about their latest sexual exploits or 24 hour marriage.  Let's also decry these breast implanted sluts that have hijacked the psyche of young girls.  I still think there is a huge double standard.  White America applauded the sex and drug era of Rock & Roll but are somehow "shocked and appalled" by the same thing in hip hop.  They heartily applaud these Sex in the City/Desperate Housewives floosies f*cking every man they come in contact with, but a depiction of a much tamer version of that behaviour in a commercial that just happens to involve a black man elicits a public outcry.  Hilarious.

Screwing and shooting are two different things, Omaha.  With one you get jail while with the other you can get shot. ;)

Also, most of the black males are in for drug violations and facing overly stiff sentences due to their physical addictions.  So, they wouldn't all be crazy.  They'd just be sitting on your front porch smoking crack.
Title: Re: Affirmative Action is for people not smart enough to get in without it
Post by: zenbiddie on April 17, 2005, 04:10:51 AM
hilljack gets an A for effort - though still misinformed, at least he's trying.
dano, dano, dano...now i must take the rest of the day to LMFAO but when i return, maybe you will have read the following link (previously posted) and we can engage in an  intelligent  conversation.

http://www.cccr.org/justice/issue.cfm?id=19

Title: Re: Affirmative Action is for people not smart enough to get in without it
Post by: _BP_ on April 17, 2005, 07:17:46 AM
hilljack gets an A for effort - though still misinformed, at least he's trying.
dano, dano, dano...now i must take the rest of the day to LMFAO but when i return, maybe you will have read the following link (previously posted) and we can engage in an  intelligent  conversation.

http://www.cccr.org/justice/issue.cfm?id=19


I second this.  Oh great article as well.  I copied this excerpt from it because it mirrors statistics I posted a page or so back on this same thread.  I can see Dano now: "well that still does not prove that the disparities are due to race, maybe the crack cocaine just reflects off of their darker skins and thus the cops are able to capture more of them"..hahah sorry Dano, I had to get you, but it would be interesting to hear your real views on the article.  Interesting excerpt below:


Such an imbalanced focus on minorities is not justified by what is known about the racial make-up of cocaine users or cocaine sellers. In fact, even though Blacks and Hispanics are targeted at a higher rate for drug investigations, they have been found to commit drug offenses at a slightly lower rate proportionally to their percentage of the U.S. population. African-Americans represented approximately 12 percent of the U.S. population in 2000 and were 11 percent of all illicit drug users. While Hispanics constitute about 13 percent of the population, they were 10 percent of illicit drug users. In addition, for the past two decades, drug use among Black youths has been consistently lower per capita than among White youths.

When mandatory sentencing laws for drug crimes were enacted in the mid 1980s, race was a subtext of the congressional debate, especially in the uniquely harsh penalties assigned to crack cocaine. Federal law imposes a mandatory five-year federal prison sentence on anyone convicted of selling 500 grams or more of powder cocaine but the same mandatory five-year sentence applies to a defendant convicted of selling only five grams (the weight of a few sugar packets) of crack cocaine. A 10-year mandatory sentence is dictated for 5000 grams of powder but only 50 grams of crack. Meanwhile, federal law dictates a five-year minimum sentence for possession of crack cocaine, while the maximum sentence for possession of all other drugs is one year.

These rules are not only irrational on their face — they are also implemented in an outrageously discriminatory fashion, since over 90 percent of federal crack defendants are African-American. This facially neutral law in fact produces severe racial disparities in the criminal justice system as a whole.
Title: Re: Affirmative Action is for people not smart enough to get in without it
Post by: Dano on April 17, 2005, 10:03:24 AM
I second this.  Oh great article as well.  I copied this excerpt from it because it mirrors statistics I posted a page or so back on this same thread.  I can see Dano now: "well that still does not prove that the disparities are due to race, maybe the crack cocaine just reflects off of their darker skins and thus the cops are able to capture more of them"..hahah sorry Dano, I had to get you, but it would be interesting to hear your real views on the article.  Interesting excerpt below:


Such an imbalanced focus on minorities is not justified by what is known about the racial make-up of cocaine users or cocaine sellers. In fact, even though Blacks and Hispanics are targeted at a higher rate for drug investigations, they have been found to commit drug offenses at a slightly lower rate proportionally to their percentage of the U.S. population. African-Americans represented approximately 12 percent of the U.S. population in 2000 and were 11 percent of all illicit drug users. While Hispanics constitute about 13 percent of the population, they were 10 percent of illicit drug users. In addition, for the past two decades, drug use among Black youths has been consistently lower per capita than among White youths.

When mandatory sentencing laws for drug crimes were enacted in the mid 1980s, race was a subtext of the congressional debate, especially in the uniquely harsh penalties assigned to crack cocaine. Federal law imposes a mandatory five-year federal prison sentence on anyone convicted of selling 500 grams or more of powder cocaine but the same mandatory five-year sentence applies to a defendant convicted of selling only five grams (the weight of a few sugar packets) of crack cocaine. A 10-year mandatory sentence is dictated for 5000 grams of powder but only 50 grams of crack. Meanwhile, federal law dictates a five-year minimum sentence for possession of crack cocaine, while the maximum sentence for possession of all other drugs is one year.

These rules are not only irrational on their face — they are also implemented in an outrageously discriminatory fashion, since over 90 percent of federal crack defendants are African-American. This facially neutral law in fact produces severe racial disparities in the criminal justice system as a whole.


I agree with the sentencing guidelines comment and mentioned in my previous post that these penalties are too high.  In fact, I am against the Drug War and it's devastating impact on many individuals and their families.  Ten years in jail--even more--for simply consuming a substance is draconian.  We are in agreement here ... I think.

As for your statistics on drug users, I say big deal.  Drug users are not the primary concern for police.  They are more concerned with gang activity including acts like robbery, murder, rape, etc.  The Drug War has created the perfect environment for this activity by outlawing these substances and making them extremely expensive; thus, making profits higher for those that control it's distribution. 

Nonetheless, the majority of the VIOLENT drug activity occurs in largely inner-city, poor neighborhoods.  Many of the arrests made in these inner-cities are focused on controlling the more violent activities.  Blacks are more likely to commit violent crimes, which might have drugs asociated with them (i.e. possession charge while commiting a robbery).  So, it makes sense that the statistics would be skewed in the direction of the group that is being arrested more often for committing more violent crimes relative to other groups especially when much of that violent crime has drugs involved.

As a silly aside, the brazenness of some of the street dealers in these communities is hysterical.  I've seen many drug deals go down in the city right near police.  Believe me, the city cops are not too concerned with the casual users when they have a plethora of dealers and gangsters to target, but cutting a deal right next to the cops?  That might explain a few of the arrests there ;)
Title: Re: Affirmative Action is for people not smart enough to get in without it
Post by: hilljack on April 17, 2005, 09:53:09 PM
Ok, so now I'm finally getting what you're saying. So, by working menial jobs Asians are assimilating. But you say blacks don't make the effort to join mainstream America. Are you saying that they don't work menial jobs?? I'm sure you are not, so please explain what it is you are trying to say. What is it, in your opinion, that blacks are not doing whatever it is Asians have managed to in order to join mainstream America?

I'd say blacks make "adjustments" everyday in order to "fit in". As a white Southerner, you may have to change some things that make you who you are (it's sad that anyone has to) but black people do it all the time. Isn't this fact proof that blacks make the same "adjustments" you, as a white Southerner, and Asians have made to "fit in"?

And BTW, I think making changes in yourself because of regional differences in regard to mannerisms etc. is not the same as having to change characteristics that are stereotyped as negative attributes belonging to an entire race.

I am saying that those who make adjustments do better in the business world.  This is not a big factor in my opinion.  But for those people who do well in school and have skills that are marketable, I believe that it helps to make adjustments to "fit in."  If I have an interview, and I sound like a redneck, or if a black man has an interview and he sounds like Ludicris, even if what we are saying makes us an attractive candidate, they most likely won't care.  By the same token, I believe in most cases, if I don't sound like a redneck or if a black man doesn't sound like Ludicris, we have a much better chance.

