Law School Discussion

Specific Groups => Minority and Non-Traditional Law Students => Topic started by: DMG on July 14, 2005, 11:01:01 AM

Title: Affirmative action = bullsh*t
Post by: DMG on July 14, 2005, 11:01:01 AM
What's with all this affirmative action BS I see on American University's websites? I live in liberal Canada and it is not this bad. How can anyone possibly support judging applicant's based upon their skin tone, and not be a racist? ???
Title: Re: Affirmative action = bullsh*t
Post by: ImVinny! on July 18, 2005, 06:32:33 AM
Yeah, I'm SOO sure some school is going to think, hey, this guys is black, let's deny him. State any modern examples.
Affirmative Action is BS, good observation my Canadian neighbor.
Title: Re: Affirmative action = bullsh*t
Post by: Nemesis on July 18, 2005, 01:46:41 PM
What's with all this affirmative action BS I see on American University's websites? I live in liberal Canada and it is not this bad. How can anyone possibly support judging applicant's based upon their skin tone, and not be a racist? ???

How much do you know about American history? Maybe that might give you some insight into the matter.
Title: Re: Affirmative action = bullsh*t
Post by: DMG on July 19, 2005, 01:13:19 PM
What's with all this affirmative action BS I see on American University's websites? I live in liberal Canada and it is not this bad. How can anyone possibly support judging applicant's based upon their skin tone, and not be a racist? ???

How much do you know about American history? Maybe that might give you some insight into the matter.

What the hell is that supposed to mean? Are people to be rewarded/punished for the fate of their ancestors who have been dead for decades?
Title: Re: Affirmative action = bullsh*t
Post by: ImVinny! on July 19, 2005, 01:15:29 PM
Exactly, they had nothing to do with the situation. They just need to MOVE ON!!!!
Title: Re: Affirmative action = bullsh*t
Post by: Nemesis on July 19, 2005, 01:51:18 PM
What's with all this affirmative action BS I see on American University's websites? I live in liberal Canada and it is not this bad. How can anyone possibly support judging applicant's based upon their skin tone, and not be a racist? ???

How much do you know about American history? Maybe that might give you some insight into the matter.

What the hell is that supposed to mean? Are people to be rewarded/punished for the fate of their ancestors who have been dead for decades?

Dear God, not another one.

Ummm, a lot of the people who were around in the fifties and sixties are still alive. I've had the pleasure of hearing them speak about their struggles for equality. It's hard to imagine it on your own, but hearing someone's first hand account really makes you think. In reality, it wasn't that long ago.
Title: Re: Affirmative action = bullsh*t
Post by: ImVinny! on July 19, 2005, 02:00:04 PM
Were they slaves?
Title: Re: Affirmative action = bullsh*t
Post by: DMG on July 19, 2005, 02:05:59 PM
So what? They had tough lives, I don't dispute or doubt that. MANY people had tough lives in the 50s and 60s. My grandfather was blinded in WW2 and had to live the last 50 or so years of his life in that state and just got by. Yet I am not demanding handouts for his hardship, and nor should I.
Title: Re: Affirmative action = bullsh*t
Post by: Nemesis on July 19, 2005, 02:11:06 PM
Were they slaves?

Discrimination went far beyond slavery. Read a book.
Title: Re: Affirmative action = bullsh*t
Post by: ImVinny! on July 19, 2005, 02:12:38 PM
I read many books and things, I'm not wasting my time with YOU anymore, you are obviously ignorant fo the fact that people can have their own opinions on thnings and you CANNOT and need not care about changing them.
Title: Re: Affirmative action = bullsh*t
Post by: howarddavis on July 19, 2005, 02:12:48 PM
aff action is bs, sorry i am speaking out of frustration i am sure. i am a liberal, but i am pretty upset that university of texas at austin allows those who have much lower lsat and lower gpa's to be allowed in due to skin color. you say no "unqualified" applicant will be let in, but how about less qualified? they are let in every day to various law schools across the country. and yes, i think that is racist.
Title: Re: Affirmative action = bullsh*t
Post by: Nemesis on July 19, 2005, 02:13:17 PM
So what? They had tough lives, I don't dispute or doubt that. MANY people had tough lives in the 50s and 60s. My grandfather was blinded in WW2 and had to live the last 50 or so years of his life in that state and just got by. Yet I am not demanding handouts for his hardship, and nor should I.

So what should we do? Dump your blinded grandfather back into society with no assistance, no training, no support and say "Fend for yourself!"?
Title: Re: Affirmative action = bullsh*t
Post by: DMG on July 19, 2005, 02:15:54 PM
So what? They had tough lives, I don't dispute or doubt that. MANY people had tough lives in the 50s and 60s. My grandfather was blinded in WW2 and had to live the last 50 or so years of his life in that state and just got by. Yet I am not demanding handouts for his hardship, and nor should I.

So what should we do? Dump your blinded grandfather back into society with no assistance, no training, no support and say "Fend for yourself!"?


No, I'm not quite sure what that is supposed to be analogous to though. You are claiming that people should be compensated for their ancestors' plight. But only if they have a certain skin colour. That is racist.
Title: Re: Affirmative action = bullsh*t
Post by: Nemesis on July 19, 2005, 02:16:16 PM
aff action is bs, sorry i am speaking out of frustration i am sure. i am a liberal, but i am pretty upset that university of texas at austin allows those who have much lower lsat and lower gpa's to be allowed in due to skin color. you say no "unqualified" applicant will be let in, but how about less qualified? they are let in every day to various law schools across the country. and yes, i think that is racist.

So what? I'm sure they let less qualified whites in too. Percentiles are just that. There are people who score higher, and those who score lower. Every person whose scores are lower MUST have gotten in because of their color, right? Come on, you must see the limitations in that.

And by the way guys, some URM's actually DO have great stats.
Title: Re: Affirmative action = bullsh*t
Post by: DMG on July 19, 2005, 02:18:59 PM
Im sure some URM do actually have great stats, but no one gives them credit for it, because they are overshadowed by the VAST majority who do not have great stats, and instead get in based on their skin colour. And we have idiots like you to thank for this.
Title: Re: Affirmative action = bullsh*t
Post by: Nemesis on July 19, 2005, 02:25:24 PM
So what? They had tough lives, I don't dispute or doubt that. MANY people had tough lives in the 50s and 60s. My grandfather was blinded in WW2 and had to live the last 50 or so years of his life in that state and just got by. Yet I am not demanding handouts for his hardship, and nor should I.

So what should we do? Dump your blinded grandfather back into society with no assistance, no training, no support and say "Fend for yourself!"?


No, I'm not quite sure what that is supposed to be analogous to though. You are claiming that people should be compensated for their ancestors' plight. But only if they have a certain skin colour. That is racist.

It is because of their skin color that many URM's have been discriminate d against. Not be one or two people, but by an institution. A long legacy of discrimination that was endorsed by the government. And, unfortunately, even decades later minorities are still coping with the impact of that kind of discrimination.

But that doesn't matter anyway right?
Title: Re: Affirmative action = bullsh*t
Post by: Nemesis on July 19, 2005, 02:28:50 PM
Im sure some URM do actually have great stats, but no one gives them credit for it, because they are overshadowed by the VAST majority who do not have great stats, and instead get in based on their skin colour. And we have idiots like you to thank for this.

GREAT majority? Where's your support for that claim?

Idiot?

What's your GPA genius?

Ad hominem is always a great defense when you have nothing useful to say. You've just invalidated your entire argument.

And I'm sorry if you don't know what ad hominem is. Don't mean to use big words.
Title: Re: Affirmative action = bullsh*t
Post by: DMG on July 19, 2005, 02:38:41 PM
Im sure some URM do actually have great stats, but no one gives them credit for it, because they are overshadowed by the VAST majority who do not have great stats, and instead get in based on their skin colour. And we have idiots like you to thank for this.

GREAT majority? Where's your support for that claim?

Idiot?

What's your GPA genius?

Ad hominem is always a great defense when you have nothing useful to say. You've just invalidated your entire argument.

And I'm sorry if you don't know what ad hominem is. Don't mean to use big words.

Wow, you learned a new word. ::)

I don't think anyone disputes for a second that the average grades of URM admitted into Harvard, Yale and the like is MUCH, MUCH lower than the average of all their students. The fact that you are actually dumb enough to dispute this goes a long way in explaining your absurd claim that judging applicants based on their RACE is not racism.
Title: Re: Affirmative action = bullsh*t
Post by: steve112sms on July 19, 2005, 02:56:27 PM
It is because of their skin color that many URM's have been discriminate d against. Not be one or two people, but by an institution. A long legacy of discrimination that was endorsed by the government. And, unfortunately, even decades later minorities are still coping with the impact of that kind of discrimination.

But that doesn't matter anyway right?

Many minorities have had difficult lives and that is quite unfortunate, indeed. Discrimination against them still exists to some degree and that is unfortunate as well, but that alone does not justify affirmative action. If discrimination exists then it ought to be ferreted out and extinguished. Creating a new form of discrimination that seeks to counteract the former is our attempt at a "quick fix". Such solutions tend to fail as they are generally short-sighted. As a young middle-class white male who has frequented many similarly composed social circles, I've noted that affirmative action tends to foster resentment towards these minorities who are given the leg up merely for being of a different color skin. Now, personally I like to think that I'm of the ability to rise above this frustration and not harbor and ill-will toward minorities as a result, however, it has been my experience that the same cannot be said of many in my position. Most of the time it exists not in an outright hatred towards minorities, but rather in subtle questioning of the qualifications of a minority ascending the ranks. Thus, in my opinion affirmative action will do more bad than good. What is needed in my opinion is continued resistance to discrimination of all sorts so that we can truly begin to view minorities as no different than ourselves. Only when we view minorities as no different than the majority will true equality stand a chance. As it is, when a minority is hoisted above other mediocre candidates into prestige for no reason other than skin color, one cannot help but feel as though they truly are different from the rest of us.

I also think it fails on an individual level, but I don't feel like getting into that at a moment.
Title: Re: Affirmative action = bullsh*t
Post by: Nemesis on July 19, 2005, 03:02:07 PM
Im sure some URM do actually have great stats, but no one gives them credit for it, because they are overshadowed by the VAST majority who do not have great stats, and instead get in based on their skin colour. And we have idiots like you to thank for this.

GREAT majority? Where's your support for that claim?

Idiot?

What's your GPA genius?

Ad hominem is always a great defense when you have nothing useful to say. You've just invalidated your entire argument.

And I'm sorry if you don't know what ad hominem is. Don't mean to use big words.

Wow, you learned a new word. ::)

I don't think anyone disputes for a second that the average grades of URM admitted into Harvard, Yale and the like is MUCH, MUCH lower than the average of all their students. The fact that you are actually dumb enough to dispute this goes a long way in explaining your absurd claim that judging applicants based on their RACE is not racism.

Do you know how to communicate like an adult or do you always resort to calling people names? I have a right to my opinion as well. And I haven't resorted to calling you names, now have I? I can express my views without stooping so low. The least you can do is extend the same courtesy to others.

And if you're arguing, now what you're arguing about. Affirmative action is NOT judging an applicant based on their race. Is that how URM's apply to law school. They fill out a paper saying "I'm Black, let me it!" It's one part of a process.

That's why when YOU apply, you get to write a PS and submitt LOR's, so it's NOT going to be based solely on your numbers, but other things like socio-economic background, personal challenges (like mental retardation) etc.


Title: Re: Affirmative action = bullsh*t
Post by: DMG on July 19, 2005, 03:09:04 PM
You are a joke. First of all, you were the one who called me an idiot in the first place, and then proceeded to try and elevate yourself by busting out the latin. You are in no place to be lecturing on acting like an "adult", and "stooping so low".

Second, you said that affirmative action is "not judging an applicant on their race". That has got to be the stupidest thing I have ever heard in my life. Could you please explain your rationale behind that totally idiotic statement???? ???
Title: Re: Affirmative action = bullsh*t
Post by: Nemesis on July 19, 2005, 03:12:35 PM
You are a joke. First of all, you were the one who called me an idiot in the first place, and then proceeded to try and elevate yourself by busting out the latin. You are in no place to be lecturing on acting like an "adult", and "stooping so low".

Second, you said that affirmative action is "not judging an applicant on their race". That has got to be the stupidest thing I have ever heard in my life. Could you please explain your rationale behind that totally idiotic statement???? ???

You called me an idiot, buddy. And read my post above. If they were judging me based on my race, that's all I'd have to submit, my race.
Title: Re: Affirmative action = bullsh*t
Post by: Nemesis on July 19, 2005, 03:13:39 PM
Im sure some URM do actually have great stats, but no one gives them credit for it, because they are overshadowed by the VAST majority who do not have great stats, and instead get in based on their skin colour. And we have idiots like you to thank for this.

Title: Re: Affirmative action = bullsh*t
Post by: TrojanChispas on July 19, 2005, 03:21:14 PM
You are a joke. First of all, you were the one who called me an idiot in the first place, and then proceeded to try and elevate yourself by busting out the latin. You are in no place to be lecturing on acting like an "adult", and "stooping so low".

Second, you said that affirmative action is "not judging an applicant on their race". That has got to be the stupidest thing I have ever heard in my life. Could you please explain your rationale behind that totally idiotic statement???? ???
Affirmative action may not even exist at this point, so this is all a red herring argument.
Should someone pay for past wrongs that they had nothing to do with?

Neither blacks nor whites should pay for past wrongs but until AA minorities were still suffering.  Look at the current representation of whites and blacks or hispanics in the legal profession. "No single minority group in the United States accounts for more than 4% of the lawyers in the United States." (http://www.lsac.org/LSAC.asp?url=lsac/minorities-in-legal-education.asp)  Minorities are more than underrepresented, they're barely there.  The scars of AMerica's past still affect minorities today.

You may say, "WHy not let the passing of time heal those scars and let things correct themselves naturally?"  Because it may never correct itself without help and WE HAVE WAITED TOO LONG!

I do not see you becoming enraged about legacy admits!
Title: Re: Affirmative action = bullsh*t
Post by: steve112sms on July 19, 2005, 03:21:40 PM
And if you're arguing, now what you're arguing about. Affirmative action is NOT judging an applicant based on their race. Is that how URM's apply to law school. They fill out a paper saying "I'm Black, let me it!" It's one part of a process.

That's why when YOU apply, you get to write a PS and submitt LOR's, so it's NOT going to be based solely on your numbers, but other things like socio-economic background, personal challenges (like mental retardation) etc.

It certainly IS judging the applicant on the basis of their race. Granted, it isn't judging only on the basis of race and other factors are taken into account, but nevertheless race is still an important factor used in such determinations. Why do you suppose URM's on the average have much lower numbers than others accepted at a school? Coincidence? Now, indeed, other personal challenges are also taken into account other than just race, but no other factor is such an automatic and huge bonus as that. Take for instance a hypothetical URM's situation and my own. Let's say the URM writes a PS about how they were forced to work to help support their family. That, coupled with a URM status will assuredly give them a huge bonus. Let's say they worked 25 hours a week. Throughout college I've worked 35 hours a week to support myself because my parents don't pay for me anymore. But I'm white and my parents aren't poor. I'm just independent. No one will care, really. I will have worked more hours, but I'll get little credit for that. The URM with fewer work hours will be rewarded for having a "difficult life", but really in terms of mere work, their load was less.
Title: Re: Affirmative action = bullsh*t
Post by: DMG on July 19, 2005, 03:23:32 PM
You are a joke. First of all, you were the one who called me an idiot in the first place, and then proceeded to try and elevate yourself by busting out the latin. You are in no place to be lecturing on acting like an "adult", and "stooping so low".

Second, you said that affirmative action is "not judging an applicant on their race". That has got to be the stupidest thing I have ever heard in my life. Could you please explain your rationale behind that totally idiotic statement???? ???

You called me an idiot, buddy. And read my post above. If they were judging me based on my race, that's all I'd have to submit, my race.


WTF??? You make an idiotic claim that "law schools do not judge minorities based on their race" and your defence for this remark is that if they were judging you on your race, then that's all you'd have to submit???

So by your logic, law schools do not judge people based on their LSAT either.I will invoke some of your idiotic logic to defend this (also) untrue claim: "if they were judging me on my LSAT, that's all I would have to submit, my LSAT." 

Can you not see how stupid you are??? I cannot believe someone this dumb would even consider a career in law.
Title: Re: Affirmative action = bullsh*t
Post by: TrojanChispas on July 19, 2005, 03:26:45 PM
And if you're arguing, now what you're arguing about. Affirmative action is NOT judging an applicant based on their race. Is that how URM's apply to law school. They fill out a paper saying "I'm Black, let me it!" It's one part of a process.

That's why when YOU apply, you get to write a PS and submitt LOR's, so it's NOT going to be based solely on your numbers, but other things like socio-economic background, personal challenges (like mental retardation) etc.

It certainly IS judging the applicant on the basis of their race. Granted, it isn't judging only on the basis of race and other factors are taken into account, but nevertheless race is still an important factor used in such determinations. Why do you suppose URM's on the average have much lower numbers than others accepted at a school? Coincidence? Now, indeed, other personal challenges are also taken into account other than just race, but no other factor is such an automatic and huge bonus as that. Take for instance a hypothetical URM's situation and my own. Let's say the URM writes a PS about how they were forced to work to help support their family. That, coupled with a URM status will assuredly give them a huge bonus. Let's say they worked 25 hours a week. Throughout college I've worked 35 hours a week to support myself because my parents don't pay for me anymore. But I'm white and my parents aren't poor. I'm just independent. No one will care, really. I will have worked more hours, but I'll get little credit for that. The URM with fewer work hours will be rewarded for having a "difficult life", but really in terms of mere work, their load was less.
Look at it this way, You have the security of knowing that your parents are able to help and if all else fails you have a safety net.  I doubt your parents are heartless to the plight of their son.  Plus, you would get a boost for having a good work ethic.
Title: Re: Affirmative action = bullsh*t
Post by: steve112sms on July 19, 2005, 03:33:07 PM
Look at it this way, You have the security of knowing that your parents are able to help and if all else fails you have a safety net.  I doubt your parents are heartless to the plight of their son.  Plus, you would get a boost for having a good work ethic.

Well, that's all well and good, but do you really believe that a sense of security would account for a huge difference in GPA and LSAT scores? It seems to me that the amount of hours worked is more important as they specifically take time away from studying. Perhaps it's just because I've always had a sense of security, but I don't understand how lack of it would lead to significantly lower grades. It's possible I suppose, so I'll keep an open mind if you can attempt to explain it to me.
Title: Re: Affirmative action = bullsh*t
Post by: dividebyzero on July 19, 2005, 03:44:18 PM
(http://homepage.mac.com/cfj/.Pictures/crying_baby.jpg)

"Wah!!!
I'm an upper-middle class white male, who hasn't a clue about personal racism or discrimination, and because my Uncle's membership as a Harvard fellow wasn't enough to get me accepted, I'm going to piss and moan about RACISM...boo-hoo-hooo.."

Seriously...enough already. This thread, like the 2 million+ other A.A. threads, has managed to go absolutely nowhere.
Title: Re: Affirmative action = bullsh*t
Post by: steve112sms on July 19, 2005, 03:56:08 PM
That's nice. Just dismiss any reasonable arguments against affirmative action so long as they are made by a white middle class male because for some reason we can't possibly understand anything. The simple fact of the matter is that you don't know what it is to be white anymore than I know what it is to be black. It doesn't matter who I am or who you are. It's entirely irrelevant. Dispute an anti-affirmative action post with a logical argument or leave it be. I don't need to justify my ability to weigh the positives and negatives of a system that we all have to live with merely because I'm white. You can be white and understand what racism is.

And if you have such a problem with this topic then why don't you take it up with the owner of this message board who decided to give the topic an entire forum. In the meanwhile this thread is on topic and justified as such.
Title: Re: Affirmative action = bullsh*t
Post by: CocoPuff on July 19, 2005, 03:57:02 PM
(http://homepage.mac.com/cfj/.Pictures/crying_baby.jpg)

"Wah!!!
I'm an upper-middle class white male, who hasn't a clue about personal racism or discrimination, and because my Uncle's membership as a Harvard fellow wasn't enough to get me accepted, I'm going to piss and moan about RACISM...boo-hoo-hooo.."

Seriously...enough already. This thread, like the 2 million+ other A.A. threads, has managed to go absolutely nowhere.

LOL!!!

I completely agree. There are some undeserved harsh words being thrown at Annable Lee and it's really pointless. You can go on and on about this forever, but at the end of the day you haven't changed a thing.

Even if AA is not the best way to make up for discrimination, which it is not, no one has come up with a better way of equaling the scales or increasing minority representation in law school. Maybe you should argue about some ways of fixing the problems that AA is trying to solve.
Title: Re: Affirmative action = bullsh*t
Post by: TrojanChispas on July 19, 2005, 03:58:07 PM
Look at it this way, You have the security of knowing that your parents are able to help and if all else fails you have a safety net.  I doubt your parents are heartless to the plight of their son.  Plus, you would get a boost for having a good work ethic.

Well, that's all well and good, but do you really believe that a sense of security would account for a huge difference in GPA and LSAT scores? It seems to me that the amount of hours worked is more important as they specifically take time away from studying. Perhaps it's just because I've always had a sense of security, but I don't understand how lack of it would lead to significantly lower grades. It's possible I suppose, so I'll keep an open mind if you can attempt to explain it to me.
First, we do not know how much difference it actually would make.  Second, not to diminish your accomplishments, but the hypothetical person that you compared yourself to is under much more pressure.  It is one thing to go to work because your parents encourage you and quite another to go because the welfare of your family depends on it.  Third, your hypothetical is not about race but socioeconomic status.  Fourth, for race to be a factor it must have a bearing on your application or life experience.  People are not given a free pass because they are a certain ethnicity.
Title: Re: Affirmative action = bullsh*t
Post by: blk_reign on July 19, 2005, 04:03:51 PM
choose your battles guys..this one isn't worth it
Title: Re: Affirmative action = bullsh*t
Post by: steve112sms on July 19, 2005, 04:06:27 PM
First, we do not know how much difference it actually would make.  Second, not to diminish your accomplishments, but the hypothetical person that you compared yourself to is under much more pressure.  It is one thing to go to work because your parents encourage you and quite another to go because the welfare of your family depends on it.  Third, your hypothetical is not about race but socioeconomic status.  Fourth, for race to be a factor it must have a bearing on your application or life experience.  People are not given a free pass because they are a certain ethnicity.

First, the fact that we don't know how much of a difference it makes doesn't justify the need to objectively allow it to make a difference in admissions procedures. In fact, I'd think it'd do the opposite. Second, while that may be true that the other person is under pressure moreso than I, pressure is going to be extremely prevelant as a lawyer and all this would demonstrate to me is that this particular individual has difficulty facing such pressure. Third, socioeconomic status is linked with race especially when it comes to personal statements regarding diversity. Your fourth point coincides with the third point. The fact that they had to work will be the factor that had bearing on their lives as a minority whereas the fact that I've worked will not be given the same weight. I've personally read personal statements by URMs with low numbers accepted at top schools of this sort, so I can attest to its verity.
Title: Re: Affirmative action = bullsh*t
Post by: TrojanChispas on July 19, 2005, 04:13:58 PM
First, we do not know how much difference it actually would make.  Second, not to diminish your accomplishments, but the hypothetical person that you compared yourself to is under much more pressure.  It is one thing to go to work because your parents encourage you and quite another to go because the welfare of your family depends on it.  Third, your hypothetical is not about race but socioeconomic status.  Fourth, for race to be a factor it must have a bearing on your application or life experience.  People are not given a free pass because they are a certain ethnicity.

First, the fact that we don't know how much of a difference it makes doesn't justify the need to objectively allow it to make a difference in admissions procedures. In fact, I'd think it'd do the opposite. Second, while that may be true that the other person is under pressure moreso than I, pressure is going to be extremely prevelant as a lawyer and all this would demonstrate to me is that this particular individual has difficulty facing such pressure. Third, socioeconomic status is linked with race especially when it comes to personal statements regarding diversity. Your fourth point coincides with the third point. The fact that they had to work will be the factor that had bearing on their lives as a minority whereas the fact that I've worked will not be given the same weight. I've personally read personal statements by URMs with low numbers accepted at top schools of this sort, so I can attest to its verity.

1.  I think the difference is minimal
2.  The kind of pressure that the person has endured is a testament to his perseverence and resolve.
3.  They are correleated but clearly there are some poor white people that get a boost for their hardships
4.  You may have personal experience, but we know as LSAT afficionados that a quality of a part does not necessarily translate to a quality of the whole

I repeat! Where is the outrage against legacy admits? >:(
Title: Re: Affirmative action = bullsh*t
Post by: DMG on July 19, 2005, 04:17:05 PM
I don't even know what a "legacy admit" is.    ???
Title: Re: Affirmative action = bullsh*t
Post by: TrojanChispas on July 19, 2005, 04:19:58 PM
Haveny you noticed on either your ls or ug application the question that asks if you have any relatives that went to the school?  People are admitted not only on grades and SATs but also their heritage
Title: Re: Affirmative action = bullsh*t
Post by: steve112sms on July 19, 2005, 04:23:04 PM

1.  I think the difference is minimal
2.  The kind of pressure that the person has endured is a testament to his perseverence and resolve.
3.  They are correleated but clearly there are some poor white people that get a boost for their hardships
4.  You may have personal experience, but we know as LSAT afficionados that a quality of a part does not necessarily translate to a quality of the whole

I repeat! Where is the outrage against legacy admits? >:(

1. Well, then it would seem you agree with me.
2. But at the same time that individual's numbers are lower in the hypothetical, so their perseverence is questionable. They graduated, sure, and that's an accomplishment, but apparently the pressure got to them enough to adversely affect their performance significantly. I don't see that as a good quality.
3. It is my belief that such boosts are much less substantial and more rare. I believe law schools want a certain amount of minorities so that their schools appear diverse. Their publishing of what percentage of minority X attends their school is one of the reasons I feel this is the case. In my opinion all the poor white kid gets is a better financial aid package once already admitted.
4. I'm not entirely sure what you're arguing here.

Personally I dislike legacy admits as well. In fact it's worse really since they can't even argue adversity as an excuse. However, just because it's worse doesn't make AA acceptable.
Title: Re: Affirmative action = bullsh*t
Post by: DMG on July 19, 2005, 04:29:53 PM
The law, and the constitution of Canada (and I presume the US) claim to protect discrimination on the basis of several grounds. These include race, ethnicity, sex, religion, and probably a few more. However, I am quite confident that nowhere is the alma matar of someone's dad an off limit area for discrimination.

Title: Re: Affirmative action = bullsh*t
Post by: steve112sms on July 19, 2005, 04:35:25 PM
Remember that the constitution is not exactly gospel. Just because something isn't in there doesn't mean it's fine. Based on merit, I'd say legacy admits are worse in regards to individual fairness. AA may be more dangerous though for reasons I stated earlier that were ignored.
Title: Re: Affirmative action = bullsh*t
Post by: DMG on July 19, 2005, 04:36:43 PM
None-the-less, the fairness or unfairness of a "legacy" admit does not make AA any less acceptable. The fact that this has somehow gotten injected into this argument by the proponents of AA shows how weak their rationale for supporting this racist garbage is.
Title: Re: Affirmative action = bullsh*t
Post by: TrojanChispas on July 19, 2005, 04:37:02 PM

1.  I think the difference is minimal
2.  The kind of pressure that the person has endured is a testament to his perseverence and resolve.
3.  They are correleated but clearly there are some poor white people that get a boost for their hardships
4.  You may have personal experience, but we know as LSAT afficionados that a quality of a part does not necessarily translate to a quality of the whole

I repeat! Where is the outrage against legacy admits? >:(

1. Well, then it would seem you agree with me.
2. But at the same time that individual's numbers are lower in the hypothetical, so their perseverence is questionable. They graduated, sure, and that's an accomplishment, but apparently the pressure got to them enough to adversely affect their performance significantly. I don't see that as a good quality.
3. It is my belief that such boosts are much less substantial and more rare. I believe law schools want a certain amount of minorities so that their schools appear diverse. Their publishing of what percentage of minority X attends their school is one of the reasons I feel this is the case. In my opinion all the poor white kid gets is a better financial aid package once already admitted.
4. I'm not entirely sure what you're arguing here.

Personally I dislike legacy admits as well. In fact it's worse really since they can't even argue adversity as an excuse. However, just because it's worse doesn't make AA acceptable.
1.  The difference in the boost to admissions is not that great
2.  You can look at the lesser grades as a partial failure from your ivory tower, but I think the majority of people would not see it that way.
3.  I do not know what the numbers are either way, but I would imagine that since there are more white people then there would be more white applicants and therefore more poor white applicants.  It seems unlikely that the adcom would lump them together with their middle/upper class counterpart.  But what do I know?
4.  LSAT 101.  I am arguing that your logic is flawed because your sample is too small to say anything meaningful about the quality of minority applicants.  How many personal statements did you read 10,000?  The fact that the small part of the population that you assessed was found wanting does not necessarily mean anything for the whole population of minority applicants.
5.  People are generally self interested but will base their arguments on principle.  If the principle of AA really bothers you, then why dont you also actively protest legacy admits? Your reaction is not proportional.
Title: Re: Affirmative action = bullsh*t
Post by: TrojanChispas on July 19, 2005, 04:40:08 PM
None-the-less, the fairness or unfairness of a "legacy" admit does not make AA any less acceptable. The fact that this has somehow gotten injected into this argument by the proponents of AA shows how weak their rationale for supporting this racist garbage is.
I have supported it just fine.  I was just pointing out the hypocrisy of outrage against AA and ignorance of legacy admits.

Learn more about the history of the US and racism and then get back to me.  Walk a mile in the shoes of the oppressed and then talk to me.  Until then, you know too little and are hardly in a position to judge from your ivory tower.
Title: Re: Affirmative action = bullsh*t
Post by: DMG on July 19, 2005, 04:47:42 PM
I have supported it just fine.  I was just pointing out the hypocrisy of outrage against AA and ignorance of legacy admits.

Learn more about the history of the US and racism and then get back to me.  Walk a mile in the shoes of the oppressed and then talk to me.  Until then, you know too little and are hardly in a position to judge from your ivory tower.

So when you use the word "oppressed" you are actually refering to specific races of people. Thats painting with a pretty wide brush, don't you think? Also, it is quite telling that you jump to the conclusion that I live in some "ivory tower". What basis, other than the colour of my skin do you have to make that assumption? Your soft bigotry only highlights the racism behind AA.
Title: Re: Affirmative action = bullsh*t
Post by: steve112sms on July 19, 2005, 04:50:27 PM
1.  The difference in the boost to admissions is not that great
2.  You can look at the lesser grades as a partial failure from your ivory tower, but I think the majority of people would not see it that way.
3.  I do not know what the numbers are either way, but I would imagine that since there are more white people then there would be more white applicants and therefore more poor white applicants.  It seems unlikely that the adcom would lump them together with their middle/upper class counterpart.  But what do I know?
4.  LSAT 101.  I am arguing that your logic is flawed because your sample is too small to say anything meaningful about the quality of minority applicants.  How many personal statements did you read 10,000?  The fact that the small part of the population that you assessed was found wanting does not necessarily mean anything for the whole population of minority applicants.
5.  People are generally self interested but will base their arguments on principle.  If the principle of AA really bothers you, then why dont you also actively protest legacy admits? Your reaction is not proportional.

1. I disagree. For example: http://www.lawschoolnumbers.com/display.php?cycle=0405&user=indigo
2. LSAT 101 Appeals to the masses are fallicious.
3. I'm just basing it on the fact that of all the outliers I've seen on LSN, they're all URMs and not poor white kids.
4. Ah, now I see what you were referring to. I didn't know what part and what whole you were referring to. I've never said minorities are necessarily of poor quality. I've merely said that I've seen some that I believe to be underdeserving and got the boost because of a form of AA. I suppose my sample size isn't great so I cannot say that X happens all of the time and is always the case, but I can say that substantially less qualified URMs have been admitted on the basis of AA and say that this is a bad thing.
5. There isn't a thread about legacy admits at the top of the board. Create one and perhaps I'll protest proportionally against that as well. But most likely I won't. Why, you ask? Because I doubt most people would argue vehemently for legacy admits and so there won't really be much to argue against. On the contrary AA is very much a heated debate. Remember, that the self-interest will be the same for me anyway as I am neither a URM nor do I have any sort of legacy.
Title: Re: Affirmative action = bullsh*t
Post by: TrojanChispas on July 19, 2005, 04:56:38 PM
I have supported it just fine.  I was just pointing out the hypocrisy of outrage against AA and ignorance of legacy admits.

Learn more about the history of the US and racism and then get back to me.  Walk a mile in the shoes of the oppressed and then talk to me.  Until then, you know too little and are hardly in a position to judge from your ivory tower.

So when you use the word "oppressed" you are actually refering to specific races of people. Thats painting with a pretty wide brush, don't you think? Also, it is quite telling that you jump to the conclusion that I live in some "ivory tower". What basis, other than the colour of my skin do you have to make that assumption? Your soft bigotry only highlights the racism behind AA.
Specific races of people have been repressed.  ANd if you are a poor white person then you will get your own boost for diversity, so I would relax if I were you.
Title: Re: Affirmative action = bullsh*t
Post by: TrojanChispas on July 19, 2005, 05:04:33 PM
1.  The difference in the boost to admissions is not that great
2.  You can look at the lesser grades as a partial failure from your ivory tower, but I think the majority of people would not see it that way.
3.  I do not know what the numbers are either way, but I would imagine that since there are more white people then there would be more white applicants and therefore more poor white applicants.  It seems unlikely that the adcom would lump them together with their middle/upper class counterpart.  But what do I know?
4.  LSAT 101.  I am arguing that your logic is flawed because your sample is too small to say anything meaningful about the quality of minority applicants.  How many personal statements did you read 10,000?  The fact that the small part of the population that you assessed was found wanting does not necessarily mean anything for the whole population of minority applicants.
5.  People are generally self interested but will base their arguments on principle.  If the principle of AA really bothers you, then why dont you also actively protest legacy admits? Your reaction is not proportional.

1. I disagree. For example: http://www.lawschoolnumbers.com/display.php?cycle=0405&user=indigo
2. LSAT 101 Appeals to the masses are fallicious.
3. I'm just basing it on the fact that of all the outliers I've seen on LSN, they're all URMs and not poor white kids.
4. Ah, now I see what you were referring to. I didn't know what part and what whole you were referring to. I've never said minorities are necessarily of poor quality. I've merely said that I've seen some that I believe to be underdeserving and got the boost because of a form of AA. I suppose my sample size isn't great so I cannot say that X happens all of the time and is always the case, but I can say that substantially less qualified URMs have been admitted on the basis of AA and say that this is a bad thing.
5. There isn't a thread about legacy admits at the top of the board. Create one and perhaps I'll protest proportionally against that as well. But most likely I won't. Why, you ask? Because I doubt most people would argue vehemently for legacy admits and so there won't really be much to argue against. On the contrary AA is very much a heated debate. Remember, that the self-interest will be the same for me anyway as I am neither a URM nor do I have any sort of legacy.

1.  Again, this one person does nothing for your overall point
2.  Call it what you want, but the LSAT is all about logic and fallacies and using a small sample is falacious
3.  Maybe the explanation for that is not AA, but special circumstances that would separate thier experiences significantly from a white person's.
4.  You think that numbers=qualification and adcoms seem to think that experiences are valuable too.  Who is right?  IDK, but I do know that adcoms have more experience in the admissions process and that minorities are woefully inderrepresented.
Title: Re: Affirmative action = bullsh*t
Post by: TrojanChispas on July 19, 2005, 05:09:41 PM
1.  The difference in the boost to admissions is not that great
2.  You can look at the lesser grades as a partial failure from your ivory tower, but I think the majority of people would not see it that way.
3.  I do not know what the numbers are either way, but I would imagine that since there are more white people then there would be more white applicants and therefore more poor white applicants.  It seems unlikely that the adcom would lump them together with their middle/upper class counterpart.  But what do I know?
4.  LSAT 101.  I am arguing that your logic is flawed because your sample is too small to say anything meaningful about the quality of minority applicants.  How many personal statements did you read 10,000?  The fact that the small part of the population that you assessed was found wanting does not necessarily mean anything for the whole population of minority applicants.
5.  People are generally self interested but will base their arguments on principle.  If the principle of AA really bothers you, then why dont you also actively protest legacy admits? Your reaction is not proportional.

1. I disagree. For example: http://www.lawschoolnumbers.com/display.php?cycle=0405&user=indigo
2. LSAT 101 Appeals to the masses are fallicious.
3. I'm just basing it on the fact that of all the outliers I've seen on LSN, they're all URMs and not poor white kids.
4. Ah, now I see what you were referring to. I didn't know what part and what whole you were referring to. I've never said minorities are necessarily of poor quality. I've merely said that I've seen some that I believe to be underdeserving and got the boost because of a form of AA. I suppose my sample size isn't great so I cannot say that X happens all of the time and is always the case, but I can say that substantially less qualified URMs have been admitted on the basis of AA and say that this is a bad thing.
5. There isn't a thread about legacy admits at the top of the board. Create one and perhaps I'll protest proportionally against that as well. But most likely I won't. Why, you ask? Because I doubt most people would argue vehemently for legacy admits and so there won't really be much to argue against. On the contrary AA is very much a heated debate. Remember, that the self-interest will be the same for me anyway as I am neither a URM nor do I have any sort of legacy.
ARE YOU KIDDING ME?  You chose that guy as an example of an outlier with all these accolades and accomplishments?  Dude got a full 4 year ride and 3 shoolwide leadership awards!  This convo is ridic and unless you say something intelligent I am done here
Student government (chair)
A cappella group (president)
Senior Leadership Society
Black Senior Honor Society
3 school-wide senior leadership awards
Full 4-year merit/need scholarship to undergrad
3 years work experience (2 in IB, 1 in higher education)
Co-Founder of Non-profit org (homelessness awareness)
Title: Re: Affirmative action = bullsh*t
Post by: steve112sms on July 19, 2005, 05:17:30 PM
1.  Again, this one person does nothing for your overall point
2.  Call it what you want, but the LSAT is all about logic and fallacies and using a small sample is falacious
3.  Maybe the explanation for that is not AA, but special circumstances that would separate thier experiences significantly from a white person's.
4.  You think that numbers=qualification and adcoms seem to think that experiences are valuable too.  Who is right?  IDK, but I do know that adcoms have more experience in the admissions process and that minorities are woefully inderrepresented.

1. It isn't just one person though. The one person was just an example. Look at this graph. http://www.lawschoolnumbers.com/graphs.php?cycle=0405&code=0008 Every green dot that strays from the others is a URM. Look at another school's graph. You'll see the same.
2. This point is entirely irrelevant as I was merely pointing out that your point rested on an appeal to masses which is a fallacy. There is no sample size in this example.
3. I guess it's possible but having read some personal statements of accepted URM's their unique experiences didn't really come across to me leading me to believe that the reasons for their admittance are otherwise. Law schools have always wanted to appear diverse. In fact U Mich law originally had racial quotas until the supreme court knocked it down. I think it naive to believe race alone isn't what matter the most, but that's my opinion. I suppose so long as you agree that it should not on its own matter and that if the system were set up this way, it'd be faulty.
4. Also, appeals to authorities are fallicious. Adcoms have their own self interests and biases. The way they do things isn't necessarily the best.
Title: Re: Affirmative action = bullsh*t
Post by: DMG on July 19, 2005, 05:19:47 PM
DMG is just mad b/c he's canadian, get over it.

lex, go f*ck yourself. If you had half a brain you would be able to get into lawschool on your own merit and not need this bullsh*t.
Title: Re: Affirmative action = bullsh*t
Post by: steve112sms on July 19, 2005, 05:26:15 PM
ARE YOU KIDDING ME?  You chose that guy as an example of an outlier with all these accolades and accomplishments?  Dude got a full 4 year ride and 3 shoolwide leadership awards!  This convo is ridic and unless you say something intelligent I am done here
Student government (chair)
A cappella group (president)
Senior Leadership Society
Black Senior Honor Society
3 school-wide senior leadership awards
Full 4-year merit/need scholarship to undergrad
3 years work experience (2 in IB, 1 in higher education)
Co-Founder of Non-profit org (homelessness awareness)

I suppose it wasn't the greatest example, but there are plenty more on LSN if you follow my link in my previous post. Also, I'd bet a lot of money that a white candidate with the same application would have been denied. As has been said many times on this board and many others, all the soft factors in the world cannot make up for really low numbers. That is, unless you're a URM.

Also, I'm a little dissapointed about the "intelligent" comment. I thought we were having a nice civil debate even if we didn't agree with one another.
Title: Re: Affirmative action = bullsh*t
Post by: DMG on July 19, 2005, 05:30:53 PM
There should really be no debate about it; if you are an URM you are a lock for HYS that would get a white guy laughed at. The real issue is about whether this practice is equitable, and an effective way of eliminating the higher rates of poverty certain minorities face. And I believe that after 20 or so years of AA, that that question has been answered with a resounding NO!
Title: Re: Affirmative action = bullsh*t
Post by: TrojanChispas on July 19, 2005, 05:33:28 PM
ARE YOU KIDDING ME?  You chose that guy as an example of an outlier with all these accolades and accomplishments?  Dude got a full 4 year ride and 3 shoolwide leadership awards!  This convo is ridic and unless you say something intelligent I am done here
Student government (chair)
A cappella group (president)
Senior Leadership Society
Black Senior Honor Society
3 school-wide senior leadership awards
Full 4-year merit/need scholarship to undergrad
3 years work experience (2 in IB, 1 in higher education)
Co-Founder of Non-profit org (homelessness awareness)

I suppose it wasn't the greatest example, but there are plenty more on LSN if you follow my link in my previous post. Also, I'd bet a lot of money that a white candidate with the same application would have been denied. As has been said many times on this board and many others, all the soft factors in the world cannot make up for really low numbers. That is, unless you're a URM.