I geuss it would be nice if people could just be themselves, but I just don't think that is how the world works.

I would also like to reinterate that I am not saying that this is the only or even close to the biggest problem (my vote is for family structure), but it is important to those who have done everything else right.
Title: Re: Affirmative Action is for people not smart enough to get in without it
Post by: _BP_ on April 18, 2005, 06:57:41 AM
Daymn, being discriminated against just to buy a drink? And it's amazing that you guys are so ready to discount discrimination involving bigger issues:

Study Finds Racism in New Orleans' Bars

DiversityInc.com -The Associated Press

If you're black and you belly up to a bar on Bourbon Street, be forewarned: You run a 50-50 chance of either being charged more or being forced to order a minimum number of drinks.

Those are the findings of a study done for the city in the wake of the death of a black college student who died in a scuffle with white bouncers outside a bar on the famous French Quarter thoroughfare.

The study, conducted by the Greater New Orleans Fair Housing Action Center, paired black and white men of similar body type, dress and manner, and sent them into bars within minutes of each other.

Of the 28 bars visited, 40 percent charged the black customers more for drinks. A white man, for example, bought a Long Island iced tea for $7.50, while the black man was charged $9, according to James Perry, executive director of the private, nonprofit housing center.

Ten percent of the bars informed the blacks—but not the whites—that there was a drink minimum, and 7 percent told their black customers that they would have to meet a dress code.

The report recommended the city take several steps, including investigating discrimination at bars and enforcing civil-rights laws through litigation.

Title: Re: Affirmative Action is for people not smart enough to get in without it
Post by: faith2005 on April 18, 2005, 01:25:03 PM
Onto the TV show thing again because the argument did not seem to be fully stated. There is a black person on Gilmore Girls. Yes, I know that it is only one person. The show takes place in a town in Connecticut that is fairly well off.

Do they refer to him as the town "negro?"

People that are racists and don't even know it amuse me.

No, they do  not refer to him as the negro. He is well-respected and loved by many of the town. I sincerely hope that you are not calling me racist also in the above comment.


LMAO!!!! You can't be serious. please say that you're not serious. "he is well respected and loved by many of the town." he is definitely the town #%@!.  ;D im late, i know.
Title: Re: Affirmative Action is for people not smart enough to get in without it
Post by: zenbiddie on April 18, 2005, 02:07:55 PM
Okay, first the million dollar question:

I can start by saying that I have nothing close to a complete answer.  Many people explain it as the number of blacks who live in poverty and people living in poverty (for a number of reasons) are likely to commit crimes.  But there are more whites living in poverty than blacks. So this is an incomplete explaination from the very start. 

minor clarification on the poverty stats.  yes, i believe sthg like 44% of all those living below poverty level are white.  when examined proportionately, the us census bureau stats are as follows for 2003:

24.4% of blacks lived below poverty level compared to 22.5% of Hispanics and 8.2% of whites

28.7% of blacks w/children [under 18yrs] and 8.9% of married blacks w/children lived below poverty level compared to 25.2%/18.4% of Hispanics and 12.1%/6.6% of whites, respectively

42.8% of black female-headed households lived below poverty level compared to 43% of Hispanics and 28.1% of whites

$29,600 median income for black households compared to $33,000 for Hispanics and $47,800 for whites


Another issue that has not been discussed is the fact that in black neighborhoods, the police do very little about gangs.  They will arrest a few people, but never really attack the gangs, the way they go after terrorists.

why  don't  the police eradicate gang violence in black neighborhoods?  why doesn't the DEA prosecute drug cartels/kingpins with the same force homeland security pursues terrorists?  why target street dealers when the supply flows unabated from the top?

 ???



Title: Re: Affirmative Action is for people not smart enough to get in without it
Post by: zenbiddie on April 18, 2005, 02:12:52 PM
Ok, so now I'm finally getting what you're saying. So, by working menial jobs Asians are assimilating. But you say blacks don't make the effort to join mainstream America. Are you saying that they don't work menial jobs?? I'm sure you are not, so please explain what it is you are trying to say. What is it, in your opinion, that blacks are not doing whatever it is Asians have managed to in order to join mainstream America?

I'd say blacks make "adjustments" everyday in order to "fit in". As a white Southerner, you may have to change some things that make you who you are (it's sad that anyone has to) but black people do it all the time. Isn't this fact proof that blacks make the same "adjustments" you, as a white Southerner, and Asians have made to "fit in"?

And BTW, I think making changes in yourself because of regional differences in regard to mannerisms etc. is not the same as having to change characteristics that are stereotyped as negative attributes belonging to an entire race.

I am saying that those who make adjustments do better in the business world.  This is not a big factor in my opinion.  But for those people who do well in school and have skills that are marketable, I believe that it helps to make adjustments to "fit in."  If I have an interview, and I sound like a redneck, or if a black man has an interview and he sounds like Ludicris, even if what we are saying makes us an attractive candidate, they most likely won't care.  By the same token, I believe in most cases, if I don't sound like a redneck or if a black man doesn't sound like Ludicris, we have a much better chance.

I geuss it would be nice if people could just be themselves, but I just don't think that is how the world works.

I would also like to reinterate that I am not saying that this is the only or even close to the biggest problem (my vote is for family structure), but it is important to those who have done everything else right.

good point, hilljack.
Title: Re: Affirmative Action is for people not smart enough to get in without it
Post by: zenbiddie on April 18, 2005, 02:41:35 PM
Another factor, in my opinion, is that whites, in general, fear prison more than blacks. Obviously, almost no person would prefer prison, but look at the prison rape statistics, and you will see one facet of what I am talking about.   

hilljack, how can you conclude that whites  fear  prison more than blacks just because blacks are disproportionately incarcerated?  previous posts have established that more whites purchase/sell drugs [engage in prison-worthy behavior] than blacks yet mainly blacks are charged/sentenced.  if anything, whites would be less fearful of going to prison.

and when you mention prison rape stats do you mean for convicted rapists or inmates who get raped?  either way, what is the significance?
Title: Re: Affirmative Action is for people not smart enough to get in without it
Post by: _BP_ on April 18, 2005, 03:00:50 PM
Another factor, in my opinion, is that whites, in general, fear prison more than blacks. Obviously, almost no person would prefer prison, but look at the prison rape statistics, and you will see one facet of what I am talking about.   

hilljack, how can you conclude that whites  fear  prison more than blacks just because blacks are disproportionately incarcerated?  previous posts have established that more whites purchase/sell drugs [engage in prison-worthy behavior] than blacks yet mainly blacks are charged/sentenced.  if anything, whites would be less fearful of going to prison.

and when you mention prison rape stats do you mean for convicted rapists or inmates who get raped?  either way, what is the significance?


I was thinking the same thing when I saw that "whites fear prison more than blacks statement", I was like WTF! haha
Title: Re: Affirmative Action is for people not smart enough to get in without it
Post by: iwantin on April 18, 2005, 06:52:47 PM
I must agree.  How ABSURD is it to believe that whites fear prison more than blacks?  Last I checked, NO ONE wants to go to prison. 
Title: Re: Affirmative Action is for people not smart enough to get in without it
Post by: hilljack on April 18, 2005, 09:42:01 PM
why  don't  the police eradicate gang violence in black neighborhoods?  why doesn't the DEA prosecute drug cartels/kingpins with the same force homeland security pursues terrorists?  why target street dealers when the supply flows unabated from the top?

 ???

This is a very good question.

Let me clarify what I meant by "whites fear prison more"

In every study ever conducted on prison rape, whites were raped at a higher rate.  This is an extra incentive, beyond loss of freedom, for those who fear being railed from behind.  In no way did I suggest or even infer that anyone wants to go to prison.  But human physchology is similar to economics and perhaps the total cost is higher for whites.