Also, I'm a little dissapointed about the "intelligent" comment. I thought we were having a nice civil debate even if we didn't agree with one another.
We are having a civil debate and I appologize for the "intelligent" comment but this stuff can really piss me off. 

Neither of us is going to convince the other so lets let this topic die since this discussion is not productive.
Title: Re: Affirmative action = bullsh*t
Post by: TrojanChispas on July 19, 2005, 05:38:05 PM
There should really be no debate about it; if you are an URM you are a lock for HYS that would get a white guy laughed at. The real issue is about whether this practice is equitable, and an effective way of eliminating the higher rates of poverty certain minorities face. And I believe that after 20 or so years of AA, that that question has been answered with a resounding NO!
Get a load of this guy.  Steve112sms is cool but you ae an intollerable douchenozzle.  Good luck at Cooley, you'll need it.

HTH
Title: Re: Affirmative action = bullsh*t
Post by: steve112sms on July 19, 2005, 05:39:55 PM
We are having a civil debate and I appologize for the "intelligent" comment but this stuff can really piss me off. 

Neither of us is going to convince the other so lets let this topic die since this discussion is not productive.

No problem. It is a heated topic, indeed.

How about this though. If such a system did exist wherein URM status alone boosted one's application very substantially, how would you feel about it? Does the end of producing diversity and counteracting other racist institutions justify the means of producing a non-traditional sort of racial discrimination?
Title: Re: Affirmative action = bullsh*t
Post by: DMG on July 19, 2005, 05:40:56 PM
Why are you making a point of kissing steve112sms's a$$ after you just mocked his intelligence 5 minutes ago? Sounds like you just found out he lives in the same city as you, and frantically retracted your lame insult. And what the f*ck is "Cooley"?
Title: Re: Affirmative action = bullsh*t
Post by: TrojanChispas on July 19, 2005, 05:49:02 PM
We are having a civil debate and I appologize for the "intelligent" comment but this stuff can really piss me off. 

Neither of us is going to convince the other so lets let this topic die since this discussion is not productive.

No problem. It is a heated topic, indeed.

How about this though. If such a system did exist wherein URM status alone boosted one's application very substantially, how would you feel about it? Does the end of producing diversity and counteracting other racist institutions justify the means of producing a non-traditional sort of racial discrimination?

Cool. 

Well, this would depend on how level the playing field was.  If it was as it is now, then I would feel it justified in the name of reparations. If minorities were proportionally represented in the legal field then I would not be infavor of AA.
Title: Re: Affirmative action = bullsh*t
Post by: TrojanChispas on July 19, 2005, 05:53:20 PM
Why are you making a point of kissing steve112sms's a$$ after you just mocked his intelligence 5 minutes ago? Sounds like you just found out he lives in the same city as you, and frantically retracted your lame insult. And what the f*ck is "Cooley"?
you are such a doucher that this will be the last time i respond to your trolling.  All I really want to say is that you are just mad because you are going to a rancid ttt in rapid decline. 

XOXO
HTH
Title: Re: Affirmative action = bullsh*t
Post by: steve112sms on July 19, 2005, 05:58:52 PM
Fair enough, I suppose, but as I said earlier I think AA creates an undercurrent of resentment (as can be evidenced by many replies in this thread alone) which will ultimately aggravate the problem more than it will help it. I think to wait for the problem to naturally dissapate will be better in the end. I know you said in an earlier post that we've waited long enough and there's no guarantee it'll ever happen, but really the civil rights movement was only 50 years ago and I think we've continually made significany progress since then. Social movements take a long time. That's just the way I see it though. It's certainly quite arguable and unclear, so having made the point, we can just agree to disagree I suppose. No was swayed, but as I leave the computer for the time being I'm at least glad to see that we managed to sustain an AA debate without it turning into a complete insult-fest. The more people can learn to deal with people of differing views, the better off racial relations will be. Nice talking with you.
Title: Re: Affirmative action = bullsh*t
Post by: TrojanChispas on July 19, 2005, 06:06:47 PM
Fair enough, I suppose, but as I said earlier I think AA creates an undercurrent of resentment (as can be evidenced by many replies in this thread alone) which will ultimately aggravate the problem more than it will help it. I think to wait for the problem to naturally dissapate will be better in the end. I know you said in an earlier post that we've waited long enough and there's no guarantee it'll ever happen, but really the civil rights movement was only 50 years ago and I think we've continually made significany progress since then. Social movements take a long time. That's just the way I see it though. It's certainly quite arguable and unclear, so having made the point, we can just agree to disagree I suppose. No was swayed, but as I leave the computer for the time being I'm at least glad to see that we managed to sustain an AA debate without it turning into a complete insult-fest. The more people can learn to deal with people of differing views, the better off racial relations will be. Nice talking with you.

Remember that the resentment goes both ways and one side has bigger and more serious issues about which to be resentful. 

Nice talking to you too.
Title: Re: Affirmative action = bullsh*t
Post by: DMG on July 19, 2005, 06:07:50 PM
3peat, what the f*ck are you talking about? I have a 174 LSAT and a 3.55 GPA with 1 year of undergrad to go. I am going to have my pick of schools, and likely more than you.
Title: Re: Affirmative action = bullsh*t
Post by: ImVinny! on July 20, 2005, 07:55:36 AM
"People are not given a free pass because they are a certain ethnicity."



Then you have no clue what is going on here. It seems that people ARE, they can easily say that their low numbers were because of "the man trying to hold em down" this makes no sense to me at all.
Title: Re: Affirmative action = bullsh*t
Post by: ImVinny! on July 20, 2005, 07:56:47 AM
"Remember that the constitution is not exactly gospel. Just because something isn't in there doesn't mean it's fine. Based on merit, I'd say legacy admits are worse in regards to individual fairness. AA may be more dangerous though for reasons I stated earlier that were ignored."


I agree, legacy admits are just as bad as AA, but in many regards AA is worse because it is making it seem as though you can get in ONLY by race. The legacy admits at least needed their relative to go there in order to attend, although I still don't agree with that either.
Title: Re: Affirmative action = bullsh*t
Post by: Nemesis on July 20, 2005, 07:58:16 AM
"People are not given a free pass because they are a certain ethnicity."



Then you have no clue what is going on here. It seems that people ARE, they can easily say that their low numbers were because of "the man trying to hold em down" this makes no sense to me at all.

Because racism and prejudice against people of color no longer exists, right?
Title: Re: Affirmative action = bullsh*t
Post by: ImVinny! on July 20, 2005, 08:00:02 AM
"Walk a mile in the shoes of the oppressed"


The OPPRESSED?! What the heck are you talking about. You can use any bathroom you very darn well please, and also you can use the water fountain, not to mentino you can also GET A JOB!!
Title: Re: Affirmative action = bullsh*t
Post by: Nemesis on July 20, 2005, 08:05:29 AM
"Walk a mile in the shoes of the oppressed"


The OPPRESSED?! What the heck are you talking about. You can use any bathroom you very darn well please, and also you can use the water fountain, not to mentino you can also GET A JOB!!

Oh no! Not use the SAME BATHROOM!!! You are so right. We should be so greatful that we can use the same bathroom as whites now.

That's what I call progress.
Title: Re: Affirmative action = bullsh*t
Post by: ImVinny! on July 20, 2005, 08:07:58 AM
I told you I wasn't going to play your games anymore, you do not exist to me, and it's NOT because you're URM, it's cause of YOU. lol!
Title: Re: Affirmative action = bullsh*t
Post by: twarga on July 20, 2005, 08:38:23 AM
"Walk a mile in the shoes of the oppressed"


The OPPRESSED?! What the heck are you talking about. You can use any bathroom you very darn well please, and also you can use the water fountain, not to mentino you can also GET A JOB!!

Oh no! Not use the SAME BATHROOM!!! You are so right. We should be so greatful that we can use the same bathroom as whites now.

That's what I call progress.

It's funny... the same people who say AA is unnecessary and racist are the same people who cringe when a black family moves in next door.
Title: Re: Affirmative action = bullsh*t
Post by: ImVinny! on July 20, 2005, 08:40:36 AM
I don't cringe at black people, I have no problem with them, it's the AA that I have the problem with, I can care less who lives next door to me, so long as they aren';t causding trouble, and you don't need to be black to cause trouble anywhere.
Title: Re: Affirmative action = bullsh*t
Post by: Nemesis on July 20, 2005, 08:48:38 AM
I told you I wasn't going to play your games anymore, you do not exist to me, and it's NOT because you're URM, it's cause of YOU. lol!

I'm glad I make you uncomfortable, because a lot of the comments you make on this board are OPENLY and INTENTIONALLY offensive. You should say some of the things you say on this board to all those URM friends of yours that you like to brag about.

Meanwhile, I have never made blanket or stereotypical statements about whatever the heck race you are.

I really don't mind that you have all this prejudice and bias: it exists and I'll always have to deal with that. But don't pretend that you're so faultless while making statements like:

"It doesn't matter what you out in the books, THOSE kids won't read them anyway" in that Ebonics thread.

Or, "It's not my fault that blacks commit more of the crimes and need more lawyers".

Like I said the first time: You have issues.
Title: Re: Affirmative action = bullsh*t
Post by: ImVinny! on July 20, 2005, 08:57:09 AM
"But don't pretend that you're so faultless while making statements like:

"It doesn't matter what you out in the books, THOSE kids won't read them anyway" in that Ebonics thread.

Or, "It's not my fault that blacks commit more of the crimes and need more lawyers".

Like I said the first time: You have issues. "


I said that the kids won't read the books because instead of teaching them necessary things they are going to teach them something that will hold them back even more. If we are to improve this country we need to start with the younger kids, education is the most valuable tool one can have. That comment is not meant to be racist, as you seem to think everything I say is, maybe if you read it in context with the rest of the discussion you would understand that, but I can see that all you are trying to do is start an argument, and I shall not take your bait. I am through with talking with you, on ALL threads, will not respond to you anymore.


As far as the comment about more black people committing crimes:
"Although blacks account for only 12 percent of the U.S. population, 44 percent of all prisoners in the United States are black " I am RIGHT in my statement, maybe you should look at fact, then thinking that your fiction makes any sense.
http://www.hrw.org/backgrounder/usa/incarceration/
Title: Re: Affirmative action = bullsh*t
Post by: twarga on July 20, 2005, 09:01:48 AM
As far as the comment about more black people committing crimes:
"Although blacks account for only 12 percent of the U.S. population, 44 percent of all prisoners in the United States are black " I am RIGHT in my statement, maybe you should look at fact, then thinking that your fiction makes any sense.
http://www.hrw.org/backgrounder/usa/incarceration/

So then, wouldn't it make sense to keep AA in place to help break this cycle?  With more education comes a more stable environment to raise the next generation.
Title: Re: Affirmative action = bullsh*t
Post by: howarddavis on July 20, 2005, 09:31:52 AM
[
Quote

It is because of their skin color that many URM's have been discriminate d against. Not be one or two people, but by an institution. A long legacy of discrimination that was endorsed by the government. And, unfortunately, even decades later minorities are still coping with the impact of that kind of discrimination.

But that doesn't matter anyway right?
Quote

So it's ok to fix discrimination by discriminating against the majority that discriminated in the first place? Sounds like my freshman year philosophy course that went around in circles to prove that an argument makes no sense. Discrimination does not justify discrimination.
Title: Re: Affirmative action = bullsh*t
Post by: twarga on July 20, 2005, 09:34:47 AM
[
Quote

It is because of their skin color that many URM's have been discriminate d against. Not be one or two people, but by an institution. A long legacy of discrimination that was endorsed by the government. And, unfortunately, even decades later minorities are still coping with the impact of that kind of discrimination.

But that doesn't matter anyway right?
Quote

So it's ok to fix discrimination by discriminating against the majority that discriminated in the first place? Sounds like my freshman year philosophy course that went around in circles to prove that an argument makes no sense. Discrimination does not justify discrimination.

Only time will tell.
Title: Re: Affirmative action = bullsh*t
Post by: ImVinny! on July 20, 2005, 10:15:10 AM
AA isn't the thing that would be educated the children, so NO it would not make sense to keep it in, it is only holding them back by giving them a false sense of hope in the end.
Title: Re: Affirmative action = bullsh*t
Post by: John Galt on July 20, 2005, 10:35:04 PM
3peat, what the f*ck are you talking about? I have a 174 LSAT and a 3.55 GPA with 1 year of undergrad to go. I am going to have my pick of schools, and likely more than you.

This has got to be the worst thread I've ever seen on affirmative action. DMG, you actually are a pretty naive individual. And I mean that in the nicest way possible. The fact of the matter is that past discrimination is a compelling arguement for affirmative action today because you, and the rest of young whites in this society, are benefitting from the past discrimination. Not only that, but young black kids today are suffering as a result of past racist policies. I believe in individual merit and I believe in personal responsibility, but when this society has basically already determined the outcome of young black kids' lives then you have already placed one sector of society at a disadvantage. That is wrong.

Indeed, it must be recognized that learning and education is a continual process. Parents pass their genes on to their children and over generations this becomes significant. When you have had a government policy that prevented blacks from attending higher education and getting adequate eduation for a number of generations, then it is reasonable to assume that future generations of blacks would be behind the majority. It is naive for us to think, as many of you do, that once we give everyone the opportunity to get higher education, then everything is fine. It is like we are all at the same starting line of a race, but white folks have the latest nikes and black folks are barefoot. That isn't genuine equal opportunity. In fact, I'm willing to bet DMG that had you been black, you wouldn't have had access to the same opportunities(educational or otherwise) and you wouldn't have been able to get a 174. And its not because you couldn't do it...its because society had already set you back so far, that such a dramatic increase would be nearly impossible.

Then there is the whole arguement about affirmative action not benefitting the minorities it was truly meant to benefit. They argue that affirmative action is only benefitting middle class blacks. Well, over the past 30 years the black middle class has risen primarily due to aggressive affirmative action policy. But it really isn't enough to create a black middle class, we have got to be able to sustain it. And so I think middle class blacks should be able to benefit from affirmative action. Further, I think that middle class blacks are exposed to a subtle, but just as psychologically dangerous, form of racism which makes their experiences compelling, difficult, and diverse. Having said that, I think schools need to dramatically increase their affirmative action efforts to recruit low income blacks and latinos, particularly for college.

ImVinny - You don't make any coherent points in any of the posts here. I would suggest doing a little reading on the issue, rather than spewing venom and regurgitating the tired arguements of other posters. I've seen your other posts and you're far too bright to be saying some of the things you've been posting here.

HowardDavis - your philosophy class was obviously intro then. Who were you studying? Kant? Or were you studying Mill? We discriminate against the majority all the time. We discriminate against the minority all the time. I think it depends on the reason. Study past intro to philosophy, then get back to me. And what the hell are you saying discrimination doesn't justify discrimination for? That's a stupid statement. Affirmative action isn't trying to justify the discrimination of the past. Putting stupid comments in only detracts from your arguement overall for future reference.

Long post...been a long day. Hope you all have a good night though.
Title: Re: Affirmative action = bullsh*t
Post by: twarga on July 21, 2005, 06:09:28 AM
I took a Sociology class (yes, intro) and we watched a really good documentary about education in the U.S.  Many of the schools in the poor, primarily black areas were deplorable.  These kids are sent the message from age 5 that they are not worthy of a warm, dry classroom with enough books, paper, and pencils.  Where's the incentive to learn?  Where's the desire to spend 8 hours per day there?  To add insult to injury, they would get to see nice schools when they traveled there for sports or other programs, and the inequity would become very personal.  If your school didn't have working plumbing, but had crumbling ceilings and rats, would you want to go there?  Would you want to teach there?  This documentary showed that when the school building was safe, warm, and inviting, with a positive attitude toward learning, drop out rates decreased and test scores increased.

In fact, some students in the DC public school system took matters into their own hands by taking pictures of the deplorable conditions this past spring with their cell phones and sending them to the media.  Parents and students had been complaining for years about the broken lockers, crumbling walls and ceilings, and unsanitary lunch rooms to no avail.  The schools wouldn't allow the media in to take their own pictures, but the students were more than happy to capture the dangerous, unsanitary conditions for them.
Title: Re: Affirmative action = bullsh*t
Post by: ImVinny! on July 21, 2005, 06:45:36 AM
Well, then why don't you become a teacher and fix all this, it starts there right?
I am going to do the Teach for America program so that I can maybe, possibly, make some sort of difference in the lives of these kids. Shouldn't there be more people willing to do thiis as well, it's only two years, and the kids can get a good role model to look up to and see that they really CAN be something in the world. So many people complain about htings yest don't even try to do anything about it.
Talk is just that, talk, and talk is cheap at that.
Title: Re: Affirmative action = bullsh*t
Post by: lsatlover on July 21, 2005, 06:58:15 AM
I took a Sociology class (yes, intro) and we watched a really good documentary about education in the U.S.  Many of the schools in the poor, primarily black areas were deplorable.  These kids are sent the message from age 5 that they are not worthy of a warm, dry classroom with enough books, paper, and pencils.  Where's the incentive to learn?  Where's the desire to spend 8 hours per day there?  To add insult to injury, they would get to see nice schools when they traveled there for sports or other programs, and the inequity would become very personal.  If your school didn't have working plumbing, but had crumbling ceilings and rats, would you want to go there?  Would you want to teach there?  This documentary showed that when the school building was safe, warm, and inviting, with a positive attitude toward learning, drop out rates decreased and test scores increased.

In fact, some students in the DC public school system took matters into their own hands by taking pictures of the deplorable conditions this past spring with their cell phones and sending them to the media.  Parents and students had been complaining for years about the broken lockers, crumbling walls and ceilings, and unsanitary lunch rooms to no avail.  The schools wouldn't allow the media in to take their own pictures, but the students were more than happy to capture the dangerous, unsanitary conditions for them.

   Whenver a topic of sociology comes up, I retain a great deal of caution. The entire field is a practice of circular reasoning in the guise of pseudo-science.  In hard sciences, one gathers evidence and tries to disprove a hypothesis, or in essense practices a 'must be true' mentality.  Sociology works backwards, by assuming one of 2 major paradigms, functional and conflict and recklessly fits the evidence into the 'could be true' world.
   Obviously if one assumes a conflict paradigm and seeks evidence to support this social-stratification theory, any theory, regardless of evidence to the contrary, can be supported.  No different than a pessimist, optimist and neutralist view of the world.  What I find most disturbing is the acceptance of social conspiracy theories to racial problems.  It simple terms, you can never challenge a conspiracy minded individual because the challenge is considered part of the conspiracy.
    As for conditions of the schools, I submit this is a minor issue.  I use to be a sentimentalist to the same type of stories of your post, but after travelling to 3rd world countries and observing the conditions that people live in and do excel, I quickly grew a tough-love attitude. If one is more concerned about the maudlin color of paint than burying their heads in the books, that is an artifact of mismatched priorities.
    While I don't dispute that changing the majority view is part of the solution, the more significant cahnge has to come within the individuals of the minority groups.  Why do some minority and immigrant groups excel while others continue to languish, while experiencing equivalent discrimination?  The answer is related to how and the extent that individuals within the groups process their social persona.  Currently, African American role-models are not a positive influence.  Hollywood has some influence on this, as do the political leaders.  If one is constantly barraged with allegations of injustice that has and continues to happen to their people, the negative becomes internalized and magnified beyond a level that is realistic.  The effect is very similar to a person who rightly or wrongly believes their parents are to blame for the inadequacies later in life.
    While I remain skeptical of the magnitude, there was an interesting passage in 'blink' talking about how some groups of African Americans who were asked to identify their race on the GRE, prior to taking the exam, performed 50% worse than those African Americans who were not asked to identify.  In essense, their perception of themself as part of the group has a more damaging influence than the clandestine white test-takers trying to keep groups down through standardized testing.
Title: Re: Affirmative action = bullsh*t
Post by: ImVinny! on July 21, 2005, 07:03:28 AM
"As for conditions of the schools, I submit this is a minor issue.  I use to be a sentimentalist to the same type of stories of your post, but after travelling to 3rd world countries and observing the conditions that people live in and do excel, I quickly grew a tough-love attitude. If one is more concerned about the maudlin color of paint than burying their heads in the books, that is an artifact of mismatched priorities."


Interesting comment, I think that this makes a lot of sense.
Title: Re: Affirmative action = bullsh*t
Post by: John Galt on July 21, 2005, 07:39:17 AM
then send your kids to an inner city school and see how they fare.
Title: Re: Affirmative action = bullsh*t
Post by: John Galt on July 21, 2005, 07:56:36 AM
I took a Sociology class (yes, intro) and we watched a really good documentary about education in the U.S.  Many of the schools in the poor, primarily black areas were deplorable.  These kids are sent the message from age 5 that they are not worthy of a warm, dry classroom with enough books, paper, and pencils.  Where's the incentive to learn?  Where's the desire to spend 8 hours per day there?  To add insult to injury, they would get to see nice schools when they traveled there for sports or other programs, and the inequity would become very personal.  If your school didn't have working plumbing, but had crumbling ceilings and rats, would you want to go there?  Would you want to teach there?  This documentary showed that when the school building was safe, warm, and inviting, with a positive attitude toward learning, drop out rates decreased and test scores increased.

In fact, some students in the DC public school system took matters into their own hands by taking pictures of the deplorable conditions this past spring with their cell phones and sending them to the media.  Parents and students had been complaining for years about the broken lockers, crumbling walls and ceilings, and unsanitary lunch rooms to no avail.  The schools wouldn't allow the media in to take their own pictures, but the students were more than happy to capture the dangerous, unsanitary conditions for them.

   Whenver a topic of sociology comes up, I retain a great deal of caution. The entire field is a practice of circular reasoning in the guise of pseudo-science.  In hard sciences, one gathers evidence and tries to disprove a hypothesis, or in essense practices a 'must be true' mentality.  Sociology works backwards, by assuming one of 2 major paradigms, functional and conflict and recklessly fits the evidence into the 'could be true' world.
   Obviously if one assumes a conflict paradigm and seeks evidence to support this social-stratification theory, any theory, regardless of evidence to the contrary, can be supported.  No different than a pessimist, optimist and neutralist view of the world.  What I find most disturbing is the acceptance of social conspiracy theories to racial problems.  It simple terms, you can never challenge a conspiracy minded individual because the challenge is considered part of the conspiracy.
    As for conditions of the schools, I submit this is a minor issue.  I use to be a sentimentalist to the same type of stories of your post, but after travelling to 3rd world countries and observing the conditions that people live in and do excel, I quickly grew a tough-love attitude. If one is more concerned about the maudlin color of paint than burying their heads in the books, that is an artifact of mismatched priorities.
    While I don't dispute that changing the majority view is part of the solution, the more significant cahnge has to come within the individuals of the minority groups.  Why do some minority and immigrant groups excel while others continue to languish, while experiencing equivalent discrimination?  The answer is related to how and the extent that individuals within the groups process their social persona.  Currently, African American role-models are not a positive influence.  Hollywood has some influence on this, as do the political leaders.  If one is constantly barraged with allegations of injustice that has and continues to happen to their people, the negative becomes internalized and magnified beyond a level that is realistic.  The effect is very similar to a person who rightly or wrongly believes their parents are to blame for the inadequacies later in life.
    While I remain skeptical of the magnitude, there was an interesting passage in 'blink' talking about how some groups of African Americans who were asked to identify their race on the GRE, prior to taking the exam, performed 50% worse than those African Americans who were not asked to identify.  In essense, their perception of themself as part of the group has a more damaging influence than the clandestine white test-takers trying to keep groups down through standardized testing.


Lets just focus on the fourth paragraph of your post. I think you have oversimplified the reason some minority groups excel. If you look at the Irish, the Itallians, East Asians, South Asians (to some extent), and some other minorities one of the primary reasons they succeed is because white society embraces them with opportunity. You guys study sociology, correct? Well then you've probably heard of the model minority theory. Indeed, these minorities succeed by proving that they are not black. I'm sure you agree that in terms of race, blacks are at the bottom of the barrel socially - so comparing other minority groups to blacks is misleading because there hasn't been the same level of persistant discrimination. To say that these minority groups face equivalent discrimination is a bold and ignorant statement. If you like a more elaborate post about the cause and effects of the model minority theory then I'll be happy to provide it.

It is also interesting that you say blacks internalize the negativity beyond what is realistic. Curiously, when bombarded with facts and history, white people seem to absolve themselves of responsibility more than what is realistic. Funny, huh? Personal responsibility is only half the battle, the schools that discriminated in the past and society as a whole needs to do their part too.


Title: Re: Affirmative action = bullsh*t
Post by: DMG on July 21, 2005, 08:01:45 AM
Sociology is a pseudo-science. And even that is being VERY generous. In reality, a more appropriate description is something along the lines of total sh*t. Its nothing more than liberal indoctrination taught in universities.
Title: Re: Affirmative action = bullsh*t
Post by: ImVinny! on July 21, 2005, 08:04:20 AM
"Curiously, when bombarded with facts and history, white people seem to absolve themselves of responsibility more than what is realistic. Funny, huh?"


And what the heck would you be talking abotu here? You REALLY think that white people today are to blame for the injustices that took place two hundred years ago, and that they should somehow PAY for this? Give me a break.
Title: Re: Affirmative action = bullsh*t
Post by: John Galt on July 21, 2005, 08:16:31 AM
No, I think you and the rest of society is responsible for perpetuating the injustices that have existed throughout history in terms of fair lending practices, in terms of economic development in inner cities, in terms of urban planning and housing, in terms of school funding and education policy, and in terms of social hierarchy. Not to mention, you are benefitting from the persistant, and obvious, racist policies of the past even if only marginally. Thus, you are responsible whether you like it are not...just like all blacks are affected by past discrimination whether they like it or not.
Title: Re: Affirmative action = bullsh*t
Post by: John Galt on July 21, 2005, 08:28:40 AM
Sociology is a pseudo-science. And even that is being VERY generous. In reality, a more appropriate description is something along the lines of total sh*t. Its nothing more than liberal indoctrination taught in universities.

Yeah i'm more of a fan of history, political science, ethics, and biology.
Title: Re: Affirmative action = bullsh*t
Post by: Nemesis on July 21, 2005, 08:41:25 AM
"Curiously, when bombarded with facts and history, white people seem to absolve themselves of responsibility more than what is realistic. Funny, huh?"


And what the heck would you be talking abotu here? You REALLY think that white people today are to blame for the injustices that took place two hundred years ago, and that they should somehow PAY for this? Give me a break.

Also, I think you're losing perspective of the fact that these injustices are not isolated to "two hundred years ago". The US government praticed and enforced discrimination against people of color a mere 50 years ago.
Title: Re: Affirmative action = bullsh*t
Post by: twarga on July 21, 2005, 08:52:17 AM
"Curiously, when bombarded with facts and history, white people seem to absolve themselves of responsibility more than what is realistic. Funny, huh?"


And what the heck would you be talking abotu here? You REALLY think that white people today are to blame for the injustices that took place two hundred years ago, and that they should somehow PAY for this? Give me a break.

Also, I think you're losing perspective of the fact that these injustices are not isolated to "two hundred years ago". The US government praticed and enforced discrimination against people of color a mere 50 years ago.

We need to start with the little children by fixing up our inner-city and rural schools and make them an environment that fosters a love of learning.  One school in the documentary I saw showed 1st graders putting their coats on to go outside to the port-a-johns because the school had no working plumbing.  At another school, the desks were arranged around the buckets on the floor that catch the dripping rain from the leaky roof, and the children kept their coats on because the heat doesn't work.  How can you concentrate on ABCs when you're freezing your butt off and there's a roach in your lunch?  When your elementary, middle and high schools are falling apart, what message does that send?  It says that education is not a priority and that the students are not worthy of it.  That is a powerful message and one that impacts a person their whole life. 

AA may help create leaders in these poor communities who say 'enough is enough' and start making quality public education a reality, and is therefore worthwhile.
Title: Re: Affirmative action = bullsh*t
Post by: howarddavis on July 21, 2005, 10:17:35 AM

HowardDavis - your philosophy class was obviously intro then. Who were you studying? Kant? Or were you studying Mill? We discriminate against the majority all the time. We discriminate against the minority all the time. I think it depends on the reason. Study past intro to philosophy, then get back to me. And what the hell are you saying discrimination doesn't justify discrimination for? That's a stupid statement. Affirmative action isn't trying to justify the discrimination of the past. Putting stupid comments in only detracts from your arguement overall for future reference.

Long post...been a long day. Hope you all have a good night though.


Have a good night? What bs is that? First you yell at Vinny for spewing "venom", then you call people stupid? Why don't we actually debate instead of name call? Just a thought. I was referring to intro to philosophy to show that it is quite simple to understand how the argument for AA does not work, and your argument keeps the same circle going (just so you know, I have my MA in philo so please don't act hoity toity like you know so much about philo and I just need to study more). In your argument you say that minorities were held back and that gives them the right to have an upper hand to get into schools. When does that end? AA has been going on for over 20 years... Yes, your argument is going to be discrimination is still going on and has been going on for over 200 years, but when do we end AA? Also, what about those defendants out there who get somebody who gets into a Law School or companies that get an engineering student who got into school because of AA and should not have (ie AA did not help someone who deserved to get in but had been held back because of discrimination, but just someone who should not have got in). AA can have a powerful negative impact, as has been shown in Chicago where some female firefighters who could not have passed the normal firefighting school have caused injuries and not been able to fulfill their duties. I hope and pray that kind of activity does not and has not occurred due to AA affecting Law School.
Title: Re: Affirmative action = bullsh*t
Post by: angelus on July 21, 2005, 10:21:16 AM
ALL people in ALL times and places have subjugated another at some point.
Realize that often teh slave traders did not "catch" the slaves they brought. In reality it was competing tribes in Africa. Tribe X would kidnap people from tribe Y and sell them to the slave traders.

If teh blacks want reperations or any other special favors they should start with the other blacks who sold their ancestors to the slave traders.

Just a thought.
"Curiously, when bombarded with facts and history, white people seem to absolve themselves of responsibility more than what is realistic. Funny, huh?"


And what the heck would you be talking abotu here? You REALLY think that white people today are to blame for the injustices that took place two hundred years ago, and that they should somehow PAY for this? Give me a break.

Also, I think you're losing perspective of the fact that these injustices are not isolated to "two hundred years ago". The US government praticed and enforced discrimination against people of color a mere 50 years ago.
Title: Re: Affirmative action = bullsh*t
Post by: Nemesis on July 21, 2005, 11:12:49 AM
Quote

Have a good night? What bs is that? First you yell at Vinny for spewing "venom", then you call people stupid? Why don't we actually debate instead of name call? Just a thought. I was referring to intro to philosophy to show that it is quite simple to understand how the argument for AA does not work, and your argument keeps the same circle going (just so you know, I have my MA in philo so please don't act hoity toity like you know so much about philo and I just need to study more). In your argument you say that minorities were held back and that gives them the right to have an upper hand to get into schools. When does that end? AA has been going on for over 20 years... Yes, your argument is going to be discrimination is still going on and has been going on for over 200 years, but when do we end AA? Also, what about those defendants out there who get somebody who gets into a Law School or companies that get an engineering student who got into school because of AA and should not have (ie AA did not help someone who deserved to get in but had been held back because of discrimination, but just someone who should not have got in). AA can have a powerful negative impact, as has been shown in Chicago where some female firefighters who could not have passed the normal firefighting school have caused injuries and not been able to fulfill their duties. I hope and pray that kind of activity does not and has not occurred due to AA affecting Law School.
Quote

John wasn't calling anyone names; he critisized people for making stupid STATEMENTS. And ImVinny has made some EXTREMELY negative comments; a fact which he has never denied - he's only tried to justify it.

I fail to see how AA gives minority students an upper hand. It is measure meant to remedy the effects of past and/or ongoing discrimination. It is the recognition that certain groups have been negatively affected by this discrimination and is intended to allow said groups to eventually overcome these adverse effects.

As people have stated before, AA is a temporary fix. The real, and more permanent solution lies in a revamping of the education system and ensuring that URMs and other stduents of disadvantaged backgrounds are able to access the same, high-quality education that are at the disposal of many other groups. But this is a long term objective that will take extensive work before it can be realized.

Currently, AA is one of the most effective ways to ensure that immediate steps can be taken in order to provide URMs and other stduents of disadvantaged backgrounds with opportunities that may otherwise be out of their reach. By granting the these opportunities, we ensure that these students are placed in environments that challenge their leadership skills. With such training, these individuals can assume leadership roles and take steps to improve the conditions that still plague so many people in this country. AA equips individuals with potential with the tools they need to realize that long-term goal.

When will it end? When discrimination is finally overcome. Even today, after so much progress has been made;

"When you look at how much the typical woman actually earns over much of her career, the true figure is more like 44% of what the average man makes."
http://businessweek.com/magazine/content/04_24/b3887065.htm

"A federal judge ruled...that a lending affiliate of the Ford Motor Co., the second-biggest U.S. automaker, discriminated against black customers by charging them higher rates on car loans."
http://www.detnews.com/2005/autosinsider/0503/18/01-119373.htm


Title: Re: Affirmative action = bullsh*t
Post by: ImVinny! on July 21, 2005, 11:18:07 AM
No, I think you and the rest of society is responsible for perpetuating the injustices that have existed throughout history in terms of fair lending practices, in terms of economic development in inner cities, in terms of urban planning and housing, in terms of school funding and education policy, and in terms of social hierarchy. Not to mention, you are benefitting from the persistant, and obvious, racist policies of the past even if only marginally. Thus, you are responsible whether you like it are not...just like all blacks are affected by past discrimination whether they like it or not.

I cannot be responsible for something I had NOTHING to do with. I am not a lender, so I don't have any resposibility for what they do, does that make sense to you. It's the same as saying that since the people that bombed us on 9/11 were Arab that ALL Arabs are too blame, and that's just a STUPID idea.
Title: Re: Affirmative action = bullsh*t
Post by: lsatlover on July 21, 2005, 11:27:28 AM
As people have stated before, AA is a temporary fix. The real, and more permanent solution lies in a revamping of the education system and ensuring that URMs and other stduents of disadvantaged backgrounds are able to access the same, high-quality education that are at the disposal of many other groups. But this is a long term objective that will take extensive work before it can be realized.

Please elaborate?  the methods you state of revamping the education system is more of an end goal than a solution.  Here is my method.

1) Anyone from a family with an income in excess of $300k can major in liberal arts, education, or philosophy
2) Anyone from a family with an income less than $300k must major in engineering, science, or business discipline.
3) Anyone from a family with an income of less than $20k will learn a trade to become an electrician or plumber, unless they can prove themselves in an aptitude test.

That means anyone from a middle or lower class background can't major in liberal arts, poli sci, sociology, african, asian or european studies.

The secret reason some minority groups prosper and others don't is the parents mandate they MUST get good grades and they WILL become a physician, engineer, or scientist.  business and law are lower on the totem pole.  yes it sounds draconian, but thats what my parents dictated and it seemed to work in my case.






Title: Re: Affirmative action = bullsh*t
Post by: Nemesis on July 21, 2005, 11:38:23 AM
No, I think you and the rest of society is responsible for perpetuating the injustices that have existed throughout history in terms of fair lending practices, in terms of economic development in inner cities, in terms of urban planning and housing, in terms of school funding and education policy, and in terms of social hierarchy. Not to mention, you are benefitting from the persistant, and obvious, racist policies of the past even if only marginally. Thus, you are responsible whether you like it are not...just like all blacks are affected by past discrimination whether they like it or not.

I cannot be responsible for something I had NOTHING to do with. I am not a lender, so I don't have any resposibility for what they do, does that make sense to you. It's the same as saying that since the people that bombed us on 9/11 were Arab that ALL Arabs are too blame, and that's just a STUPID idea.

While you may not be the one directly involved in these discriminatory practices, you can still benefit/suffer as a result of their presence. So, even though you choose not to accept responsibility for their actions, those actions can have an impact on you. Similarly, they impact those they discriminate against.

People who realize this support AA becuase they understand that as long as discrimination exits, everyone is affected. Therefore, reactive and proactive measures must be undertaken to put an end to discriminatory practices.
Title: Re: Affirmative action = bullsh*t
Post by: ImVinny! on July 21, 2005, 11:45:06 AM
As people have stated before, AA is a temporary fix. The real, and more permanent solution lies in a revamping of the education system and ensuring that URMs and other stduents of disadvantaged backgrounds are able to access the same, high-quality education that are at the disposal of many other groups. But this is a long term objective that will take extensive work before it can be realized.

Please elaborate?  the methods you state of revamping the education system is more of an end goal than a solution.  Here is my method.

1) Anyone from a family with an income in excess of $300k can major in liberal arts, education, or philosophy
2) Anyone from a family with an income less than $300k must major in engineering, science, or business discipline.
3) Anyone from a family with an income of less than $20k will learn a trade to become an electrician or plumber, unless they can prove themselves in an aptitude test.

That means anyone from a middle or lower class background can't major in liberal arts, poli sci, sociology, african, asian or european studies.

The secret reason some minority groups prosper and others don't is the parents mandate they MUST get good grades and they WILL become a physician, engineer, or scientist.  business and law are lower on the totem pole.  yes it sounds draconian, but thats what my parents dictated and it seemed to work in my case.








This is YOUR idea instead of AA? This makes no sense whatesoever.
Title: Re: Affirmative action = bullsh*t
Post by: dbgirl on July 21, 2005, 11:50:14 AM
Only rich people can be artists?
That's the most ridiculous crock of sh!t I've ever heard.
My daughters will pursue what they are good at and follow their talents. To force my daughters to go into engineering will forcing square pegs into round holes. I will never insist that my child follow a career path I choose.

Title: Re: Affirmative action = bullsh*t
Post by: Nemesis on July 21, 2005, 11:52:56 AM
As people have stated before, AA is a temporary fix. The real, and more permanent solution lies in a revamping of the education system and ensuring that URMs and other stduents of disadvantaged backgrounds are able to access the same, high-quality education that are at the disposal of many other groups. But this is a long term objective that will take extensive work before it can be realized.

Please elaborate?  the methods you state of revamping the education system is more of an end goal than a solution.  Here is my method.

1) Anyone from a family with an income in excess of $300k can major in liberal arts, education, or philosophy
2) Anyone from a family with an income less than $300k must major in engineering, science, or business discipline.
3) Anyone from a family with an income of less than $20k will learn a trade to become an electrician or plumber, unless they can prove themselves in an aptitude test.

That means anyone from a middle or lower class background can't major in liberal arts, poli sci, sociology, african, asian or european studies.

The secret reason some minority groups prosper and others don't is the parents mandate they MUST get good grades and they WILL become a physician, engineer, or scientist.  business and law are lower on the totem pole.  yes it sounds draconian, but thats what my parents dictated and it seemed to work in my case.


I'm not sure I follow what you're saying. Are you suggesting we mandate that certain people follow certain routes/careers?

Some cultures place more emphasis and prestige on certain careers, I agree with that. But I believe it is best to expose a person to all the opportunities at their disposal and allow them to make the decision themselves. In order to make this truly egalitarian, however, we have to ensure that people are given that choice. The American school system, however, remains plagued by huge disparites. A student going to a school that lacks resources will inevitably develop a different perspective - which will inadvertently affect their view on what opportunities are at their disposal.
Title: Re: Affirmative action = bullsh*t
Post by: risingMC on July 21, 2005, 12:03:54 PM
Only rich people can be artists?
That's the most ridiculous crock of sh!t I've ever heard.
My daughters will pursue what they are good at and follow their talents. To force my daughters to go into engineering will forcing square pegs into round holes. I will never insist that my child follow a career path I choose.

lsatlover probably put it the wrong way. I'm guessing he means that only the kids of rich parents can comfortably be artists, musicians, etc., because they'd have a relative safety net protecting them from the starvation wages that most artists and muscians are paid. Likewise, the average engineer probably makes most than the average artist, musician and even lawyer ... I agree that forcing your kid to do anything is probably not the best way to go about it, but maybe a gentle push in that direction may not be a bad way of going about it.

And bravo to Annabel Lee.
Title: Re: Affirmative action = bullsh*t
Post by: Nemesis on July 21, 2005, 12:08:59 PM
And bravo to Annabel Lee.

 ;D

Appreciate 'cha.  :)
Title: Re: Affirmative action = bullsh*t
Post by: twarga on July 21, 2005, 12:18:17 PM
My husband is getting his masters in elementary ed.  When he graduates and becomes certified, where do you think he'd rather work?  In a school in urban Wilmington that should have been condemned 10 years ago or 20 miles down the road in Hockessen, with modern, beautiful facilities.  If you don't make the workplace attractive and comfortable, you will not attract quality teachers.

Hubby just said to me, "School should be a kid's happy place.  His escape from a bad environment.  It shouldn't add to his problems." 