This, in no way, refutes or attempts to refute your statistics about drug use.  Drug use and avoidance of prison are two seperate things.  Although there is some connection.
Title: Re: Affirmative Action...
Post by: angmill08 on April 18, 2005, 10:38:24 PM
Crime correlates with density, incarceration with poverty. So if the question is why African Americans are convicted of crimes at a higher rate than whites, it seems to me like part of the puzzle is that areas in which African Americans are concentrated are generally dense areas, with a relatively low median income, relatively high incidence of single parent households, relatively little educational or employment options. That right there is a pretty good recipie for crime, huh? Not to mention racism that might lead to black criminals being prosecuted more than white ones.
Title: Re: Affirmative Action
Post by: angmill08 on April 18, 2005, 10:47:21 PM
why  don't  the police eradicate gang violence in black neighborhoods?  why doesn't the DEA prosecute drug cartels/kingpins with the same force homeland security pursues terrorists?  why target street dealers when the supply flows unabated from the top?

Sorry to double post but... if the societal/global forces that motivate people to become suicide bombers don't change, it doesn't matter how many terrorists we catch, more will just line up to take their place. Much like drug dealers. I think the US needs to focus on the motivation for these things more. Not to say that police and security and intelligence efforts are useless... they do help. But they won't solve the problem.
Title: Re: Affirmative Action is for people not smart enough to get in without it
Post by: Cyndra on April 19, 2005, 08:34:17 AM
I'd say blacks make "adjustments" everyday in order to "fit in".

But for those people who do well in school and have skills that are marketable, I believe that it helps to make adjustments to "fit in."  If I have an interview, and I sound like a redneck, or if a black man has an interview and he sounds like Ludicris, even if what we are saying makes us an attractive candidate, they most likely won't care.  By the same token, I believe in most cases, if I don't sound like a redneck or if a black man doesn't sound like Ludicris, we have a much better chance.

I geuss it would be nice if people could just be themselves, but I just don't think that is how the world works.

AA is for people with marketable skills and who have done well in school. It ensures that these qualified candidates get their due shot instead of being denied for discriminatory purposes.

And no one who is qualified for a job goes in talking like a redneck or Ludacris. I bet Ludacris didn't interview for jobs or schools sounding as he does on his records (he went to college). Ludacris is a character; it's an act; it's entertainment. Being "yourself" doesn't mean being unprofessional.

I give up... :(
Title: Re: Affirmative Action is for people not smart enough to get in without it
Post by: hilljack on April 19, 2005, 04:17:48 PM
I'd say blacks make "adjustments" everyday in order to "fit in".

But for those people who do well in school and have skills that are marketable, I believe that it helps to make adjustments to "fit in."  If I have an interview, and I sound like a redneck, or if a black man has an interview and he sounds like Ludicris, even if what we are saying makes us an attractive candidate, they most likely won't care.  By the same token, I believe in most cases, if I don't sound like a redneck or if a black man doesn't sound like Ludicris, we have a much better chance.

I geuss it would be nice if people could just be themselves, but I just don't think that is how the world works.

AA is for people with marketable skills and who have done well in school. It ensures that these qualified candidates get their due shot instead of being denied for discriminatory purposes.

And no one who is qualified for a job goes in talking like a redneck or Ludacris. I bet Ludacris didn't interview for jobs or schools sounding as he does on his records (he went to college). Ludacris is a character; it's an act; it's entertainment. Being "yourself" doesn't mean being unprofessional.

I give up... :(

"AA is for people with marketable skills..."  No, I think AA is for under-represented minorities.  I don't beleive that whether these people have marketable skills (which would be determined by the market) changes the color of their skin.  Further, it is a blind view to say that AA programs are still solely anti-discrimination program.  Otherwise, law school adcomms wouldn't want to even know the applicants race.  If we were all judged based on a system that was blind of race, that would be anti-discrimination.  For better or worse, this is not what AA is today.

"no one who is qualified for a job goes in talking like a redneck or Ludicris"
Umm, I could pick at this and ask how people who are unable to change thier speech ever get jobs, but I will assume that by job you meant "good job" or "professional job."  Even at that, I would like to know what source or expertise you have in what people go in sounding like for every professional job.  Further, it could be a matter of degree.  Many otherwise intelligent individuals have very poor grammer.

And the fact that Ludicris went to college is irrelevent for two reasons
1. "going to college" means almost nothing.  I know people who could be outsmarted by a hamster who "went to college."  All you need is what, a 700 SAT and a 2.0 HS GPA.
2. Aside from that, the point was not that Ludicris couldn't get a job.  The point was that someone who used similar language as what he uses in his rap, would find it difficult. 

You made another statement to close your post that is similar to how you opened it: "Being "yourself" doesn't mean being unprofessional."
Well, as long as 'yourself' isn't 'unprofessional,' then yes, you are correct.
Title: Re: Affirmative Action is for people not smart enough to get in without it
Post by: _BP_ on April 19, 2005, 04:56:27 PM
Hilljack: If we were all judged based on a system that was blind of race, that would be anti-discrimination.  For better or worse, this is not what AA is today.

 
However, we CANNOT be judged by a system that is blind to race.  There is no such thing. The "system" inherently is not blind to race because the system is WHITE. Be it the law school admission system, housing system, education system, healthcare system...whatever, it's run by WHITES.
Now the history of this country has made shown that whites (and by definition the system) have been unable to police themselves in the area of discrimination.  So at every point in history anti-discrimination/equal right legislation HAD to be created after the system failed in this area.  Don't think of this as racist in any way, these are the facts.  So to stop housing discrimination, the Fair Housing Act had to be created; to stop discrimination in the workplace, a whole set of Equal Opportunity laws had to be created.  Look, in 2005, you have white people charging more for beer to blacks than they do to whites.  I mean, we can't even get a drink at a bar without issues.  So now they're looking at legislation for this...hahahah hilarious, but TRUE.  So for a system to be blind to race whites would have to be the only people on this earth, but even then
you would probably need legislation to stop discrimination against people with freckles.
Title: Re: Affirmative Action is for people not smart enough to get in without it
Post by: hilljack on April 19, 2005, 06:25:15 PM
Education is run by liberals, does this mean that steps need to be taken to ensure equal access for conservatives. 

Okay, that is not really the point.  Nothing I said suggested that AA is wrong (I believe it is, but that is not the issue at hand).  I was just attempting to clear up the debate over what AA is.  It is not "anti-discrimination."
Title: Re: Affirmative Action is for people not smart enough to get in without it
Post by: Cyndra on April 19, 2005, 09:50:03 PM
"AA is for people with marketable skills..." No, I think AA is for under-represented minorities. I don't beleive that whether these people have marketable skills (which would be determined by the market) changes the color of their skin.


I'm not following you here. You speak as if people with marketable skills can't be URM. The two are not mutually exclusive.



Quote
Further, it is a blind view to say that AA programs are still solely anti-discrimination program.  Otherwise, law school adcomms wouldn't want to even know the applicants race.
Quote

You know, you can leave your race out. The question is optional.

Quote
"no one who is qualified for a job goes in talking like a redneck or Ludicris"
Umm, I could pick at this and ask how people who are unable to change thier speech ever get jobs, but I will assume that by job you meant "good job" or "professional job."
Quote

By that I do...

Quote
Even at that, I would like to know what source or expertise you have in what people go in sounding like for every professional job.
Quote

Let's not get extreme here. I didn't say I knew how everyone sounded at every professional job interview. Come on. But what you are saying, if I may go back to an older post you made here, black people aren't as successful as the model-minority Asians, because Asians have managed to assimilate into mainstream America whereas blacks have not. Your reasoning is that, even you as a white Southerner must suppress your "southern-ness", the fact that blacks don't surely is the reason why blacks aren't as successful... they don't change themselves, making themselves acceptable to the mainstream community. That's extreme, and a huge leap.

It seems that you are saying that black people go into professional interviews sounding like Ludacris. Did you not understand when I said he's a character, an entertainer? Do you buy records of people who sound like you do when you sing in the shower? Do you buy posters and movies featuring stars who look like your Aunt Susie? No. He is meant to be extraordinary and out there. The ordinary is not good entertainment.

And maybe because I actually know some black people--I mean I'm related to 'em and well happen to be one--I can say that that is not how the majority of "us" present ourselves. Your logic is faulty. To blame blacks for the problems some of their communities are facing today is cowardly. Admit that there are other forces at hand. I don't have to be present at every interview featuring a black interviewee to know that they don't all sound like Ludacris. Get real.
 