I just saw a news clip that U. DE was just given a $1.2 million grant to research underage drinking.  I think that money could have been better spent on renovating some of the public schools in Wilmington.
Title: Re: Affirmative action = bullsh*t
Post by: Nemesis on July 21, 2005, 12:25:19 PM
My husband is getting his masters in elementary ed.  When he graduates and becomes certified, where do you think he'd rather work?  In a school in urban Wilmington that should have been condemned 10 years ago or 20 miles down the road in Hockessen, with modern, beautiful facilities.  If you don't make the workplace attractive and comfortable, you will not attract quality teachers.

Hubby just said to me, "School should be a kid's happy place.  His escape from a bad environment.  It shouldn't add to his problems." 

I just saw a news clip that U. DE was just given a $1.2 million grant to research underage drinking.  I think that money could have been better spent on renovating some of the public schools in Wilmington.


Or even 1% of the $400 billion spent on defense.
Title: Re: Affirmative action = bullsh*t
Post by: ImVinny! on July 21, 2005, 12:26:52 PM
Well, if your husband is going to be a teacher and wants to actually MAKE a difference, maybe he SHOULD take a teaching job in one of the run-down schools. If teachers started showing an interest in these kids things may change.
Title: Re: Affirmative action = bullsh*t
Post by: twarga on July 21, 2005, 12:31:07 PM
My husband is getting his masters in elementary ed.  When he graduates and becomes certified, where do you think he'd rather work?  In a school in urban Wilmington that should have been condemned 10 years ago or 20 miles down the road in Hockessen, with modern, beautiful facilities.  If you don't make the workplace attractive and comfortable, you will not attract quality teachers.

Hubby just said to me, "School should be a kid's happy place.  His escape from a bad environment.  It shouldn't add to his problems." 

I just saw a news clip that U. DE was just given a $1.2 million grant to research underage drinking.  I think that money could have been better spent on renovating some of the public schools in Wilmington.


Or even 1% of the $400 billion spent on defense.

Or NASA... don't get me started.  And as a military member, I agree that there is a LOT of wasteful spending.  But you should see the Department of Defense schools.  They are an excellent model for what schools should be.  In fact, in some poor areas of the country with bad public schools (like near Little Rock AFB), the gov't has erected DoDD schools.  My kids spent 5 years in DoDD schools in Europe and received what would (I believe) surpass a private school education.  If only the government would DEMAND the same standards for every public school in the U.S., we would see some big changes in the urban landscape.
Title: Re: Affirmative action = bullsh*t
Post by: ImVinny! on July 21, 2005, 12:34:26 PM
Well, education happens to be a state's issue. Maybe people should worry about their own state and where they are and need to be.
Title: Re: Affirmative action = bullsh*t
Post by: lsatlover on July 21, 2005, 12:35:00 PM
As people have stated before, AA is a temporary fix. The real, and more permanent solution lies in a revamping of the education system and ensuring that URMs and other stduents of disadvantaged backgrounds are able to access the same, high-quality education that are at the disposal of many other groups. But this is a long term objective that will take extensive work before it can be realized.

Please elaborate?  the methods you state of revamping the education system is more of an end goal than a solution.  Here is my method.

1) Anyone from a family with an income in excess of $300k can major in liberal arts, education, or philosophy
2) Anyone from a family with an income less than $300k must major in engineering, science, or business discipline.
3) Anyone from a family with an income of less than $20k will learn a trade to become an electrician or plumber, unless they can prove themselves in an aptitude test.

That means anyone from a middle or lower class background can't major in liberal arts, poli sci, sociology, african, asian or european studies.

The secret reason some minority groups prosper and others don't is the parents mandate they MUST get good grades and they WILL become a physician, engineer, or scientist.  business and law are lower on the totem pole.  yes it sounds draconian, but thats what my parents dictated and it seemed to work in my case.


I'm not sure I follow what you're saying. Are you suggesting we mandate that certain people follow certain routes/careers?

Some cultures place more emphasis and prestige on certain careers, I agree with that. But I believe it is best to expose a person to all the opportunities at their disposal and allow them to make the decision themselves. In order to make this truly egalitarian, however, we have to ensure that people are given that choice. The American school system, however, remains plagued by huge disparites. A student going to a school that lacks resources will inevitably develop a different perspective - which will inadvertently affect their view on what opportunities are at their disposal.

So in other words, society should provide young students (who have no real inkling of how the world operates) all the opportunities to make bad educational and career decisions, yet the students should be exonerated from the fact that society rewards certain careers more than others?

Unfortunately the statement 'some cultures place more emphasis on prestige and career' is an understatement.  The fact is that all of american society  places extreme emphasis on prestige and career.  That is the reason MDs and JDs make, on averge more than engineers in the U.S.  while in other countries engineers make more.  Our education system, is self serving in that it is most efficient for preparing students for academia.  Yes, most schools have career shadowing, however, given the magnitude of the decision little time is spent giving students life skills rather than useless theoreticial academic skills.
Title: Re: Affirmative action = bullsh*t
Post by: twarga on July 21, 2005, 12:36:31 PM
Well, if your husband is going to be a teacher and wants to actually MAKE a difference, maybe he SHOULD take a teaching job in one of the run-down schools. If teachers started showing an interest in these kids things may change.

It's a revolving argument.  Better teachers make better schools, and better schools attract better teachers.  It's a lot easier to fix up your school and lure good teachers than to expect them to suffer for the 'greater societal good.'  Especially when people like my husband believe that a clean, warm, dry environment is essential to learning and would be frustrated and angry working in dilapidated filth, where he'd probably have to buy all of his own classroom supplies from his own paycheck (which is no lawyer's salary).  The kids can't concentrate in that environment.  Fix the leaks, fill the cracks, exterminate the critters, slap on a fresh coat of paint and recarpet.  Set aside money for teaching aids and chalk.  Then you'll attract the teachers who want to work without unnecessary distraction.
Title: Re: Affirmative action = bullsh*t
Post by: Nemesis on July 21, 2005, 12:38:53 PM
My husband is getting his masters in elementary ed.  When he graduates and becomes certified, where do you think he'd rather work?  In a school in urban Wilmington that should have been condemned 10 years ago or 20 miles down the road in Hockessen, with modern, beautiful facilities.  If you don't make the workplace attractive and comfortable, you will not attract quality teachers.

Hubby just said to me, "School should be a kid's happy place.  His escape from a bad environment.  It shouldn't add to his problems." 

I just saw a news clip that U. DE was just given a $1.2 million grant to research underage drinking.  I think that money could have been better spent on renovating some of the public schools in Wilmington.


Or even 1% of the $400 billion spent on defense.

Or NASA... don't get me started.  And as a military member, I agree that there is a LOT of wasteful spending.  But you should see the Department of Defense schools.  They are an excellent model for what schools should be.  In fact, in some poor areas of the country with bad public schools (like near Little Rock AFB), the gov't has erected DoDD schools.  My kids spent 5 years in DoDD schools in Europe and received what would (I believe) surpass a private school education.  If only the government would DEMAND the same standards for every public school in the U.S., we would see some big changes in the urban landscape.

twarga, you are quickly becoming my favorite LSDer  :D

I think it's unfortuante that this administration has had/chosen to pay so much attention to foreign affairs that our domestic policies are being neglected.
Title: Re: Affirmative action = bullsh*t
Post by: lsatlover on July 21, 2005, 12:41:16 PM
Well, if your husband is going to be a teacher and wants to actually MAKE a difference, maybe he SHOULD take a teaching job in one of the run-down schools. If teachers started showing an interest in these kids things may change.

It's a revolving argument.  Better teachers make better schools, and better schools attract better teachers.  It's a lot easier to fix up your school and lure good teachers than to expect them to suffer for the 'greater societal good.'  Especially when people like my husband believe that a clean, warm, dry environment is essential to learning and would be frustrated and angry working in dilapidated filth, where he'd probably have to buy all of his own classroom supplies from his own paycheck (which is no lawyer's salary).  The kids can't concentrate in that environment.  Fix the leaks, fill the cracks, exterminate the critters, slap on a fresh coat of paint and recarpet.  Set aside money for teaching aids and chalk.  Then you'll attract the teachers who want to work without unnecessary distraction.


doesn't the fact that expectations by the parents and military school on the behavior and performance of the children weigh into the equation?
Title: Re: Affirmative action = bullsh*t
Post by: Nemesis on July 21, 2005, 12:45:01 PM
Well, education happens to be a state's issue. Maybe people should worry about their own state and where they are and need to be.

That's a whole other argument. The way the system works now, schools are funded by property tax. So, if you live in a better area, you pay more tax and enjoy better quality schools.

Interestingly enough, blacks tend to be extremely overrepresented in city public housing developments.

But like I said, that's a whole other argument.
Title: Re: Affirmative action = bullsh*t
Post by: twarga on July 21, 2005, 12:51:34 PM
My husband is getting his masters in elementary ed.  When he graduates and becomes certified, where do you think he'd rather work?  In a school in urban Wilmington that should have been condemned 10 years ago or 20 miles down the road in Hockessen, with modern, beautiful facilities.  If you don't make the workplace attractive and comfortable, you will not attract quality teachers.

Hubby just said to me, "School should be a kid's happy place.  His escape from a bad environment.  It shouldn't add to his problems." 

I just saw a news clip that U. DE was just given a $1.2 million grant to research underage drinking.  I think that money could have been better spent on renovating some of the public schools in Wilmington.


Or even 1% of the $400 billion spent on defense.

Or NASA... don't get me started.  And as a military member, I agree that there is a LOT of wasteful spending.  But you should see the Department of Defense schools.  They are an excellent model for what schools should be.  In fact, in some poor areas of the country with bad public schools (like near Little Rock AFB), the gov't has erected DoDD schools.  My kids spent 5 years in DoDD schools in Europe and received what would (I believe) surpass a private school education.  If only the government would DEMAND the same standards for every public school in the U.S., we would see some big changes in the urban landscape.

twarga, you are quickly becoming my favorite LSDer  :D

I think it's unfortuante that this administration has had/chosen to pay so much attention to foreign affairs that our domestic policies are being neglected.

Thanks.  A lot of us military folks expressed our dissatisfaction with Bush at the polls last November.  Too bad he didn't have a stronger opponent.  However, I don't think you necessarily have to be a Democrat to push for social change.  If I am ever in a political position to make a difference, education will be at the very top of my list... and some nasty school buildings will be torn down and rebuilt.  Pronto!  Inner city kids should not have to flee to the suburbs via vouchers to get a quality education.  I think it sends the wrong message.  It says, "We've plucked you, you poor slob, out of the mire of your urban neighborhood and shipped you to the lily-white world of wonder and amazement."  It smacks of a handout and reinforces the idea that these kids aren't really good enough.  Let's make the inner-city schools a haven where these kids can get a quality education on their own turf.  It would instill a sense neighborhood pride in the students and their parents.
Title: Re: Affirmative action = bullsh*t
Post by: twarga on July 21, 2005, 12:53:20 PM
Well, education happens to be a state's issue. Maybe people should worry about their own state and where they are and need to be.

That's a whole other argument. The way the system works now, schools are funded by property tax. So, if you live in a better area, you pay more tax and enjoy better quality schools.

Interestingly enough, blacks tend to be extremely overrepresented in city public housing developments.

But like I said, that's a whole other argument.

Yeah, we all get in our cars and drive to the city to work, and spend the taxes on those wages on pretty schools for our kids in suburbia.  How fair is that?
Title: Re: Affirmative action = bullsh*t
Post by: lsatlover on July 21, 2005, 12:54:05 PM
My husband is getting his masters in elementary ed.  When he graduates and becomes certified, where do you think he'd rather work?  In a school in urban Wilmington that should have been condemned 10 years ago or 20 miles down the road in Hockessen, with modern, beautiful facilities.  If you don't make the workplace attractive and comfortable, you will not attract quality teachers.

Hubby just said to me, "School should be a kid's happy place.  His escape from a bad environment.  It shouldn't add to his problems." 

I just saw a news clip that U. DE was just given a $1.2 million grant to research underage drinking.  I think that money could have been better spent on renovating some of the public schools in Wilmington.


Or even 1% of the $400 billion spent on defense.

Or NASA... don't get me started.  And as a military member, I agree that there is a LOT of wasteful spending.  But you should see the Department of Defense schools.  They are an excellent model for what schools should be.  In fact, in some poor areas of the country with bad public schools (like near Little Rock AFB), the gov't has erected DoDD schools.  My kids spent 5 years in DoDD schools in Europe and received what would (I believe) surpass a private school education.  If only the government would DEMAND the same standards for every public school in the U.S., we would see some big changes in the urban landscape.


It's well known that every dollar spent by government technological research returns 10 dollars to the economy.  This includes NASA and the military.  The problem with technology research and development is there will always be a lot of waste, since waste is inherent in basic research.  Corporations can't justify the waste, since their economic time frame is 6 months so the burden is put onto government agencies.  Remember, the innovations spun off by NASA .  medical imaging (MRI, CT, etc), pacemakers, teflon, increased agricultural yields, semiconductor crystal grwoth, fuel cell technology, *cough* the internet, and the list goes on.  Regarding the military, ever notice how war (via defense spending) is what got the US out of the great depression and and many recessions?

It's difficult to understand how one can be pro AA yet anti NASA/defense.  Affirmative action in NASA and defense is probably one of the most efficient ways for a low-income URM to propel themself into the middle class.
Title: Re: Affirmative action = bullsh*t
Post by: twarga on July 21, 2005, 12:57:30 PM
It's difficult to understand how one can be pro AA yet anti NASA/defense.  Affirmative action in NASA and defense is probably one of the most efficient ways for a low-income URM to propel themself into the middle class.

Actually, I'm not sure AA is the answer.  If all the students who benefit from AA go back to their communities and fight to make a difference for the children living there, then yes, it is worth it.  I personally believe that AA steps in a little late in the process.  We need to even the playing field in kindergarten by creating and maintaining facilities that encourage learning, that attract quality teachers, and promote parental involvement. 
Title: Re: Affirmative action = bullsh*t
Post by: ImVinny! on July 21, 2005, 12:58:08 PM
Don't forget the invention of the microwave! :D
Title: Re: Affirmative action = bullsh*t
Post by: Nemesis on July 21, 2005, 01:00:03 PM
It's difficult to understand how one can be pro AA yet anti NASA/defense.  Affirmative action in NASA and defense is probably one of the most efficient ways for a low-income URM to propel themself into the middle class.

I don't think suggesting a small diversion of funds of enough to qualify as being "anti" anything.
Title: Re: Affirmative action = bullsh*t
Post by: Nemesis on July 21, 2005, 01:15:22 PM
Actually, I'm not sure AA is the answer.  If all the students who benefit from AA go back to their communities and fight to make a difference for the children living there, then yes, it is worth it.  I personally believe that AA steps in a little late in the process.  We need to even the playing field in kindergarten by creating and maintaining facilities that encourage learning, that attract quality teachers, and promote parental involvement. 


AA is not the answer, but it is a vital step in the process. If we don't take the approriate steps to ensure that more URM's are afforded to the opportunity to gain access to the educational institutions and jobs which can allow them to have a powerful impact on the shaping of this country's policies, how can we truly affect change?

"According to the Senate's site <http://www.senate.gov> "More than
13,000 individuals who have served in the national legislature,
including the Continental Congress, the Senate, and the House of
Representatives". Of these people, a very meager amount - sometimes
less than a percent and always less than their share in the population
- are members of minority groups."
Title: Re: Affirmative action = bullsh*t
Post by: dbgirl on July 21, 2005, 01:56:03 PM
Just wanted to add the the telling the kids what to major in ....
I get what you're saying MC, but I believe that people should pursue what they are good at, not what will make them the most money.
 
Title: Re: Affirmative action = bullsh*t
Post by: ImVinny! on July 21, 2005, 02:56:26 PM
Yes!
Title: Re: Affirmative action = bullsh*t
Post by: John Galt on July 21, 2005, 05:05:57 PM
No, I think you and the rest of society is responsible for perpetuating the injustices that have existed throughout history in terms of fair lending practices, in terms of economic development in inner cities, in terms of urban planning and housing, in terms of school funding and education policy, and in terms of social hierarchy. Not to mention, you are benefitting from the persistant, and obvious, racist policies of the past even if only marginally. Thus, you are responsible whether you like it are not...just like all blacks are affected by past discrimination whether they like it or not.

I cannot be responsible for something I had NOTHING to do with. I am not a lender, so I don't have any resposibility for what they do, does that make sense to you. It's the same as saying that since the people that bombed us on 9/11 were Arab that ALL Arabs are too blame, and that's just a STUPID idea.

No but all arabs have had to suffer increased scrutiny and security measures and somewhat a restriction of some of their civil liberties. Think these analogies through first.
Title: Re: Affirmative action = bullsh*t
Post by: ImVinny! on July 22, 2005, 07:10:41 AM
iknew you would say that, and this makes sense, the white people are facing all kinds of b(l)acklash for things that they did NOT perpetrate, as I had said.
Title: Re: Affirmative action = bullsh*t
Post by: TrojanChispas on July 22, 2005, 04:28:21 PM
iknew you would say that, and this makes sense, the white people are facing all kinds of b(l)acklash for things that they did NOT perpetrate, as I had said.
oh, the poor innocent white people.  never harmed anything ever.  always stuck to their moral values.  never enslaved, stole land, or committed genocide. 
Title: Re: Affirmative action = bullsh*t
Post by: gilda on July 22, 2005, 05:58:04 PM
Actually, I'm not sure AA is the answer.  If all the students who benefit from AA go back to their communities and fight to make a difference for the children living there, then yes, it is worth it.  I personally believe that AA steps in a little late in the process.  We need to even the playing field in kindergarten by creating and maintaining facilities that encourage learning, that attract quality teachers, and promote parental involvement. 


AA is not the answer, but it is a vital step in the process. If we don't take the approriate steps to ensure that more URM's are afforded to the opportunity to gain access to the educational institutions and jobs which can allow them to have a powerful impact on the shaping of this country's policies, how can we truly affect change?


AA is NOT the answer. Admitting someone based on their race in an attempt to level the playing field actually just breeds more hostility toward that race.  I read an article where Clarence Thomas, who was admitted to Yale through AA, says just that.  That is why he is so anti-AA.  I am not a proponent of Clarence Thomas (I'll never forget Anita Hill  >:() but I think he has a point about AA actually being detrimental.

As someone who went to UG in a school that was mostly black, I have seen way too many people who expect something for nothing, who don't take responsibility for their fate being in their hands, who don't go the extra mile to be academically competetive.

Sure, racism exists.  I see it and we can argue the factors that contribute to a low level of minority representation in certain professions til we are blue in the face.  I agree with most of these arguments.  However, nobody benefits from "special treatment."  You want to be successful?  Work at it, bust your a$$, pull yourself up by your own bootstraps.  I have seen this done by people of every race, people from every generation, and people of every economic class. 
Title: Re: Affirmative action = bullsh*t
Post by: Nemesis on July 22, 2005, 08:59:18 PM
AA is NOT the answer. Admitting someone based on their race in an attempt to level the playing field actually just breeds more hostility toward that race.  I read an article where Clarence Thomas, who was admitted to Yale through AA, says just that.  That is why he is so anti-AA.  I am not a proponent of Clarence Thomas (I'll never forget Anita Hill  >:() but I think he has a point about AA actually being detrimental.

As someone who went to UG in a school that was mostly black, I have seen way too many people who expect something for nothing, who don't take responsibility for their fate being in their hands, who don't go the extra mile to be academically competetive.

Sure, racism exists.  I see it and we can argue the factors that contribute to a low level of minority representation in certain professions til we are blue in the face.  I agree with most of these arguments.  However, nobody benefits from "special treatment."  You want to be successful?  Work at it, bust your a$$, pull yourself up by your own bootstraps.  I have seen this done by people of every race, people from every generation, and people of every economic class. 

The example of Clarence Thomas defeats itself. The man (unpopular as he may be) is the only African American in the Supreme Court, a position of great prestige and power. And AA was, as you claim, a big part in his step to getting that position. Would he have the same opportunity if he had attended another institution? Well consider the fact that NOT ONE of the Supreme Court Justices attended a law school that isn't in the T14. Even thugh now he would be acclaimed as an extremely talented and hard-working individual, would he recieved the same recognition?

It is very likely that if Justice Thomas did not benefit from AA, he would not be in the same position as he is in today. It is regrettable that he can now be so against something that afforded him so much opportunity, and perhaps rob some future leader of the opportunity to succeed.

The fact that AA breeds more hostility towards a race is also regrettable. It's a pity that "racism exists", but doesn't spur hostility. It's a shame that past injustices happened, but theres no hostility there either. AA doesn't breed hostility among everyone. There are many people here from various backgrounds who support it. They may question it, challenge it to be better - but they don't harbor resentment. I think that by saying AA "just breeds more hostility toward that race", says a lot about the people who find themselves feeling that way and absolutely nothing about the practice's merit. Let's not do it because it makes some people mad?

I doubt very much that someone who is not motivated and has spent their life expecting a handout is going to advance far enough to benefit from AA. You take for granted that the students or others who have benfitted from or will benefit from AA are being encouraged to not try as hard, or not to assert themselves. So, was Justice Thomas just a slacker expecting handouts? Or did someone recognize that he had great potential and deserved a chance to realize that potential?
Title: Re: Affirmative action = bullsh*t
Post by: gilda on July 22, 2005, 09:43:12 PM
AA is NOT the answer. Admitting someone based on their race in an attempt to level the playing field actually just breeds more hostility toward that race.  I read an article where Clarence Thomas, who was admitted to Yale through AA, says just that.  That is why he is so anti-AA.  I am not a proponent of Clarence Thomas (I'll never forget Anita Hill  >:() but I think he has a point about AA actually being detrimental.

As someone who went to UG in a school that was mostly black, I have seen way too many people who expect something for nothing, who don't take responsibility for their fate being in their hands, who don't go the extra mile to be academically competetive.

Sure, racism exists.  I see it and we can argue the factors that contribute to a low level of minority representation in certain professions til we are blue in the face.  I agree with most of these arguments.  However, nobody benefits from "special treatment."  You want to be successful?  Work at it, bust your a$$, pull yourself up by your own bootstraps.  I have seen this done by people of every race, people from every generation, and people of every economic class. 

The example of Clarence Thomas defeats itself. The man (unpopular as he may be) is the only African American in the Supreme Court, a position of great prestige and power. And AA was, as you claim, a big part in his step to getting that position. Would he have the same opportunity if he had attended another institution? Well consider the fact that NOT ONE of the Supreme Court Justices attended a law school that isn't in the T14. Even thugh now he would be acclaimed as an extremely talented and hard-working individual, would he recieved the same recognition?

It is very likely that if Justice Thomas did not benefit from AA, he would not be in the same position as he is in today. It is regrettable that he can now be so against something that afforded him so much opportunity, and perhaps rob some future leader of the opportunity to succeed.

The fact that AA breeds more hostility towards a race is also regrettable. It's a pity that "racism exists", but doesn't spur hostility. It's a shame that past injustices happened, but theres no hostility there either. AA doesn't breed hostility among everyone. There are many people here from various backgrounds who support it. They may question it, challenge it to be better - but they don't harbor resentment. I think that by saying AA "just breeds more hostility toward that race", says a lot about the people who find themselves feeling that way and absolutely nothing about the practice's merit. Let's not do it because it makes some people mad?

I doubt very much that someone who is not motivated and has spent their life expecting a handout is going to advance far enough to benefit from AA. You take for granted that the students or others who have benfitted from or will benefit from AA are being encouraged to not try as hard, or not to assert themselves. So, was Justice Thomas just a slacker expecting handouts? Or did someone recognize that he had great potential and deserved a chance to realize that potential?

I am not sure what you mean about the Clarence Thomas example defeating itself.  It was an example of a man who did benefit from AA and ended up feeling that there was a backlash because of it.  He says himself that this is why he is not a proponent of AA and that blacks should rise or fall on their own merit. 

It is unfortunate, as I said, that there is not adequate minority representation is some fields - including the highest court of the land - but that doesn't make it okay to give someone a boost, or a leg up, onto a playing field where they haven't EARNED a right to be.  I don't care if their purple and we need more purple people - you work hard, you have the scores to gain admittance.  If you worked hard and have the stats to prove it, you don't need special treatment.  Why would anyone want this???  Don't you want to earn your own place, not have someone give you a handout?

And I like how you put my comment about knowing that "racism exists" in condescending little quotes.  Heck yes, reasonable, intelligent people are angry that racism exists and that people behave like bigots.  But I didn't know this thread was about that.  I thought we were talking about AA...

Yes, past injustice happened.  Yes, there is hostility about it.  Knowing this, acknowledging it, not taking away from any single persons individual experience, I say GET OVER IT.  It is a crutch and you will be the better once you learn to walk on your own.
Title: Re: Affirmative action = bullsh*t
Post by: Nemesis on July 22, 2005, 10:13:38 PM
So if a White male with an uncharacteristically low GPA and LSAT score gets into Yale, do we assume he got there because someone gave him a handout? No, most likely he got there because there was something else about him that was compelling enough to get him a spot. Through something other than his scores, he earned a right to be there. And the 4.0; 180 candidate who gets rejected because he/she assumed they would be an auto admit (or for whatever other reason), earned that rejection.

Many URM's face strong obstacles, and this defines who they are. No one has a right to say that, because they don't have the scores, they didn't earn a right to be there. I rather invest in a person who, in spite of difficulties, worked hard and did the best they could than blindly select someone because of their statistics. The admissions process is not ALL about numbers - it's about the adcomm getting to know what kind of person you are and what you have to contribute.
Title: Re: Affirmative action = bullsh*t
Post by: gilda on July 22, 2005, 10:25:35 PM
So if a White male with an uncharacteristically low GPA and LSAT score gets into Yale, do we assume he got there because someone gave him a handout? No, most likely he got there because there was something else about him that was compelling enough to get him a spot. Through something other than his scores, he earned a right to be there. And the 4.0; 180 candidate who gets rejected because he/she assumed they would be an auto admit (or for whatever other reason), earned that rejection.

Many URM's face strong obstacles, and this defines who they are. No one has a right to say that, because they don't have the scores, they didn't earn a right to be there. I rather invest in a person who, in spite of difficulties, worked hard and did the best they could than blindly select someone because of their statistics. The admissions process is not ALL about numbers - it's about the adcomm getting to know what kind of person you are and what you have to contribute.

This happens with borderline numbers - that is when the soft factors kick in.  If you have VERY low numbers, however, you better have done something SPECTACULAR.  If you have very high numbers and are rejected, usually you have done something in your past or said something assinine in your PS that makes adcomms pitch your app into the trash.

Many people - not just URM's - have faced and overcome strong obstacles.  Strength of character is not exclusive to minorities.  Rankings are determined by NUMBERS.  A white guy with a 156 and a 2.7 getting into Yale?  Not likely unless he wrote a Pulitzer Prize winning novel.  A black guy with those numbers....?  You are deluding yourself if you think his struggles and the obstacles he faced are what won over the Yale adcomm.  You do yourself a disservice to not see things for what they are.
Title: Re: Affirmative action = bullsh*t
Post by: John Galt on July 22, 2005, 10:58:07 PM
So if a White male with an uncharacteristically low GPA and LSAT score gets into Yale, do we assume he got there because someone gave him a handout? No, most likely he got there because there was something else about him that was compelling enough to get him a spot. Through something other than his scores, he earned a right to be there. And the 4.0; 180 candidate who gets rejected because he/she assumed they would be an auto admit (or for whatever other reason), earned that rejection.

Many URM's face strong obstacles, and this defines who they are. No one has a right to say that, because they don't have the scores, they didn't earn a right to be there. I rather invest in a person who, in spite of difficulties, worked hard and did the best they could than blindly select someone because of their statistics. The admissions process is not ALL about numbers - it's about the adcomm getting to know what kind of person you are and what you have to contribute.

This happens with borderline numbers - that is when the soft factors kick in.  If you have VERY low numbers, however, you better have done something SPECTACULAR.  If you have very high numbers and are rejected, usually you have done something in your past or said something assinine in your PS that makes adcomms pitch your app into the trash.

Many people - not just URM's - have faced and overcome strong obstacles.  Strength of character is not exclusive to minorities.  Rankings are determined by NUMBERS.  A white guy with a 156 and a 2.7 getting into Yale?  Not likely unless he wrote a Pulitzer Prize winning novel.  A black guy with those numbers....?  You are deluding yourself if you think his struggles and the obstacles he faced are what won over the Yale adcomm.  You do yourself a disservice to not see things for what they are.

You don't know what you're talking about.
Title: Re: Affirmative action = bullsh*t
Post by: gilda on July 23, 2005, 07:59:06 AM

Quote

You don't know what you're talking about.
Quote

Enlighten me.
Title: Re: Affirmative action = bullsh*t
Post by: dbgirl on July 23, 2005, 09:06:16 AM
I wish people would stop citing exaggerated low scores when talking about students getting into top schools.
I am not aware of anyone getting into Yale with a 2.7/156.
Title: Re: Affirmative action = bullsh*t
Post by: gilda on July 23, 2005, 11:33:37 AM
I wish people would stop citing exaggerated low scores when talking about students getting into top schools.
I am not aware of anyone getting into Yale with a 2.7/156.

Me neither.  It was exaggerated to illustrate a point.
Title: Re: Affirmative action = bullsh*t
Post by: TrojanChispas on July 23, 2005, 01:21:31 PM
Yeah but your exageration defeats your point because it is over the top.  Race doesnt count for anything by itself.  It is the experience that you relate to the adcom which gives one a boost in admissions.  Even then, it probably only equates to 2 lsat points or .1 gpa.  But can you put a value on diversity?
Title: Re: Affirmative action = bullsh*t
Post by: John Galt on July 23, 2005, 01:24:02 PM
I wish people would stop citing exaggerated low scores when talking about students getting into top schools.
I am not aware of anyone getting into Yale with a 2.7/156.

Me neither.  It was exaggerated to illustrate a point.

Thats exactly why you don't know what you're talking about. The exaggeration has no place here because thats not how affirmative action at Yale or anywhere else works. How can I take your points seriously when you're exaggerating the impact of affirmative action at top schools?

I guarantee you that the majority of applicants black or otherwise below a 165 and below a 3.5 get rejected at the top 14.
Title: Re: Affirmative action = bullsh*t
Post by: gilda on July 23, 2005, 01:36:46 PM
I wish people would stop citing exaggerated low scores when talking about students getting into top schools.
I am not aware of anyone getting into Yale with a 2.7/156.

Me neither.  It was exaggerated to illustrate a point.

Thats exactly why you don't know what you're talking about. The exaggeration has no place here because thats not how affirmative action at Yale or anywhere else works. How can I take your points seriously when you're exaggerating the impact of affirmative action at top schools?

I guarantee you that the majority of applicants black or otherwise below a 165 and below a 3.5 get rejected at the top 14.

Give me a break.  Does anyone know what exact numeric advantage AA gives a URM??  And you obviously can't be objective because, to use a southern phrase, "You have a dog in the fight."

Title: Re: Affirmative action = bullsh*t
Post by: gilda on July 23, 2005, 01:45:55 PM
No, I think you and the rest of society is responsible for perpetuating the injustices that have existed throughout history in terms of fair lending practices, in terms of economic development in inner cities, in terms of urban planning and housing, in terms of school funding and education policy, and in terms of social hierarchy. Not to mention, you are benefitting from the persistant, and obvious, racist policies of the past even if only marginally. Thus, you are responsible whether you like it are not...just like all blacks are affected by past discrimination whether they like it or not.

This is an example of where you're coming from?  Hmm.  So, you don't believe in personal responsibility?  You don't believe in individuals being accountable?  And, worse than that, you wouldn't feel patronized if you were given a hand out or a leg up?  You would feel you deserved it?  That is was owed to you??  Disturbing. 
Title: Re: Affirmative action = bullsh*t
Post by: TrojanChispas on July 23, 2005, 01:59:43 PM
Bottom line:  The white people of America have stomped and spat on the minorities of this and other countries since the inception of this country.  IT IS ABOUT TIME FOR SOME REPARATIONS!
Title: Re: Affirmative action = bullsh*t
Post by: angmill08 on July 23, 2005, 02:24:40 PM
Quote from: La Belle Dame Sans Merci
So, you don't believe in personal responsibility?  You don't believe in individuals being accountable?  And, worse than that, you wouldn't feel patronized if you were given a hand out or a leg up?  You would feel you deserved it?  That is was owed to you??  Disturbing. 

Can you honestly say no one ever gave you a leg up? Come on. A lack of racism is the reoccurring "leg up" that white people get. Do YOU deserve it?
Title: Re: Affirmative action = bullsh*t
Post by: uscitalian1982 on July 23, 2005, 02:42:00 PM
3Peat

"oh, the poor innocent white people.  never harmed anything ever.  always stuck to their moral values.  never enslaved, stole land, or committed genocide."

Obviously you are oblivious to what is happening in Africa today. 

1.  Africans enslave each other.  In fact, Africa is the number one continent in the world in terms of human slavery.

2.  Stole land?  Two words- Robert Mugabe. 

3.  Committed genocide? How about Darfur in Sudan, class warfare in Angola between the FNLA and UNITA, and Rwanda between the Hutus and Tutsis? 

If you don't know what you are talking about, STFU.
Title: Re: Affirmative action = bullsh*t
Post by: LegalLassie on July 23, 2005, 02:48:12 PM
Quote

I wouldn't use Clarence Thomas as an advertisement for affirmative action.  If he is the product of it, I think he makes an effective case for its banning. 
Quote

I have been reading this thread, and when I read your comment, I spit out my soda.  Very funny.  And sadly true  :-\
Title: Re: Affirmative action = bullsh*t
Post by: TrojanChispas on July 23, 2005, 03:10:31 PM

so you dont think that the sins of the past haunt the people of today? How do you explain the disproportionate ammount of poverty in the minority community?  How do you explain the woefull underrepresentation of minorities in the middle class/legal profession/homeownership/medical profession/et al.?

Serious wrongs were committed against blacks and hispanics BECAUSE OF THEIR RACE in the US and YOU WANT TO CALL IT EVEN.  Sorry, the score is still way off and AA only helps a little.  WHy does it only help a little?  Because the scars are so deep that it will take programs like AA AND time to heal.
Title: Re: Affirmative action = bullsh*t
Post by: TrojanChispas on July 23, 2005, 03:12:09 PM
3Peat

"oh, the poor innocent white people.  never harmed anything ever.  always stuck to their moral values.  never enslaved, stole land, or committed genocide."

Obviously you are oblivious to what is happening in Africa today. 

1.  Africans enslave each other.  In fact, Africa is the number one continent in the world in terms of human slavery.

2.  Stole land?  Two words- Robert Mugabe. 

3.  Committed genocide? How about Darfur in Sudan, class warfare in Angola between the FNLA and UNITA, and Rwanda between the Hutus and Tutsis? 

If you don't know what you are talking about, STFU.
You are making a great argument for there being AA in Africa too.  Good job!

XOXO
HTH
Title: Re: Affirmative action = bullsh*t
Post by: CocoPuff on July 23, 2005, 03:22:07 PM
I think the main problem here is that people fail to realize the extent to which racism still exists, and how minorities are really treated in this country. Just because there aren't any signs marking which bathroom or waterfountain negroes can use, doesn't mean that things are all good. Racism is below the surface now and maybe that's why white people who don't discriminate themselves believe that things are much better.

However, I have to admit that I do agree with some of the things that Enfuego... said. AA isn't really fixing anything, and at the rate we're going, we'll never make any real progress and we'll always need it. The real problem is that primary education in poor neighborhoods filled with minorities sucks. If you start out inferior, that's exactly how you will end up. That's the real problem that needs to be addressed. AA is, in my opinion too little too late, but for now it's all we have.
Title: Re: Affirmative action = bullsh*t
Post by: TrojanChispas on July 23, 2005, 03:25:02 PM
Why does no one decry legacy admits?  WHere is the outrage?  "ITS NOT FAIR!" seems to only apply to things that hurt your chances, eh? DO YOU HAVE ANY SHAME?

Most of you know that a lot of opportunities that come your way are not a product of what you know, but who you know.  Minorities have been discriminated against for a long time and are far behind their white counterparts.  Legacy admits are one way that white people have built a network around professional colleagues but their minority counterparts do not have a corrolary.  AA helps minorities build a network to counter the decades of legacy admits, discrimination and prejudice.

In the end, AA only helps a little and usually only helps those that can demonstrate a certain ammount of hardship and a diverse viewpoint.
Title: Re: Affirmative action = bullsh*t
Post by: TrojanChispas on July 23, 2005, 03:29:32 PM
I think the main problem here is that people fail to realize the extent to which racism still exists, and how minorities are really treated in this country. Just because there aren't any signs marking which bathroom or waterfountain negroes can use, doesn't mean that things are all good. Racism is below the surface now and maybe that's why white people who don't discriminate themselves believe that things are much better.

However, I have to admit that I do agree with some of the things that Enfuego... said. AA isn't really fixing anything, and at the rate we're going, we'll never make any real progress and we'll always need it. The real problem is that primary education in poor neighborhoods filled with minorities sucks. If you start out inferior, that's exactly how you will end up. That's the real problem that needs to be addressed. AA is, in my opinion too little too late, but for now it's all we have.
See this gets to the heart of the matter.  Minorities, in general, get the short end of the stick when it comes to public schooling.  AA rewards those that stuck with it and are relatively competitive.  If the country would fix this problem, then we would not need AA .  But as soon as someone tries to raise taxes or divert funding to help those schools, there will be outrage at the audacity of the government.  AA is not perfect, but it is all we have to level the playing field.
Title: Re: Affirmative action = bullsh*t
Post by: TrojanChispas on July 23, 2005, 03:40:02 PM

so you dont think that the sins of the past haunt the people of today? How do you explain the disproportionate ammount of poverty in the minority community?  How do you explain the woefull underrepresentation of minorities in the middle class/legal profession/homeownership/medical profession/et al.?

Serious wrongs were committed against blacks and hispanics BECAUSE OF THEIR RACE in the US and YOU WANT TO CALL IT EVEN.  Sorry, the score is still way off and AA only helps a little.  WHy does it only help a little?  Because the scars are so deep that it will take programs like AA AND time to heal.

Thank you Christina, for seeing the point I was trying to make.  As someone who cares about the social problems in this country, I am really just concerned that AA is just a handout the government designed so they don't have to really deal with those problems.  It seems to me as though they're saying "we will give minorities AA, they will think everything is getting much better because more of them are going to college and being hired, and in the meantime we will do nothing to improve education or the environment in urban and working class neighborhoods."  3Peat points out the poverty and underrepresentation in minority society, and I would ask how AA has made that better?  AA has been around for decades, and have we seen any dramatic improvement?  It just seems to be an incredibly condescending practice, and if I were a minority, or a woman, I would be more insulted that I wasn't worthy of a better, comprehensive solution. 

I always enjoy reading your posts 3Peat, so I am not trying to start an argument, but AA is not going to solve the problem of povery or underrepresentation that faces all minority groups.  The solution to those problems need to start way, way earlier than when it comes time for college, as I have already pointed out and as Christina has seconded.   

If we continue to extend AA to a very limited number of minorities (and it is a limited program) the overriding issues facing minorities in this country are going to continue on as they always have been.  We have to fix the problem for EVERYONE, not just the few individuals applying to certain law schools or looking for jobs with certain employers. 

I am NOT saying that racism, sexism, classism or religious persecution are no longer problems, because they are, and they are problems that deserve REAL solutions, from the bottom up, not the bottom down.

AND I TOTALLY DECRY LEGACY ADMITS!!!!  I think it's a disgusting, classist practice that is often nothing more than a sad, mutually beneficial arrangment between the bureauocracy of the school and the social hierarchy of the upper classes.  So there  :D 

 
Ok, I can respect that.  The problems that AA tries to address start way earlier than when they are being adressed.  I would be for giving up AA for a revamped national public school system and the prohibition of legacy admits.  That would be fair and address some of the problems that AA addresses, but more effectively.  I just don't see it happening.

And I understand the argument that AA has not improved anything, but I think:
a.  AA has been watered down too much to make a drastic and immediate impact
b.  We need to keep it until something better comes along
c.  Over a century of bias cannot be corrected in 20 years
Title: Re: Affirmative action = bullsh*t
Post by: CocoPuff on July 23, 2005, 03:45:06 PM
Quote
Ok, I can respect that.  The problems that AA tries to address start way earlier than when they are being adressed.  I would be for giving up AA for a revamped national public school system and the prohibition of legacy admits.  That would be fair and address some of the problems that AA addresses, but more effectively.  I just don't see it happening.

And I understand the argument that AA has not improved anything, but I think:
a.  AA has been watered down too much to make a drastic and immediate impact
b.  We need to keep it until something better comes along
c.  Over a century of bias cannot be corrected in 20 years

I agree. But I have a question.
How many minority LS applicants do you think actually come from poor neighborhoods and attended bad schools? I remember some one arguing that AA is pointless because it mostly helps minorities who are middle to upper class and these people have no incentive to "go back" and help those struggling with poverty. How true do you think this is?
Title: Re: Affirmative action = bullsh*t
Post by: TrojanChispas on July 23, 2005, 03:56:49 PM
I dont know, I would have to see some data.  It seems unlikely to me because adcoms do not just give a free pass to URMs.  There has to be some indication of hardship or diversity of thought.  Also, I think it is presumptious (not of you in particular, but in general) to expect URMs to go back and help because those are usually the lowest paying jobs.  It's like, "we are going to give you a boost because you were poor, but you have to take a poorly paid job if we do."  Who is really at fault for URMs being where they are?  Personal responsibility is a factor, but because the government has treated URMs as second class citizens for so long, they are culpable too.  That is not to say that URMs don't go back and help, or that I wont because I will, but to expect me to do so is rather assuming.
Title: Re: Affirmative action = bullsh*t
Post by: TrojanChispas on July 23, 2005, 04:04:13 PM
Plus, it may be tempting to anyone to be offered a 100K/year job, but to someone that has never made more than minimum wage it is incredibly enticing.  Ya know?

Funny side bar:

"You know what minimum wage is? You know what it means? It means we would pay you LESS, but we can't.  It's illegal."
-Chris Rock
Title: Re: Affirmative action = bullsh*t
Post by: CocoPuff on July 23, 2005, 04:41:03 PM
Plus, it may be tempting to anyone to be offered a 100K/year job, but to someone that has never made more than minimum wage it is incredibly enticing.  Ya know?

Funny side bar:

"You know what minimum wage is? You know what it means? It means we would pay you LESS, but we can't.  It's illegal."
-Chris Rock

That's sad, but true. It sucks that Public Interest pays so little as it appears to be the most rewarding.
Title: Re: Affirmative action = bullsh*t
Post by: John Galt on July 23, 2005, 05:10:23 PM
I wish people would stop citing exaggerated low scores when talking about students getting into top schools.
I am not aware of anyone getting into Yale with a 2.7/156.

Me neither.  It was exaggerated to illustrate a point.

Thats exactly why you don't know what you're talking about. The exaggeration has no place here because thats not how affirmative action at Yale or anywhere else works. How can I take your points seriously when you're exaggerating the impact of affirmative action at top schools?

I guarantee you that the majority of applicants black or otherwise below a 165 and below a 3.5 get rejected at the top 14.

Give me a break.  Does anyone know what exact numeric advantage AA gives a URM??  And you obviously can't be objective because, to use a southern phrase, "You have a dog in the fight."



And you don't? And if you don't know exact numeric advantage, then how are you so ignorant to expose its demise. If admissions was strictly numbers based, anyone below a 172 and 3.9 would be out of the top 14.
Title: Re: Affirmative action = bullsh*t
Post by: angmill08 on July 23, 2005, 05:59:57 PM

Can you imagine what would happen if the minority community in this country, not just blacks, but Hispanics and Native Americans and women, rallied against AA and DEMANDED, as the Civil Rights movement demanded, that public education be fixed so that EVERYONE could benefit from it right at the beginning.  If people stood up and DEMANDED that something be done about the environment in urban and lower-class neighborhoods?  If the Democratic party started to get pushed in that direction, they would respond not only due to their own feeligns and beliefs, but because they would have no choice.  There is ENORMOUS political force behind the defense of AA.  I ask what would happen if that force was transferred to a fight for the things you, I and Christina, among others, have suggested as suitable replacements for the necessity of AA?

Sadly, I believe that the majority of Americans are not willing to make changing the environment in urban and lower class neighborhoods a priority. Given the politicians that get elected, it seems that most Americans would prefer to pay taxes for prisons instead of schools, gated communities instead of poverty relief. The majority of Hispanics, African Americans and Native Americans vote for candidates (usually Democrats) who do advocate making anti-poverty programs a national priority. But the majority of whites have other priorities.

So, I agree with your vision, but to be fair, the fact that politicians have not put anti-poverty programs higher on the list of national priorities is not because the minority community has not made this demand, but because the majority is not responsive to this demand.

I doubt that giving up AA would change this. AA is an easy concession for whites, since it doesn't affect many people. Shifting spending priorities would require a sacrifice (less military spending, some other domestic spending cuts or higher taxes) which I don't believe many right leaning voters are willing to make right now. AA is a token concession. Giving it up would not in any way guarantee that a larger concession would be made.
Title: Re: Affirmative action = bullsh*t
Post by: John Galt on July 23, 2005, 07:04:58 PM
angmill: I like the way you think. Keep the posts coming.
Title: Re: Affirmative action = bullsh*t
Post by: Faure on July 23, 2005, 07:22:17 PM
Sadly, I believe that the majority of Americans are not willing to make changing the environment in urban and lower class neighborhoods a priority. Given the politicians that get elected, it seems that most Americans would prefer to pay taxes for prisons instead of schools, gated communities instead of poverty relief.

This just shows how short sighted our politicians are. It takes a lot of money to keep someone in prison for a year, and even more when you factor in the expense on our legal system for the public defender, prosecutor, judge, productivity lost from twelve jurors etc. Any person, white, black or purple who doesn't think combatting poverty should be a priority, should be slapped.
Title: Re: Affirmative action = bullsh*t
Post by: dbgirl on July 23, 2005, 07:23:57 PM
Who are all these purple people everyone talks about?  ;)
Where do they come from? They must be seriously underrepresented in law school, because they seem to be at the center of this AA debate!
Title: Re: Affirmative action = bullsh*t
Post by: lsatlover on July 23, 2005, 07:29:54 PM
Sadly, I believe that the majority of Americans are not willing to make changing the environment in urban and lower class neighborhoods a priority. Given the politicians that get elected, it seems that most Americans would prefer to pay taxes for prisons instead of schools, gated communities instead of poverty relief.

This just shows how short sighted our politicians are. It takes a lot of money to keep someone in prison for a year, and even more when you factor in the expense on our legal system for the public defender, prosecutor, judge, productivity lost from twelve jurors etc. Any person, white, black or purple who doesn't think combatting poverty should be a priority, should be slapped.

incarceration is a good example of deficit spending.  think of the middle class jobs it creates.  security officers, cafeteria workers, construction for prisons, roads, psychiatrists and personnel to treat the prisoners.  attorneys and legal staff gain employment.  all of these people will spend their money in the local economy at restaurants, amazon.com, and local neighborhoods.

on the other hand, if all the would be felons had college educations, the middle class would experience more competition in the labor market, salaries would decline, and the standard of living would decline.  the lower slass would disappear creating a two-tiered 3rd world economy with an impending recession.  there would be neuvo revolt of the prior middle class against the upper class and they'd be overthrown like Maria Antoinette.

so, yes, poverty is being addressed through incarceration

HTH
Title: Re: Affirmative action = bullsh*t
Post by: TrojanChispas on July 23, 2005, 07:35:19 PM
Sadly, I believe that the majority of Americans are not willing to make changing the environment in urban and lower class neighborhoods a priority. Given the politicians that get elected, it seems that most Americans would prefer to pay taxes for prisons instead of schools, gated communities instead of poverty relief.

This just shows how short sighted our politicians are. It takes a lot of money to keep someone in prison for a year, and even more when you factor in the expense on our legal system for the public defender, prosecutor, judge, productivity lost from twelve jurors etc. Any person, white, black or purple who doesn't think combatting poverty should be a priority, should be slapped.

incarceration is a good example of deficit spending.  think of the middle class jobs it creates.  security officers, cafeteria workers, construction for prisons, roads, psychiatrists and personnel to treat the prisoners.  attorneys and legal staff gain employment.  all of these people will spend their money in the local economy at restaurants, amazon.com, and local neighborhoods.

on the other hand, if all the would be felons had college educations, the middle class would experience more competition in the labor market, salaries would decline, and the standard of living would decline.  the lower slass would disappear creating a two-tiered 3rd world economy with an impending recession.  there would be neuvo revolt of the prior middle class against the upper class and they'd be overthrown like Maria Antoinette.

so, yes, poverty is being addressed through incarceration

HTH
um ... dont get carried away with your slippery slope.
Title: Re: Affirmative action = bullsh*t
Post by: howarddavis on July 23, 2005, 11:39:58 PM
Bottom line:  The white people of America have stomped and spat on the minorities of this and other countries since the inception of this country.  IT IS ABOUT TIME FOR SOME REPARATIONS!

"The white people of America," on the whole, have not stomped or spat on minorites.  There are certain white people who have done so, and there are certain white people who have also spat on various etnicities within their own race.  There are also black people who engage in reverse racism, sexism, classism and religious bigotry.  Should we look at the way so many male black entertainers portray women in their videos and declare that, since those entertainers are so popular in the black community, it must mean that black men on the whole stomp and spit on the female sex?  No.  Neither then should we look at the behavior of 200 or 100 or 50 or even 25 years ago and declare that "white people of America" have done so towards blacks.  As a white individual, who has never done anything of the sort, and has actively campaigned against all the "isms," I find such broad, historical generalizations insulting and hurtful.    

This is really why I have a problem with the discussions of race and AA in admissions, because this is what it boils down to.  Bringing up slavery in relation to a student applying for admission to law school in the year 2005 is just putting needless fuel on the fire.  Anyone applying to law school has obviously had a solid K-12 education and has earned a 4 year degree from an accredited university.  To compare that person to Harriet Tubman or even Rosa Parks is enormously insulting to those two individuals.

We need to address the problems that lead to people suggesting AA as a solution rather than just apply that solution to a neverending problem.  We need to use the political machinery that attempts to provide priority to those who haven't earned it to make sure that no individual needs that priority.  I can't stand GW Bush, but when he argued in favor of "affirmative access," I had to agree with him.  Access to quality education and a home environment that facilitates academic and social success and opportunity should be our focus, not allowing those two things to go unheard of by so many people in this country of all races and then trying to make ammends 20 or 30 years later with handouts.  I am totally 100% for diversity of race, sex and religion in both the academic and professional world, but AA, as it is currently used, is like digging a hole with hand and filling it with the other.    

thank you for being a voice of reason and actually making sense with an argument that has logic instead of emotion
Title: Re: Affirmative action = bullsh*t
Post by: borderlaw on July 24, 2005, 09:45:11 AM
Racism per is bad/good based on how it is used. I think that AA is positive, justified racism.
Title: Re: Affirmative action = bullsh*t
Post by: angmill08 on July 24, 2005, 12:29:45 PM
People only have as much power as they are given.  There is no reason why, with the strength of the minority base in this country, something can't be done.  The problem is political apathy, both within the minority community, which traditionally does not vote in very high numbers, but also overall.

Yes, I was thinking about this when I posted. In TX, a few years back there was a big get out the vote drive by the democrats to get a "dream team" of Hispanic Gov. and African American Lt Gov elected. The strategy was that if the black and Latino communities would as a bloc, vote for this team, their sheer numbers would bring the Democrats to power. Turnout was disappointing and Republicans won.

I do believe part of the problem is education. Life experiences for a poor/minority non-immigrant kid often teach that hard work doesn't pay off, seperate and unequal is the law of the land, you do what you have to do to get what you want/need. This is something that has been learned over generations. Something else can be taught (and I think it has been taught, more and more, over the past 50 years) but it takes a while to make sense to people.
Title: A related article
Post by: angmill08 on July 24, 2005, 01:44:58 PM
Since some of this thread has moved into the issues of election politics, I wanted to share this article which analyzes the limits of Democratic populist appeal to lower-middle class white voters. It's on the front page of LiP magazine (online), let me know if the link doesn't work.

http://www.lipmagazine.org/
Title: Re: Affirmative action = bullsh*t
Post by: TrojanChispas on July 24, 2005, 03:38:16 PM
Bottom line:  The white people of America have stomped and spat on the minorities of this and other countries since the inception of this country.  IT IS ABOUT TIME FOR SOME REPARATIONS!

"The white people of America," on the whole, have not stomped or spat on minorites.  There are certain white people who have done so, and there are certain white people who have also spat on various etnicities within their own race.  There are also black people who engage in reverse racism, sexism, classism and religious bigotry.  Should we look at the way so many male black entertainers portray women in their videos and declare that, since those entertainers are so popular in the black community, it must mean that black men on the whole stomp and spit on the female sex?  No.  Neither then should we look at the behavior of 200 or 100 or 50 or even 25 years ago and declare that "white people of America" have done so towards blacks.  As a white individual, who has never done anything of the sort, and has actively campaigned against all the "isms," I find such broad, historical generalizations insulting and hurtful.     

This is really why I have a problem with the discussions of race and AA in admissions, because this is what it boils down to.  Bringing up slavery in relation to a student applying for admission to law school in the year 2005 is just putting needless fuel on the fire.  Anyone applying to law school has obviously had a solid K-12 education and has earned a 4 year degree from an accredited university.  To compare that person to Harriet Tubman or even Rosa Parks is enormously insulting to those two individuals.

We need to address the problems that lead to people suggesting AA as a solution rather than just apply that solution to a neverending problem.  We need to use the political machinery that attempts to provide priority to those who haven't earned it to make sure that no individual needs that priority.  I can't stand GW Bush, but when he argued in favor of "affirmative access," I had to agree with him.  Access to quality education and a home environment that facilitates academic and social success and opportunity should be our focus, not allowing those two things to go unheard of by so many people in this country of all races and then trying to make ammends 20 or 30 years later with handouts.  I am totally 100% for diversity of race, sex and religion in both the academic and professional world, but AA, as it is currently used, is like digging a hole with hand and filling it with the other.   

thank you for being a voice of reason and actually making sense with an argument that has logic instead of emotion
::)
Title: Re: Affirmative action = bullsh*t
Post by: ImVinny! on July 25, 2005, 08:50:03 AM
iknew you would say that, and this makes sense, the white people are facing all kinds of b(l)acklash for things that they did NOT perpetrate, as I had said.
oh, the poor innocent white people.  never harmed anything ever.  always stuck to their moral values.  never enslaved, stole land, or committed genocide. 

Do you not care about the Irish? Apparently not..
Title: Re: Affirmative action = bullsh*t
Post by: ImVinny! on July 25, 2005, 08:54:18 AM
"Yes, past injustice happened.  Yes, there is hostility about it.  Knowing this, acknowledging it, not taking away from any single persons individual experience, I say GET OVER IT.  It is a crutch and you will be the better once you learn to walk on your own."


What I've been trying to say all along, but these people won't listen. They want to try to make something up for their acceptance of handouts. They want to have a REASON to be taking them, and make themselves feel better about it.
Title: Re: Affirmative action = bullsh*t
Post by: ImVinny! on July 25, 2005, 08:56:29 AM
"A white guy with a 156 and a 2.7 getting into Yale?  Not likely unless he wrote a Pulitzer Prize winning novel.  A black guy with those numbers....?  You are deluding yourself if you think his struggles and the obstacles he faced are what won over the Yale adcomm.  You do yourself a disservice to not see things for what they are"

Could this even happen? If so, then these people ARE delusional about things!
Title: Re: Affirmative action = bullsh*t
Post by: ImVinny! on July 25, 2005, 08:57:41 AM
Yeah but your exageration defeats your point because it is over the top.  Race doesnt count for anything by itself.  It is the experience that you relate to the adcom which gives one a boost in admissions.  Even then, it probably only equates to 2 lsat points or .1 gpa.  But can you put a value on diversity?

Then explain this latino girl getting into Minnesota with 136 lsat, she's normal as everyone else.
Title: Re: Affirmative action = bullsh*t
Post by: John Galt on July 25, 2005, 09:14:33 AM
"Yes, past injustice happened.  Yes, there is hostility about it.  Knowing this, acknowledging it, not taking away from any single persons individual experience, I say GET OVER IT.  It is a crutch and you will be the better once you learn to walk on your own."


What I've been trying to say all along, but these people won't listen. They want to try to make something up for their acceptance of handouts. They want to have a REASON to be taking them, and make themselves feel better about it.


How is getting something back that was taken away a handout? If you steal my damn lunch money two years ago, then give me the same amount today...thats just payback. You owe me! Since when have you walked into a bank, taken their money, and not had to pay them back? A handout...psh.
Title: Re: Affirmative action = bullsh*t
Post by: J D on July 25, 2005, 09:17:54 AM
¿De cual latina está hablando?
Title: Re: Affirmative action = bullsh*t
Post by: ImVinny! on July 25, 2005, 11:11:46 AM
Why does no one decry legacy admits?  WHere is the outrage?  "ITS NOT FAIR!" seems to only apply to things that hurt your chances, eh? DO YOU HAVE ANY SHAME?

Most of you know that a lot of opportunities that come your way are not a product of what you know, but who you know.  Minorities have been discriminated against for a long time and are far behind their white counterparts.  Legacy admits are one way that white people have built a network around professional colleagues but their minority counterparts do not have a corrolary.  AA helps minorities build a network to counter the decades of legacy admits, discrimination and prejudice.

In the end, AA only helps a little and usually only helps those that can demonstrate a certain ammount of hardship and a diverse viewpoint.

What do you mean nobody is outcrying about legacy admits? Have you even taken time to look at the post that was started here? This section is for AA only, but I am against the legacy admits as well, and, as you will see there ARE people against that. But you are too busy whining about how your "race" has held you back, when in reality itis Yourself!
Title: Re: Affirmative action = bullsh*t
Post by: ImVinny! on July 25, 2005, 11:22:53 AM
"Yes, past injustice happened.  Yes, there is hostility about it.  Knowing this, acknowledging it, not taking away from any single persons individual experience, I say GET OVER IT.  It is a crutch and you will be the better once you learn to walk on your own."


What I've been trying to say all along, but these people won't listen. They want to try to make something up for their acceptance of handouts. They want to have a REASON to be taking them, and make themselves feel better about it.


How is getting something back that was taken away a handout? If you steal my damn lunch money two years ago, then give me the same amount today...thats just payback. You owe me! Since when have you walked into a bank, taken their money, and not had to pay them back? A handout...psh.


The problem with the matter is that someone ELSE stole your friend's lunchmoney and you are asking the WRONG person to pay back the WRONG person. This doesn't make sense at ALL to do, now does it?
If someone commits a crime we do not punish their child, do we? No, and if someone is suing you, you do not pay their friends, do you? NO. You make no sense.
Title: Re: Affirmative action = bullsh*t
Post by: Nemesis on July 25, 2005, 11:57:40 AM
The problem with the matter is that someone ELSE stole your friend's lunchmoney and you are asking the WRONG person to pay back the WRONG person. This doesn't make sense at ALL to do, now does it?
If someone commits a crime we do not punish their child, do we? No, and if someone is suing you, you do not pay their friends, do you? NO. You make no sense.

Not at all my friend. The government and administration of this country are the entities that did all the taking away by implementing discriminatory policies. And now they're the ones making an attempt to make up for the things they have done in the past.

You may resent being indirectly affected by this, but ultimately, no one is out to punish you and no one is asking you for any direct sacrifice.
Title: Re: Affirmative action = bullsh*t
Post by: Nemesis on July 25, 2005, 01:09:44 PM
"Yes, past injustice happened.  Yes, there is hostility about it.  Knowing this, acknowledging it, not taking away from any single persons individual experience, I say GET OVER IT.  It is a crutch and you will be the better once you learn to walk on your own."


What I've been trying to say all along, but these people won't listen. They want to try to make something up for their acceptance of handouts. They want to have a REASON to be taking them, and make themselves feel better about it.


How is getting something back that was taken away a handout? If you steal my damn lunch money two years ago, then give me the same amount today...thats just payback. You owe me! Since when have you walked into a bank, taken their money, and not had to pay them back? A handout...psh.

This is not the way to discuss the situation.  No one owes you in particular anything, and there are logical arguments for and against AA that can be made without dragging out this victim/vitctimizer stuff over and over. 

You have an increidble GPA and a 169 LSAT.  You aren't Harriet Tubman or Rosa Parks.  No white applicant applying for law school, unless they knew you personally and indeed "stole your lunch money," owes you anything.     

I really think you're missing the point. John Galt isn't implying that any white applicant owes him anything. How did any of you come to that conclusion? In fact, no white applicant has anything to do with AA. They have no power in the admissions process, it's the adcomm making that decision.

Furthermore, how is it so easy to discount such strong and irrefutable evidence of past and current discriminatory practices sanctioned by the highest authorities in this country to "this victim/vitctimizer stuff"? In spite of your opinion, such practices are the very reason why AA is practiced. I would think then that they are relevant to the discussion.
Title: Re: Affirmative action = bullsh*t
Post by: John Galt on July 25, 2005, 01:23:17 PM
"Yes, past injustice happened.  Yes, there is hostility about it.  Knowing this, acknowledging it, not taking away from any single persons individual experience, I say GET OVER IT.  It is a crutch and you will be the better once you learn to walk on your own."


What I've been trying to say all along, but these people won't listen. They want to try to make something up for their acceptance of handouts. They want to have a REASON to be taking them, and make themselves feel better about it.


How is getting something back that was taken away a handout? If you steal my damn lunch money two years ago, then give me the same amount today...thats just payback. You owe me! Since when have you walked into a bank, taken their money, and not had to pay them back? A handout...psh.


The problem with the matter is that someone ELSE stole your friend's lunchmoney and you are asking the WRONG person to pay back the WRONG person. This doesn't make sense at ALL to do, now does it?
If someone commits a crime we do not punish their child, do we? No, and if someone is suing you, you do not pay their friends, do you? NO. You make no sense.

hmmmm...so if your parents rob a bank, then give you the money, the money is yours? Fool. You still benefit from the robbery of labor, resources, and human capital of black folks. Yes, you. Why is this so hard to understand??

Actually, you're not a fool. We just have a difference of opinion.
Title: Re: Affirmative action = bullsh*t
Post by: TrojanChispas on July 25, 2005, 02:19:01 PM
"Yes, past injustice happened.  Yes, there is hostility about it.  Knowing this, acknowledging it, not taking away from any single persons individual experience, I say GET OVER IT.  It is a crutch and you will be the better once you learn to walk on your own."


What I've been trying to say all along, but these people won't listen. They want to try to make something up for their acceptance of handouts. They want to have a REASON to be taking them, and make themselves feel better about it.


How is getting something back that was taken away a handout? If you steal my damn lunch money two years ago, then give me the same amount today...thats just payback. You owe me! Since when have you walked into a bank, taken their money, and not had to pay them back? A handout...psh.


The problem with the matter is that someone ELSE stole your friend's lunchmoney and you are asking the WRONG person to pay back the WRONG person. This doesn't make sense at ALL to do, now does it?
If someone commits a crime we do not punish their child, do we? No, and if someone is suing you, you do not pay their friends, do you? NO. You make no sense.
What if your ancestors stole something and then passed it down to suceeding generations and now the victim of theft wants it back?  Sound familiar?
Title: Re: Affirmative action = bullsh*t
Post by: TrojanChispas on July 25, 2005, 02:21:20 PM
Yeah but your exageration defeats your point because it is over the top.  Race doesnt count for anything by itself.  It is the experience that you relate to the adcom which gives one a boost in admissions.  Even then, it probably only equates to 2 lsat points or .1 gpa.  But can you put a value on diversity?

Then explain this latino girl getting into Minnesota with 136 lsat, she's normal as everyone else.
Why dont you explain WTF you are talking about first?  In all probability, this person did something incredible to offset their terrible LSAT score.

Minnesota prolly has a bunch of latinas with LSATs better than 136, why would they chose this one?

Never argue with an idiot, they will drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.
Title: Re: Affirmative action = bullsh*t
Post by: ImVinny! on July 25, 2005, 02:23:37 PM
"Yes, past injustice happened.  Yes, there is hostility about it.  Knowing this, acknowledging it, not taking away from any single persons individual experience, I say GET OVER IT.  It is a crutch and you will be the better once you learn to walk on your own."


What I've been trying to say all along, but these people won't listen. They want to try to make something up for their acceptance of handouts. They want to have a REASON to be taking them, and make themselves feel better about it.


How is getting something back that was taken away a handout? If you steal my damn lunch money two years ago, then give me the same amount today...thats just payback. You owe me! Since when have you walked into a bank, taken their money, and not had to pay them back? A handout...psh.


The problem with the matter is that someone ELSE stole your friend's lunchmoney and you are asking the WRONG person to pay back the WRONG person. This doesn't make sense at ALL to do, now does it?
If someone commits a crime we do not punish their child, do we? No, and if someone is suing you, you do not pay their friends, do you? NO. You make no sense.

hmmmm...so if your parents rob a bank, then give you the money, the money is yours? Fool. You still benefit from the robbery of labor, resources, and human capital of black folks. Yes, you. Why is this so hard to understand??

Actually, you're not a fool. We just have a difference of opinion.


I am benefiting from MY own things, not from something some person that lived HERE 200 years ago did. My ancestors were busy getting beaten up by the Turks, not beating up the black people here. SO I think you are the mistaken one in this situation.
Title: Re: Affirmative action = bullsh*t
Post by: ImVinny! on July 25, 2005, 02:25:35 PM
"Yes, past injustice happened.  Yes, there is hostility about it.  Knowing this, acknowledging it, not taking away from any single persons individual experience, I say GET OVER IT.  It is a crutch and you will be the better once you learn to walk on your own."


What I've been trying to say all along, but these people won't listen. They want to try to make something up for their acceptance of handouts. They want to have a REASON to be taking them, and make themselves feel better about it.


How is getting something back that was taken away a handout? If you steal my damn lunch money two years ago, then give me the same amount today...thats just payback. You owe me! Since when have you walked into a bank, taken their money, and not had to pay them back? A handout...psh.


The problem with the matter is that someone ELSE stole your friend's lunchmoney and you are asking the WRONG person to pay back the WRONG person. This doesn't make sense at ALL to do, now does it?
If someone commits a crime we do not punish their child, do we? No, and if someone is suing you, you do not pay their friends, do you? NO. You make no sense.
What if your ancestors stole something and then passed it down to suceeding generations and now the victim of theft wants it back?  Sound familiar?

Actually, no it does not. My ancestors stole nothing from nobody.
Title: Re: Affirmative action = bullsh*t
Post by: TrojanChispas on July 25, 2005, 02:32:12 PM
guy, i want to see this latina with a 136 lsat. where is this info coming from?  or did you make it up?
Title: Re: Affirmative action = bullsh*t
Post by: lsatlover on July 25, 2005, 02:38:37 PM

the US population was roughly 40 million in 1870.  today the population is about 296 million.

Let's assume 39 million were slave owners (faulty assumption) this leaves 1 million slaves and 39 criminals.  that's asking at least 257 million people who had nothing to do with slavery for a payback.  sounds like a handout.
Title: Re: Affirmative action = bullsh*t
Post by: Nemesis on July 25, 2005, 02:44:51 PM

Galt said that AA was someone being given back what was taken away from them.  When the topic at hand is law school admissions, that would mean that if someone was going to "take back" something, it would in turn be taken from another applicant who, it must be inferred, did the taking.  In practical matters, when someone is extended an offer of admission that they didn't deserve based on the usual statistics, than someone else is not going to get an offer, and they may be more qualified in that way.  The general line of thinking seems to be that white people have somehow held back modern day black applicants, and therefore there isn't a problem if an AA applicant takes their spot.  Perhaps you don't feel that way, but when we use rhetoric like the type that is typically used on this forum in discussions of AA, that is the impression that is given.

AA is not taking "lunch money" from the "highest authorities in the land."  It does allow the government to do jack about the problems facing minorities and the underprivileged in this country, and it does have an impact on individual, everyday applicants who don't get a boost based on their race.  This goes back to the very lenghty, logical and unemotional discussion that was had on this thread over the weekend, when we removed the victimization element and just talked about the merits of AA as a social program.  It is a half-hearted, "seperate but equal" effort at half-heartedly assisting a very small minority of the people in this country, of all races, who could use some genuine assistance from their government.    

And, Galt, I am not a fool, so thank you for correcting yourself.  My parents, however, have never "robbed a bank," and I have not benefitted from the theft from the black community in terms of labor, resources, or human capital.  My ancestors, whether they were ever enslaved at one point or not, were right there being exploited by the government and industrial powers-that- be along with yours, so you're barking up the wrong tree.  Take that point up with some heir to a southern agricultural empire, not this lower-middle class, 3rd generation, Yankee factory brat.   


"In practical matters, when someone is extended an offer of admission that they didn't deserve based on the usual statistics, than someone else is not going to get an offer, and they may be more qualified in that way."

This argument might make sense if the admissions process was restricted to analysis of stats. But as we all know, this is not the case. In practical matters, in any decision comparing two candidates in the case you have outlined, both candidates would have similar stats. This is were other factors play a very important role. Law schools owe it to their students to have a diverse student population, one which is most conducive to learning. If in their opinion, a URM has more to offer with respect to diversity, then that person has earned a right to attend that school. There are MANY cases where students are rejected while others are admitted with lower stats, and I assure you that this is not always due to race. Although it's convenient to make the blanket statement that "The applicant got the spot because he/she was black", it ignores many things. As applicants, we all know that it comes down to what you have to contribute. Because of their fewer numbers, URM's offer a diversity of thought, experience and background.

I reiterate that while you may prefer to have a discussion ignoring events of the past by labelling it "victimization", you are neglecting relevent information since AA was created as a response to past and current discrimination. Pretending that it is not pertinent remains, of course, a personal decision.

Finally, even though your ancestors didn't own a plantation in the South, you can still benefit from discriminatory practices, whether you want to or not. Case in point, I used an example before of a car manufacturer/dealer charging African Americans higher rates than other customers. It is important to note that the judge found the manufacturer guilty of racial discrimination against black customers (so let's not hypothesize about whether or not the had a bad credit score...) A white consumer, without a racial or prejudiced bone in their body, would still have benefitted by recieving better rates.
Title: Re: Affirmative action = bullsh*t
Post by: angmill08 on July 25, 2005, 02:51:17 PM
Finally, even though your ancestors didn't own a plantation in the South, you can still benefit from discriminatory practices, whether you want to or not. Case in point, I used an example before of a car manufacturer/dealer charging African Americans higher rates than other customers. It is important to note that the judge found the manufacturer guilty of racial discrimination against black customers (so let's not hypothesize about whether or not the had a bad credit score...) A white consumer, without a racial or prejudiced bone in their body, would still have benefitted by recieving better rates.

Good example! I was working on a longer post but this sums up what I was trying to say.
Title: Re: Affirmative action = bullsh*t
Post by: Nemesis on July 25, 2005, 03:15:10 PM
Quote from: EnFuego22 link=topic=37973.msg664732#msg664732
This is why it's better to have a discussion on the merits of AA as a social program, and its effectiveness at what it is designed to do, rather than tying it in with who did what to whom to make it necessary.

When you stray from the course of evaluating it as a policy like any other, you really get off on a slippery slope, a phrase I hate, because it is overused, usually by conservatives afraid of change, but it applies here.  Everyone has ancestors who did bad things.  Theoretically, anyone could go back to the government of a country and demand, hundreds of years after the fact, some sort of compensation.  To say, however, that because SOME white people, hundreds of years ago, did something, and now modern day blacks are owed something, is a very difficult argument to make.  If someone kills someone else, the family of that person isn't entitled to be compensated by the killers family for generations afterword.  Thus, the argument that white applicants can't say anything about AA because they are the same color as those who may or may not have committed crimes against some blacks at some point in history is a non-starter.

Further, anyone alive today in this country has taken advantage of living in America.  All of us modern individuals owe what we have to the work of all the generations that came before, whether we be white, black, Hispanic, Asian, Native American, male or female, gay or straight, Catholic, Protestant or Athiest.  Each one of us have ancestors who contributed more or less to the current state of our nation, with relative ease or relative hardship.  The agricultural South owes its success to slavery, yes, but the industrial development of the nation as a whole owes its success not only to freed blacks, but also European, Asian and Hispanic immigrants who were not given a free ride, and subjected to conditions that could be described as being free slaves.  

It is possible, and it does occur, that many minority applicants who have never experienced any particular difficulties because of their race themselves, nor have any relatives or ancestors who did, benefit from the AA system when they may not need to, or when they personally have no reason to deserve the extra assistance.  The fairness of that is a legitimate concern.    

At a certain point, the situation is so far removed that it's no longer an effective explanation.  The problems in lower and working class neighborhoods that AA seeks to repent for are universal, not limited to only black minorities.    

AA is not used to make up for slavery, or the 1960s (and possibly even today) South.  It is designed to give a leg up to underprivileged applicants who will add to diversity on campus.  While you could argue that it does do this, the larger problem is what it ignores, and those are the problems that led to its implementation in the first place.  Also, it does have an impact on non-minority applicants, and there is a debate to be had over the fairness of those occurances.  

"To say, however, that because SOME white people, hundreds of years ago, did something, and now modern day blacks are owed something, is a very difficult argument to make."

Only if you fail to consider that the people (White or otherwise) you are refering to were in positions of power and were able to manipulate the legislation, and even the mentality, of a country. To discount the argument I am trying to make is to call that Balcks are no longer suffering the effects of this. I would think that your argument is difficult to make in light of the fact that white supremists were burning crosses in North Carolina a few months ago, in "modern day" America.

http://www.newsobserver.com/news/story/2448526p-8852502c.html

It's true, a wide variety of people came together to build this country. But you cannot compare harsh working conditions to slavery. And this still does not take away from the fact that legislation was enacted to discriminate based on skin color. So, even if Europeans had it bad, they still had it better than an African American. The system was created to insight prejudice. You might be in a bad situation, but it doesn't matter because your skin color makes you superior to someone else.

Honestly, to be rid of AA would be a triumph for minorities in this country. But not if there is nothing to replace. It is a crude system true. But it's the ONLY progress that has been made. And until someone pays serious attention to solving this problem once and for all, it is the only thing there. I would love to see an administration focus on domestic issues and erase the inequities within this system.

AA may not be the prettiest solution. It may not be the best or the most effective. But it is the only thing that seeks to make things right. Until more is done, it is the only solution.
Title: Re: Affirmative action = bullsh*t
Post by: angmill08 on July 25, 2005, 04:14:29 PM
I'm not going to argue anymore about the tribulations faced by any groups in this country.  They are obviously well documented.  I will say that European immigrants who lived in urban tenement housing would have a right to feel as exploited and degenerated as certainly blacks of their time period would.  While theoretically free, they were anything but.

My point is that AA doesn't really do anything but pose as though something is being done.  The political support for it is enormous, and powerful, and just as slavery was erradicated, just as seperate but equal was ended, just as the civil rights act and voting rights act were enacted, something else can be created, and that something else really has nothing to do with race.  It has to do with equal access to education, a quality of life that makes it possible to achieve and an expansion of America's greatest elements beyond the upper classes to everyone who has yet to experience them, regardless of color, gender, religion, sexual orientation, etc.

En Fuego, AA does do something. It brings more racial minorities into elite universities. Few would argue that AA is the best way to accomplish this goal, but the fact is that it is one of the most immediately effective methods of achieving this goal that is allowed by law. I think most AA supporters/apologists would agree with you that other methods (improving education, improving quality of life, expansion of "America's greatest elements") are crucial and should be made a national priority as well as or in place of AA. But voters of America have elected politicians who have not implemented programs to acheive these goals to the degree that would end racism or other "isms" in American society. So until that happens, most AA apologists will tell you, we have AA.

And I know you don't want to argue about trials and tribulations faced by other groups, but when I read your posts, I feel like you are trying to act as if class mattered, and matters more than race when analyzing power and disempowerment ("isms") in American history. Which I think is false.
Title: Re: Affirmative action = bullsh*t
Post by: Nemesis on July 25, 2005, 04:42:52 PM
I'm not going to argue anymore about the tribulations faced by any groups in this country.  They are obviously well documented.  I will say that European immigrants who lived in urban tenement housing would have a right to feel as exploited and degenerated as certainly blacks of their time period would.  While theoretically free, they were anything but.

My point is that AA doesn't really do anything but pose as though something is being done.  The political support for it is enormous, and powerful, and just as slavery was erradicated, just as seperate but equal was ended, just as the civil rights act and voting rights act were enacted, something else can be created, and that something else really has nothing to do with race.  It has to do with equal access to education, a quality of life that makes it possible to achieve and an expansion of America's greatest elements beyond the upper classes to everyone who has yet to experience them, regardless of color, gender, religion, sexual orientation, etc.

En Fuego, AA does do something. It brings more racial minorities into elite universities. Few would argue that AA is the best way to accomplish this goal, but the fact is that it is one of the most immediately effective methods of achieving this goal that is allowed by law. I think most AA supporters/apologists would agree with you that other methods (improving education, improving quality of life, expansion of "America's greatest elements") are crucial and should be made a national priority as well as or in place of AA. But voters of America have elected politicians who have not implemented programs to acheive these goals to the degree that would end racism or other "isms" in American society. So until that happens, most AA apologists will tell you, we have AA.

And I know you don't want to argue about trials and tribulations faced by other groups, but when I read your posts, I feel like you are trying to act as if class mattered, and matters more than race when analyzing power and disempowerment ("isms") in American history. Which I think is false.

I agree with angmill08.

En Fuego, something does need to be done. Great attention must be paid to this subject in order to truly affect change. That is why people like myself and others like me are working hard to one day be in a position to change the way society works: to create a society that is truly egalitarian.

AA may have its flaws, but it has still benefitted many and will continue to do do. And until such a time when it can be replaced by a better, stronger and more effective system, arguing against AA is arguing against any progress that has been made and hindering future progress.

It is a process that will take time and the hard work of many. Just like the landmark Brown v. Board took many years and the work of many attorneys committed to change: both white and black.

This is why it think it is even more vital to have a healthy representation of minority students at the graduate school level. So that those who do not recognize what many people have had to suffer and continue to suffer, can be exposed to a new perspective. And that together we can recognize that it should not be tolerated, and that steps MUST be taken into invoke CHANGE.
Title: Re: Affirmative action = bullsh*t
Post by: satyadaimoku on July 25, 2005, 05:26:06 PM
you know, there's plenty of room for debate about affirmative action in our country.  That's what makes it too bad that these discussions are usually started by whiney white brats who are stunningly ignorant of the state of race relations in our country today.  You get the sense that their entire understanding of race relations in the United States is looking at law school numbers.com and seeing a little green dot slightly lower and to the left of their own little red dot, clicking on the green dot, seeing the letters URM there, and shrieking "That's not F-F-F-Faaaaair!"

Let me tell you something about unfair.

I grew up in Brookline, Massachusetts.  It's a rich little neighborhood of Boston that is technically its own city despite being minutes from downtown -- for the obvious reason that we don't want our big money real estate tax dollars going to the Big Bad  Boston school system.  The elementary school I went to had a library four stories high; two different full gymnasiums (one for classes, one for athletic events), two auditoriums (one outside, one inside) and three playgrounds - the main playground, a special smaller playground just for the kindergarden, and a third playground for the after school program.  Parents got worried about kids having to cross the street to get to the main playground, so the city built a special covered bridge over the street.  The average class size was between fifteen and twenty.  Virtually all of the kids, needless to say, were from upper middle class families with college educated parents.  I probably had five black classmates in my entire 7 years there - maybe less.  All of the kids I knew from Brookline went to college.  Most, I suspect, went to graduate school.

After college, I spent a year working in a school five miles south of Brookline, in the neighborhood of Mattapan (affectionately called Murderpan by the people who live there).  It's an inner-city community that is essentially all black - probably half the kids there are African-American, the other half are the children of Haitian immigrants.  They have no gym.  They have no auditorium.  They have no library.  They even have no playground - at recess, the kids all go out and play in the parking lot between the teachers' cars.   The stories kids there tell of their home lives are heartbreaking: broken families, absent parents, siblings in jail or on drugs, and so on.  The good parents work rediculous hours that leave them with precious little time to be role models for their children.  The bad ones just aren't there.  There are essentially no social services availible for any of these kids.  This was made painfully clear when I tried contacting school authorities to get counseling for an 8 year old girl who had been sexually abused by her uncle and was clearly severely traumatized.  The state was perfectly willing to haul her uncle off to jail, but it wouldn't spend a dime providing her with even a social worker (the psychiatrists are, of course, too busy counseling the middle class professionals from Brookline who can afford them to even consider working in such a place).  It doesn't surprise me that, growing up in such a difficult and painful environment, most of these kids don't end up going to college.  What does surprise is me is that, despite all odds, some of them manage to make it. 

So now I'm applying to law school, and my dream school is Columbia.   And I didn't get in with a 3.09/175.  Now, I'm sure if I look at the law school numbers web site I'll be able to find someone from a neighborhood like Mattapan who got in to Columbia with a 3.09/168 or even a 3.09/165.  And I would have loved to get that spot.  But I'm not going to forget the extraordinary unearned, undeserved and utterly unfair advantages I had, to be born white and middle class in America and act like I'm some kind of victim.  And people who do feel that way can only do so out of total ignorance of the severe injustices that exist today: that is, not 200 years ago, not fifty years ago, but today.

Of course, in a perfect world AA wouldn't be necessary, and it is absolutely not a panacea for racial injustice.  But having said that, Columbia Law School isn't in a position to fix all the problems in our society.  They can't control the inequity in the Boston school system.  They only have two options: either they can choose to accept black applicants who are slightly less qualified according to LSAT and GPA, or they can have a student body that is almost entirely white.  If they chose the latter option, they would be essentially ensuring that the next generation of elite lawyers would be disproportionately white.  For an elite law school to do such a thing would be morally disgusting.  It would ensure continued unequal access to positions of power and importance in our society.  It would, in short, ensure a continuation of white privlege in our country.