Quote
Further, it could be a matter of degree.  Many otherwise intelligent individuals have very poor grammer.
Quote
(Like poor spelling? Not to take a cheap shot at you, but each time you post you have loads of spelling errors. That didn't keep you out of anywhere.) You didn't use Ludacris as an example because he has poor "grammer." Grammar isn't the problem. Mastering correct subject-verb agreement is not what keeps blacks from rising to the higher echelons of power in a very white corporate America (as correct spelling, or a lack thereof hasn't kept you out). It happens not by coincidence, but rather by design. I'm not saying it's consciously done or that every white person is to blame, but when AA is not in play, take note of how non-existent the black population is.  Take a small firm for example. If they are small enough to fly under the radar, that firm will remain lily white until the second coming. When AA isn't an enforced policy, you see fewer blacks, not because there are fewer "qualified" ones than in situations where AA is at play, it's just that all too often, when no one is looking, people's true colors shine. So don't blame black people by saying they don't assimilate and they have poor grammar. We've been here for quite some time. I'd say it's safe to say we've assimilated.

Quote
And the fact that Ludicris went to college is irrelevent...
2. Aside from that, the point was not that Ludicris couldn't get a job.  The point was that someone who used similar language as what he uses in his rap, would find it difficult.
Quote

Um, duh. Again, we don't all go around talking like that. Talking in "rap lingo" as I said before, isn't what's keeping blacks out. 

Quote
You made another statement to close your post that is similar to how you opened it: "Being "yourself" doesn't mean being unprofessional."
Well, as long as 'yourself' isn't 'unprofessional,' then yes, you are correct.
Quote

While this is true, you missed the point. What I am saying is that black people don't have to give up who they are (and they are by no means a homogenous group that can be characterized as "Ludacris-like rapping interviewees) in order to be part of, or establish a niche in mainstream America. We don't have to be like the Asians, nor like the Whites. Why can't the whites, whom I presume you believe duly embody this construct of "mainstream America" and set the standards for it, accept people who look a little different and want to keep a little individuality? Why must I look like you, talk like you, be like you in order to be "part of mainstream America?" (By you, I don't mean you personally.)

My point is, I can be me, and that doesn't make me "unprofessional". Your argument is basically that blacks are too different, and they need to assimilate in order to gain acceptance ie in order to be a professional success. For someone to be successful in a professional sense, they must themselves be professional. But I don't need to assimilate to be professional, which seems to be your argument. I can be me. Black. And professional.

HTH (although I doubt it. :(... gotta give it to you, you're persistent, and at least you're trying to get it. )

Title: Re: Affirmative Action is for people not smart enough to get in without it
Post by: hilljack on April 19, 2005, 10:22:56 PM
I will just bold my responses.

"AA is for people with marketable skills..." No, I think AA is for under-represented minorities. I don't beleive that whether these people have marketable skills (which would be determined by the market) changes the color of their skin.



I'm not following you here. You speak as if people with marketable skills can't be URM. The two are not mutually exclusive.

I did not mean to infer that.  You misrepresented what AA is "for."  That may be an outcome of AA, but that is not its purpose.  AA is blind to those w/ "marketable skills"


Quote
Further, it is a blind view to say that AA programs are still solely anti-discrimination program. Otherwise, law school adcomms wouldn't want to even know the applicants race.
Quote

You know, you can leave your race out. The question is optional.

Yes, but this does not change the fact that if LSs wanted to make it race neutral they could.

Quote
"no one who is qualified for a job goes in talking like a redneck or Ludicris"
Umm, I could pick at this and ask how people who are unable to change thier speech ever get jobs, but I will assume that by job you meant "good job" or "professional job."
Quote

By that I do...

I don't understand what you mean by this.

Quote
Even at that, I would like to know what source or expertise you have in what people go in sounding like for every professional job.
Quote

Let's not get extreme here. I didn't say I knew how everyone sounded at every professional job interview. Come on. But what you are saying, if I may go back to an older post you made here, black people aren't as successful as the model-minority Asians, because Asians have managed to assimilate into mainstream America whereas blacks have not. Your reasoning is that, even you as a white Southerner must suppress your "southern-ness", the fact that blacks don't surely is the reason why blacks aren't as successful... they don't change themselves, making themselves acceptable to the mainstream community. That's extreme, and a huge leap.

I only said it was a partial explanation.

It seems that you are saying that black people go into professional interviews sounding like Ludacris. Did you not understand when I said he's a character, an entertainer? Do you buy records of people who sound like you do when you sing in the shower? Do you buy posters and movies featuring stars who look like your Aunt Susie? No. He is meant to be extraordinary and out there. The ordinary is not good entertainment.

No, the only thing I said is that successful blacks don't do that.

And maybe because I actually know some black people--I mean I'm related to 'em and well happen to be one--I can say that that is not how the majority of "us" present ourselves. Your logic is faulty. To blame blacks for the problems some of their communities are facing today is cowardly. Admit that there are other forces at hand. I don't have to be present at every interview featuring a black interviewee to know that they don't all sound like Ludacris. Get real.

Again, you treat what I presented as a partial explaination as if I said it was a complete explaination
 
Quote
Further, it could be a matter of degree. Many otherwise intelligent individuals have very poor grammer.
Quote
(Like poor spelling? Not to take a cheap shot at you, but each time you post you have loads of spelling errors. That didn't keep you out of anywhere.) You didn't use Ludacris as an example because he has poor "grammer." Grammar isn't the problem. Mastering correct subject-verb agreement is not what keeps blacks from rising to the higher echelons of power in a very white corporate America (as correct spelling, or a lack thereof hasn't kept you out). It happens not by coincidence, but rather by design. I'm not saying it's consciously done or that every white person is to blame, but when AA is not in play, take note of how non-existent the black population is. Take a small firm for example. If they are small enough to fly under the radar, that firm will remain lily white until the second coming. When AA isn't an enforced policy, you see fewer blacks, not because there are fewer "qualified" ones than in situations where AA is at play, it's just that all too often, when no one is looking, people's true colors shine. So don't blame black people by saying they don't assimilate and they have poor grammar. We've been here for quite some time. I'd say it's safe to say we've assimilated.

You may take a cheap shot at me, I have been using Microsoft Word since I was very young.  And my spelling has never been very good.  I am an economics major (not a lot of writing), at the very top (#1) in my class.  Your petty insults mean nothing to me.  Furthermore, not that this is a great achievement, but I was nominated for best Freshman English paper.  You see, this is a message board, it is a casual atmosphere (usually), and I don't have time to proofread.  But I must admit that talking about my poor spelling is a great way to detract from my message.

Quote
And the fact that Ludicris went to college is irrelevent...
2. Aside from that, the point was not that Ludicris couldn't get a job. The point was that someone who used similar language as what he uses in his rap, would find it difficult.
Quote

Um, duh. Again, we don't all go around talking like that. Talking in "rap lingo" as I said before, isn't what's keeping blacks out.

I meant that somewhat as a extreme example, just like southerner don't go in sounding like Roscoe Coaltrain; and again, you fail to recognize that what I presented was a partial explaination.

Quote
You made another statement to close your post that is similar to how you opened it: "Being "yourself" doesn't mean being unprofessional."
Well, as long as 'yourself' isn't 'unprofessional,' then yes, you are correct.
Quote

While this is true, you missed the point. What I am saying is that black people don't have to give up who they are (and they are by no means a homogenous group that can be characterized as "Ludacris-like rapping interviewees) in order to be part of, or establish a niche in mainstream America. We don't have to be like the Asians, nor like the Whites. Why can't the whites, whom I presume you believe duly embody this construct of "mainstream America" and set the standards for it, accept people who look a little different and want to keep a little individuality? Why must I look like you, talk like you, be like you in order to be "part of mainstream America?" (By you, I don't mean you personally.)