And, by the way, legacy is Affirmative Action for rich white people.  If a black person getting in to Harvard with a 3.3/170 pisses you off more than George W Bush getting into Harvard Business School with a 2.0 GPA then quite frankly, you are racist and your opinion is worthless.  Blaming your personal failings on ethnic minorities is disgusting. 
Title: Re: Affirmative action = bullsh*t
Post by: lsatlover on July 25, 2005, 05:40:50 PM
you know, there's plenty of room for debate about affirmative action in our country.  That's what makes it too bad that these discussions are usually started by whiney white brats who are stunningly ignorant of the state of race relations in our country today.  You get the sense that their entire understanding of race relations in the United States is looking at law school numbers.com and seeing a little green dot slightly lower and to the left of their own little red dot, clicking on the green dot, seeing the letters URM there, and shrieking "That's not F-F-F-Faaaaair!"

Let me tell you something about unfair.

I grew up in Brookline, Massachusetts.  It's a rich little neighborhood of Boston that is technically its own city despite being minutes from downtown -- for the obvious reason that we don't want our big money real estate tax dollars going to the Big Bad  Boston school system.  The elementary school I went to had a library four stories high; two different full gymnasiums (one for classes, one for athletic events), two auditoriums (one outside, one inside) and three playgrounds - the main playground, a special smaller playground just for the kindergarden, and a third playground for the after school program.  Parents got worried about kids having to cross the street to get to the main playground, so the city built a special covered bridge over the street.  The average class size was between fifteen and twenty.  Virtually all of the kids, needless to say, were from upper middle class families with college educated parents.  I probably had five black classmates in my entire 7 years there - maybe less.  All of the kids I knew from Brookline went to college.  Most, I suspect, went to graduate school.

After college, I spent a year working in a school five miles south of Brookline, in the neighborhood of Mattapan (affectionately called Murderpan by the people who live there).  It's an inner-city community that is essentially all black - probably half the kids there are African-American, the other half are the children of Haitian immigrants.  They have no gym.  They have no auditorium.  They have no library.  They even have no playground - at recess, the kids all go out and play in the parking lot between the teachers' cars.   The stories kids there tell of their home lives are heartbreaking: broken families, absent parents, siblings in jail or on drugs, and so on.  The good parents work rediculous hours that leave them with precious little time to be role models for their children.  The bad ones just aren't there.  There are essentially no social services availible for any of these kids.  This was made painfully clear when I tried contacting school authorities to get counseling for an 8 year old girl who had been sexually abused by her uncle and was clearly severely traumatized.  The state was perfectly willing to haul her uncle off to jail, but it wouldn't spend a dime providing her with even a social worker (the psychiatrists are, of course, too busy counseling the middle class professionals from Brookline who can afford them to even consider working in such a place).  It doesn't surprise me that, growing up in such a difficult and painful environment, most of these kids don't end up going to college.  What does surprise is me is that, despite all odds, some of them manage to make it. 

So now I'm applying to law school, and my dream school is Columbia.   And I didn't get in with a 3.09/175.  Now, I'm sure if I look at the law school numbers web site I'll be able to find someone from a neighborhood like Mattapan who got in to Columbia with a 3.09/168 or even a 3.09/165.  And I would have loved to get that spot.  But I'm not going to forget the extraordinary unearned, undeserved and utterly unfair advantages I had, to be born white and middle class in America and act like I'm some kind of victim.  And people who do feel that way can only do so out of total ignorance of the severe injustices that exist today: that is, not 200 years ago, not fifty years ago, but today.

Of course, in a perfect world AA wouldn't be necessary, and it is absolutely not a panacea for racial injustice.  But having said that, Columbia Law School isn't in a position to fix all the problems in our society.  They can't control the inequity in the Boston school system.  They only have two options: either they can choose to accept black applicants who are slightly less qualified according to LSAT and GPA, or they can have a student body that is almost entirely white.  If they chose the latter option, they would be essentially ensuring that the next generation of elite lawyers would be disproportionately white.  For an elite law school to do such a thing would be morally disgusting.  It would ensure continued unequal access to positions of power and importance in our society.  It would, in short, ensure a continuation of white privlege in our country.

And, by the way, legacy is Affirmative Action for rich white people.  If a black person getting in to Harvard with a 3.3/170 pisses you off more than George W Bush getting into Harvard Business School with a 2.0 GPA then quite frankly, you are racist and your opinion is worthless.  Blaming your personal failings on ethnic minorities is disgusting. 


nice way to say anyone who has a different opinion is a racist.  That is a piece of art ad hominem.  As previously mentioned grade schoolers of your teary-eyed story and college graduates are quite different groups of people.  Also the beneficiaries are less likely to be those in your moving story.

Title: Re: Affirmative action = bullsh*t
Post by: Nemesis on July 25, 2005, 06:21:30 PM

nice way to say anyone who has a different opinion is a racist.  That is a piece of art ad hominem.  As previously mentioned grade schoolers of your teary-eyed story and college graduates are quite different groups of people.  Also the beneficiaries are less likely to be those in your moving story.


How can you seek to refute his argument by calling it "ad hominem" with a straight face? Like you haven't done the same thing in this thread...

Also, don't presume to know the things that URM's have had to go through in order to make it to college. While it may be more convenient for you be portray a situation where such students actually come from priveledged backgrounds, it's hardly a realistic assumption.
Title: Re: Affirmative action = bullsh*t
Post by: TrojanChispas on July 25, 2005, 06:30:33 PM
I am still waiting for Vinny to show us the girl that got into Minnesota with a 136 because she was a URM....  I think he made it up just to make an irrelevant point.  Plus, if someone did get into a law school witha a 136 there HAD to be a reason besides URM status.   There are too many URMs with better LSAT scores for UM to settle on a 136...

STILL WAITING VINNY!!!


*taps foot*
Title: Re: Affirmative action = bullsh*t
Post by: TrojanChispas on July 25, 2005, 06:34:46 PM
Yeah but your exageration defeats your point because it is over the top.  Race doesnt count for anything by itself.  It is the experience that you relate to the adcom which gives one a boost in admissions.  Even then, it probably only equates to 2 lsat points or .1 gpa.  But can you put a value on diversity?

Then explain this latino girl getting into Minnesota with 136 lsat, she's normal as everyone else.

Admitting into evidence as exhibit A of Vinny's retardedness.  Carry on.
Title: Re: Affirmative action = bullsh*t
Post by: dbgirl on July 25, 2005, 06:51:45 PM
I also challenge this anectdotal claim of Vinny's.
If I remember correctly, Vinny started claiming the girl had a 146 -- which still sounded unlikely, but I guess that did not enrage enough people, so now the story is a 136. I just don't buy it.

And if I had a 136 I wouldn't be telling anyone anyway -- certainly not someone that I knew had issues with minorities.
Title: Re: Affirmative action = bullsh*t
Post by: Nemesis on July 25, 2005, 07:33:20 PM

Well, let's hope that you arent referring to me as a "whiny white brat."  There is ignorance on both sides of the issue, from those you mention who are indeed rich and spoiled and just don't like anyone else getting an advantage, and those who feel they have priority because they happen to be the same race as slaves.  Being black is not automatically a disadvantage, nor is being Hispanic or Native American, and in turn, being white is not automatically an advantage.  There are plenty of middle class black applicants who check that box knowing full well that they are going to get priority over both white and minority applicants who really are disadvantaged.  How, I would ask, does this advantage the majority of the minority, who honestly do need their problems addressed and instead are told, "Hey, look, some more black kids are getting into law school, all is well?"  AA is settling, plain and simple.  Seperate but equal was a huge step up from slavery, did that make it a great idea?   

I am not saying that things are going to change overnight, or that AA should be entirely shelved.  As I've stated many times, creating diversity on campus is very important, but when you literally lower the bar to let in certain individuals due to the color of their skin, you are allowing the problems that created the situation to perpetuate, and you are giving the impression, inadvertently or not, that without such lowering, certain people wouldn't be there.  If you are faced with two applicants, one white and one minority, and they are both equally competitive, then pick the minority applicant for a balanced student body.  I see nothing wrong with that.       

As for class, it is an enormous disadvantage.  Yes, more minorities, on the whole, are working-class than whites, but that does not mean that there aren't a significant number of whites who are working class or middle-class at the point where missing one pay check will ruin them.  I think that these people generally get lost in discussions about opening up access to higher education, and they shouldn't.  Not only does a working-class white child have the same problems with low-quality schools and poor living environments than do their minority counterparts, but there are a huge number of working and middle class applicants of all races who, if accepted, would have no way to even pay to attend school.  I don't know how anyone could argue that class isn't an enormous barrier in this country. 

For about the 100th time, I am not, and most people are not, defending legacy admits.  I despise George Bush, and think he is the perfect example of classism and elitism that has nothing to do with race.  Minorities may have a harder time of things on average, but all of us are competing with people like him.   

If you believe AA is settling, do something about it. Separate but equal was a step up from slavery and without, we probably never would have produced the brilliant legal minds that tore it down to create something better. AA may nt be perfect; but it is molding the legal minds that are going to create something better.

Let's make a hypothetical. Let's say 8% of Harvard's Law School population is black. Most of the people that are posting here are pissed because in their mind, half of them don't deserve to be there. So the population is down to 4%. Would that make you feel better? Only a handful of black students who can gain the advantage of such an education; only a handful challenged to make a change. Does that sound OK to you?

Oh and honestly, I doubt that applicants coming from disadvantaged socio-economic backgrounds don't enjoy similar boosts.
Title: Re: Affirmative action = bullsh*t
Post by: lsatlover on July 25, 2005, 07:34:56 PM
yea, i like how the poster, satyadaimoku liked to compare the extremes.  First he/she compares an upper middle class white school with low-income Haitian region.  Nice apples and oranges comparison while neglecting to indicate why URMs should have a preference over more numerous low-income whites.  Also Haitians have a different work ethic, comparable to other immigrant groups who actually believe in the American dream

As other posters have indicated, why should a middle class URM be given preference over a low income white person?  His/Her post was centered on economic background, so it should address this question at a minimum.
Title: Re: Affirmative action = bullsh*t
Post by: dbgirl on July 25, 2005, 07:36:59 PM
I have to disagree with EnFuego ... I believe that being white is an automatic advantage in our society, being a white male all the better.

My white male boyfriend is the first to admit that he was basically handed his management position because he is white.
And all the plum jobs at a company I recently worked for went to white men -- ask most of the white guys I used to work with and they would agree. There was clear favortism at that company.

Title: Re: Affirmative action = bullsh*t
Post by: Nemesis on July 25, 2005, 07:47:54 PM
I have to disagree with EnFuego ... I believe that being white is an automatic advantage in our society, being a white male all the better.

My white male boyfriend is the first to admit that he was basically handed his management position because he is white.
And all the plum jobs at a company I recently worked for went to white men -- ask most of the white guys I used to work with and they would agree. There was clear favortism at that company.



I see it everyday at my office. All the people of color on my floor are administrative assistants with the exception of myself and one other black male. And of ALL the VP's and minaging directors, there is one minority: A Hispanic male.
Title: Re: Affirmative action = bullsh*t
Post by: Nemesis on July 25, 2005, 07:50:52 PM
yea, i like how the poster, satyadaimoku liked to compare the extremes.  First he/she compares an upper middle class white school with low-income Haitian region.  Nice apples and oranges comparison while neglecting to indicate why URMs should have a preference over more numerous low-income whites.  Also Haitians have a different work ethic, comparable to other immigrant groups who actually believe in the American dream

As other posters have indicated, why should a middle class URM be given preference over a low income white person?  His/Her post was centered on economic background, so it should address this question at a minimum.

"Haitians have a different work ethic"!?

That's prejudiced  >:( A stereotype that is promoted usually because the vast majority of Haitians have darker skin than some other West Indians and a lot of people think darker skin = "a different work ethic"
Title: Re: Affirmative action = bullsh*t
Post by: lsatlover on July 25, 2005, 08:18:47 PM
yea, i like how the poster, satyadaimoku liked to compare the extremes.  First he/she compares an upper middle class white school with low-income Haitian region.  Nice apples and oranges comparison while neglecting to indicate why URMs should have a preference over more numerous low-income whites.  Also Haitians have a different work ethic, comparable to other immigrant groups who actually believe in the American dream

As other posters have indicated, why should a middle class URM be given preference over a low income white person?  His/Her post was centered on economic background, so it should address this question at a minimum.

"Haitians have a different work ethic"!?

That's prejudiced  >:( A stereotype that is promoted usually because the vast majority of Haitians have darker skin than some other West Indians and a lot of people think darker skin = "a different work ethic"

What is prejudiced is the belief that every minority group should be brought down to the wallow and despair you seem to wish on others.  And yes, the Haitians I've met have a different work ethic.  Despite the prejudice towards them, they don't sit around and female dog about how America sucks and mean old whitey owes them for injustices detectable only through radiocarbon dating  Are they naive? I dunno, but it's a certainty that you'll do everything you can to bring them into your world of self-pity and *cough* self-loathing.  Unfortunately dear, the world is not the simple white and black as you believe.  Yes haitians have a different work ethic, as do the chinese, jewish, and koreans, and mexican immigrants.  The only person that can imprison you is yourself.

HTH
Title: Re: Affirmative action = bullsh*t
Post by: John Galt on July 25, 2005, 08:20:02 PM
I am still waiting for Vinny to show us the girl that got into Minnesota with a 136 because she was a URM....  I think he made it up just to make an irrelevant point.  Plus, if someone did get into a law school witha a 136 there HAD to be a reason besides URM status.   There are too many URMs with better LSAT scores for UM to settle on a 136...

STILL WAITING VINNY!!!


*taps foot*

I'm sorry. I know this thread is about a serious issue, but this is freakin hilarious! ;D I notice ImVinny has since ignored this thread.
Title: Re: Affirmative action = bullsh*t
Post by: lsatlover on July 25, 2005, 08:36:30 PM

he obviously got carried away. 150 is the cutoff for most T14.
Title: Re: Affirmative action = bullsh*t
Post by: Nemesis on July 25, 2005, 08:41:09 PM

What is prejudiced is the belief that every minority group should be brought down to the wallow and despair you seem to wish on others.  And yes, the Haitians I've met have a different work ethic.  Despite the prejudice towards them, they don't sit around and female dog about how America sucks and mean old whitey owes them for injustices detectable only through radiocarbon dating  Are they naive? I dunno, but it's a certainty that you'll do everything you can to bring them into your world of self-pity and *cough* self-loathing.  Unfortunately dear, the world is not the simple white and black as you believe.  Yes haitians have a different work ethic, as do the chinese, jewish, and koreans, and mexican immigrants.  The only person that can imprison you is yourself.

HTH

Truly reprehensible.

You admit you're prejudiced against them, and so are others. And you're praising them because they don't complian about it!? So they should continue to work hard to make a better life for themselves, will others discriminate against them with statements about their "different work ethic"? And they shoudn't stand up for themselves. Tell me, what are their opportunities when people like you stereotype their work ethic? And even better when they ask no questions?

Self pity and self loathing? No dear, knowledge that there are people like you out there who are full of prejudice against people of a certain color, people with an accent and people from other places. Knowledge to know that just because they are immigrants, they don't have to settle for that kind of treatment. Knowledge so that they can stand up for themselves, and demand change. So people like you won't continue to rob them of opportunities and hinder their potential.

Your statements prove that discrimination is alive and well. I wonder if you had to choose between a Haitian and another person, maybe a Jew or a Korean, if their "work ethic" wouldn't factor into your decision.
Title: Re: Affirmative action = bullsh*t
Post by: TrojanChispas on July 25, 2005, 08:46:26 PM

he obviously got carried away. 150 is the cutoff for most T14.
He obviously lied to make an irrelevant example.

HTH
Title: Re: Affirmative action = bullsh*t
Post by: satyadaimoku on July 25, 2005, 11:48:00 PM
for the record, i didn't actually state a specific position on Affirmative Action.  I just hate the ignorance and self-aggrandizement of the people who are dogmatically against it.  I think the issue is very complex, and there's a real need for a meaningful debate about affirmative action.  But the starting position of that debate needs to be: "there's a serious problem in the immense inequality between the races in this country, what should we do about it?" not "does a black guy deserve to get in to Michigan with worse numbers than me me me?"  Phrasing the debate in this latter way - as virtually all opponents of affirmative action do - rips the debate out of its context in contemporary America.

I definately agree that class should be taken into account, perhaps as much as race in some cases.  A strong applicant who is the first in his family to go to college from a dirt poor town in Kentucky has certainly achieved something remarkable.  Having said that, I think it is a crucial responsibility of law schools, especially elite law schools, to ensure that the next generation of lawyers reflects the diversity of America.  What kind of country would we be if almost all the important attourneys were white?  What are the political consequences of that?  How could a law regulated disproportionately by whites look to all our minorities?  It isn't just a national priority because individuals have to overcome hardship - although that's part of it.  It's also about there being a black experience of America, a black perspective on America, and it is critical that the legal system reflect that vision.  Part of the sanctity of the law is in the way it reflects our shared values as a community.  If the people who create, enforce and protect the law are not reflective of the whole community, but only of an increasingly small fraction of that community, that threatens the fundamental legitimacy of the law.  The Rodney King riots began when people could no longer believe that the people entrusted to enforce the law reflected their values or protected their interests.  We can't allow America to be divided like that.  To put it bluntly, it is a crucial national priority that schools like Harvard, Stanford and Yale have a significant number of black and hispanic students.  If those schools dropped significantly below five percent, that is a serious crisis. 

So while I can definately understand and even agree with the idea that class based incentives should be prioritized over race based incentives, I don't think you can ignore race as an issue.  Not entirely.  Not all of racism is expressed in economic terms - there are all sorts of ways our society discriminates - in the media, in subtle expectations people have, etc.  And perhaps in other fields, race-AA could be phased out in favor of other, subtler methods (personally, I think if every college & grad school did what they actually claim to do, and evaluate each individual as a person, taking into account whatever is important, that would be the best possibility).  But in the law, it is so important to reflect the community that you can't ever ignore race completely.  Not in a country with a history like ours.

btw, en fuego: no, i was certainly not talking about you as a whiney white brat, you certainly seem to have the interests of society and justice at heart.  And lsatlover, I admit I was somewhat ad hominem, but there's no way you can reasonably suggest I said that everyone who disagrees with me is racist.  I said that everyone who held this specific position of supporting legacy and not affirmative action, is racist.  There are plenty of other ways to disagree with me than that.  And I admit that's probably an exaggeration, although it's pretty hard for me to imagine any one who is in an uproar because some black kid got in, but doesn't care that some spoiled rich kid got in, without being on some level motivated by a desire to blame his troubles on blacks.  Scapegoating is an old and very common form of racism.

Title: Re: Affirmative action = bullsh*t
Post by: gertrude on July 25, 2005, 11:49:17 PM
EnFuego you're my hero- you echo my thoughts and express them with the kind of objective logic that is too often lacking in AA discussions. keep fighting the good fight (not the anti-AA fight, but the fight to find a real, sustainable, viable solution that actually addresses the issues that AA half-heartedly and largely ineffectivly attempts to fix.)
Title: Re: Affirmative action = bullsh*t
Post by: dbgirl on July 26, 2005, 12:18:17 AM
I think most of us agree that class and personal history should play a role in decisions about "giving breaks" when allowing people into schools. I think these breaks should apply to everyone who is disadvantaged, not just minorities -- I don't think we are ready to abandon efforts to recruit more minorities  into the legal field. This is a field still significantly dominated by whites.

And I absolutely do notassert that all white people have it easy. I know plenty of poor white people -- heck I'm even half poor white myself.

I may be repeating something I said in another thread, but I read somewhere that being white is like being right-handed, people often do not realize the advantages they have.

As for working for what you have, I'm sure my white coworker who got the job I applied for thought he "deserved" the job over me, despite the fact that I had THREE YEARS of seniority over him and was as qualified if not more so for the position.
Well, I did lack that essentially "white maleness" that seemed a prerequisite for the job. This is a distinct pattern at my company.

I firmly believe that for every door that is opened for me because of my minority-ness, many more doors are closed.

Title: Re: Affirmative action = bullsh*t
Post by: ImVinny! on July 26, 2005, 07:17:31 AM
guy, i want to see this latina with a 136 lsat. where is this info coming from?  or did you make it up?

I did NOT make that up. She just graduated from the same school that I go to, and I was asking her about LSATs and such and how her admissions were going, and she told me that she got 136, and had been scoring around 140s on her practice tests, so she was all upset, but that she applied to Georgetown, American, Notre Dame, Minnesota law Schools. She got rejected at ND, Georgetown, and got in at Minnesota and I think she said waitlisted at American.
Why would she be lying to me, when it doesn't matter to me? Would you lie to someone and tell them you did horrible? No, I think not. Then the girl next to her when we were talking, African American, told me she got 136 as well! That was wierd, but anyways, she re-took in June I believe, so I don't know what her score is or where she is applying.
Then this girl went on to diss ND and say how they are against minorities and especially Latinas, even told me that I hsouldn't think about going there because of this. And she said that she would DECIDE on SETTLING with Minnesota. That is pretty much the conversation.
I can give you her name, but I don't think that is very nice or fair for that matter. But it is true. Does Minnesota have that same table that Yale does? where they show the numbers and GPA's and how many people applied/got in?
I am telling the truth, and if you don't believe me, then don't, but I'm just saying, she GOT IN!
Title: Re: Affirmative action = bullsh*t
Post by: ImVinny! on July 26, 2005, 07:31:20 AM
I also challenge this anectdotal claim of Vinny's.
If I remember correctly, Vinny started claiming the girl had a 146 -- which still sounded unlikely, but I guess that did not enrage enough people, so now the story is a 136. I just don't buy it.

And if I had a 136 I wouldn't be telling anyone anyway -- certainly not someone that I knew had issues with minorities.

Find the post where I SUPPOSEDLY said she had 146, she had 136, and told me she had usually been SCORING 146 on PRACTICE tests, maybe if you read better.
Title: Re: Affirmative action = bullsh*t
Post by: ImVinny! on July 26, 2005, 07:36:03 AM
I am still waiting for Vinny to show us the girl that got into Minnesota with a 136 because she was a URM....  I think he made it up just to make an irrelevant point.  Plus, if someone did get into a law school witha a 136 there HAD to be a reason besides URM status.   There are too many URMs with better LSAT scores for UM to settle on a 136...

STILL WAITING VINNY!!!


*taps foot*

I'm sorry. I know this thread is about a serious issue, but this is freakin hilarious! ;D I notice ImVinny has since ignored this thread.


I haven't ignored the thread. I don't have a computer at home, or the internet, so I am on it at work. I am now at work again, so I can respond, and you can see the posts above.
Title: Re: Affirmative action = bullsh*t
Post by: John Galt on July 26, 2005, 12:30:51 PM
I am still waiting for Vinny to show us the girl that got into Minnesota with a 136 because she was a URM....  I think he made it up just to make an irrelevant point.  Plus, if someone did get into a law school witha a 136 there HAD to be a reason besides URM status.   There are too many URMs with better LSAT scores for UM to settle on a 136...

STILL WAITING VINNY!!!


*taps foot*

I'm sorry. I know this thread is about a serious issue, but this is freakin hilarious! ;D I notice ImVinny has since ignored this thread.


I haven't ignored the thread. I don't have a computer at home, or the internet, so I am on it at work. I am now at work again, so I can respond, and you can see the posts above.

Ok, vin, my mistake. I hope you had a good weekend. We missed you being a part of the debate these past couple of days, good to see you back.
Title: Re: Affirmative action = bullsh*t
Post by: Nemesis on July 26, 2005, 12:35:05 PM
Ok, vin, my mistake. I hope you had a good weekend. We missed you being a part of the debate these past couple of days, good to see you back.

 :-\
Title: Re: Affirmative action = bullsh*t
Post by: dbgirl on July 26, 2005, 12:38:04 PM
Vinny it's funny that BOTH the minorities you know coincidentally got 136 LSATs -- and they BOTH told you about it.
Title: Re: Affirmative action = bullsh*t
Post by: InVinoVeritas on July 26, 2005, 12:40:02 PM
this is downright hillarious.
Title: Re: Affirmative action = bullsh*t
Post by: ImVinny! on July 26, 2005, 12:47:01 PM
We were sitting in the dining hall doing something for political science club and we were talking about LSATs and that's what they told me. I said the one girl is retaking so i don't knwo what score she ended up with. It was just the topic of discussion. why would they lie to me like that?
And why would I be making this up. I am just saying that this DID happen. Why do you think I am lying?
There have been times on here people think I'm lying and they see that I am not, so why must I start lying now?
Title: Re: Affirmative action = bullsh*t
Post by: angmill08 on July 26, 2005, 12:47:31 PM
Being white is not at all an automatic advantage.  It may free you from being followed around a high end clothing store, but even that's not an automatic.  I have been followed around myself for being dressed the wrong way.  Regardless of what someone's boyfriend was "handed," that does not mean it is the case for all white people, and it definitely has never been the case for myself or anyone in my family, all of whom worked, and continue to work, for every last thing they have.  You can't apply one incident to the whole of society. 

I would direct anyone who thinks being white is an automatic advantage to travel to the middle of this country, and to the industrial towns that have been raped and pilaged by corporations, places like Coalwood, WV, for instance.  I would encourage them to contact "Save the Children" and request literature on the predominantely white portions of this country where  children are literally starving to death.  I would ask them to flip on Nick at Night and check out a few episodes of "Roseanne."  That show is a perfect example of what life is like for the majority of white people in this country, not an example like George W. Bush, who is about as far away from the typical white person as Michael Jackson is the typical black. 

No one is done a service when a debate over the merits of a political policy dissolves into which underprivileged segment of society has suffered more.  It would be much better for everyone to agree that there are people of every race who have suffered, continue to suffer, and that they all need the help of those of us privileged enough to have made it through college, let alone law school, if those opportunites are to be extended to them.   

 EnFuego, I just feel that you do a disservice to the goal of working together for a better society when you bring it all back to class, because it reads to me like you are overlooking the realities of racism in America. Everyone always points to Appalachia as an example of white people in poverty, but even there, poor blacks generally get worse treatment than poor whites. (People of color live in povery in Appalachia, too, they just don't get much airtime on Ricky Skaggs' Save The Children specials.) The legacy of racism in Appalachia is strong -- African Americans were kept out of unions, restricted to the least desireable housing & least functional schools. Roseanne is fine, but a minority family in that same position would be facing not only the economic difficulties of lower middle class life, but the obstacles of racism as well.

This does not mean that whites don't "work for everything they have" or deal with "isms". Not at all. It's just that one thing that doesn't hold whites back economically is the powerful ideology of white supremacy. And when whites ignore this, and act like class is what really matters, I think it hinders inter-racial activism.
Title: Re: Affirmative action = bullsh*t
Post by: satyadaimoku on July 26, 2005, 01:08:05 PM
"And why would I be making this up. I am just saying that this DID happen. Why do you think I am lying? "

I think you are lying for two reasons:

1) because it serves your argument to make affirmative action look rediculous by suggesting that someone with such an absurdedly low LSAT score got in because of URM status.  It also, I suspect, serves a desire you have to believe that any minority who gets ahead in this country doesn't deserve it.  That's your motive.

2) because what you say flies in the face of all objective evidence.  To whit:

Applicant #1: Black male, 3.49/154.  Rejected by Univesity of Minnesota.
http://www.lawschoolnumbers.com/display.php?cycle=0405&user=Mediocrity01

Applicant #2: Mexican/Filipino, 3.3/154.  Rejected by University of Minnesota.
http://www.lawschoolnumbers.com/display.php?cycle=0405&user=stash

Applicant #3: Black female, 3.6/152.  Rejected by University of Minnesota.
http://www.lawschoolnumbers.com/display.php?cycle=0405&user=Patricka99

Applicant #4: Black male, 3.09/152, tons of significant extracurricular/work experience.  Rejected by University of Minnesota.
http://www.lawschoolnumbers.com/display.php?cycle=0405&user=gregfields77

The lowest acceptance of a URM according to the U of M index number is this applicant:
Hispanic male, 3.51/159
http://www.lawschoolnumbers.com/display.php?cycle=0405&user=lisag

Your Latina 146 acceptance didn't happen to be a pulizer prize winning author, did she?  

Title: Re: Affirmative action = bullsh*t
Post by: ImVinny! on July 26, 2005, 01:25:09 PM
She got a 136! and no not to my knowledge. She was Mexican-born and her family also has money at that, but that doesn't matter I am just SAYING that this did happen.
It may seem to serve my purpose, but it is truth.
I can give you her name, but that wouldn't be right OR fair to do.
Title: Re: Affirmative action = bullsh*t
Post by: angmill08 on July 26, 2005, 01:31:29 PM
The suggestion was that being white was an automatic advantage, and it isn't. 

OK, we can agree to disagree on this.
 
No matter what example you come up with regarding a minority, there will be an example of a non-minority that in the same circumstance. 

This doesn't prove your point. But anyways, we can agree to disagree, no problem.

About the article... I don't know. Elite institutions need to integrate, I feel strongly about this. I know AA is not perfect, but I think saying it is failing students who get into elite schools in part because of it is extreme. I think it opens more doors than it closes for racial minorities.
Title: Re: Affirmative action = bullsh*t
Post by: satyadaimoku on July 26, 2005, 02:13:34 PM
"What I do know in the case of AA is that by saying we are opening up access to minorities, many of whom seem to be unprepared for a variety of reasons that we could address at the beginning of life rather than midway through, we are allowing those reasons to be unaddressed because we feel that by letting more minority students into elite institutions, we are accomplishing something.  Is the goal of social programs to just open up access to anyone, or should the goal of social programs be to make sure that all people, of all sexes, races and socioeconomic backgrounds, are equally capable of achievement, and aren't DENIED anything because of their gender, race, religion, sexual orientatin, etc.? "

The problem with this argument is that Affirmative Action isn't a social program.  It's a policy implemented not by the government, but by individual law schools faced with a decision between two admittedly regrettable possibilities: one, accept somewhat less qualified minority applicants, or two, have a class which is disproportionately white.  Addressing underlying social problems simply isn't an option for the adcoms at Columbia law school.  It is, however, something that we as a country can and must do.  And the best way to address those problems is to have many empowered African-American and Latino lawyers who can advocate for racial equality.

I haven't seen any studies that suggest that half of AA admits flunk out of school, and I'd be surprised if its that high.  My assumption is that every student admitted to any law school meets the basic qualifications of that law school; qualified URM applicants are just given extra consideration in competition with qualified ORMs.  I would think that someone with a 3.51/159 would be qualified to attend the University of Minnesota, and that's the lowest index score of any URM admit on the LSN web site.

And Vinny, let me guess: your "friend" is the daughter of Vincente Fox?  At the very least, it is abundantly clear that she is NOT representative of AA admits in general, and represents such an extreme outlier that we can ignore her case for the purposes of this discussion.  This isn't about whether people with a 136 LSAT can get in to the University of Minnesota; barring one alleged and unsubstantiated extreme example that doesn't happen.
Title: Re: Affirmative action = bullsh*t
Post by: ImVinny! on July 26, 2005, 02:16:13 PM
I was stating it as a fact. And no she is NOT the daughter of Vincente Fox (to my knowledge) but anyways...

I think that if more people focused on the disadvantaged thanminorities we would have better luck with people accepting it. Although, anybody really DOES have the chance to pull themselves up, just as some rich kid has the chance to kill himself, so it is almost equal as I believe on both levels.
Title: Re: Affirmative action = bullsh*t
Post by: angmill08 on July 26, 2005, 03:43:21 PM
Being white cannot be an automatic, universal advantage when an example of the worst type of poverty and lack of opportunity is felt in the same way between whites, blacks, Hispanics, Native Americans, etc. 

OK, just to make a argument argument, this reasoning is flawed.

You can say that there are many situations where race does not give a white person an advantage. I disagree, but you can say that. But the logic above does not support that statement.

Having an advantage does not mean that a person will end up rich and sucessful. Similarly, being poor or exploited doesn't mean that a person didn't/doesn't have any relative advantages.

Example: white hookers in my old neighborhood get stopped less by the cops than black ones. I believe this is due to racism. So in this situation, white hookers stand to benefit economically from being white. But they are still crack addicts and living in an extreme, terrible situation. And at any moment, there may well be a black and white hooker in jail at the same time. But that doesn't change the advantage that being white offers.
Title: Re: Affirmative action = bullsh*t
Post by: angmill08 on July 26, 2005, 04:27:28 PM
I am not saying that, on average, whites don't have an easier time in certain instances in this country.  I am saying that, on a universal basis, which means ENTIRELY, 100% of the time, being white is not an advantage, and being a minority is not, universally, a disadvantage. 

Sounds good. Race is not a "100% of the time" advantage/disadvantage. But on average, whites are more likely to "have an easier time". This is the "advantage" of being white.
OK, I'll drop it, I just like to argue.  :)
Title: Re: Affirmative action = bullsh*t
Post by: TrojanChispas on July 26, 2005, 06:12:10 PM
"And why would I be making this up. I am just saying that this DID happen. Why do you think I am lying? "

I think you are lying for two reasons:

1) because it serves your argument to make affirmative action look rediculous by suggesting that someone with such an absurdedly low LSAT score got in because of URM status.  It also, I suspect, serves a desire you have to believe that any minority who gets ahead in this country doesn't deserve it.  That's your motive.

2) because what you say flies in the face of all objective evidence.  To whit:

Applicant #1: Black male, 3.49/154.  Rejected by Univesity of Minnesota.
http://www.lawschoolnumbers.com/display.php?cycle=0405&user=Mediocrity01

Applicant #2: Mexican/Filipino, 3.3/154.  Rejected by University of Minnesota.
http://www.lawschoolnumbers.com/display.php?cycle=0405&user=stash

Applicant #3: Black female, 3.6/152.  Rejected by University of Minnesota.
http://www.lawschoolnumbers.com/display.php?cycle=0405&user=Patricka99

Applicant #4: Black male, 3.09/152, tons of significant extracurricular/work experience.  Rejected by University of Minnesota.
http://www.lawschoolnumbers.com/display.php?cycle=0405&user=gregfields77

The lowest acceptance of a URM according to the U of M index number is this applicant:
Hispanic male, 3.51/159
http://www.lawschoolnumbers.com/display.php?cycle=0405&user=lisag

Your Latina 146 acceptance didn't happen to be a pulizer prize winning author, did she? 


180. Prolly was a Pulitzer or Nobel Prize winner
(http://img347.imageshack.us/img347/7577/misc168ep.jpg)
Title: Re: Affirmative action = bullsh*t
Post by: ImVinny! on July 27, 2005, 08:20:12 AM
No it's not. Why are you so bent on trying to prove that I am lying about everything I talk about? Makes no sense to me, maybe you are just jealous because you are not getting as much a boost as she did?
Title: Re: Affirmative action = bullsh*t
Post by: InVinoVeritas on July 27, 2005, 10:03:22 AM
vinny, you do realize why people have a very hard time believing what you say.  you can shout at the top of your lungs for weeks on end, but when the available evidence proves contrary to your assertions, you're just kind of SOL.
Title: Re: Affirmative action = bullsh*t
Post by: dbgirl on July 27, 2005, 10:51:53 AM
I think we're all jealous of your pretend Latina friend Vinny   ;)
She must be the luckiest chick alive - oh wait, she's a URM same thing. If I had only known that, I would have soooo applied to Yale.
Title: Re: Affirmative action = bullsh*t
Post by: ImVinny! on July 27, 2005, 01:14:40 PM
Fine, maybe she is an EXCEPTION to everything, but I was just stating that to show that sometimes AA does give lots of points.
Title: Re: Affirmative action = bullsh*t
Post by: TrojanChispas on July 27, 2005, 06:40:37 PM
Fine, maybe she is an EXCEPTION to everything, but I was just stating that to show that sometimes AA does give lots of points.
And that is just why your example is irrelevant. Even if you are telling the truth  ::), which I doubt, it doesnt matter because:
a. she's the exception, URM or not
b. it may be a coincidence that she is a URM
c. she most likely had many other things going for her besides her URM status
d. a law school would not let someone in their school if they did not believe that person would succeed


Why are you often making unwarranted assumptions and non sequiter aruguments?  Do you know that you are doing that, or is it on purpose?

HTH
Title: Re: Affirmative action = bullsh*t
Post by: Intuition on July 27, 2005, 10:09:23 PM
Quote
It's a policy implemented not by the government, but by individual law schools faced with a decision between two admittedly regrettable possibilities: one, accept somewhat less qualified minority applicants, or two, have a class which is disproportionately white.

Can someone explain what it means to say, "disproportionately white"?
Title: Re: Affirmative action = bullsh*t
Post by: TrojanChispas on July 27, 2005, 10:15:12 PM
say the class is 99 percent white but the surrounding population is 70 percent white... that is an over representation of white people in the class
Title: Re: Affirmative action = bullsh*t
Post by: Intuition on July 27, 2005, 10:22:41 PM
say the class is 99 percent white but the surrounding population is 70 percent white... that is an over representation of white people in the class

What do you mean by surrounding population? Geographic location? If so, what about national law schools who pull from a much more diverse group of people in general? Should they be held to a different standard of diversity? Shouldn't we restrict the idea of proportionality (if we agree to use it as a standard) to a more relevant population than just the general population?
Title: Re: Affirmative action = bullsh*t
Post by: TrojanChispas on July 27, 2005, 10:29:15 PM
I am not going to get into this red herring argument so Ill just state my intractible views and leave it at that:  Nothing personal, but white people are significantly over represented at law schools nationally and in the legal profession... um add the wealthy upper class, home owners, docters, politicians, and most positions of power or influence.

HTH
Title: Re: Affirmative action = bullsh*t
Post by: Intuition on July 27, 2005, 11:09:49 PM
I am not going to get into this red herring argument so Ill just state my intractible views and leave it at that:  Nothing personal, but white people are significantly over represented at law schools nationally and in the legal profession... um add the wealthy upper class, home owners, docters, politicians, and most positions of power or influence.

HTH

Sorry for the apparent attempt to draw the conversation away from the central issue. I've learned that to get people to see my point of view, walking them through a thought process is usually very effective. Definitely not taking anything personal here. I think we simply disagree on one foundational aspect of your position. It seems you assume that it is goal-worthy to achieve proportional representation (and it sounds like you are referring to the general population to determine what is to be considered proportionate) in every aspect of society. I disagree with this proposition. Every person should have an equal opportunity to pursue any path they choose in life. But equal opportunity will never equate to equal (or proportionate) achievement. And I'm not sure there is a good reason we should make it policy to enforce an unnatural state on any system.

If you wanted me to give proportionate representation increased merit, narrow your parameters to a more relevant population than the general population. What are the demographic breakdowns (racially speaking) for LS applicants? What are those same demographic breakdowns for enrollees? It may still be noticeably disproportionate. But I can't give proportionality much merit until we make it relevant to the population in question somehow.
Title: Re: Affirmative action = bullsh*t
Post by: Intuition on July 27, 2005, 11:22:21 PM
say the class is 99 percent white but the surrounding population is 70 percent white... that is an over representation of white people in the class

What do you mean by surrounding population? Geographic location? If so, what about national law schools who pull from a much more diverse group of people in general? Should they be held to a different standard of diversity? Shouldn't we restrict the idea of proportionality (if we agree to use it as a standard) to a more relevant population than just the general population?

I don't know about population, but there has been some debate about overrepresenation based on application numbers. I believe the term is 'excess whiteness.' If only 70% of applicants are white but 95% of admitted students are white, then there may be some cause for concern. I can't remember but I think the worst cases are at law schools in Minnesota, Texas, and Kentucky.


Does anyone know if this overrepresentation exists among those applicants with the same index?
Title: Re: Affirmative action = bullsh*t
Post by: dbgirl on July 27, 2005, 11:51:42 PM
Hehe ... I think the term "excessive whiteness" sounds like a disease.
Title: Re: Affirmative action = bullsh*t
Post by: satyadaimoku on July 28, 2005, 12:11:27 AM
"Does anyone know if this overrepresentation exists among those applicants with the same index?"

That's obviously not the point.  I don't think anyone here would question that, amoung applicants with the same index, URMs have an advantage.  That's what Affirmative Action means.  The question is, given the immense inequality that exists between the races in America, given the variety of forms of discrimination faced by minorities in all sorts of ways, and given the critical importance of having a diverse bar and a legal system that reflects the voices of all Americans, is this advantage fair to the individual?  And, more importantly, is it best for the country as a whole?  I believe the answer to both questions is yes. 

Is proportional minority representation in every aspect of American society critical?  Maybe not.  Is it critical for the law?  Absolutely.  Again, the sanctity of the law is located in its ability to reflect the values the population as a whole.  If some of those voices are silenced because of the continued presence of discrimination in our society, that raises serious questions about the legitimacy of our legal system to protect and defend the rights of minorities.

[by the way, I realize this was written in response to a different poster, but I take umbridge with the comment "It seems you assume that it is goal-worthy to achieve proportional representation".  3peat was elaborating on my post, and I haven't assumed anything.  I stated my reasons for believing it is goal-worthy to achieve proporational representation from the beginning.  Perhaps you don't like my reasons, or didn't read back enough in the thread to see them.  But that does not mean that I have not stated them.  I'm guessing, given your tone, that you do not think it is goal-worthy to achieve anything resembling racial equality in this country.  I find that, to put it bluntly, offensive.  Minorities in this country have never had anything approaching equal oppertunity or equal outcome.  They continue not to have either.  Achieving racial balance is the most important social project in American history, and it continues to be the most important social problem in America today.  And if you think there is anything close to equal oppertunity in America, try stepping into an inner city classroom sometime].
Title: Re: Affirmative action = bullsh*t
Post by: ImVinny! on July 28, 2005, 06:42:18 AM
Excessive whiteness would be the disease that Michael Jackson is suffering from, hehe.
Title: Re: Affirmative action = bullsh*t
Post by: Intuition on July 28, 2005, 05:03:01 PM
"Does anyone know if this overrepresentation exists among those applicants with the same index?"

That's obviously not the point.  I don't think anyone here would question that, amoung applicants with the same index, URMs have an advantage.  That's what Affirmative Action means.  The question is, given the immense inequality that exists between the races in America, given the variety of forms of discrimination faced by minorities in all sorts of ways, and given the critical importance of having a diverse bar and a legal system that reflects the voices of all Americans, is this advantage fair to the individual?  And, more importantly, is it best for the country as a whole?  I believe the answer to both questions is yes. 

Is proportional minority representation in every aspect of American society critical?  Maybe not.  Is it critical for the law?  Absolutely.  Again, the sanctity of the law is located in its ability to reflect the values the population as a whole.  If some of those voices are silenced because of the continued presence of discrimination in our society, that raises serious questions about the legitimacy of our legal system to protect and defend the rights of minorities.

[by the way, I realize this was written in response to a different poster, but I take umbridge with the comment "It seems you assume that it is goal-worthy to achieve proportional representation".  3peat was elaborating on my post, and I haven't assumed anything.  I stated my reasons for believing it is goal-worthy to achieve proporational representation from the beginning.  Perhaps you don't like my reasons, or didn't read back enough in the thread to see them.  But that does not mean that I have not stated them.  I'm guessing, given your tone, that you do not think it is goal-worthy to achieve anything resembling racial equality in this country.  I find that, to put it bluntly, offensive.  Minorities in this country have never had anything approaching equal oppertunity or equal outcome.  They continue not to have either.  Achieving racial balance is the most important social project in American history, and it continues to be the most important social problem in America today.  And if you think there is anything close to equal oppertunity in America, try stepping into an inner city classroom sometime].


1. I agree it isn't very helpful to look at current acceptance rates within specific index numbers or ranges due to the effects of AA. I apologize for being unclear. I do think, however, that if we were to analyze the same numbers prior to the institution of AA, it may help us to learn if there was a bias within the admissions process itself. I'm not saying either way and I have no expectations of the outcome of that analysis. I simply don't know.

2. Please do not take me the wrong way. I firmly believe in the right that every person in this country has to pursue their goals. I am just a very inquisitive person. I rarely, if ever, accept anything at face value. I understand this seems to be an insult, but I can't let myself believe in anything that I can't rationally justify. In order for me to justify any belief there are going to be many questions that arise in my mind that are foundational to the issue.

3. I apologize if I missed your initial explanation of your position. I will scroll through all the pages and see what I find. Obviously, if I did miss such an explanation, then I have done a disservice to the debate.

4. I understand your justification of proportional representation within the legal profession. It makes sense that, given the racism that does exist in some respects, proportional representation would be important for minority groups. Should we have AA throughout the legal profession? Should we give URMs a bump on the bar exam? Should we have AA for judges? How about Congressman or Senators (after all, they craft the law)? I'm not trying to be offensive or rude. I'm trying to understand the limits of your vision. Maybe I've missed this as well, I am going back right now to look over the thread to see any posts of yours that I missed.

Title: Re: Affirmative action = bullsh*t
Post by: dbgirl on July 28, 2005, 05:15:29 PM
Intution, AA is about giving people opportunities, what they do with those opportunities is up to them.
As for giving AA on the bar -- isn't it a pass/fail? You either get it or you don't. We don't have a pass/fail LSAT exam.

I do think more law firms and government entities should seek qualified minority attorneys. And I think promotions should be based upon performance.

Perhaps the legal landscape is changing, but white men still dominate the legal field from entry level up to judgeships.
In the courthouse I work in, I can go weeks without seeing a black attorney -- and I see dozens of attorneys every day.
And nearly every single judge in this county is a white man. To be fair, we do have two white female judges.

Title: Re: Affirmative action = bullsh*t
Post by: Intuition on July 28, 2005, 05:49:32 PM
Intution, AA is about giving people opportunities, what they do with those opportunities is up to them.
As for giving AA on the bar -- isn't it a pass/fail? You either get it or you don't. We don't have a pass/fail LSAT exam.


It is pass/fail. Shouldn't we give URMs a little leeway though? Say if they score within 5 percentage points then they pass. Is that radically different than AA admissions policies? I'm not sure.

Again, I understand the need for representation of the diverse ideas/values present in America. I'm a little concerned by the thought that only black people can represent the values of black people and only white people can represent the values of white people (and no one else). What about a guy like me? I don't really believe in beliefs. I look at every situation, evaluate what I see while trying to learn as much as possible given the circumstances and then make a decision.

If we take that in-depth look at AA, can we prove that it's the most effective policy to increase the representation of URMs in the legal profession?
Title: Re: Affirmative action = bullsh*t
Post by: Intuition on July 28, 2005, 06:13:53 PM
Quote
If the people who create, enforce and protect the law are not reflective of the whole community, but only of an increasingly small fraction of that community, that threatens the fundamental legitimacy of the law.

In looking back over the thread, I think I've found one of the most significant justifications offered for proportional representation within the legal profession. Can you outline what is required to make the law legitimate? There are rather varied definitions of the term "legitimate" and I want to be sure I understand your point of view. If proportional representation is fundamental to the legitimacy of the law, should we reject any and every law enacted prior to the achievement of such proportional representation?

I just want to make sure all thoughts are covered. As you mentioned earlier, this is a very difficult topic that is complicated. Complex problems deserve complex discussions and questions. Otherwise, we will never arrive at the best possible answer.
Title: Re: Affirmative action = bullsh*t
Post by: dbgirl on July 28, 2005, 06:54:40 PM
There is a difference, IMO, between a few points on the LSAT and coming "close" to passing the bar.

If I understand correctly, the bar is intended to measure your knowledge and understanding of the law in your state. The LSAT is intended to be a measure of your aptitude.

Title: Re: Affirmative action = bullsh*t
Post by: TrojanChispas on July 28, 2005, 06:58:08 PM
Intution, AA is about giving people opportunities, what they do with those opportunities is up to them.
As for giving AA on the bar -- isn't it a pass/fail? You either get it or you don't. We don't have a pass/fail LSAT exam.


It is pass/fail. Shouldn't we give URMs a little leeway though? Say if they score within 5 percentage points then they pass. Is that radically different than AA admissions policies? I'm not sure.

Again, I understand the need for representation of the diverse ideas/values present in America. I'm a little concerned by the thought that only black people can represent the values of black people and only white people can represent the values of white people (and no one else). What about a guy like me? I don't really believe in beliefs. I look at every situation, evaluate what I see while trying to learn as much as possible given the circumstances and then make a decision.

If we take that in-depth look at AA, can we prove that it's the most effective policy to increase the representation of URMs in the legal profession?
The bar is different from law school in that one if giving an opportunity to prove yourself and the other is the actual proof of what you did with that opportunity. 

You dont believe in beliefs??? OK, the cheese stands alone on that one.

Is AA the most effective policy to accomplish what it tries to accomplish?  I think that we can all agree that it is not the most effective way to accomplish it, but neither is the prison system and many other implementations.  BUT without offering a better solution, we cannot take it away. Most of us feel that better education early on would be a better solution, but that would take money and the rich dont want more of their tax dollars going to educate the poor.  sad but true.
Title: Re: Affirmative action = bullsh*t
Post by: Intuition on July 28, 2005, 07:14:47 PM
There is a difference, IMO, between a few points on the LSAT and coming "close" to passing the bar.

If I understand correctly, the bar is intended to measure your knowledge and understanding of the law in your state. The LSAT is intended to be a measure of your aptitude.



Is the bar anything more than a measure of your aptitude to practice law?
Title: Re: Affirmative action = bullsh*t
Post by: dbgirl on July 28, 2005, 07:20:25 PM
From what I understand, the bar is a measure of your knowledge.
I think the LSAT is supposed the be the measure of your aptitude to practice law.
Title: Re: Affirmative action = bullsh*t
Post by: Intuition on July 28, 2005, 07:24:56 PM
Intution, AA is about giving people opportunities, what they do with those opportunities is up to them.
As for giving AA on the bar -- isn't it a pass/fail? You either get it or you don't. We don't have a pass/fail LSAT exam.


It is pass/fail. Shouldn't we give URMs a little leeway though? Say if they score within 5 percentage points then they pass. Is that radically different than AA admissions policies? I'm not sure.

Again, I understand the need for representation of the diverse ideas/values present in America. I'm a little concerned by the thought that only black people can represent the values of black people and only white people can represent the values of white people (and no one else). What about a guy like me? I don't really believe in beliefs. I look at every situation, evaluate what I see while trying to learn as much as possible given the circumstances and then make a decision.

If we take that in-depth look at AA, can we prove that it's the most effective policy to increase the representation of URMs in the legal profession?
The bar is different from law school in that one if giving an opportunity to prove yourself and the other is the actual proof of what you did with that opportunity. 

You dont believe in beliefs??? OK, the cheese stands alone on that one.

Is AA the most effective policy to accomplish what it tries to accomplish?  I think that we can all agree that it is not the most effective way to accomplish it, but neither is the prison system and many other implementations.  BUT without offering a better solution, we cannot take it away. Most of us feel that better education early on would be a better solution, but that would take money and the rich dont want more of their tax dollars going to educate the poor.  sad but true.

Well, I think that at least to an extent the LSAT also measures what someone accomplished given the opportunity to learn (they obviously went to college and graduated).

I have no problem standing alone on the statement I made concerning beliefs. I like to say things like that from time to time to enliven the debate. But it's true, although it's not as outrageous as it sounds. Basically, what I mean is that I don't think any theoretical belief or value can effectively govern every given situation that arises in life. If a belief cannot effectively govern my choices, then I don't see a point in supporting it. I may support its goal, but not the belief itself. Like I said, I'd rather evaluate each situation as it arises.

I agree that we should devote more resources to early childhood education (read: ages 10 and younger). We can definitely find the offsets in our insane government to more than pay for the difference. But I also think the parents of such children can do at least a little more to contribute to their future potential success. I'm not talking about spending 5-6 hours a day with your kids. I understand that many people work 2 jobs, 20 hour days and so forth. What I mean is that when you do interact with your kids, it's gotta be a positive interaction. You have to help them to grow. Kids suck. They are annoying. They don't often understand what adults what them to do or why it matters. It's the responsibility of adults to impart that understanding to kids. When all you say to your kid is, "NO!", "Put that back" or, "Shut up", then I don't think your kid deserves URM status. This is my problem with the whole AA thing. Not all disproportionate representation can be reduced to race (I know class has been discussed at length in this thread). But I agree that it's difficult to  come up with a better solution as well.

My problem with advocates of AA is that some/many truly believe it is the one and only way minorities will ever close the gap in proportionate representation within fields like law. Take responsibility.
Title: Re: Affirmative action = bullsh*t
Post by: Intuition on July 28, 2005, 07:27:01 PM
From what I understand, the bar is a measure of your knowledge.
I think the LSAT is supposed the be the measure of your aptitude to practice law.

We could go round and round about the LSAT I'm sure, even outside the context of AA.  ;D ;D

But isn't the bar simply another standardized test that has been created by the majority without understanding the plight of the minority groups in this country?  ;)
Title: Re: Affirmative action = bullsh*t
Post by: angmill08 on July 28, 2005, 09:40:32 PM
When all you say to your kid is, "NO!", "Put that back" or, "Shut up", then I don't think your kid deserves URM status.

If that's all a parent says to their kid and the child still gets in the running for law school acceptance, then the child is probably an incredibly determined, self-motivated independent learner and if I were on an admissions committee, I'd admit them.

My problem with advocates of AA is that some/many truly believe it is the one and only way minorities will ever close the gap in proportionate representation within fields like law.

Which advocates of AA say this? Every public advocate of AA I can think of also advocates for education, anti-poverty, and community building programs to close this gap. Which AA advocates are you thinking of?
Title: Re: Affirmative action = bullsh*t
Post by: Intuition on July 28, 2005, 10:07:38 PM
1. I don't think the question of AA boils down to whether any single person would admit a URM due to their status. The question is should we create a policy to admit the person. That's a very different animal.

2. An advocate of education, anti-poverty or community building is advocating personal responsibility. Personal responsibility is the antithesis to AA. The two ideas are incompatible.
Title: Re: Affirmative action = bullsh*t
Post by: dbgirl on July 28, 2005, 11:05:58 PM
If two people start out in the same race, but one has five-pound weights around his ankles, the two are not on equal footing, so to speak. If the person with the weights around his ankles comes in a few minutes behind, does that make him less capbable than the person a few minutes ahead of him? Or did he just run a tougher race? Is the person with the weights around his ankles somehow less "responsible" (assuming he didn't choose to put the weights there?)
Title: Re: Affirmative action = bullsh*t
Post by: Intuition on July 28, 2005, 11:47:36 PM
If two people start out in the same race, but one has five-pound weights around his ankles, the two are not on equal footing, so to speak. If the person with the weights around his ankles comes in a few minutes behind, does that make him less capbable than the person a few minutes ahead of him? Or did he just run a tougher race? Is the person with the weights around his ankles somehow less "responsible" (assuming he didn't choose to put the weights there?)

Does he also lack the use of his hands? Does he have no way to take the weights off? How about reduce the weights? In the end, is it possible that the weights make him stronger, meaning he actually may come out ahead?
Title: Re: Affirmative action = bullsh*t
Post by: dbgirl on July 28, 2005, 11:52:39 PM
Intuition, why do I get the feeling that you did not have a disadvantaged background?

Title: Re: Affirmative action = bullsh*t
Post by: Intuition on July 28, 2005, 11:58:11 PM
Intuition, why do I get the feeling that you did not have a disadvantaged background?



I honestly don't know. Can you accept the fact that some folks from a disadvantaged background don't agree with AA policies in any way, shape or form?

I've had plenty of disadvantages in life.
Title: Re: Affirmative action = bullsh*t
Post by: dbgirl on July 29, 2005, 12:05:28 AM
It doesn't sound to me as if you're speaking from experience.
It sounds to me as if you are making theoretical arguments.

I'm all for pulling yourself up by the bootstraps and I don't think anyone should wallow in self-pity. I also know that not everyone begins in the same place and accomplishing what may seem simple for one person may be difficult for another person because of the obstacles that second person had to overcome.

Title: Re: Affirmative action = bullsh*t
Post by: Intuition on July 29, 2005, 12:12:44 AM
It doesn't sound to me as if you're speaking from experience.
It sounds to me as if you are making theoretical arguments.

I'm all for pulling yourself up by the bootstraps and I don't think anyone should wallow in self-pity. I also know that not everyone begins in the same place and accomplishing what may seem simple for one person may be difficult for another person because of the obstacles that second person had to overcome.



Do ideas lack value if they are supported with theoretical arguments rather than personal experience? I'm not discounting the value of experience in any way. It's one of the few things that is inherently valuable in life (along with logical truth and existence, off the top of my head).

It's not only up to that person, either. At this point, don't we know enough about education and learning for nearly everyone to have the opportunity to ensure their kids aren't left behind by the kids who can already read when they enter Kindergarten?

I guess our main difference comes down to the fact that I have ultimate trust and respect for the individual.
Title: Re: Affirmative action = bullsh*t
Post by: dbgirl on July 29, 2005, 12:18:18 AM
So, by recognizing that not everyone has good parents, a good education and an otherwise relatively easy life, I don't respect "the individual?"
Title: Re: Affirmative action = bullsh*t
Post by: angmill08 on July 29, 2005, 01:18:38 PM
2. An advocate of education, anti-poverty or community building is advocating personal responsibility. Personal responsibility is the antithesis to AA. The two ideas are incompatible.

But Democratic politicians like Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama and Maxine Waters are AA supporters who also advocate for Headstart programs, increased funding for education, and anti-poverty programs.

My solution to "closing the gap in proportionate representation" involves increasing educational opportunities in poor communities. Pre-school, after school, tutoring programs, sports and art programs, adult education in parenting skills and money management. I cannot think of one public AA supporter who doesn't also advocate for these kinds of programs. Can you?
Title: Re: Affirmative action = bullsh*t
Post by: ImVinny! on July 29, 2005, 02:11:06 PM
It doesn't sound to me as if you're speaking from experience.
It sounds to me as if you are making theoretical arguments.

I'm all for pulling yourself up by the bootstraps and I don't think anyone should wallow in self-pity. I also know that not everyone begins in the same place and accomplishing what may seem simple for one person may be difficult for another person because of the obstacles that second person had to overcome.



Have you ever thought that in some cases the person is adding thier own weights?
Title: Re: Affirmative action = bullsh*t
Post by: Intuition on July 29, 2005, 02:50:29 PM
So, by recognizing that not everyone has good parents, a good education and an otherwise relatively easy life, I don't respect "the individual?"


Well, you don't seem to respect those who do have good parents, a good education and an otherwise relatively easy life by saying they have to sit down while someone who has achieved less finally "gets their chance".
Title: Re: Affirmative action = bullsh*t
Post by: dbgirl on July 29, 2005, 04:36:45 PM
Yeah, priviledged people are really suffering.
All the poor minorities are taking over the world!
Title: Re: Affirmative action = bullsh*t
Post by: ThePerfectSoldier on July 29, 2005, 05:30:20 PM
They have to sit down?  There are plenty of opportunities for plenty of jobs, scholarships, and universities - you can't tell me that AA makes it so diffucult for priviledged whites to succeed.  Keep it real - a hell of a lot of priviledged white people find a way to get scholarships, get into college, and get jobs.  If you can't, then you're not good enough, period.  Don't go looking for a black or Latino person to play scapegoat with.
Title: Re: Affirmative action = bullsh*t
Post by: TrojanChispas on August 01, 2005, 01:51:39 AM
It doesn't sound to me as if you're speaking from experience.
It sounds to me as if you are making theoretical arguments.

I'm all for pulling yourself up by the bootstraps and I don't think anyone should wallow in self-pity. I also know that not everyone begins in the same place and accomplishing what may seem simple for one person may be difficult for another person because of the obstacles that second person had to overcome.



Have you ever thought that in some cases the person is adding thier own weights?


Another homer by Vinny!  Really knocked it out of the park it that one; great analysis.  Yeah, I guess people do ask to be discriminated against, born poor, have crappy parents, et al.  What a bunch of losers ::)

(http://img286.imageshack.us/img286/5422/cup3sg.jpg)
Title: Re: Affirmative action = bullsh*t
Post by: TrojanChispas on August 01, 2005, 01:58:36 AM
So, by recognizing that not everyone has good parents, a good education and an otherwise relatively easy life, I don't respect "the individual?"


Well, you don't seem to respect those who do have good parents, a good education and an otherwise relatively easy life by saying they have to sit down while someone who has achieved less finally "gets their chance".

Dont you know that we live in a capitalist society in which the ammount of money determines the ammount of justice, health care, and education you can receive?

How much of a boost is it to be born into a good neighborhood and family?  Doesnt it seem at least plausible that it could equate to a few index points?  What is the great injustice for a person that gets every advantage in life up till law school and then gives an almost negligible advantage to a small, very small number of selected individuals; individuals that are the first in their family to go to college, or come from groups that have been historically discriminated against?  Doesnt the person in a middle/upper class family have LARGE ADVANTAGE their whole life leading up to this one point?

GET A GRIP AND LET THE LESS FORTUNATE HAVE SOMETHING FOR ONCE.
Title: Re: Affirmative action = bullsh*t
Post by: angmill08 on August 01, 2005, 12:00:33 PM
If we are really going to give the less fortunate a chance, then perhaps socioeconomic factors, that impact everyone regardless of race, have to become an elment, if not the guiding principle, of AA decisions.   

They are an element. Most people on this board have agreed that they should be a larger element as well.
Title: Re: Affirmative action = bullsh*t
Post by: ImVinny! on August 01, 2005, 02:30:14 PM
It doesn't sound to me as if you're speaking from experience.
It sounds to me as if you are making theoretical arguments.

I'm all for pulling yourself up by the bootstraps and I don't think anyone should wallow in self-pity. I also know that not everyone begins in the same place and accomplishing what may seem simple for one person may be difficult for another person because of the obstacles that second person had to overcome.



Have you ever thought that in some cases the person is adding thier own weights?


Another homer by Vinny!  Really knocked it out of the park it that one; great analysis.  Yeah, I guess people do ask to be discriminated against, born poor, have crappy parents, et al.  What a bunch of losers ::)

(http://img286.imageshack.us/img286/5422/cup3sg.jpg)

That is not what I was saying, you are now just looking for ways to twist the things that I say. I meant that some people that are born poor don't even try to pull themselves up, they have the CHOICE to do drgs or not and choose to, same with rich kids, they have the choice as well, and some of them choose to do the drugs and end up having a garbage life. People are responsible for their own actions no matter what their background is.
Title: Re: Affirmative action = bullsh*t
Post by: dbgirl on August 01, 2005, 09:52:33 PM
Yes, that's exactly what I was talking about Vinny ... people on drugs. Yes, law school should admit more people who are on drugs.

WTF?
Title: Re: Affirmative action = bullsh*t
Post by: TrojanChispas on August 01, 2005, 10:14:52 PM
Vinny=Garkunkle=FTT (Fourth Tier Toilet)

HTH
Title: Re: Affirmative action = bullsh*t
Post by: ImVinny! on August 02, 2005, 09:32:25 AM
Yet again, I did not say what you are assuming that I said. And stop calling me other peoples' names, 3peat youare a very annoying character. Just because people differ in opinion then you doesn't give you the right to lash out at them.

I am saying that no matter what position in lifeyou are, you have choices and you can choose to succeed or you can choose to thrown everything away. It's a CHOICE, as you dems are so apt to employ with everything else.
Title: Re: Affirmative action = bullsh*t
Post by: dbgirl on August 02, 2005, 09:44:51 AM
And just how many people who "choose" to throw their lives away are going to law school Vinny?
I'd guess that most drug addicts -- as you seem to be fond of using an example -- are preoccupied with things other than the LSAT.
Title: Re: Affirmative action = bullsh*t
Post by: dbgirl on August 02, 2005, 09:46:22 AM
Hmmm .. I wonder if addicts get to take the accomodated LSAT?
Do you think meth addiction would give me an edge in the admissions process?
Title: Re: Affirmative action = bullsh*t
Post by: dbgirl on August 02, 2005, 09:47:24 AM
What about scholarships for druggies? I'm thinking addicts need more money because drugs can eat up a lot of income.
Title: Re: Affirmative action = bullsh*t
Post by: LegalLassie on August 02, 2005, 10:28:01 AM
Hmmm .. I wonder if addicts get to take the accomodated LSAT?
Do you think meth addiction would give me an edge in the admissions process?

Meth helps speed on the LSAT.  Though, I think it hurts accuracy.  ;)  Ditto the Bar Exam.
Title: Re: Affirmative action = bullsh*t
Post by: ImVinny! on August 02, 2005, 01:50:52 PM
Hey, people on meth get money from the gov so they can take methadone (sp?) to get rid of addiction, but it ends up being thier next addiction, in fact the gov started requiring them to take it in front og them in the clinic otherwise they sell it on the street.

I am saying that people can also choose to mess up their life. I am not talking ONLY about law school applicants, I am talking about humans on the whole. But who cares, you just want to argue now anyways. So forget it.
Title: Re: Affirmative action = bullsh*t
Post by: dbgirl on August 02, 2005, 01:57:50 PM
I don't think methadone is prescribed to methamphetamine addicts.
I think that's for heroin addicts. But methadone is also prescribed for chronic pain.

Vinny, you're the one who is taking this debate or argument or whatever it is off topic.
Title: Re: Affirmative action = bullsh*t
Post by: ImVinny! on August 02, 2005, 02:02:40 PM
SO ...
back to affirmative action. The whole idea is not just at all.
Title: Re: Affirmative action = bullsh*t
Post by: Nemesis on August 02, 2005, 02:49:21 PM
SO ...
back to affirmative action. The whole idea is not just at all.

Well, bad things happen to good people you know? You should just pull yourself up by the bootstraps and not let it get to you ;)
Title: Re: Affirmative action = bullsh*t
Post by: Intuition on August 02, 2005, 03:36:31 PM
They have to sit down?  There are plenty of opportunities for plenty of jobs, scholarships, and universities - you can't tell me that AA makes it so diffucult for priviledged whites to succeed.  Keep it real - a hell of a lot of priviledged white people find a way to get scholarships, get into college, and get jobs.  If you can't, then you're not good enough, period.  Don't go looking for a black or Latino person to play scapegoat with.

Yes, they have to sit down. Oh I'm sorry, you tried to answer your own question there, but you missed the point entirely. What do those bleeding heart folks always say? It'd be better to let 100 guilty people walk free than to incacerate just ONE innocent person? Something like that, right? I haven't read the handbook lately. The whole idea is to be fair and equal and I'm saying that it's impossible to make up for any past injustice or inequality. There's just no equitable way to do it.

I'm not playing scapegoat. I will never blame any other person for something that happens in my life. I have yet to be convinced that free will exists, so how can I ever hold a person responsible?! It's simply illogical.
Title: Re: Affirmative action = bullsh*t
Post by: Intuition on August 02, 2005, 03:39:01 PM
So, by recognizing that not everyone has good parents, a good education and an otherwise relatively easy life, I don't respect "the individual?"


Well, you don't seem to respect those who do have good parents, a good education and an otherwise relatively easy life by saying they have to sit down while someone who has achieved less finally "gets their chance".

Dont you know that we live in a capitalist society in which the ammount of money determines the ammount of justice, health care, and education you can receive?

How much of a boost is it to be born into a good neighborhood and family?  Doesnt it seem at least plausible that it could equate to a few index points?  What is the great injustice for a person that gets every advantage in life up till law school and then gives an almost negligible advantage to a small, very small number of selected individuals; individuals that are the first in their family to go to college, or come from groups that have been historically discriminated against?  Doesnt the person in a middle/upper class family have LARGE ADVANTAGE their whole life leading up to this one point?

GET A GRIP AND LET THE LESS FORTUNATE HAVE SOMETHING FOR ONCE.

My problem with the idea of AA is that neither the ORM nor the URM chose to be put into their position. Why should either suffer the consequences of a lack of diversity within the Law? Oh wait, that's right, because apparently only the minority can represent the views of the minority and the majority can only represent the views of the majority. I apologize profusely, but I can't agree to that position.
Title: Re: Affirmative action = bullsh*t
Post by: ImVinny! on August 03, 2005, 08:17:47 AM
You really don't believe in the idea of Free Will?
Title: Re: Affirmative action = bullsh*t
Post by: TrojanChispas on August 03, 2005, 01:04:26 PM
We do, but we also believe that if you are born into a crappy situation and manage to make it to law school as a competitive student then that should mitigate, at least slightly, a lower gpa or lsat.
Title: Re: Affirmative action = bullsh*t
Post by: ImVinny! on August 03, 2005, 01:05:53 PM
That was directed at intuition.
Title: Re: Affirmative action = bullsh*t
Post by: satyadaimoku on August 03, 2005, 01:07:49 PM
"I have yet to be convinced that free will exists, so how can I ever hold a person responsible?! It's simply illogical."

...you are just *dying* for someone to respond "what do you mean you can't hold someone responsible in a deterministic universe?  Actually, the idea that all actions have a cause is fundamental to the idea of responsibility.  If a person's actions are random or un-'caused', we would never hold them responsible.  Therefore...", and so on, and so on.  Your posts personify the word "sophistry"; analytic word games increasingly detached from any meaning in the real world.  Amazingly enough, some of us aren't engaging in this argument to see who can win a little logic game.  Some of us are engaging in it because we care about justice, equality and creating a fair society (and using fairly common-sense assumptions about what those words all mean).  Perhaps I am misinterpreting you.  Perhaps this is really the only way that you've found of trying to understand complex arguments is to break them down into extremely simple analytical steps.  However, I think you will find that most people aren't particularly interested in taking that little trip with you into the realm of abstraction.  And I think they are generally justified in that, while taking that jaunt can occasionally reveal faulty thinking, it also can destroy important social truths.  Racial inequality causes real pain and real division in our country. Dealing with AA in such an abstract way is just not helpful.

Title: Re: Affirmative action = bullsh*t
Post by: ImVinny! on August 03, 2005, 01:18:51 PM
And this is why you are obviously not a student of philosophy. Des Cartes may have taken the sophist view, but there was good to be made from what he said. Just by inching along hte arguments can you only find what is truely the cause of something or the solution at that.

I was not meaning to start some pointless logical argument. I really wanted to know why that person does not believe the free will exists. It was merely and inquisition on my part into Intuition's thinking.
Title: Re: Affirmative action = bullsh*t
Post by: satyadaimoku on August 03, 2005, 01:56:23 PM
And this is why you are obviously not a student of philosophy. Des Cartes may have taken the sophist view, but there was good to be made from what he said. Just by inching along hte arguments can you only find what is truely the cause of something or the solution at that.

No, it is why I am obviously not a student of lame, outdated philosophers like Descartes and their uninteresting semantic problems and answers.  If you want to start a conversation about free will or Descartes, feel free to do so on another topic.  But this thread's topic is Affirmative Action.
Title: Re: Affirmative action = bullsh*t
Post by: ImVinny! on August 03, 2005, 02:24:05 PM
You are calling DesCartes lame? Just because you may not agree with him doesn't mean that is evidence to call him lame.
He is well respected and you should know better than to disrespect him like that. It's all right to disagree, but stop the name calling already!
Title: Re: Affirmative action = bullsh*t
Post by: Intuition on August 03, 2005, 04:18:29 PM
You really don't believe in the idea of Free Will?

I have yet to be convinced of it, so no, I don't believe that humans have free will. It certainly *feels* like I have free will, but that is not enough to convince me to support the claim. It's a very difficult issue.
Title: Re: Affirmative action = bullsh*t
Post by: Intuition on August 03, 2005, 04:26:54 PM
"I have yet to be convinced that free will exists, so how can I ever hold a person responsible?! It's simply illogical."

...you are just *dying* for someone to respond "what do you mean you can't hold someone responsible in a deterministic universe?  Actually, the idea that all actions have a cause is fundamental to the idea of responsibility.  If a person's actions are random or un-'caused', we would never hold them responsible.  Therefore...", and so on, and so on.  Your posts personify the word "sophistry"; analytic word games increasingly detached from any meaning in the real world.  Amazingly enough, some of us aren't engaging in this argument to see who can win a little logic game... Dealing with AA in such an abstract way is just not helpful.



Yes, I understand that causes are fundamental to personal responsibility. My problem is that I have yet to see how a cause can be created *out of thin air* by a person and then act on the physical world.

I'm not trying to play a little logic game, I'm sorry if it has come off that way. I realize that this is a debate which is very personal to some and that deep rooted feelings are intertwined into any conversation concerning AA. I, personally, choose to focus my arguments on logic because it makes the most sense to me. I have never found focusing on emotion to be a reliable way of convincing someone of my point of view (especially when they already hold a passionate stance themselves).

Title: Re: Affirmative action = bullsh*t
Post by: Intuition on August 03, 2005, 04:28:32 PM
And this is why you are obviously not a student of philosophy. Des Cartes may have taken the sophist view, but there was good to be made from what he said. Just by inching along hte arguments can you only find what is truely the cause of something or the solution at that.

No, it is why I am obviously not a student of lame, outdated philosophers like Descartes and their uninteresting semantic problems and answers.  If you want to start a conversation about free will or Descartes, feel free to do so on another topic.  But this thread's topic is Affirmative Action.

How will we ever have a meaningful debate if we aren't clear on the terms being used? I think we'd be in great danger of simply talking past one another due to our ignorance of the positions being held. Maybe I'm in the minority but I think the definitions of words are immensely important. I can't simply assume I know what you mean.
Title: Re: Affirmative action = bullsh*t
Post by: angmill08 on August 03, 2005, 09:24:31 PM
You are calling DesCartes lame? Just because you may not agree with him doesn't mean that is evidence to call him lame.
He is well respected and you should know better than to disrespect him like that. It's all right to disagree, but stop the name calling already!

And you should know that his last name was Descartes, not DesCartes.
Title: Re: Affirmative action = bullsh*t
Post by: ImVinny! on August 04, 2005, 07:20:40 AM
And this is why you are obviously not a student of philosophy. Des Cartes may have taken the sophist view, but there was good to be made from what he said. Just by inching along hte arguments can you only find what is truely the cause of something or the solution at that.

No, it is why I am obviously not a student of lame, outdated philosophers like Descartes and their uninteresting semantic problems and answers.  If you want to start a conversation about free will or Descartes, feel free to do so on another topic.  But this thread's topic is Affirmative Action.

How will we ever have a meaningful debate if we aren't clear on the terms being used? I think we'd be in great danger of simply talking past one another due to our ignorance of the positions being held. Maybe I'm in the minority but I think the definitions of words are immensely important. I can't simply assume I know what you mean.

You make very good sense here, itis important to understand the definition that people are using of certain words in context of the rest of their ideas.
I think a lot of things would be cleared up in life if people just "understood" what others were really talking about, kinda like a linking of minds or something.
This is starting to remind me of the Problem of Other Minds ;)
Title: Re: Affirmative action = bullsh*t
Post by: Intuition on August 04, 2005, 03:24:54 PM
You are calling DesCartes lame? Just because you may not agree with him doesn't mean that is evidence to call him lame.
He is well respected and you should know better than to disrespect him like that. It's all right to disagree, but stop the name calling already!

And you should know that his last name was Descartes, not DesCartes.

Yes, and about 99.9% of people mispronounce Berkeley (EDIT: The city. I assume most folks know how to pronounce the philosopher's name).

Title: Re: Affirmative action = bullsh*t
Post by: TrojanChispas on August 04, 2005, 06:05:49 PM
berkeley  = Berk*lee  people don't pronounce it this way?
Title: Re: Affirmative action = bullsh*t
Post by: Intuition on August 04, 2005, 07:04:33 PM
berkeley  = Berk*lee  people don't pronounce it this way?

Do you know where Berkeley, CA got its name?
Title: Re: Affirmative action = bullsh*t
Post by: Intuition on August 04, 2005, 07:15:43 PM
berkeley  = Berk*lee  people don't pronounce it this way?

Do you know where Berkeley, CA got its name?

It was named after George Berkeley (bark-lee). The current pronunciation is an insult to a great philosopher.
Title: Re: Affirmative action = bullsh*t
Post by: TrojanChispas on August 04, 2005, 07:30:41 PM
how do you know it was bark and not berk?
Title: Re: Affirmative action = bullsh*t
Post by: Intuition on August 04, 2005, 07:36:20 PM
how do you know it was bark and not berk?

From Wikipedia:

George Berkeley (bark-lee) (March 12, 1685 – January 14, 1753), also known as Bishop Berkeley, was an influential Irish philosopher whose primary philosophical achievement is the advancement of what has come to be called subjective idealism, summed up in his dictum, "Esse est percipi" ("To be is to be perceived").

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bishop_Berkeley

Title: Re: Affirmative action = bullsh*t
Post by: TrojanChispas on August 04, 2005, 07:47:52 PM
but how do they know?
Title: Re: Affirmative action = bullsh*t
Post by: Intuition on August 05, 2005, 02:57:25 PM
but how do they know?

Wikipedia knows all!

But seriously, the accepted pronunciation is "bark-lee". I had professors who wouldn't respond to students who pronounced it "berk-lee".
Title: Re: Affirmative action = bullsh*t
Post by: TrojanChispas on August 05, 2005, 03:18:39 PM
if 99.9% of the people say berk then who should be forced to comform?  Just because it was Mr. Berkeley's name means he knew how to pronounce it? ;)
Title: Re: Affirmative action = bullsh*t
Post by: Intuition on August 05, 2005, 03:32:07 PM
if 99.9% of the people say berk then who should be forced to comform?  Just because it was Mr. Berkeley's name means he knew how to pronounce it? ;)

Ahh, the power of the ignorant masses. You just gotta love'em don't you?  :D

Point taken though.
Title: Re: Affirmative action = bullsh*t
Post by: ImVinny! on August 09, 2005, 07:16:11 AM
if 99.9% of the people say berk then who should be forced to comform?  Just because it was Mr. Berkeley's name means he knew how to pronounce it? ;)

Interesting reply. You know that you are being a hippocrite, right? I believe that most people thought slavery was all right, but it apparently was not. You do not seriously think that majority rules ALL the time, not do you?
Title: Re: Affirmative action = bullsh*t
Post by: ImVinny! on August 09, 2005, 02:16:52 PM
I see you are avoiding my question, figures...
Title: Re: Affirmative action = bullsh*t
Post by: TrojanChispas on August 14, 2005, 05:45:25 PM
if 99.9% of the people say berk then who should be forced to comform?  Just because it was Mr. Berkeley's name means he knew how to pronounce it? ;)

Interesting reply. You know that you are being a hippocrite, right? I believe that most people thought slavery was all right, but it apparently was not. You do not seriously think that majority rules ALL the time, not do you?
this is why people think you are a troll.  you use fake arguments to stir up shite.  watch closely son:

most people thinking that slavery was ok =/= 99.9% of the people

AND

disagreement over slavery =/= disagreement over pronunciation

they are not in the same category or on the same scale of importance.  Pronunciation is determined by the population speaking it and does not infringe on civil rights.  Pronunciation can change depending on place and time, but slavery was ALWAYS wrong

HTH
Title: Re: Affirmative action = bullsh*t
Post by: Intuition on August 14, 2005, 06:10:30 PM
if 99.9% of the people say berk then who should be forced to comform?  Just because it was Mr. Berkeley's name means he knew how to pronounce it? ;)

Interesting reply. You know that you are being a hippocrite, right? I believe that most people thought slavery was all right, but it apparently was not. You do not seriously think that majority rules ALL the time, not do you?
this is why people think you are a troll.  you use fake arguments to stir up shite.  watch closely son:

most people thinking that slavery was ok =/= 99.9% of the people

AND

disagreement over slavery =/= disagreement over pronunciation

they are not in the same category or on the same scale of importance.  Pronunciation is determined by the population speaking it and does not infringe on civil rights.  Pronunciation can change depending on place and time, but slavery was ALWAYS wrong

HTH

I think the salient point regarding slavery is that even if 99.9% of the population considered slavery to be acceptable, it would nonetheless be wrong.

I do agree, however, that there must be some categorization in the importance of questions (your statement proposing that disagreeing over slavery is not the same as disagreeing over pronunciation).

I'm not sure that you can say that pronunciation is always determined by the population speaking it. For example, if someone coins a new word then I feel as though that person has first rights when deciding the correct pronunciation. In the same vein, I think each person has the right to decide the correct pronunciation of their name, not the masses.

HTH
Title: Re: Affirmative action = bullsh*t
Post by: TrojanChispas on August 14, 2005, 06:48:01 PM
sure, it would be wrong to the .1% just like berklee
Title: Re: Affirmative action = bullsh*t
Post by: Intuition on August 14, 2005, 08:06:54 PM
sure, it would be wrong to the .1% just like berklee

I'm confused. Are you saying that right and wrong actions are determined by people deciding for themselves? I don't think right vs. wrong is determined by people's perceptions. I think truth is independent of human thought.
Title: Re: Affirmative action = bullsh*t
Post by: TrojanChispas on August 14, 2005, 09:34:49 PM
sure, it would be wrong to the .1% just like berklee

I'm confused. Are you saying that right and wrong actions are determined by people deciding for themselves? I don't think right vs. wrong is determined by people's perceptions. I think truth is independent of human thought.


sorry for the confusion.  right and wrong are as subjective as often as they are objective.  Slavery is wrong per se IMHO, pronouncing berkley the way 99.9999% of the people pronounce it is not wrong per se.


I was just pointing out that slavery must have seemed right to those people in the south that practiced it just as pronouncing berkley seems right to those of us that say it the way the majority does.

DONT GET ME WRONG, THE TWO DO NOT COMPARE IN TERMS OF SCOPE AND IMPACT.
Title: Re: Affirmative action = bullsh*t
Post by: ImVinny! on August 15, 2005, 08:07:46 AM
But that doesn't really matter, I was parallelling (sp?) the arguments, not trying to say they are related in any other matter than their logic.

See, you just TRY to find ways to get at me, but it don't work. Cause I could care less about you. As if you didn't already know that. I have noticed you just TRY to water down what I say, but who care?

You don't want to accept anything that is as plane as the black on your face.
Title: Re: Affirmative action = bullsh*t
Post by: j.rosh on August 15, 2005, 08:17:26 AM
But that doesn't really matter, I was parallelling (sp?) the arguments, not trying to say they are related in any other matter than their logic.

See, you just TRY to find ways to get at me, but it don't work. Cause I could care less about you. As if you didn't already know that. I have noticed you just TRY to water down what I say, but who care?

You don't want to accept anything that is as plane as the black on your face.


What the Fvck Vinny?!! 


And he ain't black-even if he was though, that was Very Unnecessary! 
Title: Re: Affirmative action = bullsh*t
Post by: ImVinny! on August 15, 2005, 08:18:37 AM
I know, that's why  I said it. I was referencing something else though, and if you weren't keen, then oh well to you.
Title: Re: Affirmative action = bullsh*t
Post by: lex19 on August 15, 2005, 09:20:17 AM
vinny you've crossed the line, no one needs to be keen on *&^%, watch yourself

But that doesn't really matter, I was parallelling (sp?) the arguments, not trying to say they are related in any other matter than their logic.