My point is, I can be me, and that doesn't make me "unprofessional". Your argument is basically that blacks are too different, and they need to assimilate in order to gain acceptance ie in order to be a professional success. For someone to be successful in a professional sense, they must themselves be professional. But I don't need to assimilate to be professional, which seems to be your argument. I can be me. Black. And professional.

You may not need to, but from what I know, most people have to adjust even when moving from job to job; and that includes that first job.  

HTH (although I doubt it. :(... gotta give it to you, you're persistent, and at least you're trying to get it. )



Basically, you put your spin on what I said.  I would suggest that you come back with your own argument.  And, its too late right now for me to, but hopefully later I can present my position with more clarity, because you have missed the point.  Then again, this will require open-mindedness, so I hope your up for it.
Title: Re: Affirmative Action is for people not smart enough to get in without it
Post by: Cyndra on April 19, 2005, 11:40:57 PM
I will italicize, because it is getting messy.

I will just bold my responses.

"AA is for people with marketable skills..." No, I think AA is for under-represented minorities. ..snip..


I'm not following you here. You speak as if people with marketable skills can't be URM. The two are not mutually exclusive.

I did not mean to infer that. ..snip..
Quote
..snip..Otherwise, law school adcomms wouldn't want to even know the applicants race.
Quote

You know, you can leave your race out. The question is optional.

Yes, but this does not change the fact that if LSs wanted to make it race neutral they could.

But why should they when the real world isn't race neutral? Isn't law school made up of real people from the real world? Don't they carry their biases and attitudes in, beyond the doors of a law school?

..snip..

Quote
Even at that, I would like to know what source or expertise you have in what people go in sounding like for every professional job.
Quote

Let's not get extreme here. I didn't say I knew how everyone sounded at every professional job interview. ...snip... Your reasoning is that, even you as a white Southerner must suppress your "southern-ness", the fact that blacks don't surely is the reason why blacks aren't as successful... they don't change themselves, making themselves acceptable to the mainstream community. ...snip...

I only said it was a partial explanation.

Sorry, I didn't catch the rest of the explanation. Please elaborate

It seems that you are saying that black people go into professional interviews sounding like Ludacris. Did you not understand when I said he's a character, an entertainer? Do you buy records of people who sound like you do when you sing in the shower? Do you buy posters and movies featuring stars who look like your Aunt Susie? No. He is meant to be extraordinary and out there. The ordinary is not good entertainment.

No, the only thing I said is that successful blacks don't do that.

No one successful does, so what was the point in bringing up Ludacris and the likes? And BTW, no one who is successful does this because it isn't acceptable to whites. Not that I would, I don't personally listen to rap. But I do think that a lot of white people in positions of power project their preferences on others. White people don't like that "sort of talk". That is why "black people who don't talk like that" can be "successful". They are acceptable to whites.

...snip... that is not how the majority of "us" present ourselves. Your logic is faulty. To blame blacks for the problems some of their communities are facing today is cowardly. Admit that there are other forces at hand. I don't have to be present at every interview featuring a black interviewee to know that they don't all sound like Ludacris. ...snip...

Again, you treat what I presented as a partial explaination as if I said it was a complete explaination

I'm ready and willing to hear the rest that I may have missed. Can you point it out to me? Thanks.
 
Quote
Further, it could be a matter of degree. Many otherwise intelligent individuals have very poor grammer.
Quote
(Like poor spelling? Not to take a cheap shot at you, but each time you post you have loads of spelling errors. That didn't keep you out of anywhere.) You didn't use Ludacris as an example because he has poor "grammer." Grammar isn't the problem. Mastering correct subject-verb agreement is not what keeps blacks from rising to the higher echelons of power in a very white corporate America (as correct spelling, or a lack thereof hasn't kept you out). It happens not by coincidence, but rather by design. I'm not saying it's consciously done or that every white person is to blame, but when AA is not in play, take note of how non-existent the black population is. Take a small firm for example. If they are small enough to fly under the radar, that firm will remain lily white until the second coming. When AA isn't an enforced policy, you see fewer blacks, not because there are fewer "qualified" ones than in situations where AA is at play, it's just that all too often, when no one is looking, people's true colors shine. So don't blame black people by saying they don't assimilate and they have poor grammar. We've been here for quite some time. I'd say it's safe to say we've assimilated.

You may take a cheap shot at me, I have been using Microsoft Word since I was very young.  And my spelling has never been very good.  I am an economics major (not a lot of writing), at the very top (#1) in my class.  Your petty insults mean nothing to me.  Furthermore, not that this is a great achievement, but I was nominated for best Freshman English paper.  You see, this is a message board, it is a casual atmosphere (usually), and I don't have time to proofread.  But I must admit that talking about my poor spelling is a great way to detract from my message.

Maybe you were reading too quickly to notice, but I prefaced that whole think with "not to take a cheap shot at you...". It wasn't a cheap shot. It was part of my point. It is not the fact that black people who have, as you say, poor grammar, that is keeps them from getting good jobs. Point made.

Then I went on to say that spelling errors (for lack of spelling know-how, fast typing, whatever reason) did not keep you from being successful. That's all. Bringing up your placement in your class and spelling b's you've won don't serve to address anything. Your argument is moot. There was no cheap shot. Again, there was a point being made. I was honestly not trying to humiliate or offend... so just address the issue I presented above instead of defending your spelling honor, about which, might I add, I could care less.


...snip...

Um, duh. Again, we don't all go around talking like that. Talking in "rap lingo" as I said before, isn't what's keeping blacks out.

I meant that somewhat as a extreme example, just like southerner don't go in sounding like Roscoe Coaltrain; and again, you fail to recognize that what I presented was a partial explaination.

I thought we were talking generalities here. We could go on forever discussing extreme examples and get nowhere. Extreme examples do nothing for anyone's argument, because of their unique nature.

Quote
You made another statement to close your post that is similar to how you opened it: "Being "yourself" doesn't mean being unprofessional."
Well, as long as 'yourself' isn't 'unprofessional,' then yes, you are correct.
Quote

..snip..

My point is, I can be me, and that doesn't make me "unprofessional". Your argument is basically that blacks are too different, and they need to assimilate in order to gain acceptance ie in order to be a professional success. For someone to be successful in a professional sense, they must themselves be professional. But I don't need to assimilate to be professional, which seems to be your argument. I can be me. Black. And professional.

You may not need to, but from what I know, most people have to adjust even when moving from job to job; and that includes that first job.  

Yeah, like figuring out how to work the new coffee machine. No one needs to make the personal adjustments (hiding an accent etc) when moving from job to job. One may feel more comfortable looking and speaking like their new colleagues, but
it is by no means expected for a new employee to change who he or she is. What's disgusting is that such is not the case for black people. We're expected to change like chameleons at every turn for the purpose of being "accepted" and "acceptable".


HTH (although I doubt it. :(... gotta give it to you, you're persistent, and at least you're trying to get it. )



Basically, you put your spin on what I said.  ..snip.. Then again, this will require open-mindedness, so I hope your up for it.


I by no means meant to put a spin on your argument. When you're ready, I'm ready to hear it. I am as open minded as they come, so worry not. I'm certainly up for it. It's possible that this is all just one big misunderstanding between you and I, so I guess I will wait for further clarification. But from what I gather, your opinion is that people need to change in order to fit in, and that is certainly not "open-mindedness". But again I will wait and let you explain.
Title: Re: Affirmative Action is for people not smart enough to get in without it
Post by: _BP_ on April 20, 2005, 11:51:50 AM
CTC44, maybe this is the type of "change in order to fit in" that Hilljack is talking about..haha

Radio Salesman Awarded $600,000 in Racial Hostility Complaint

A former salesman for the Philadelphia Eagles Radio Network was awarded $614,000 in a discrimination case after being given a book that advised blacks selling to whites not to wear Afros or African-style clothing.

The Pennsylvania Human Relations Commission issued the ruling Feb. 28 against Viacom Inc. and Infinity Broadcasting, the network's parent companies.

"It's been a very tough road, standing up for what you believe in," said Shawn Brooks, 34, who said his family is of mixed race.

Supervisors at the radio network distributed an advice book called New Dress for Success by John T. Molloy in 2001, Brooks said. The book also advises Latino salespeople to "avoid any hair tonic that tends to give a greasy or shiny look to the hair; this also triggers a negative reaction."

Brooks complained to a supervisor, but got no response, the Human Rights Commission said. He resigned less than a year into the job.

"This is the most egregious case of published documentation on stereotyping and bias toward race, gender and religion in the workplace the commissioners have seen in a long time," commission Chairman Stephen A. Glassman said.

Viacom Inc. and Infinity Broadcasting, the radio network's parent companies, said they would appeal.

"We respectfully disagree with the conclusions of the PHRC and have taken an appeal to the Pennsylvania courts," Infinity said in a statement released Tuesday night. (AP)

Title: Re: Affirmative Action is for people not smart enough to get in without it
Post by: ryanjm on April 20, 2005, 01:42:23 PM
Damn. There's a prime example of why people hate lawyers and frivolous lawsuits. They weren't required to wear what the book said, it was just meant as advice to help them do their job better. If they want to try and sell products to white people, you have to appear as though you fit in. That's a basic tenet of good selling technique: relate to people. If you show up in flowing robes and a 12" fro, the average white person is not going to want to buy anything from you and that's just common sense.
Title: Re: Affirmative Action is for people not smart enough to get in without it
Post by: hilljack on April 20, 2005, 01:46:52 PM

I am saying that those who make adjustments do better in the business world.  This is not a big factor in my opinion.  But for those people who do well in school and have skills that are marketable, I believe that it helps to make adjustments to "fit in."

...
 
I would also like to reinterate that I am not saying that this is the only or even close to the biggest problem (my vote is for family structure), but it is important to those who have done everything else right.

That is a quote from me, saying that it is one and not even the biggest factor, in my opinion.  So please stop characterizing it otherwise.

On that note, I am not going to quote you because this is getting too messy.

The real world isn't race neutral.  I don't know if it ever will be, but that is the direction we are heading.  The world (or the US, since that is really what we are talking about) is much fairer now than it was pre-Civil War and pre-Civil Rights Act (1964).  I think that most people would agree with this.  Maybe it is idealistic for me to say that the gov't should not condone any discrimination, and by discrimination I mean treating someone better/worse based on race.  Instead the gov't and many people justify one form of discrimination w/ past discrimination.  That is if I understand the argument as, "the only reason minorities do not perform as well in high school/undergrad is that our country has developed a system that is unfavorable to them."  Or, in other words, factors such as family income/wealth and family education are disproportionately slanted away from the minorities in this country.  If education, wealth and income had not been distributed unfairly in the past, we would have a greater balance.  Well, I find it somewhat offensive to take away someone's wealth, but anti-discrimination laws in hiring and promotion could help balance the disparity in income.  But this is contingent on equal ability.  And equal ability is contingent on equal education (at least, if not more).

So can we justify AA as a means to balance.  I would argue that if certain steps were taken in the lower levels of education (elementary-high school), there would be an improvement.  But this is not the whole of the problem, just like current or past racism is not the whole of the problem.  Although it is not the entire problem, it is a problem, and steps should be taken to ensure that all kids receive a quality education.  Remember, there are many poor, white southerners who receive similarly bad schooling to what inner-city schools provide.

Okay, that is not everything about that, but I am going to move on.  We have a gov't assistance program that encourages single-family homes.  We have a paternalistic gov't that isn't even doing a good job.  We have a society (black and white) that celebrates pop stars and athletes over doctors, lawyers and pharmacists.  Does anyone really believe that the number of young black men attempting to pursue a career in the NBA or NFL is too high.  Not that basketball and football are bad things (I am a fan of both) but that pursuit of education should come first.  And like the music I mentioned before, the impression that basketball is "your way out" is heaviest on the poor and the fatherless.  Please don't misinterpret this as me saying that it is all the NBA's fault; like the things I have mentioned before, I introduce this as simply a factor.  I hope I have gotten the message across that I do not support some theory that if blacks learn to talk like whites, all their worries will go away.

On to your response about my spelling.  If you didn't care, why did you bring it up.  If you don't care, why do you respond when I take up for myself.  And I never said anything about a spelling b.  I also think it is a pretty sorry way to address the issue at hand.  To say that 'you can't spell very well and you have presumably not been held down by that fact, therefore, speaking in some way should not hold someone down'  Well, my poor spelling is on this message board, I wasn't suggesting that if someone used poor grammar on this message board, they will have a hard time being successful.  Apples and Oranges.  Now, if my personal statement is riddled with spelling errors and I still get into a top school, I will let you know, but I don't think I will be writing it on this message board and not proofreading it.

On to making adjustments.  There are many people who have been able to keep a job while underperforming.  When the economy is good, business is good, profits are up, people can avoid being laid off by just being liked by their coworkers.  You can accept this fact or not, I don't care, but the working world is not a meritocracy; nor is it something you can conquer on your own.  

I would go on, but I want to hear criticism of what I have written so far.
Title: Re: Affirmative Action is for people not smart enough to get in without it
Post by: Ladyday on April 20, 2005, 02:18:32 PM
Damn. There's a prime example of why people hate lawyers and frivolous lawsuits. They weren't required to wear what the book said, it was just meant as advice to help them do their job better. If they want to try and sell products to white people, you have to appear as though you fit in. That's a basic tenet of good selling technique: relate to people. If you show up in flowing robes and a 12" fro, the average white person is not going to want to buy anything from you and that's just common sense.

See that's just the thing. Why is it that people have to "fit in?" Ultimately that would lead to a completely homogenous society and it would be boring as hell. Isn't possible that the black man who's clean cut with a afro is more qualified than the blond hair blue-eyed short cropped white man. Are we expected to start taking pills to lighten our skin too!! We don't need to "fit in" to the society as we are already here. We need to be accepted as equals regardless of our different cultural styles. The problem is that the "majority" needs to begin changing their perceptions......
Title: Re: Affirmative Action is for people not smart enough to get in without it
Post by: HBCU.EDU on April 21, 2005, 06:25:34 PM
"Should I really feel sorry for you because you're an URM? Honestly. You have the same brain as anybody else don't you? Or are you admitting you're not as good? AA hurts applicants because in reality it's saying "you're black/hispanic/poor/etc therefore you need this little boost in order to get in." Not to mention the fact that for every person who gets in undeservingly from AA, there is another person who deserved it more who was denied in order to make room for you.

If I were black, I would hate AA more than I already do."

I know where you are coming from. As a black man I hate AA myself. Basically, white democrats are saying "you negros are stupid and you can't get into our schools without our help." Black democrats are saying "you know what you are correct." White schools that use AA would NEVER let white or asian students into their class with the same scores that they allow blacks to have and that is disgraceful!

Black people need to have more respect for their race and stop eating the crumbs off of tables. Get a spine.
Title: Re: Affirmative Action is for people not smart enough to get in without it
Post by: Gary Glitter on April 21, 2005, 08:10:50 PM
 :D Okay, you must be kidding me right...hahhaah  Let me maintain my C average in college, I'm sure to be in running for the presidency in a few years.

Oh, and how interesting it is to see an African American who has lurked all this time but decided that your first few posts would outline how AA demeans the american dream.  Welcome African American guy... :D
Quote

oracle, you're a belittling idiot

first of all

to imply to bush benefited from any sort of social instution that was designed specifically for people of his race / creed / gender is pure lunacy

what you're thinking of is NEPOTISM - completely unrelated to affirmative action in any way, shape, or form. yes, undoubtedly, there are minor perturbations of the american dream in its purest sense in all aspects of our society. society, of course, is composed of human beings, fallible creatures, we will never have an utopia, no matter how hard chips-from-the-ivory-tower such as yourself pound their chests ...

affirmative action is represents a worthy impingement upon americanism because it is a MAJOR social institution that touches MANY impressionable young people every year - bush benefiting from nepotism is, by comparison, ludicrously MINOR, and furthermore, completely unrelated to discussion of social institutions - making your argument both IRRELEVANT and nonsensical.

second of all

the last part of your statement is sort of demeaning and racist in of itself. anyone see any irony here?

i'm an african american male - why must i lurk?
Title: Re: Affirmative Action is for people not smart enough to get in without it
Post by: _BP_ on April 21, 2005, 08:43:10 PM

oracle, you're a belittling idiot

first of all...