See, you just TRY to find ways to get at me, but it don't work. Cause I could care less about you. As if you didn't already know that. I have noticed you just TRY to water down what I say, but who care?

You don't want to accept anything that is as plane as the black on your face.
Title: Re: Affirmative action = bullsh*t
Post by: blk_reign on August 15, 2005, 09:33:16 AM
lex said it best...
Title: Re: Affirmative action = bullsh*t
Post by: _BP_ on August 15, 2005, 10:01:38 AM
I know, that's why  I said it. I was referencing something else though, and if you weren't keen, then oh well to you.

Daymn I hate to break my word, cause I said that I was never going to post to you again.  But alas, just one more for the road:

1) That post and your response were both uncalled for and disrespectful.
2) If you're not a racist you do a really good impersonation of one... a la posting information from a white supremacist website and making comments like the one just made.
3) You make the most assinine, poorly constructed arguments that are packed with spelling and grammatical errors (seriously bringing your intelligence into question)
4) You have absolutely no tact
5) Basically, you're an ass!

HTDNH
Title: Re: Affirmative action = bullsh*t
Post by: blk_reign on August 15, 2005, 10:06:24 AM
she makes music majors look bad...
Title: Re: Affirmative action = bullsh*t
Post by: LegalLassie on August 15, 2005, 10:09:49 AM
This thread shows up on my unreads because I posted here once, but I have to say (in light of some of Vinny's recent comments) does anyone ever think that Vinny is just a super devoted flamer?  I wonder because of all of the misspellings and extremely inflammatory things she says.  Maybe I am incredibly naive, but I have a hard time believing anyone could be such an ass so consistently.
Title: Re: Affirmative action = bullsh*t
Post by: j.rosh on August 15, 2005, 10:11:34 AM
Don't worry, you're not the only one. 
Title: Re: Affirmative action = bullsh*t
Post by: Rudy Huckleberry on August 15, 2005, 10:13:19 AM
I know, that's why  I said it. I was referencing something else though, and if you weren't keen, then oh well to you.

Umm, I got your f*cking reference, and the reference is worse than the prima facie statement.  You are a troll - and before you say you're not, you're either a troll or a complete idiot who can't put a coherent argument together. :'( at your law school prospects.  You will indeed be eaten alive.
Title: Re: Affirmative action = bullsh*t
Post by: blk_reign on August 15, 2005, 10:14:31 AM
hey Mob ;D
Title: Re: Affirmative action = bullsh*t
Post by: ImVinny! on August 15, 2005, 10:35:47 AM
Well, you said it best, I AM a complete idiot who cannot spell. So what? I'm glad you got the reference.

Now, moving on...
Title: Re: Affirmative action = bullsh*t
Post by: lex19 on August 15, 2005, 10:37:43 AM
very very true
This thread shows up on my unreads because I posted here once, but I have to say (in light of some of Vinny's recent comments) does anyone ever think that Vinny is just a super devoted flamer?  I wonder because of all of the misspellings and extremely inflammatory things she says.  Maybe I am incredibly naive, but I have a hard time believing anyone could be such an ass so consistently.
Title: Re: Affirmative action = bullsh*t
Post by: lex19 on August 15, 2005, 10:38:34 AM
oooooo mo,light into that a$$, go head homie
I know, that's why  I said it. I was referencing something else though, and if you weren't keen, then oh well to you.

Umm, I got your f*cking reference, and the reference is worse than the prima facie statement.  You are a troll - and before you say you're not, you're either a troll or a complete idiot who can't put a coherent argument together. :'( at your law school prospects.  You will indeed be eaten alive.
Title: Re: Affirmative action = bullsh*t
Post by: ImVinny! on August 15, 2005, 10:40:05 AM
I can post anything that I want to say.
Just because I differ in opinion than you so what.

Also, I don't have a computer, and the computers that I have usd have been at public places so it's not my fault that the keyboards are messed up sometimes.

And as far as the reference, I don't think you exactly got it, if you think it was a bad thing... Look up the def. of the word plane and you may have a clue what I was saying...
Title: Re: Affirmative action = bullsh*t
Post by: blk_reign on August 15, 2005, 10:45:53 AM
who gives a damn.. no one should have to look something up to figure out what you meant..

you knew that you were skating on thin ice when you posted that darn...

you sound like a 5 yr old crying at their bday party..

it's my party i'll cry if i want to

let it go and learn how to better communicate with people..if you knew how to communicate you wouldn't encounter a problem every day...
Title: Re: Affirmative action = bullsh*t
Post by: ImVinny! on August 15, 2005, 10:51:35 AM
Fine, I shall let it go, and you guys too. Let's call a truce. I just started getitng mad with the people that said I wasn't a real poster so I decided to have a little fun with them.
Now it is over, let's move on.
Title: Re: Affirmative action = bullsh*t
Post by: blk_reign on August 15, 2005, 11:29:28 AM
why get mad? get glad? (http://images.saleshound.com/broadreach/dyn_li/200.0.75.0/Retailers/target/050403_p03al_4.jpg)
Title: Re: Affirmative action = bullsh*t
Post by: ImVinny! on August 15, 2005, 01:56:29 PM
I think that sometimes as well :D
Title: Re: Affirmative action = bullsh*t
Post by: TrojanChispas on August 15, 2005, 02:00:14 PM
But that doesn't really matter, I was parallelling (sp?) the arguments, not trying to say they are related in any other matter than their logic.

See, you just TRY to find ways to get at me, but it don't work. Cause I could care less about you. As if you didn't already know that. I have noticed you just TRY to water down what I say, but who care?

You don't want to accept anything that is as plane as the black on your face.

come on powder, you can do better than that.  you are either a troll or an ignorant cracker, pick one.  the fact that you use incoherent arguments is as plain as the bone sticking out of your cracker a$$

HTH
Title: Re: Affirmative action = bullsh*t
Post by: ImVinny! on August 15, 2005, 02:01:38 PM
Too bad I'm not white, oh wait, that sounds just like what I said to you, hmm, now YOU know how it feels.
Title: Re: Affirmative action = bullsh*t
Post by: TrojanChispas on August 15, 2005, 02:14:24 PM
you're from greece! that = white


HTH
Title: Re: Affirmative action = bullsh*t
Post by: ImVinny! on August 15, 2005, 02:19:42 PM
Nope, sorry.
Title: Re: Affirmative action = bullsh*t
Post by: TrojanChispas on August 15, 2005, 02:21:34 PM
whatever you say powder
Title: Re: Affirmative action = bullsh*t
Post by: ImVinny! on August 15, 2005, 02:22:40 PM
Powder? I'm sure you can come up with better than that!
Title: Re: Affirmative action = bullsh*t
Post by: Runner-up on August 16, 2005, 02:09:34 AM
Good thing I don't have to remain neutral. A big hearty no to affirmative action across the board- in our nation's law schools and our law firms.
Title: Re: Affirmative action = bullsh*t
Post by: TrojanChispas on August 16, 2005, 02:19:05 AM
Good thing I don't have to remain neutral. A big hearty no to affirmative action across the board- in our nation's law schools and our law firms.
and for legacy admits?  not too outspoken against those.
Title: Re: Affirmative action = bullsh*t
Post by: ImVinny! on August 16, 2005, 07:35:10 AM
YES, a big NO
If you will note, there IS a thread here about legacy admits.
Title: Re: Affirmative action = bullsh*t
Post by: TrojanChispas on August 16, 2005, 02:57:25 PM
and is there a whole sectoin devoted to tlegacy admits?
Title: Re: Affirmative action = bullsh*t
Post by: ImVinny! on August 16, 2005, 03:03:11 PM
I will try my darndest to get that then, because I ALSO don't believe in the legacy admits idea! ;D
Title: Re: Affirmative action = bullsh*t
Post by: ThePerfectSoldier on August 21, 2005, 12:30:28 AM
Oh please, stop the posturing.  People only pretend to be so much against legacies because that particular argument(why affirmative action and not legacies) has been used against them before, probably successfully.  If you're going to argue against AA, just do it, don't try and validate yourself. 
Title: Re: Affirmative action = bullsh*t
Post by: XYZZY on August 22, 2005, 04:00:50 PM

i can't believe this thread is still going
Title: Re: Affirmative action = bullsh*t
Post by: amelus on August 22, 2005, 04:16:51 PM

i can't believe this thread is still going

i can't believe ppl make this (annoying) comment all the time.
Title: Re: Affirmative action = bullsh*t
Post by: _BP_ on August 22, 2005, 04:50:24 PM

  To the canadian OP who didn't understand the justification for AA ... look at your supreme court, where there exists a quasi-mandatory alternation of anglophone and francophone for the position of the chief justice. The fact that 3 posts are also reserved for a single province might tell you something about representativity and quotas.

interesting.
Title: Re: Affirmative action = bullsh*t
Post by: John Galt on September 03, 2005, 07:40:46 PM

i can't believe this thread is still going

Oh shut up, you damn fool. I have yet to see you contribute anything to any thread. Leave!
Title: Re: Affirmative action = bullsh*t
Post by: XYZZY on September 04, 2005, 06:29:07 AM

i can't believe this thread is still going

Oh shut up, you damn fool. I have yet to see you contribute anything to any thread. Leave!

Let's use your logic.  You haven't contributed anything to life. Leave!
Title: Re: Affirmative action = bullsh*t
Post by: John Galt on September 04, 2005, 07:33:55 AM
Aren't you the clever one? ::)
Title: Re: Affirmative action = bullsh*t
Post by: ellay on October 13, 2005, 12:10:08 PM
Just a suggestion but if the topic of being underprivileged is at hand then maybe AA should be based on 1st generation college students rather than race. I've always felt that AA creates racism by distinguishing students from one another by the color of their skin..........
Title: Re: Affirmative action = bullsh*t
Post by: Lucky77 on October 13, 2005, 03:16:38 PM
Oh please, stop the posturing.  People only pretend to be so much against legacies because that particular argument(why affirmative action and not legacies) has been used against them before, probably successfully.  If you're going to argue against AA, just do it, don't try and validate yourself. 

No, most people against AA are so in degrees.  I have a problem with AA not being based more on socio-economic factors and with being preferential to certain races over others.  I also have a problem with it being the rusty joint holding together the various arms of America's social and economic justice programs. 

I have a problem, in general, with legacy admits, which most of the time just mean that your Daddy or Granddaddy had enough money to buy you a degree. 

Thus, I would have no problem with a reformed AA program, but do not support legacy admits at all.   


Awesome, Saxby!

Since I am white and grew up in poverty, I wrote the last part of my personal statement on how I believe our system is flawed because socio-economic factors are NOT considered in affirmative action. I'm glad I'm not the only person who feels this way.
Title: Re: Affirmative action = bullsh*t
Post by: Lucky77 on October 13, 2005, 03:30:59 PM
haha I didn't look at the date.. this thread was in the most recently commented forum.

Just from my experience, the rich black people I knew (and yes I knew a few) were more likely to go to college than the poor white people. This was true with every race, as I have a very diverse group of friends, with very diverse financial backgrounds.
Title: Re: Affirmative action = bullsh*t
Post by: _BP_ on October 13, 2005, 03:47:31 PM
Rich is rich and poor is poor as far as I'm concerned. 

I thought that was a good Segue for this:Terror Tip for Rich (Well connected received prior warning of Subway threat in NY)

http://www.nydailynews.com/front/story/355272p-302744c.html
Title: Re: Affirmative action = bullsh*t
Post by: _BP_ on October 13, 2005, 04:18:08 PM
Not surprised.  Although didn't it also turn out there wasn't really any threat?  Just another "Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain/Karl Rove/Katrina/lame SC nominees" type thing? 

It did turn out to be no real threat, but apparently while the folks at Homeland security were downplaying the threat, individuals there were warning friends and family. 
Title: Re: Affirmative action = bullsh*t
Post by: _BP_ on October 13, 2005, 04:41:27 PM
Well I for one am just shocked! 

 :P
Title: Re: Affirmative action = bullsh*t
Post by: lex19 on October 14, 2005, 07:11:48 AM
not this thread again  :(
Title: Re: Affirmative action = bullsh*t
Post by: gosox on October 21, 2005, 01:33:03 PM
ugh
Title: Re: Affirmative action = bullsh*t
Post by: ImVinny! on October 26, 2005, 03:33:39 PM
This thread will continue on as long as the debate in this country does.
What's wrong with that?

We need reform, and we NEED it NOW!!
Title: Re: Affirmative action = bullsh*t
Post by: gillesthegreat on October 26, 2005, 03:39:26 PM
  Ah, "reform". The leitmotiv of the malcontent. How about "change" rather than "reform". "Reform" suggests that a problem exists and that we know what the proper solution is; that is certainly bold, but not necessarily true. Using "reform" in this context is along the same lines as Bush's "tax relief" or "death tax", though not of the same magnitude. Let's drop the loaded language, mmmkay? Else, I could suggest "progressive actions rather than reactionary repression", or some other meaningless cr*p.
Title: Re: Affirmative action = bullsh*t
Post by: be10dwn on October 26, 2005, 03:39:59 PM
This thread will continue on as long as the debate in this country does.
What's wrong with that?

We need reform, and we NEED it NOW!!

is this the return of ImVinny???
Title: Re: Affirmative action = bullsh*t
Post by: FossilJ on October 26, 2005, 03:45:27 PM
  Ah, "reform". The leitmotiv of the malcontent. How about "change" rather than "reform". "Reform" suggests that a problem exists and that we know what the proper solution is; that is certainly bold, but not necessarily true. Using "reform" in this context is along the same lines as Bush's "tax relief" or "death tax", though not of the same magnitude. Let's drop the loaded language, mmmkay? Else, I could suggest "progressive actions rather than reactionary repression", or some other meaningless cr*p.

Agreed, gilles.  Only one thing, though: you're almost committing the fallacy you're describing.  "Change" suggests a general movement from the status quo, but it ignores any particular focus.  We could change "for the worse" just as we could change "for the better" (whatever "better" or "worse" may be).  At least "reform" suggests a direction of change, a form of change.  If we're going to use "change", we need to be more specific.
Title: Re: Affirmative action = bullsh*t
Post by: ImVinny! on October 26, 2005, 03:49:32 PM
Well, I figured I should see what's going on here, I needed to thank some people, one of the discussions that was had on here actually contributed to my English class. Anyways, I am soo busy these days, I have 24 credits, rehearsals, practing, workout, all those things, plus reading, writing, and thinking about law school.

Lol, it's kinda funny, I am actually scared to send in my app to Notre Dame. I know I will be rejected, but there is always that one glimmer of hope that they will see beyond the LSAT score, you know?
But I actually did apply for Teach for America on Monday, hopefully that will turn out all right. We shall see.
How you been Grover?
Title: Re: Affirmative action = bullsh*t
Post by: frankfurt on October 26, 2005, 03:50:52 PM
Why do blacks perform so poorly on the LSAT?
Title: Re: Affirmative action = bullsh*t
Post by: Miss P on October 26, 2005, 03:52:38 PM
Why do blacks perform so poorly on the LSAT?

Oh, why don't you enlighten us.  Thanks in advance.
Title: Re: Affirmative action = bullsh*t
Post by: ImVinny! on October 26, 2005, 03:57:00 PM
I don't think it is blacks, mostly people who don't study. Or don't take it seriously. There are black people on this site that did phenominal. The blackness doesn't mean anything as far as I am concerned.
Title: Re: Affirmative action = bullsh*t
Post by: frankfurt on October 26, 2005, 03:58:11 PM
I dont know the answer. Less than 25 blacks score over 164 and have a 3.5 or higher GPA. If every law student goes to college, then why is there a dearth of black students that score highly on the LSAT? I thought someone might give me their take.
Title: Re: Affirmative action = bullsh*t
Post by: ImVinny! on October 26, 2005, 04:00:21 PM
Well, maybe it's exactly what I said. Maybe they think their race will help them and that they don't need to study. Who knows, why do Asians score better on things, or Jews? It has to do with self-discipline really. If someone is lacking, well, low LSAT score will be their reward.

Look at me!
Title: Re: Affirmative action = bullsh*t
Post by: RockyMarciano on October 26, 2005, 04:12:44 PM
I dont know the answer. Less than 25 blacks score over 164 and have a 3.5 or higher GPA. If every law student goes to college, then why is there a dearth of black students that score highly on the LSAT? I thought someone might give me their take.

Maybe because there are not that many African Americans that take the LSAT. Remember, it takes a lot of hours to prep for the LSAT unless you are a genius. This is also a part of the weeding out process that comes with the LSAT. At my current school, I would say about 80% of the student body is caucasian. I feel like I spotted the lockness monster when ever I see another Mexican-American student. Of course, about 90% of the cleaning staff is Mexican-American but not that many high school students are able to attend a university. I wonder what the percentage is of Af-Am that score above a 164 compared to the total pool of AF-AM LSAT takers. 
Title: Re: Affirmative action = bullsh*t
Post by: frankfurt on October 26, 2005, 04:15:52 PM
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=000&invol=02-241 (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=000&invol=02-241)

In recent years there has been virtually no change, for example, in the proportion of law school applicants with LSAT scores of 165 and higher who are black. In 1993 blacks constituted 1.1% of law school applicants in that score range, though they represented 11.1% of all applicants. Law School Admission Council, National Statistical Report (1994) (hereinafter LSAC Statistical Report). In 2000 the comparable numbers were 1.0% and 11.3%. LSAC Statistical Report (2001). No one can seriously contend, and the Court does not, that the racial gap in academic credentials will disappear in 25 years.

Scary.
Title: Re: Affirmative action = bullsh*t
Post by: frankfurt on October 26, 2005, 04:18:08 PM
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=000&invol=02-241 (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=000&invol=02-241)

An applicant's LSAT score can improve dramatically with preparation, but such preparation is a cost, and there must be sufficient benefits attached to an improved score to justify additional study. Whites scoring between 163 and 167 on the LSAT are routinely rejected by the Law School, and thus whites aspiring to admission at the Law School have every incentive to improve their score to levels above that range. See App. 199 (showing that in 2000, 209 out of 422 white applicants were rejected in this scoring range). Blacks, on the other hand, are nearly guaranteed admission if they score above 155. Id., at 198 (showing that 63 out of 77 black applicants are accepted with LSAT scores above 155). As admission prospects approach certainty, there is no incentive for the black applicant to continue to prepare for the LSAT once he is reasonably assured of achieving the requisite score

Racists!
Title: Re: Affirmative action = bullsh*t
Post by: gillesthegreat on October 26, 2005, 04:24:49 PM
Quote
you're almost committing the fallacy you're describing.  "Change" suggests a general movement from the status quo, but it ignores any particular focus.  We could change "for the worse" just as we could change "for the better" (whatever "better" or "worse" may be).  At least "reform" suggests a direction of change, a form of change.  If we're going to use "change", we need to be more specific.

   Actually, I was making a point about exactly that issue. To use "reform" suggests that a) we actually know in which direction 'better' is located and b) we want a change for the better while some people want to stay in the inferior status quo. If one were to asy "I want change", there would follow a vigorous but necessary debate about better or worse, and where we should be going, if anywhere. If one however says "I want reform", it frames the debate as a struggle between those who want change for the better, and those people who are opposed to improvement and want the inferiot status quo to persist, thus denying the freedom/justice/liberty/tax cut/etc ... that some are seeking.

   See the difference? One says "I want this because I think it's better", while the other says "I want this because IT IS better, and you are denying to me because you are evil/stupid/corrupt/not fans of Rush Limbaugh". Similarly, not many people are opposed to an estate tax (which it was), but almost all are opposed to a death tax (which it isn't).

   And yes, I like Lakoff. So sue me.
Title: Re: Affirmative action = bullsh*t
Post by: FossilJ on October 26, 2005, 04:36:30 PM
Quote
you're almost committing the fallacy you're describing.  "Change" suggests a general movement from the status quo, but it ignores any particular focus.  We could change "for the worse" just as we could change "for the better" (whatever "better" or "worse" may be).  At least "reform" suggests a direction of change, a form of change.  If we're going to use "change", we need to be more specific.

   Actually, I was making a point about exactly that issue. To use "reform" suggests that a) we actually know in which direction 'better' is located and b) we want a change for the better while some people want to stay in the inferior status quo. If one were to asy "I want change", there would follow a vigorous but necessary debate about better or worse, and where we should be going, if anywhere. If one however says "I want reform", it frames the debate as a struggle between those who want change for the better, and those people who are opposed to improvement and want the inferiot status quo to persist, thus denying the freedom/justice/liberty/tax cut/etc ... that some are seeking.

   See the difference? One says "I want this because I think it's better", while the other says "I want this because IT IS better, and you are denying to me because you are evil/stupid/corrupt/not fans of Rush Limbaugh". Similarly, not many people are opposed to an estate tax (which it was), but almost all are opposed to a death tax (which it isn't).

   And yes, I like Lakoff. So sue me.

I saw the difference in the first place.  The explication does clear your argument up a bit, though. 

However, I still don't think "change" is the right word.  It merely implies movement.  In this context, whether you support or disapprove of affirmative action, you are looking for "improvement" of the status quo; you are looking for progress, rather than just change.  Something in that vein is required for this argument.
Title: Re: Affirmative action = bullsh*t
Post by: RockyMarciano on October 26, 2005, 04:44:36 PM
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=000&invol=02-241 (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=000&invol=02-241)

An applicant's LSAT score can improve dramatically with preparation, but such preparation is a cost, and there must be sufficient benefits attached to an improved score to justify additional study. Whites scoring between 163 and 167 on the LSAT are routinely rejected by the Law School, and thus whites aspiring to admission at the Law School have every incentive to improve their score to levels above that range. See App. 199 (showing that in 2000, 209 out of 422 white applicants were rejected in this scoring range). Blacks, on the other hand, are nearly guaranteed admission if they score above 155. Id., at 198 (showing that 63 out of 77 black applicants are accepted with LSAT scores above 155). As admission prospects approach certainty, there is no incentive for the black applicant to continue to prepare for the LSAT once he is reasonably assured of achieving the requisite score

Racists!

Which law schools are they referring to? The only thing about this is that it completely ignores GPA as well. But, I can understand from where you are comming from.
Title: Re: Affirmative action = bullsh*t
Post by: frankfurt on October 26, 2005, 04:52:23 PM
Michigan. It ignores GPA for both and (considering the case notes that black law students had far lower LSAC gpa's) would make an even stronger case for unfair practices.
Title: Re: Affirmative action = bullsh*t
Post by: gillesthegreat on October 26, 2005, 04:56:50 PM
Quote
However, I still don't think "change" is the right word.  It merely implies movement.  In this context, whether you support or disapprove of affirmative action, you are looking for "improvement" of the status quo; you are looking for progress, rather than just change.  Something in that vein is required for this argument.

  Ok, I'll give you this. 'Change' is insufficient. I do hope however that everyone would want to change for better and not for worse.
Title: Re: Affirmative action = bullsh*t
Post by: FossilJ on October 26, 2005, 05:21:48 PM
Quote
However, I still don't think "change" is the right word.  It merely implies movement.  In this context, whether you support or disapprove of affirmative action, you are looking for "improvement" of the status quo; you are looking for progress, rather than just change.  Something in that vein is required for this argument.

  Ok, I'll give you this. 'Change' is insufficient. I do hope however that everyone would want to change for better and not for worse.

Agreed.  I figured we're on the same track, even if we are splitting hairs. hahaha
Title: Re: Affirmative action = bullsh*t
Post by: ImVinny! on October 26, 2005, 05:43:13 PM
Fine, I really mean abolition of affirmative action. You forced me to the point of no return.

Michigan SHOULD be sued, that is definately racism against whites. They should have the same chance that af am have with those low scores that they get. Maybe they should be studying instead of trying to learn more about something that has nothing to do with them: Africa. LOL
Title: Re: Affirmative action = bullsh*t
Post by: John Galt on October 26, 2005, 06:49:50 PM
Fine, I really mean abolition of affirmative action. You forced me to the point of no return.

Michigan SHOULD be sued, that is definately racism against whites. They should have the same chance that af am have with those low scores that they get. Maybe they should be studying instead of trying to learn more about something that has nothing to do with them: Africa. LOL

Hooray, the village idiot has returned!
Title: Re: Affirmative action = bullsh*t
Post by: j.rosh on October 26, 2005, 07:39:00 PM
Fine, I really mean abolition of affirmative action. You forced me to the point of no return.

Michigan SHOULD be sued, that is definately racism against whites. They should have the same chance that af am have with those low scores that they get. Maybe they should be studying instead of trying to learn more about something that has nothing to do with them: Africa. LOL

Hooray, the village idiot has returned!

Lol!  Vinny, do you ever discuss anything outside of race?
Title: Re: Affirmative action = bullsh*t
Post by: TrojanChispas on October 26, 2005, 11:45:51 PM
Fine, I really mean abolition of affirmative action. You forced me to the point of no return.

Michigan SHOULD be sued, that is definately racism against whites. They should have the same chance that af am have with those low scores that they get. Maybe they should be studying instead of trying to learn more about something that has nothing to do with them: Africa. LOL

Hooray, the village idiot has returned!
ROTFLMFAO! :D

for those of us in the know:
vinny=hilljack=lavia=jackass
Title: Re: Affirmative action = bullsh*t
Post by: ImVinny! on October 27, 2005, 08:56:38 AM
Well, apparently you are NOT in the know, because I have no clue what that even means what is a hilljack or those other words, what do they mean?

And, yes, I do talk about other things than race. It just so happens that this is a nice place to discuss it because other people are willing to also have intelligent discussions.

And YES I am being serious about the abolition of affirmative action. What's wrong with that? Just because you disagree does not mean that I am "flaiming" or whatever you wish to refer making things up as.
Title: Re: Affirmative action = bullsh*t
Post by: lex19 on October 27, 2005, 09:21:38 AM
nice, rofl  :D
Quote from: John Galt link=topic=37973.msg804898#msg804898

Hooray, the village idiot has returned!
[/quote
Title: Re: Affirmative action = bullsh*t
Post by: TrojanChispas on October 27, 2005, 09:36:38 AM
Well, apparently you are NOT in the know, because I have no clue what that even means what is a hilljack or those other words, what do they mean?

And, yes, I do talk about other things than race. It just so happens that this is a nice place to discuss it because other people are willing to also have intelligent discussions.

And YES I am being serious about the abolition of affirmative action. What's wrong with that? Just because you disagree does not mean that I am "flaiming" or whatever you wish to refer making things up as.
shows what you know :D
Title: Re: Affirmative action = bullsh*t
Post by: ImVinny! on October 27, 2005, 11:20:43 AM
 I know that you need to stop trying to act like you are better than me because my opinions differ than yours.
Title: Re: Affirmative action = bullsh*t
Post by: TrojanChispas on October 27, 2005, 11:33:22 AM
It isnt that i disagree with you, but that you have no ability to support your arguments through logic or fact.

Plus, you always try to sneak race in through the back door of an argument ie: Hi guys, im applying for a job and they want to know if i am a minority... AND we are like uhhh, WHat kind of employer asks if you are a minority, rather than asking what race you are?  You are just trying to sneak AA into the argument through the back door.
Title: Re: Affirmative action = bullsh*t
Post by: ImVinny! on October 27, 2005, 08:03:25 PM
Maybe, if you actually read what I wrote and not others' comments to it, you would see that they employers asked me for race.
Title: Re: Affirmative action = bullsh*t
Post by: TrojanChispas on October 28, 2005, 12:16:11 AM
Maybe, if you actually read what I wrote and not others' comments to it, you would see that they employers asked me for race.
That is not your original story.  You said you wanted to know what a minority was because they asked you on an application.  If they didnt ask then why did you want to know what a minority was?

Good luck with Cooley, you may need it.
Title: Re: Affirmative action = bullsh*t
Post by: lastshot on October 29, 2005, 01:46:06 AM
Does it seem odd to anybody
Title: Re: Affirmative action = bullsh*t
Post by: ImVinny! on October 31, 2005, 07:20:31 AM
Maybe, if you actually read what I wrote and not others' comments to it, you would see that they employers asked me for race.
That is not your original story.  You said you wanted to know what a minority was because they asked you on an application.  If they didnt ask then why did you want to know what a minority was?

Good luck with Cooley, you may need it.

No, I did not say that, look at my posts and you will see that you are changing what I said.
Title: Re: Affirmative action = bullsh*t
Post by: TrojanChispas on October 31, 2005, 09:21:48 AM
Maybe, if you actually read what I wrote and not others' comments to it, you would see that they employers asked me for race.
That is not your original story.  You said you wanted to know what a minority was because they asked you on an application.  If they didnt ask then why did you want to know what a minority was?

Good luck with Cooley, you may need it.

No, I did not say that, look at my posts and you will see that you are changing what I said.

You originally said that you wanted to konw what the answer to the question: What is a minority?, so you could fill out an application for work.

obviously a preposterous claim.
Title: Re: Affirmative action = bullsh*t
Post by: ImVinny! on October 31, 2005, 01:09:04 PM
Yeah, been busy with class and stuff. How ya been?
I'm supposed to be sleeping since I am sick, but of course, revert back to this site. It's just so interesting talking with all of you~

Applied for Teach for America last week, got my fingers crossed for an interview. Getting ready to submit ND and Ave Maria apps, and ACE for ND as well. UGH, so much to do, so little time@! :o
Title: Re: Affirmative action = bullsh*t
Post by: ThePerfectSoldier on November 03, 2005, 08:36:37 PM
Fine, I really mean abolition of affirmative action. You forced me to the point of no return.

Michigan SHOULD be sued, that is definately racism against whites. They should have the same chance that af am have with those low scores that they get. Maybe they should be studying instead of trying to learn more about something that has nothing to do with them: Africa. LOL

I think you deserve to be denied AA for that and that only.
Title: Re: Affirmative action = bullsh*t
Post by: TrojanChispas on November 04, 2005, 08:02:24 AM
Fine, I really mean abolition of affirmative action. You forced me to the point of no return.

Michigan SHOULD be sued, that is definately racism against whites. They should have the same chance that af am have with those low scores that they get. Maybe they should be studying instead of trying to learn more about something that has nothing to do with them: Africa. LOL

I think you deserve to be denied AA for that and that only.

Vinny doesnt think that the inequities that were created by our government and still exist should be ameliorated. 

Dont try using the facts to argue with him, it wont sink in.
Title: Re: Affirmative action = bullsh*t
Post by: ImVinny! on November 04, 2005, 10:33:23 AM
I do think that the inequalities created by our governement do exist, and they exist in AA, so yes, I do think that AA should be ameliorated, heck obliterated even.
Title: Re: Affirmative action = bullsh*t
Post by: TrojanChispas on November 04, 2005, 02:58:53 PM
I do think that the inequalities created by our governement do exist, and they exist in AA, so yes, I do think that AA should be ameliorated, heck obliterated even.

Statements like these are what make you our village idiot.

XOXO

HTH
Title: Re: Affirmative action = bullsh*t
Post by: ImVinny! on November 04, 2005, 03:53:00 PM
Maybe you are the village idiot, why do you constantly feel the need to attack me?
Title: Re: Affirmative action = bullsh*t
Post by: TrojanChispas on November 05, 2005, 01:18:33 PM
I dont attack you, I just point out all the stupid things that you say.  You are totally incompetent to be a lawyer and if you do make it to and through law school, pass the bar, I will feel sorry for your clients. 


For instance, you want to create equality by getting rid of AA.  Think about this: In a capitalist system, every one should be treated equally.  But in our system, a large and definite class of people has had a HUGE head start.  AA seeks to correct that but you want to perpetuate that head start.  Think carefully before you answer lest you make another ridiculous statement.
Title: Re: Affirmative action = bullsh*t
Post by: ImVinny! on November 06, 2005, 08:06:17 PM
First of all, think of this you don't know me in real life, so you are ill-equipped to make some stupid statment saying that I don't even deserve to be a lawyer.

How about I teach your children? Like THAT option better?
Title: Re: Affirmative action = bullsh*t
Post by: TrojanChispas on November 06, 2005, 10:07:35 PM
First of all, think of this you don't know me in real life, so you are ill-equipped to make some stupid statment saying that I don't even deserve to be a lawyer.

How about I teach your children? Like THAT option better?

Sorry, I wont be sending them to idiot school. 8)
Title: Re: Affirmative action = bullsh*t
Post by: ImVinny! on November 07, 2005, 01:39:44 PM
Idiot School, that's all you got?
You make no sense. I was saying that I can be a teacher instead, and didn't mean YOUR singular, but plural kids. But I guess you already knew that since you are just SOO much smarter than me and everything.
Title: Re: Affirmative action = bullsh*t
Post by: wallaby on December 05, 2005, 12:02:00 PM
I dont attack you, I just point out all the stupid things that you say.  You are totally incompetent to be a lawyer and if you do make it to and through law school, pass the bar, I will feel sorry for your clients. 


For instance, you want to create equality by getting rid of AA.  Think about this: In a capitalist system, every one should be treated equally.  But in our system, a large and definite class of people has had a HUGE head start.  AA seeks to correct that but you want to perpetuate that head start.  Think carefully before you answer lest you make another ridiculous statement.

The constitution doesn't say anything about treating everyone "fairly" and tenets of capitalism prescribe the precise opposite. Treating all people fairly and not discriminating are not the same thing at all.

However,
I accept your premise that blacks start with a disadvantage, but, it is not clear that the disadvantage is attributable to institutionalized racism. Most statistics indicate that their underperformance as a racial group is socioeconomic rather than racial. Your fallback position in this case necessarily must be that impoverished blacks are different than impoverished whites because institutional racism is likely the dissimilar variable in otherwise similar equations. Even if we accept this it is dubious to conclude on that basis that the best way to remedy the situation is to simply give blacks broad latitude vis a vis everyone else.

But if that leap is in fact made out of desperation then the burden must fall squarely on its proponents to demonstrate rigorously that the results justify such radical effort. This is especially difficult to accomplish because statistics reveal no measurable narrowing of the acheivement gap. In the face of these numbers, a backlash to AA is evident among younger white lawyers who find evidence of its failure in all quarters, and who are not strangled by the emotional appeals of the AA proponents.

It is a failed system and most likely will be over turned by the new conservative court.   


Title: Re: Affirmative action = bullsh*t
Post by: TrojanChispas on December 05, 2005, 12:49:19 PM
How did the socioeconomic disadvantage come about dtraywi?  Are minorities just inherently less frugal with their money, less capable to find jobs, less competent when they do find a job?  Clearly, racism has perpetuated their inferior socioeconomic status. Things are a little different now, but the harm that was done has residual effects. 

AA is justified by a multiple of rational arguments, the first being that some kind of reparation needs to be given to make up for all the horror white people have done to their minority counterparts; consider how badly the Native Americans got screwed, you dont mind AA for them, right? 

The other argument that is also compelling is that minorities have a different experience in the US than their white counterparts.  Many black and mexicans are still discriminated against to this day, so to say they dont have anything valuable to add to a classroom is ridiculous.

You are right, this is not hte best way to remedy the situation, but until you come up with something better, you shouldnt be able to take away the only remedy available.
Title: Re: Affirmative action = bullsh*t
Post by: TrojanChispas on December 05, 2005, 12:53:05 PM
Fine, I really mean abolition of affirmative action. You forced me to the point of no return.

Michigan SHOULD be sued, that is definately racism against whites. They should have the same chance that af am have with those low scores that they get. Maybe they should be studying instead of trying to learn more about something that has nothing to do with them: Africa. LOL

I think you deserve to be denied AA for that and that only.

Vinny is our village idiot, dont bother. 

He continually misses the point: Minorities have something some WHites dont have, a different perspective.  Their perspective is worth more than a couple of LSAT points. 

HTH
Title: Re: Affirmative action = bullsh*t
Post by: wallaby on December 05, 2005, 03:29:19 PM
How did the socioeconomic disadvantage come about dtraywi?  Are minorities just inherently less frugal with their money, less capable to find jobs, less competent when they do find a job?  Clearly, racism has perpetuated their inferior socioeconomic status. Things are a little different now, but the harm that was done has residual effects. 

AA is justified by a multiple of rational arguments, the first being that some kind of reparation needs to be given to make up for all the horror white people have done to their minority counterparts; consider how badly the Native Americans got screwed, you dont mind AA for them, right? 

The other argument that is also compelling is that minorities have a different experience in the US than their white counterparts.  Many black and mexicans are still discriminated against to this day, so to say they dont have anything valuable to add to a classroom is ridiculous.

You are right, this is not hte best way to remedy the situation, but until you come up with something better, you shouldnt be able to take away the only remedy available.

I pre-supposed your reply in my post, you still haven't really refuted any of my points leading to the conclusion.

I even concede that institutional racism has resulted in impoverishment, so the question is, how have we gone to conceding that point to saying @#!* it, let blacks in where they  clearly aren't qualified.

Quote
AA is justified by a multiple of rational arguments, the first being that some kind of reparation needs to be given to make up for all the horror white people have done to their minority counterparts; consider how badly the Native Americans got screwed, you dont mind AA for them, right? 

This is the sort of statement which is causing a backlash among many Americans. It is neither a rational argument nor a legal one. Under your "rationale" it would be acceptable to punish all gun store owners because one gun store owner sold a gun to a minor, knowingly and willfully.

As for the horror white people have inflicted on their minority counter-parts, if this is one of your rational reasons for AA then no wonder there is a backlash against the concept.

Quote
The other argument that is also compelling is that minorities have a different experience in the US than their white counterparts.  Many black and mexicans are still discriminated against to this day, so to say they dont have anything valuable to add to a classroom is ridiculous.

Honestly, I do not see that minorities have stories any more compelling than white people. My personal view is that there is no reason compelling enough to break the clear intent of the US constitution, despite what that ridiculous court ruled. It doesn't matter anyway, the pendulum is swinging back and AA will be discarded as another relic of Johnson's failed "Great Society"
Title: Re: Affirmative action = bullsh*t
Post by: TrojanChispas on December 05, 2005, 03:33:30 PM
We arent arguing the constitution, the SCOTUS heard the aguments and found, at least in part, in my favor.

Who says blacks and minorities arent qualified? 

You think LSAT scores and GPA are the only thing that can qualify a person for law school?

And if you think that minorities dont add anything special, then there is no hope for you.
Title: Re: Affirmative action = bullsh*t
Post by: wallaby on December 05, 2005, 03:36:14 PM
How did the socioeconomic disadvantage come about dtraywi?  Are minorities just inherently less frugal with their money, less capable to find jobs, less competent when they do find a job?  Clearly, racism has perpetuated their inferior socioeconomic status. Things are a little different now, but the harm that was done has residual effects. 

AA is justified by a multiple of rational arguments, the first being that some kind of reparation needs to be given to make up for all the horror white people have done to their minority counterparts; consider how badly the Native Americans got screwed, you dont mind AA for them, right? 

The other argument that is also compelling is that minorities have a different experience in the US than their white counterparts.  Many black and mexicans are still discriminated against to this day, so to say they dont have anything valuable to add to a classroom is ridiculous.

You are right, this is not hte best way to remedy the situation, but until you come up with something better, you shouldnt be able to take away the only remedy available.

And even though the Supreme Court upheld AA in a close 5-4 vote (two of those voting for upholding now being gone) O'Connor filed the majority opinion and stated,

"In the Michigan cases, the Supreme Court ruled that although affirmative action was no longer justified as a way of redressing past oppression and injustice"

So even the US Supreme Court in its wretched liberal form of old disagreed with you and the other blow hards of AA. It is not a tool meant to redress the injustices of old, because IT DOESN"T WORK....but is simply being used as a tool to satiate minorities who cant get into Harvard based on merit.
Title: Re: Affirmative action = bullsh*t
Post by: wallaby on December 05, 2005, 03:42:34 PM
Quote
We arent arguing the constitution, the SCOTUS heard the aguments and found, at least in part, in my favor.

Actually, only 4 current members are likely to agree with your view about minorities adding anything to the mix that justifies breaching the clear intent of the constitution. As for the last ruling, they got around the constitutionality of the issue by simply imposing some ethereally subjective federal interest.

Quote
Who says blacks and minorities arent qualified?


I dont know of anyone who takes that position. Stop being so absolutist and extreme.

Quote
You think LSAT scores and GPA are the only thing that can qualify a person for law school?

Im not sure where you are going with this either, since I said nothing that you can refer to that would even imply it.

Quote
And if you think that minorities dont add anything special, then there is no hope for you.

On this we will have to agree to disagree, I do not believe that blacks bring anything special anymore than I believe whites or Asians bring anything special. Perhaps you could at least make an attempt to make an argument, hell, I'm not even going to ask for evidence, but at least make an argument instead of just going straight to the conclusion before making an ad hominem attack.

dumbass
Title: Re: Affirmative action = bullsh*t
Post by: wallaby on December 05, 2005, 03:52:23 PM
BRAVO, the attitude says everything, I predict a fantastically successful future for you.
Title: Re: Affirmative action = bullsh*t
Post by: TrojanChispas on December 05, 2005, 04:05:39 PM
You are one racist mofo, arent you?

so the supreme court disagree with me about the reparations,thing, "but [AA] is simply being used as a tool to satiate negros who cant get into Harvard, get promotions and function in an advanced Western world based on merit."???????????


I think you misconstrued the holding to bolster your argument, nice try jackass.