Am I belittling, or do you just feel belittled?  hahaha, and I laughed at your starting your rambling post with "first of all"...did you snap your fingers, roll your eyes, and do the neck thing when you were typing this?  Oh and your nepotism argument...OMG, you could not be more lost, grab a map and a flashlight. As for the rest of your obviously well thought out tirade, I'll just leave you with some Dead Prez lyrics:

You can't fool all the people all of the time
But if you fool the right ones, then the rest will fall behind
Tell me who's got control of your mind? your world view?
Is it the news or the movie you're taking your girl to?
Title: Re: Affirmative Action is for people not smart enough to get in without it
Post by: hilljack on April 21, 2005, 08:46:11 PM
Why have none of you replied to my post, I am feeling a little left out of the loop.
Title: Re: Affirmative Action is for people not smart enough to get in without it
Post by: Cyndra on April 21, 2005, 10:03:23 PM
A former salesman for the Philadelphia Eagles Radio Network was awarded $614,000 in a discrimination case after being given a book that advised blacks selling to whites not to wear Afros or African-style clothing.

The book also advises Latino salespeople to "avoid any hair tonic that tends to give a greasy or shiny look to the hair; this also triggers a negative reaction."

OMG

Quote
TC44, maybe this is the type of "change in order to fit in" that Hilljack is talking about..haha

maybe!
Title: Re: Affirmative Action is for people not smart enough to get in without it
Post by: Cyndra on April 21, 2005, 10:37:19 PM

If education, wealth and income had not been distributed unfairly in the past, we would have a greater balance.  Well, I find it somewhat offensive to take away someone's wealth,

This is the main part I had qualms with. "Taking away someone's wealth"?? That sounds like entitlement. Achieving greater balance doesn't mean wealth is ripped out of the hands of the rich and the white and given to the poor and black. It just means that now there is competition, and what once came as a birth-right must now be worked for.
Title: Re: Affirmative Action is for people not smart enough to get in without it
Post by: Cyndra on April 21, 2005, 10:39:13 PM
See that's just the thing. Why is it that people have to "fit in?" Ultimately that would lead to a completely homogenous society and it would be boring as hell. Isn't possible that the black man who's clean cut with a afro is more qualified than the blond hair blue-eyed short cropped white man. Are we expected to start taking pills to lighten our skin too!! We don't need to "fit in" to the society as we are already here. We need to be accepted as equals regardless of our different cultural styles. The problem is that the "majority" needs to begin changing their perceptions......

THANK YOU!
Title: Re: Affirmative Action is for people not smart enough to get in without it
Post by: hilljack on April 21, 2005, 11:04:53 PM
This is the main part I had qualms with. "Taking away someone's wealth"?? That sounds like entitlement. Achieving greater balance doesn't mean wealth is ripped out of the hands of the rich and the white and given to the poor and black. It just means that now there is competition, and what once came as a birth-right must now be worked for.


I don't think you understand what I am saying, I don't care who gains wealth; I just don't think redistribution of wealth is the answer.  The fact is, a strong mind and a good education will take you further in life than a trust fund.  But, I am getting off what my point was.

I geuss I could sum it up as...in order to create some balance, we have options, we could just redistribute wealth, and hope that this creates some balance, or we could give everyone access to education.  I think the second option is not only more fair, but also more efficient (economically speaking).

In no way did I mean to say that anyone is entitled to the opportunity to gain wealth any more than someone else is.  I think you and I are for the same thing, that is equal opportunity. 

My idea of equal opportunity is giving every young person the access to a good education.  After all, you cannot choose where you are born or if your parents have money.  Then, at some point, we let all the people go, and we as a society have no further obligation to them.  We let the industrious and the creative earn their living and the lazy and the slow fall behind.  Of course, this doesn't mean that I feel no moral obligation to the 'down and out' but the treatment of the poor is a seperate issue.

In sum, my position is:
1. Every young person deserves access to a quality education
2. Discrimination of any kind should not be tolerated.  America should be a meritocracy
3. At some point, after high school seems appropriate, every one should, more or less, be left to do it on thier own.

Before responding in anger to this, please remember point #1, and ask yourself, "would blacks (and other minorities) be better off with AA, or equal access to education for the first 18 years of their life?"

And as far as the competition you speak of, no one is more in favor of fair competition than I am.
Title: Re: Affirmative Action is for people not smart enough to get in without it
Post by: iwantin on April 22, 2005, 09:29:55 AM
I believe that if it were possible for students to receive an equal opportunity to a good education prior to college, then AA would not be necessary.  However, when you have cases like San Antonio v. Rodriguez ruling against "sharing the wealth" and decreasing the disparities in school funding, obviously something is wrong. 

AA is not meant to help every minority student who just wants a free ride or to just get into a good university.  It is meant to help those who have the drive and are showing the determination in obtaining a good education despite various circumstances beyond their control.  Everyone in this country does not have an equal opportunity to a good education prior to college.  And we must also take into consideration what schools want...

They do not want to be used by individuals.  They want to know what you have to offer them as well.  Will you be the student who will be extremely involved on campus and try to initiate any positive changes?  (They try to access this potential based on resumes.)  Or will you be the student who merely studies all the time, gets straight A's, and only seeks to join every honor society there is on campus?  Who would you want at your university?  (I'd prefer the more active student because college, law school, etc. is NOT just about grades.)
Title: Re: Affirmative Action is for people not smart enough to get in without it
Post by: Cyndra on April 22, 2005, 01:14:27 PM
I believe that if it were possible for students to receive an equal opportunity to a good education prior to college, then AA would not be necessary. 

AA is not meant to help every minority student who just wants a free ride or to just get into a good university.  It is meant to help those who have the drive and are showing the determination in obtaining a good education despite various circumstances beyond their control.  Everyone in this country does not have an equal opportunity to a good education prior to college.  And we must also take into consideration what schools want...

Hilljack, I agree with this statement wholeheartedly.
Title: Re: Affirmative Action is for people not smart enough to get in without it
Post by: From Nebraska on April 28, 2005, 05:42:20 PM
"Should I really feel sorry for you because you're an URM? Honestly. You have the same brain as anybody else don't you? Or are you admitting you're not as good? AA hurts applicants because in reality it's saying "you're black/hispanic/poor/etc therefore you need this little boost in order to get in." Not to mention the fact that for every person who gets in undeservingly from AA, there is another person who deserved it more who was denied in order to make room for you.

If I were black, I would hate AA more than I already do."

I know where you are coming from. As a black man I hate AA myself. Basically, white democrats are saying "you negros are stupid and you can't get into our schools without our help." Black democrats are saying "you know what you are correct." White schools that use AA would NEVER let white or asian students into their class with the same scores that they allow blacks to have and that is disgraceful!

Black people need to have more respect for their race and stop eating the crumbs off of tables. Get a spine.

I understand your frustration with AA, but not the reasoning behind "White schools that use AA would NEVER let White or Asian students into their class with the same scores that they allow Blacks to have..."  Most schools have a median LSAT and GPA range that they use to accept or deny applicants.  This means that they accept a number of students below the 25% range and above the 75% range.  If Blacks only make up between 6-8% of predominatly White law schools, where are the other numbers coming from?  I think law schools are looking for diversity in every aspect.  I think they need the White Billionaire, (who may have gotten in with low scores because he is a minority amongst his White peers) as much as they need the middle class Black. 

I'm not saying that we do not use AA to get an education, but I dont agree that we (traditional URMs) are the only ones getting in with those scores. 
Title: with that mentality...
Post by: goldenchild on May 18, 2005, 04:31:48 PM
you'd probably appreciate this:

http://www.intrepidmedia.com/column.asp?id=2144
Title: Re: Affirmative Action is for people not smart enough to get in without it
Post by: brooklynman on May 18, 2005, 09:59:23 PM
"Should I really feel sorry for you because you're an URM? Honestly. You have the same brain as anybody else don't you? Or are you admitting you're not as good? AA hurts applicants because in reality it's saying "you're black/hispanic/poor/etc therefore you need this little boost in order to get in." Not to mention the fact that for every person who gets in undeservingly from AA, there is another person who deserved it more who was denied in order to make room for you.

If I were black, I would hate AA more than I already do."

I know where you are coming from. As a black man I hate AA myself. Basically, white democrats are saying "you negros are stupid and you can't get into our schools without our help." Black democrats are saying "you know what you are correct." White schools that use AA would NEVER let white or asian students into their class with the same scores that they allow blacks to have and that is disgraceful!

Black people need to have more respect for their race and stop eating the crumbs off of tables. Get a spine.

I understand your frustration with AA, but not the reasoning behind "White schools that use AA would NEVER let White or Asian students into their class with the same scores that they allow Blacks to have..."  Most schools have a median LSAT and GPA range that they use to accept or deny applicants.  This means that they accept a number of students below the 25% range and above the 75% range.  If Blacks only make up between 6-8% of predominatly White law schools, where are the other numbers coming from?  I think law schools are looking for diversity in every aspect.  I think they need the White Billionaire, (who may have gotten in with low scores because he is a minority amongst his White peers) as much as they need the middle class Black. 

I'm not saying that we do not use AA to get an education, but I dont agree that we (traditional URMs) are the only ones getting in with those scores. 

This is the only thing I don't understand. African Americans receive AA. This might or might not be justified - it is a contentious issue. But what I don't understand is the many people on this board who deny that AA is taking place. I have even seen a person argue for the importance of AA ( and there are reasons it is important) and then a few posts afterwards, after being antagonized for example, that there is no AA.
Here is a classic example. You are making some type of equivalent example between a White Billionaire and an African American applicant. Do you have documented evidence that adcomms let a white billionaire in order to create diversity (by the way this "excercise" could only be conducted on a millionaire since there are so few billionaires. This is a pure unadulterated distortion. There is AA and its aggressive and it applies to pretty much all black people. Some get a minor boost, some get a larger boost ( 10 points or so for example). But it IS happenning. I cant understand why people use mechanisms of self deception in order to soothe themselves. In addition, it IS true that the outliers in admissions ( for example someone who got a much much lower score than the 25 percentile ) are typically minorities. A simple glance at lawschoolnumbers.com would demonstrate this easily.
Title: Re: Affirmative Action is for people not smart enough to get in without it
Post by: ! B L U E WAR R I O R..! on May 22, 2005, 10:31:05 AM
perhaps an analogy may help:

many israelites marry only those in their own culture to give their culture a chance to grow...it is a relatively small culture in comparison to the earths population...this is a form of an affirmative action to increase growth of the culture and to maintain the cultural beliefs and physical presence...

do you understand?

px.o.rsta

Title: Re: Affirmative Action is for people not smart enough to get in without it
Post by: pop_tort on August 01, 2005, 08:31:12 AM
Affirmative action has been around for a VERY VERY long time. Read this book (ISBN 0393052133) before you start talking about who's smart and who's not...
(http://a1204.g.akamai.net/7/1204/1401/05050515011/images.barnesandnoble.com/images/9600000/9605240.jpg)

Title: Re: Affirmative Action is for people not smart enough to get in without it
Post by: ImVinny! on August 17, 2005, 09:57:37 AM

I am saying that those who make adjustments do better in the business world.  This is not a big factor in my opinion.  But for those people who do well in school and have skills that are marketable, I believe that it helps to make adjustments to "fit in."

...
 
I would also like to reinterate that I am not saying that this is the only or even close to the biggest problem (my vote is for family structure), but it is important to those who have done everything else right.

That is a quote from me, saying that it is one and not even the biggest factor, in my opinion.  So please stop characterizing it otherwise.

On that note, I am not going to quote you because this is getting too messy.

The real world isn't race neutral.  I don't know if it ever will be, but that is the direction we are heading.  The world (or the US, since that is really what we are talking about) is much fairer now than it was pre-Civil War and pre-Civil Rights Act (1964).  I think that most people would agree with this.  Maybe it is idealistic for me to say that the gov't should not condone any discrimination, and by discrimination I mean treating someone better/worse based on race.  Instead the gov't and many people justify one form of discrimination w/ past discrimination.  That is if I understand the argument as, "the only reason minorities do not perform as well in high school/undergrad is that our country has developed a system that is unfavorable to them."  Or, in other words, factors such as family income/wealth and family education are disproportionately slanted away from the minorities in this country.  If education, wealth and income had not been distributed unfairly in the past, we would have a greater balance.  Well, I find it somewhat offensive to take away someone's wealth, but anti-discrimination laws in hiring and promotion could help balance the disparity in income.  But this is contingent on equal ability.  And equal ability is contingent on equal education (at least, if not more).

So can we justify AA as a means to balance.  I would argue that if certain steps were taken in the lower levels of education (elementary-high school), there would be an improvement.  But this is not the whole of the problem, just like current or past racism is not the whole of the problem.  Although it is not the entire problem, it is a problem, and steps should be taken to ensure that all kids receive a quality education.  Remember, there are many poor, white southerners who receive similarly bad schooling to what inner-city schools provide.

Okay, that is not everything about that, but I am going to move on.  We have a gov't assistance program that encourages single-family homes.  We have a paternalistic gov't that isn't even doing a good job.  We have a society (black and white) that celebrates pop stars and athletes over doctors, lawyers and pharmacists.  Does anyone really believe that the number of young black men attempting to pursue a career in the NBA or NFL is too high.  Not that basketball and football are bad things (I am a fan of both) but that pursuit of education should come first.  And like the music I mentioned before, the impression that basketball is "your way out" is heaviest on the poor and the fatherless.  Please don't misinterpret this as me saying that it is all the NBA's fault; like the things I have mentioned before, I introduce this as simply a factor.  I hope I have gotten the message across that I do not support some theory that if blacks learn to talk like whites, all their worries will go away.

On to your response about my spelling.  If you didn't care, why did you bring it up.  If you don't care, why do you respond when I take up for myself.  And I never said anything about a spelling b.  I also think it is a pretty sorry way to address the issue at hand.  To say that 'you can't spell very well and you have presumably not been held down by that fact, therefore, speaking in some way should not hold someone down'  Well, my poor spelling is on this message board, I wasn't suggesting that if someone used poor grammar on this message board, they will have a hard time being successful.  Apples and Oranges.  Now, if my personal statement is riddled with spelling errors and I still get into a top school, I will let you know, but I don't think I will be writing it on this message board and not proofreading it.

On to making adjustments.  There are many people who have been able to keep a job while underperforming.  When the economy is good, business is good, profits are up, people can avoid being laid off by just being liked by their coworkers.  You can accept this fact or not, I don't care, but the working world is not a meritocracy; nor is it something you can conquer on your own.  

I would go on, but I want to hear criticism of what I have written so far.

This person is getting the same critique aparently. Although it seems he says a lot of the same things i think. Interesting, you really do NOT listen to the other points? Or maybe just trying to ignore them? I don't know anymore, but just thought I would point that out.
Title: Re: Affirmative Action is for people not smart enough to get in without it
Post by: blk_reign on August 17, 2005, 11:31:44 AM
will be ordering this...good looking out


Affirmative action has been around for a VERY VERY long time. Read this book (ISBN 0393052133) before you start talking about who's smart and who's not...
(http://a1204.g.akamai.net/7/1204/1401/05050515011/images.barnesandnoble.com/images/9600000/9605240.jpg)


Title: Re: Affirmative Action is for people not smart enough to get in without it
Post by: pop_tort on August 17, 2005, 10:11:41 PM
No prob. Hopefully a few others will also take a look at the book.....




will be ordering this...good looking out


Affirmative action has been around for a VERY VERY long time. Read this book (ISBN 0393052133) before you start talking about who's smart and who's not...
(http://a1204.g.akamai.net/7/1204/1401/05050515011/images.barnesandnoble.com/images/9600000/9605240.jpg)