"I guess the figuring goes, either AA or rioting negros, we'll take AA, they aren't worth that much trouble."

Unbelievable.  Im going to quote this in full so I can find it later before you edit.

How did the socioeconomic disadvantage come about dtraywi?  Are minorities just inherently less frugal with their money, less capable to find jobs, less competent when they do find a job?  Clearly, racism has perpetuated their inferior socioeconomic status. Things are a little different now, but the harm that was done has residual effects. 

AA is justified by a multiple of rational arguments, the first being that some kind of reparation needs to be given to make up for all the horror white people have done to their minority counterparts; consider how badly the Native Americans got screwed, you dont mind AA for them, right? 

The other argument that is also compelling is that minorities have a different experience in the US than their white counterparts.  Many black and mexicans are still discriminated against to this day, so to say they dont have anything valuable to add to a classroom is ridiculous.

You are right, this is not hte best way to remedy the situation, but until you come up with something better, you shouldnt be able to take away the only remedy available.

And even though the Supreme Court upheld AA in a close 5-4 vote (two of those voting for upholding now being gone) O'Connor filed the majority opinion and stated,

"In the Michigan cases, the Supreme Court ruled that although affirmative action was no longer justified as a way of redressing past oppression and injustice"

So even the US Supreme Court in its wretched liberal form of old disagreed with you and the other blow hards of AA. It is not a tool meant to redress the injustices of old, because IT DOESN"T WORK....but it is simply being used as a tool to satiate negros who cant get into Harvard, get promotions and function in an advanced Western world based on merit.

I guess the figuring goes, either AA or rioting negros, we'll take AA, they aren't worth that much trouble.



Title: Re: Affirmative action = bullsh*t
Post by: TrojanChispas on December 05, 2005, 04:10:44 PM
I am a minority and I am AGAINST affirmative action for these reasons:

a) because I'm a minority, and it DOESN'T apply to me!! that's right. Since I'm south asian, I'm not actively recruited by law schools the way blacks and hispanics are, so even though I have a 3.98/166, those numbers plus my minority status aren't going to help me the way they would if I were a hispanic.

b) Anyone who thinks I've encountered LESS discrimination than I would have as a black or hispanic woman is completely wrong. I'm a Muslim woman who wears the Islamic headscarf, and believe me, life has NOT been peachy since 9/11. I've been called every name in the book and harassed like crazy.


BUT I'm not ASKING for handouts. I want to get into law school ON MY MERIT, and not because I've suffered discrimination. I want to be accepted into law school because I've worked like an animal and I DESERVE it, not because of my beliefs, my skin color, or because my parents are immigrants.


this entire affirmative action situation is just an egregious exercise in discrimination.

AA is gong to apply to you because you have a unique experience, that is all AA is under the law.  You bring diversity, the law schools want diversity and are willing to cede a couple of LSAT points because of it.

All AA is is looking past the hard numbers for something different.  If you were a white guy that grew up in Harlem and could show that you've encountered discrimination, I think you would also benefit from AA.

Where is the outrage for legacy admits?  Those have been going on forever, but white people seem to be fine with them.
Title: Re: Affirmative action = bullsh*t
Post by: faith2005 on December 05, 2005, 04:14:28 PM
but seriously, why do you think that the existence of affirmative action means that those who benefit from it are not getting in on their own merits? just b/c their lsat or gpa isn't as high as yours? i'm always surprised by how easily so many minorities buy into the idea of admissions being merit-related not even realizing that very concept of what constitutes "merit" was created by the same universities that make exceptions to it. so, who's to say that merit should be determined by your lsat score or your gpa? either way, good luck to you sis.

I am a minority and I am AGAINST affirmative action for these reasons:

a) because I'm a minority, and it DOESN'T apply to me!! that's right. Since I'm south asian, I'm not actively recruited by law schools the way blacks and hispanics are, so even though I have a 3.98/166, those numbers plus my minority status aren't going to help me the way they would if I were a hispanic.

b) Anyone who thinks I've encountered LESS discrimination than I would have as a black or hispanic woman is completely wrong. I'm a Muslim woman who wears the Islamic headscarf, and believe me, life has NOT been peachy since 9/11. I've been called every name in the book and harassed like crazy.


BUT I'm not ASKING for handouts. I want to get into law school ON MY MERIT, and not because I've suffered discrimination. I want to be accepted into law school because I've worked like an animal and I DESERVE it, not because of my beliefs, my skin color, or because my parents are immigrants.


this entire affirmative action situation is just an egregious exercise in discrimination.
Title: Re: Affirmative action = bullsh*t
Post by: TrojanChispas on December 05, 2005, 04:15:47 PM
Quote
We arent arguing the constitution, the SCOTUS heard the aguments and found, at least in part, in my favor.

Actually, only 4 current members are likely to agree with your view about minorities adding anything to the mix that justifies breaching the clear intent of the constitution. As for the last ruling, they got around the constitutionality of the issue by simply imposing some ethereally subjective federal interest.

Quote
Who says blacks and minorities arent qualified?


I dont know of anyone who takes that position. Stop being so absolutist and extreme.


You just said, "I even concede that institutional racism has resulted in impoverishment, so the question is, how have we gone to conceding that point to saying @#!* it, let blacks in where they  clearly aren't qualified."

Quote
You think LSAT scores and GPA are the only thing that can qualify a person for law school?

Im not sure where you are going with this either, since I said nothing that you can refer to that would even imply it.

Your argument is that the numbers speak for themselves, but in reality they dont.  How do you KNOW these people are less qualified?  You dont, but for their numbers. 

Quote
And if you think that minorities dont add anything special, then there is no hope for you.

On this we will have to agree to disagree, I do not believe that blacks bring anything special anymore than I believe whites or Asians bring anything special. Perhaps you could at least make an attempt to make an argument, hell, I'm not even going to ask for evidence, but at least make an argument instead of just going straight to the conclusion before making an ad hominem attack.

dumbass

You may not be able to understand because you live in some kind of glass bubble or something, but the adcoms value the experiences of minorities and those adcoms are prolly mostly white.  Does their opinion sway yours?
Title: Re: Affirmative action = bullsh*t
Post by: TrojanChispas on December 05, 2005, 04:20:35 PM
way to edit out the racist statements of your post.   :-*

I OWN YOU.
Title: Re: Affirmative action = bullsh*t
Post by: TrojanChispas on December 05, 2005, 04:31:19 PM
Well, I would bet that if you can write a decent PS you will have an edge.   And you should because I have never met someone like you and it would enrich my law school experience to have your opinions/experiences expressed in class where they differ from mine.
Title: Re: Affirmative action = bullsh*t
Post by: wallaby on December 05, 2005, 06:26:07 PM
Right, I do not think blacks and hispanics are getting in on merit. You keep referring to these valuable opinions that are different from mine. But that is a generalization that is totally unsubstantiated by any observable fact. I mean, what views and opinions are you even talking about?

The races are no different. What could a black man possibly add to a discussion MERELY because of his blackness? There is nothing special about being black just as there is nothing special about being white. You are actually the racist. I view races as entirely equal, but better off being separate. I think you see blacks as different, otherwise I doubt you could support this position that they need special consideration simply because they are black.

The fact is, you support a policy whereby blacks are judged differently than everyone else. I would never support such a policy. As long as this country is working at integrating, I will go along, but I will not go along with a policy that preaches equality and then turns around and makes distinctions based on the very thing they state is against the law use as a basis for distinction. Even a child can understand this makes no sense.

If I were black, I would be outraged at the decision by that liberal junta in the court. By stating that AA is no longer justifiably employed as a tool to redress past injustices, then they must be keeping it around for some other reason. What other reason is that? If the past injustices no longer warrant the action, then the only alternative is to conclude that blacks are not capable of competing on an equal footing as whites, jews and asians and anything quantitative or measurable supports this view.

The LSAT scores are a reflection of pure capacity, its as simple as that, and they are the number one indicator of success in law school. Law school is the number one indicator of future success as a lawyer. Low LSAT's by negros indicates they are less likely to do well in law school and therefore less likely to be good lawyers. The fact that you hold a selfish and stupid opinion that whites OWE some form of reparation to the negro because of slavery shows your inability to grasp future implication quite nicely. It leads me to conclude that if you were in charge, society would devolve into chaos quite rapidly.

And, while my views on race may not be agreeable to you, I can assure you that I have plenty of observable evidence that races and cultures are better off living separately. Go look up the word, Balkanize, and think about what it means and its implications for this country. AA in my eyes is a tacit admission that integration cannot succeed in the end, but can only be forced upon societies and people's who have a natural tendency and a natural inclination to associate with people of their own race and cultural background.

As for Harvard and other great American law schools, they were doing just fine, and arguable vastly better, before negros and mexicans were stuffed down their throats by the radicals and freeloaders of the 1960's.

Now, this is what most white people actually think, although they are too civilized to let you know it. I suggest you think long and hard about it, whether they say it or not, you can bet they think it. Act accordingly and enjoy your free ride, it wont last much longer.

Title: Re: Affirmative action = bullsh*t
Post by: FossilJ on December 05, 2005, 07:25:38 PM
Okay, troll, let's have a discussion.

I think you see blacks as different, otherwise I doubt you could support this position that they need special consideration simply because they are black.

Not his argument.  Red herring.

The fact is, you support a policy whereby blacks are judged differently than everyone else. I would never support such a policy. As long as this country is working at integrating, I will go along, but I will not go along with a policy that preaches equality and then turns around and makes distinctions based on the very thing they state is against the law use as a basis for distinction. Even a child can understand this makes no sense.

There is a praxis to AA that justifies the reasons.  More on this later.

By stating that AA is no longer justifiably employed as a tool to redress past injustices, then they must be keeping it around for some other reason. What other reason is that? If the past injustices no longer warrant the action, then the only alternative is to conclude that blacks are not capable of competing on an equal footing as whites, jews and asians and anything quantitative or measurable supports this view.

Again, a conclusion based on suppositions that ignore the full reality of the situation.  Again, more on this later.

The LSAT scores are a reflection of pure capacity, its as simple as that, and they are the number one indicator of success in law school. Law school is the number one indicator of future success as a lawyer.

Both of these "facts" are under dispute.  Your use of them here is misleading.  In fact, as for the basis of your syllogism, LSAT scores bear only a 0.2 correlation with law school success.  It's a better indicator than GPA, but that's about all you've got.


Low LSAT's by negros indicates they are less likely to do well in law school and therefore less likely to be good lawyers.

So, clearly, based on your own premises, this is false.  Even if your premises were true, the conclusion is false.  What were your words again?  "Stop being so extremist and absolutist."  Or something like that.

The fact that you hold a selfish and stupid opinion that whites OWE some form of reparation to the negro because of slavery shows your inability to grasp future implication quite nicely. It leads me to conclude that if you were in charge, society would devolve into chaos quite rapidly.

That conclusion is a troll's flame, no doubt about it.  But I'll continue to play along.  Even if 3Peat is making the claim you're attributing to him/her (which is it, yo?), this misses the point of AA.  Again, more on this later.

As for Harvard and other great American law schools, they were doing just fine, and arguable vastly better, before negros and mexicans were stuffed down their throats by the radicals and freeloaders of the 1960's.

Then argue it.  Without the pseudo-racist rhetoric.  I'd like to see some evidence.

Now, this is what most white people actually think, although they are too civilized to let you know it. I suggest you think long and hard about it, whether they say it or not, you can bet they think it. Act accordingly and enjoy your free ride, it wont last much longer.

Nobody elected you as spokesperson.  Go @#!* up some other race.

HERE IS A SPECIAL CASE, SAVED FOR LAST:

Compare:

The races are no different. What could a black man possibly add to a discussion MERELY because of his blackness? There is nothing special about being black just as there is nothing special about being white. You are actually the racist. I view races as entirely equal, but better off being separate.

and

And, while my views on race may not be agreeable to you, I can assure you that I have plenty of observable evidence that races and cultures are better off living separately. Go look up the word, Balkanize, and think about what it means and its implications for this country. AA in my eyes is a tacit admission that integration cannot succeed in the end, but can only be forced upon societies and people's who have a natural tendency and a natural inclination to associate with people of their own race and cultural background.

So give us some of this "observable evidence," then.  Oh, by the way, the Balkan situation erupted amongst people of the same race.  Different cultures, you say?  Yeah, but tell that to the black kid who lives down your street in Suburb, USA.  Or explain that to the Native American kid raised in Manhattan, whose only "cultural" experience was the time his teacher made him watch "Dances With Wolves".  Who gave you the f-ing right to homogenize "culture"?  How do you draw your distinct, arbitrary boundaries?

Furthermore, your country has none of the specific ethnic tensions of the Balkans.  But let's say we grant you that point, and pretend that it does.  Lastly, then, you should probably go check up on your own example, since separation made no f-ing difference.  That's right.  Owen's proposal did nothing.  They still blew each other apart, this time specifically because of the separation.  But, like I said, the situation in the US arises from an entirely different historical depth, which makes this comparison null and void.   

You know, I grew up in apartheid-era South Africa, and even then I couldn't believe people could utter such drivel.  Yeah, go look up the word "apartheid".  Then study a bit of its murky history.  For the uninitiated, the word means "separateness".  That's right: segregation.  In all its full constitutional glory, that is. 

But hey, you'll argue, I said races are "equal", and apartheid didn't allow for that.  Sure, sure, but your polemic is couched in the same sort of diversionary rhetoric the National Party used from the start; they, too, claimed that this was merely beneficial for all parties involved.  However, they, too, probably felt that "Coloreds," blacks and Indians were being stuffed down their throats (considering they had to deal with it as a 1/5 minority), just as you feel that "blacks and mexicans [sic]" are being shoved down schools' throats today.  What I'm saying is that your argument is on a par with theirs.

In any case, that's a moot point as well, since South Africa is not the US.  However, given the logic you used earlier, I thought this may make my point nicely.


Title: Re: Affirmative action = bullsh*t
Post by: FossilJ on December 05, 2005, 07:28:39 PM
SO, ON TO THE PRAXIS OF AA:

3peat, this troll has a point in that AA cannot be defended on the grounds that it redresses historical wrongs.  While those wrongs are the basis of the social, cultural, and political structures that contribute to the generally discouraging situation of minorities in the United States, there can be no salient or accurate historical argument made to hold someone accountable for their ancestors' misdeeds.  The past is just too complicated (something our troll doesn't seem to quite understand).  Furthermore, our knowledge of that past is constructed: there is no way for us to know what happened as it happened in the first place, nevermind to hold specific parties accountable for some universal wrong committed by a system that included dozens of nations, a variety of cultures (both as operators and as victims), and spanned over 250 years. 

What affirmative action essentially is is an effort to artificially even the playing field, as a catalyst for community development.  "White people" aren't "paying the way" for blacks and Hispanics to go to school because their great-grandfathers owned slaves.  They are, in fact, minutely disadvantaged for a select period in order for the numbers to be evened so that, eventually, there will be a measure of proportional representation in advanced professional fields.  The belief is that, in doing so, a chain reaction is fostered; that these professionals will give back to their communities, address the structures that need work, inject some much needed cash into community projects, and act as role models for others who may not have considered such career paths before.  The "diversity" you hear of is not supposed to apply to law school, per se, but rather to the wider field of law in general, the practice five or ten years down the road.  Minority lawyers tend to represent minority issues (or thus the ideal holds) - as such, promoting their success now benefits a just society in the long run.
 
AA is actually a tacit admission that integration is an absolute necessity.  It is the cause, not the result.

Sure, AA has its faults.  The main problem is that it addresses only specific minorities (and here is a point of discrimination on which the troll and I may agree), and does so for (what are reported to be) bogus reasons.  The other major fault is that it fails to properly address socioeconomic issues such as poverty, regardless of race. 

The social and economical ills that AA is purported to help solve cannot be addressed from the top down.  The basics must be rectified first - the foundations that keep a majority of minorities (nice turn of phrase, eh?) at a disadvantage must be deconstructed and then reconstructed.  Of course, as I said, part of the ideal of AA is that the process will accomplish just such a reconstruction - that those who have benefited from AA will help build better communities.  It is debatable whether a focused assault on more basic structures of inequality are merited.  My thoughts are that both ends need to be tended to to maximise results.   

AA does discriminate, and probably does add to the notion of racial distinctions in some implicit manner.  However, it does not, in any way, suggest that minorities can't make it into law school on merit.  It simply suggests that more minorities are needed in law school, because they are needed in the field, in general.

Is it unfair?  No.  Any person who thinks they didn't get into law school because of a minority, think again.  If you were under the 25th percentile of both LSAT and GPA, it was going to be a crapshoot in the first place, and you didn't get the benefit of the doubt - a minority got the spot that both of you would've been lucky to get.  If you were around the median and you didn't get in, and some minority kid with worse numbers than you got in, that's unfair, right?  Wrong.  I'll guarantee you there are five other white kids with worse numbers than you who got in as well.  The truth?  You're not going to be kept out of law school by AA.

And, given the gist of my argument above, that's about the only valid reason left to female dog about AA.  Now that's gone, as well. 


PS:  That last line was a flame just for you, troll boy.
Title: Re: Affirmative action = bullsh*t
Post by: wallaby on December 05, 2005, 09:43:16 PM
Quote
3peat, this troll has a point in that AA cannot be defended on the grounds that it redresses historical wrongs.  While those wrongs are the basis of the social, cultural, and political structures that contribute to the generally discouraging situation of minorities in the United States, there can be no salient or accurate historical argument made to hold someone accountable for their ancestors' misdeeds.  The past is just too complicated (something our troll doesn't seem to quite understand).

Au contraire, its not my point, its the Supreme Court's point. And it is not I who does not understand the complexity of the issue of "reparations" it is 3peat. Hence, my opposition to the concept.


Quote
What affirmative action essentially is is an effort to artificially even the playing field, as a catalyst for community development.


I agree, the operative word being artificially, because blacks could not get into top law schools (and we might as well limit ourselves to this model because every other result merely trickles down the rankings all the way to Cooley) if they were judged against the same standards as asians, whites and jews. You may take issue with my phrasing in the other thread, but the net effect is the same.

Quote
"White people" aren't "paying the way" for blacks and Hispanics to go to school because their great-grandfathers owned slaves.  They are, in fact, minutely disadvantaged for a select period in order for the numbers to be evened so that, eventually, there will be a measure of proportional representation in advanced professional fields.


Really fine rhetoric, but calling a rat a fluffy, four-legged mammal does not make it anything more than a rat. You refer to it as "minutely disadvantaged" I call it egregiously unconstitutional. Its a beautiful attempt at misdirection to throw in the idea of a "select period" when I know that you know there is no such period defined anywhere, that the policy of AA will continue indefinitely until its thrown out as unconstitutional. This was the biggest issue facing O'Connor and she essentially failed to engage it.

Quote
The belief is that, in doing so, a chain reaction is fostered; that these professionals will give back to their communities, address the structures that need work, inject some much needed cash into community projects, and act as role models for others who may not have considered such career paths before.


Yes, I am well aquainted with the concept, but I fail to see any evidence that this is in fact, occuring, and certainly not convinced that the "belief" justifies an act which is blatantly unconstitutional. If evidence abounded that twenty more years of AA would succeed in its objective, I would become its biggest proponent. But, so far, all I see from supporters of the policy, like you, is rhetoric which I'm sure wows the plebs but has no effect on my thinking, because in order to change a view, I generally require new data, not someone's opinion, however well composed and superficially convincing it is.

Quote
The "diversity" you hear of is not supposed to apply to law school, per se, but rather to the wider field of law in general, the practice five or ten years down the road.


HAH, tell this to 3peat who keeps spewing about how his perspective is so important to a law school class. That's what the idiot line is you know, you NEED MY VIEW IN YOUR HARVARD LAW CLASSES......because I'm black, they are valuable. Noone talks about AA being necessary so that URMs can later advocate for their own (tacit agreement that races and cultures tend to pursue their group interest?) or that they hope to give back to their fellow URMs by investing in communities. No, sir, as lovely an idea it is, what you actually see is these blacks fleeing to white areas, seeking out white schools and getting as far away from the average black toilets they can get.....FACT. So, either produce some evidence that AA has improved the process enough to justify its blatantly unconstitutional nature or try something else.
 
Quote
AA is actually a tacit admission that integration is an absolute necessity.  It is the cause, not the result.

You probably are quite proud of this gibberish, too bad it makes no sense whatsoever.

Quote
Sure, AA has its faults.  The main problem is that it addresses only specific minorities (and here is a point of discrimination on which the troll and I may agree), and does so for (what are reported to be) bogus reasons.  The other major fault is that it fails to properly address socioeconomic issues such as poverty, regardless of race. 

In other words, it helps blacks and hispanics and nobody else, and it helps those people regardless of their socioeconomic status even though all evidence points to the conclusion that economic contingencies are more predictive of opportunity than race.

Quote
The social and economical ills that AA is purported to help solve cannot be addressed from the top down.

So, you have now torpedoed the only defense left that sustains AA. Refer back to your paragraph about professionals investing in communities and advocating for their own interests. You knocked the only leg supporting your position out from under yourself!

Quote
The basics must be rectified first - the foundations that keep a majority of minorities (nice turn of phrase, eh?) at a disadvantage must be deconstructed and then reconstructed.

Lenin anyone? But seriously, again, more really lovely Mao'ist rhetoric but there's no meat on that bone. You have conceded that top down approach wont work, and now advocate some grandiose bottom up approach but you have no proposals that might actually work.

Quote
Of course, as I said, part of the ideal of AA is that the process will accomplish just such a reconstruction - that those who have benefited from AA will help build better communities.  It is debatable whether a focused assault on more basic structures of inequality are merited.  My thoughts are that both ends need to be tended to to maximise results.   

Good recovery! As to the debate, there may be some debate within your socialist head, but there isn't any other debate except removing AA altogether. You guys barely won 5-4 with your majority justice now gone.

Quote
AA does discriminate, and probably does add to the notion of racial distinctions in some implicit manner.  However, it does not, in any way, suggest that minorities can't make it into law school on merit.  It simply suggests that more minorities are needed in law school, because they are needed in the field, in general.

Again, you agree with me, that's four times, you agree that AA does not serve to redress past injustices, you agree that diversity is not intended to make its impact in the actual classroom (despite the perception of many unqualified AA autoadmits), you agree that AA has major flaws, and now you agree that AA does discriminate and adds to racial tension (you call it distinctions).

I also never said that NO URMs would be admitted based on their merit, but look at Berkley, that must be the result when AA gets rolled.
Quote
Is it unfair?  No.  Any person who thinks they didn't get into law school because of a minority, think again.  If you were under the 25th percentile of both LSAT and GPA, it was going to be a crapshoot in the first place, and you didn't get the benefit of the doubt - a minority got the spot that both of you would've been lucky to get.  If you were around the median and you didn't get in, and some minority kid with worse numbers than you got in, that's unfair, right?  Wrong.  I'll guarantee you there are five other white kids with worse numbers than you who got in as well.  The truth?  You're not going to be kept out of law school by AA.

I agree with this whole statement.

Quote
And, given the gist of my argument above, that's about the only valid reason left to female dog about AA.  Now that's gone, as well. 

In your arrogant mind you actually think you have won this debate?

You haven't even refuted a single point. All you have done is implied that I am a racist and then spouted unsubstantiated rhetoric about the purpose of AA. You agreed with me five times that I am aware of.

But, to give you another chance because you are obviously well schooled: My objection is that its blatantly unconstituional to make distinctions based on race. I accept the court's view that AA represents a compelling federal interest that warrants bending the constitution, but only if sufficient evidence is developed that demonstrates that AA will result within "select period" its objective. But since this evidence is either flimsy or does not exist, I do not support it.

If you are even remotely interested in being right, instead of correct in a political sense, you should try to dredge up a few numbers that demonstrate AA is working. In the absence of that, you cannot win. But if you produce that, I will never again challenge AA as a policy, in fact, I will support it whole-heartedly.
Title: Re: Affirmative action = bullsh*t
Post by: wallaby on December 05, 2005, 09:45:57 PM


The LSAT scores are a reflection of pure capacity, its as simple as that, and they are the number one indicator of success in law school. Law school is the number one indicator of future success as a lawyer.

Both of these "facts" are under dispute.  Your use of them here is misleading.  In fact, as for the basis of your syllogism, LSAT scores bear only a 0.2 correlation with law school success.  It's a better indicator than GPA, but that's about all you've got.

J is friggin' awesome. 




[/quote]

Is this supposed to be a refute? LSAT is the #1 predictor of law school success, and .2 is actually an extremely strong indicator relative to the SAT or even MCAT. So, I'm not sure what makes J so friggin' awesome, except his rhetoric is quite good but also quite meaningless.
Title: Re: Affirmative action = bullsh*t
Post by: TrojanChispas on December 05, 2005, 11:30:09 PM
unconstitutional?  that is odd, since the SCOTUS found it constitutional; sorry if i take their opinion over yours on this one.  what about legacy admitance, is that unconstitutional too?

we can agree to disagree on this one:  minorities are not let in simply because they are minorities, but only if they have a different experience and are qualified other than a few points on the LSAT.

Maybe you think that diversity of opinion and experience are not necessary to a law school experience, but you have never been to law school and dont sit on an admissions committee which reads PS' all day long.

Considering that minorities didnt make up AA and dont implement AA, you sure are racist enough to blame all your problems on us.


PS

I PWN YOU

(http://img338.imageshack.us/img338/3844/1264ou.jpg)
Title: Re: Affirmative action = bullsh*t
Post by: TrojanChispas on December 05, 2005, 11:41:37 PM
Right, I do not think blacks and hispanics are getting in on merit. You keep referring to these valuable opinions that are different from mine. But that is a generalization that is totally unsubstantiated by any observable fact. I mean, what views and opinions are you even talking about? how about having to deal with racists like you?

The races are no different. What could a black man possibly add to a discussion MERELY because of his blackness? There is nothing special about being black just as there is nothing special about being white. You are actually the racist. I view races as entirely equal, but better off being separate. I think you see blacks as different, otherwise I doubt you could support this position that they need special consideration simply because they are black.

The fact is, you support a policy whereby blacks are judged differently than everyone else. I would never support such a policy. As long as this country is working at integrating, I will go along, but I will not go along with a policy that preaches equality and then turns around and makes distinctions based on the very thing they state is against the law use as a basis for distinction. Even a child can understand this makes no sense.

If I were black, I would be outraged at the decision by that liberal junta in the court. By stating that AA is no longer justifiably employed as a tool to redress past injustices, then they must be keeping it around for some other reason. What other reason is that? If the past injustices no longer warrant the action, then the only alternative is to conclude that blacks are not capable of competing on an equal footing as whites, jews and asians and anything quantitative or measurable supports this view.

The LSAT scores are a reflection of pure capacity, its as simple as that, and they are the number one indicator of success in law school. Law school is the number one indicator of future success as a lawyer. Low LSAT's by negros indicates they are less likely to do well in law school and therefore less likely to be good lawyers. The fact that you hold a selfish and stupid opinion that whites OWE some form of reparation to the negro because of slavery shows your inability to grasp future implication quite nicely. It leads me to conclude that if you were in charge, society would devolve into chaos quite rapidly.

And, while my views on race may not be agreeable to you, I can assure you that I have plenty of observable evidence that races and cultures are better off living separately. Go look up the word, Balkanize, and think about what it means and its implications for this country. AA in my eyes is a tacit admission that integration cannot succeed in the end, but can only be forced upon societies and people's who have a natural tendency and a natural inclination to associate with people of their own race and cultural background.

As for Harvard and other great American law schools, they were doing just fine, and arguable vastly better, before negros and mexicans were stuffed down their throats by the radicals and freeloaders of the 1960's.

Now, this is what most white people actually think, although they are too civilized to let you know it. I suggest you think long and hard about it, whether they say it or not, you can bet they think it. Act accordingly and enjoy your free ride, it wont last much longer.


you are hopeless
Title: Re: Affirmative action = bullsh*t
Post by: FossilJ on December 06, 2005, 03:26:20 AM
Quote
3peat, this troll has a point in that AA cannot be defended on the grounds that it redresses historical wrongs.  While those wrongs are the basis of the social, cultural, and political structures that contribute to the generally discouraging situation of minorities in the United States, there can be no salient or accurate historical argument made to hold someone accountable for their ancestors' misdeeds.  The past is just too complicated (something our troll doesn't seem to quite understand).

Au contraire, its not my point, its the Supreme Court's point. And it is not I who does not understand the complexity of the issue of "reparations" it is 3peat. Hence, my opposition to the concept.

If you read my previous post (which is clear, from my reading of your responses, that you didn't), then you would realize that I am here actually taking your side.  The parenthetic point addresses your lack of consistent logical application in the post I deconstructed.

Quote
What affirmative action essentially is is an effort to artificially even the playing field, as a catalyst for community development.


I agree, the operative word being artificially, because blacks could not get into top law schools (and we might as well limit ourselves to this model because every other result merely trickles down the rankings all the way to Cooley) if they were judged against the same standards as asians, whites and jews. You may take issue with my phrasing in the other thread, but the net effect is the same.

I'm going to save this quote for later.  Also, you're still ignoring evidence provided by other posters suggesting the correlation between race and socioeconomic disparity.  But that's the convenient way to do things.

Quote
"White people" aren't "paying the way" for blacks and Hispanics to go to school because their great-grandfathers owned slaves.  They are, in fact, minutely disadvantaged for a select period in order for the numbers to be evened so that, eventually, there will be a measure of proportional representation in advanced professional fields.


Really fine rhetoric, but calling a rat a fluffy, four-legged mammal does not make it anything more than a rat. You refer to it as "minutely disadvantaged" I call it egregiously unconstitutional. Its a beautiful attempt at misdirection to throw in the idea of a "select period" when I know that you know there is no such period defined anywhere, that the policy of AA will continue indefinitely until its thrown out as unconstitutional. This was the biggest issue facing O'Connor and she essentially failed to engage it.

First, we'll never reconcile our differences on the absolute authority and inherent accuracy of the constitution, other than it provides, right now, a basic reading of the law (whether right or wrong, which, I claim, is debatable).  In any case, "select period" does not misrepresent.  Whether it gets tossed out or not (as I actually hope will occur once the need arises) is a moot point.  Perhaps O'Connor took the same stance.  I couldn't say.

Quote
The belief is that, in doing so, a chain reaction is fostered; that these professionals will give back to their communities, address the structures that need work, inject some much needed cash into community projects, and act as role models for others who may not have considered such career paths before.


Yes, I am well aquainted with the concept, but I fail to see any evidence that this is in fact, occuring, and certainly not convinced that the "belief" justifies an act which is blatantly unconstitutional. If evidence abounded that twenty more years of AA would succeed in its objective, I would become its biggest proponent. But, so far, all I see from supporters of the policy, like you, is rhetoric which I'm sure wows the plebs but has no effect on my thinking, because in order to change a view, I generally require new data, not someone's opinion, however well composed and superficially convincing it is.

Hey, you know what was unconstitutional?  Saying you believe in the rights of all men to equality, liberty, and prosperity, and then fostering a system that provides for the exact opposite of these values.  That's just my take. 

What new data do you require?  That which will fit your narrow frame of "truth"?  Or the tangible benefits of AA in the community, which are already being observed?  I will return after I'm done my term papers with a few sources for your perusal.  Here's a tidbit to start, taken from Wikipedia:

"From 1960 to 1995, according to data in The Shape of the River by William G. Bowen and Derek Bok, the percentage of blacks aged 25–29 who had graduated from college rose from 5.4 to 15.4%, the percentage of blacks in law school grew from below 1 to 7.5%, and the percentage of blacks in medical school increased from 2.2 to 8.1%" 

In any case, I was just expounding on the actual goals of affirmative action to provide a different side to the "historical redress" loop in which you and 3peat were caught, so I'm not going to spend more time defending a "belief" which does not necessarily represent my opinion.

Title: Re: Affirmative action = bullsh*t
Post by: FossilJ on December 06, 2005, 03:27:49 AM
...ctd.

Quote
The "diversity" you hear of is not supposed to apply to law school, per se, but rather to the wider field of law in general, the practice five or ten years down the road.


HAH, tell this to 3peat who keeps spewing about how his perspective is so important to a law school class. That's what the idiot line is you know, you NEED MY VIEW IN YOUR HARVARD LAW CLASSES......because I'm black, they are valuable. Noone talks about AA being necessary so that URMs can later advocate for their own (tacit agreement that races and cultures tend to pursue their group interest?) or that they hope to give back to their fellow URMs by investing in communities. No, sir, as lovely an idea it is, what you actually see is these blacks fleeing to white areas, seeking out white schools and getting as far away from the average black toilets they can get.....FACT. So, either produce some evidence that AA has improved the process enough to justify its blatantly unconstitutional nature or try something else.

This line was a response to 3peat, so relax.

Once again, you make up "facts".  Provide some evidence if you're going to make that claim.  I know a shitload of successful blacks who returned to their communities.  Even if they didn't, and they moved to "white areas," they make sure to stay involved in those communities.  That, at least, is anecdotal evidence.  Better than your zero evidence.

"Tacit agreement that races pursue their own cultural or group interests."  So what?  This is irrelevant.  It's not an argument in support of racial segregation, nor does it prove some sort of evil cultural machination at work within distinct ethnicities.  Just because people tend towards groups of their own kind does not mean that they should be restricted to those groups, or that such groups represent all (or, for that matter, even a large majority) of these particular ethnicities.  So what's your point?


Quote
AA is actually a tacit admission that integration is an absolute necessity.  It is the cause, not the result.

You probably are quite proud of this gibberish, too bad it makes no sense whatsoever.

If you don't understand it, it's pretty weak to just dismiss it and turn it into an ad hominem attack.  You seem pretty intelligent - I expected more. 

Here's your statement:

"AA in my eyes is a tacit admission that integration cannot succeed in the end, but can only be forced upon societies and people's who have a natural tendency and a natural inclination to associate with people of their own race and cultural background." 

AA does no such thing.  AA addresses precisely the hegemonic power structures in place that historically have prevented minorities from entry into what used to be acknowledged as a "white man's club."  In short, AA was designed to attack that which has a vested interest in preventing integration from occurring in the first place.  As such, it is a tacit admission that integration is an absolute necessity, and an explicit system meant to address this necessity. 

Thus, it is not the result of some failed attempts at integration, but rather the cause of integration to redress the imbalances and prejudices embodied in the end of your statement.

Quote
Sure, AA has its faults.  The main problem is that it addresses only specific minorities (and here is a point of discrimination on which the troll and I may agree), and does so for (what are reported to be) bogus reasons.  The other major fault is that it fails to properly address socioeconomic issues such as poverty, regardless of race. 

In other words, it helps blacks and hispanics and nobody else, and it helps those people regardless of their socioeconomic status even though all evidence points to the conclusion that economic contingencies are more predictive of opportunity than race.

Evidence also points to a correlation between race and "economic contingencies".  On the rest, though, we're agreed.  This is a major fault in AA that I think needs to be reformed.

Quote
The social and economical ills that AA is purported to help solve cannot be addressed from the top down.

So, you have now torpedoed the only defense left that sustains AA. Refer back to your paragraph about professionals investing in communities and advocating for their own interests. You knocked the only leg supporting your position out from under yourself!

In all honesty, if this statement remained as is, you would be right.  In my defense, however, there is a typo.  The word "just" was supposed to appear before "be".  This is corroborated by the rest of my argument, as my "nice recovery [sic]" would attest.

Quote
The basics must be rectified first - the foundations that keep a majority of minorities (nice turn of phrase, eh?) at a disadvantage must be deconstructed and then reconstructed.

Lenin anyone? But seriously, again, more really lovely Mao'ist rhetoric but there's no meat on that bone. You have conceded that top down approach wont work, and now advocate some grandiose bottom up approach but you have no proposals that might actually work.

I'm glad you can identify my pseudo-socialist tendencies, although I'm disappointed you hedged your bets on Mao and Lenin when my arguments are barely relevant to the ideologies of either (even Marx, for that matter, although I won't summarily dismiss him, either, without at least attending to one or two of his points - but you don't feel like doing that?). 

As for your counter, please see my previous comment.  Normally, you'd be correct.

Quote
Of course, as I said, part of the ideal of AA is that the process will accomplish just such a reconstruction - that those who have benefited from AA will help build better communities.  It is debatable whether a focused assault on more basic structures of inequality are merited.  My thoughts are that both ends need to be tended to to maximise results.   

Good recovery! As to the debate, there may be some debate within your socialist head, but there isn't any other debate except removing AA altogether. You guys barely won 5-4 with your majority justice now gone.

"You guys"?  Who said this is a sport?  I belong to no "team" or specific "group".  If you want to polarize for semiotic convenience, go do it somewhere else.

Also, the debate is quite clearly occurring, despite your willfull ignorance.  This is reflected in that very same 5-4 vote, just as it is in this conversation.  There is absolutely no validity in this claim, so I'll put it down as a flame.

Quote
AA does discriminate, and probably does add to the notion of racial distinctions in some implicit manner.  However, it does not, in any way, suggest that minorities can't make it into law school on merit.  It simply suggests that more minorities are needed in law school, because they are needed in the field, in general.

Again, you agree with me, that's four times, you agree (1) that AA does not serve to redress past injustices, you agree (2) that diversity is not intended to make its impact in the actual classroom (despite the perception of many unqualified AA autoadmits), you agree (3) that AA has major flaws, and now you agree (4) that AA does discriminate and adds to racial tension (you call it distinctions).

1.  Indeed.  That is, in fact, the basis of this entire argument.  Never claimed to disagree.
2.  Indeed, again.  Also part of the argument.  Don't see why you're so excited over this.
3.  Yes, it does have major flaws, but the principle remains valid.  It's the system that I'm arguing should be addressed.
4.  Sure, AA discriminates.  I never claimed contrary.  But it does so for a specific, sociocultural, pragmatic purpose. 

And don't put words in my mouth.  It only adds to racial tension when hate mongers like yourself stoke up the fires of ethnic segregation.  I said "distinctions" because I meant "distinctions", in the sense that the constructed notion of "race" cannot disappear until any practices based on race are eliminated.  This does not mean there can't be positive value in such practices.

But, as I've allude to earlier in my post, and as my previous posts will verify, I am more in favor of a system that specifically addresses socioeconomic issues without recourse to race; this does not mean that race isn't involved, because, as I said, poverty and race are significantly correlated.  THIS is why I still support AA.

Title: Re: Affirmative action = bullsh*t
Post by: FossilJ on December 06, 2005, 03:28:42 AM
I also never said that NO URMs would be admitted based on their merit, but look at Berkley, that must be the result when AA gets rolled.

Oh, you didn't?  I'll take this one from this very same post:

"because blacks could not get into top law schools (and we might as well limit ourselves to this model because every other result merely trickles down the rankings all the way to Cooley) if they were judged against the same standards as asians, whites and jews. You may take issue with my phrasing in the other thread, but the net effect is the same."

The Berkeley issue is still up for debate.  Besides, there are very low numbers of URM applicants to begin with.  To find worthy candidates in such a small pool is exceedingly difficult.  That, in fact, is one of the major points which AA is meant to address, by providing opportunities in school, larger URM alumni bases, and thus instigating a positive feedback loop.

Quote
Is it unfair?  No.  Any person who thinks they didn't get into law school because of a minority, think again.  If you were under the 25th percentile of both LSAT and GPA, it was going to be a crapshoot in the first place, and you didn't get the benefit of the doubt - a minority got the spot that both of you would've been lucky to get.  If you were around the median and you didn't get in, and some minority kid with worse numbers than you got in, that's unfair, right?  Wrong.  I'll guarantee you there are five other white kids with worse numbers than you who got in as well.  The truth?  You're not going to be kept out of law school by AA.

I agree with this whole statement.

Good to hear.

Quote
And, given the gist of my argument above, that's about the only valid reason left to female dog about AA.  Now that's gone, as well. 

In your arrogant mind you actually think you have won this debate?

Dude, I clearly stated that that's a flame.  You really bit hard on that bait.

You haven't even refuted a single point. All you have done is implied that I am a racist and then spouted unsubstantiated rhetoric about the purpose of AA. You agreed with me five times that I am aware of.

I implied that you're a racist because you make racist statements. 

I provided a theoretical basis for the praxis of AA, substantiating where I saw fit (it is, after all, for you to point out where I lack enough evidence, which is why we call this a "debate"). 

I agreed with you on the points where, in fact, we are in agreement.  Yeah, that's redundant, but you're so excitable that I should probably point out again that this particular post was not a direct refutation of your arguments, but rather a new spin on another argument between you and 3peat. 

I can still disagree with you about the issue if I agree with you on certain points.  I don't know why you have to be so "absolute and extremist" about this.  Does it convince you that you've proven me wrong when I agree on some issues?  No.  In fact, it just promotes amicable discussion, unless you're going to get all worked up about it again.

But, to give you another chance because you are obviously well schooled: My objection is that its blatantly unconstituional to make distinctions based on race. I accept the court's view that AA represents a compelling federal interest that warrants bending the constitution, but only if sufficient evidence is developed that demonstrates that AA will result within "select period" its objective. But since this evidence is either flimsy or does not exist, I do not support it.

If you are even remotely interested in being right, instead of correct in a political sense, you should try to dredge up a few numbers that demonstrate AA is working. In the absence of that, you cannot win. But if you produce that, I will never again challenge AA as a policy, in fact, I will support it whole-heartedly.

First, demonstrate that AA is not working.  You like to sling mud, now prove yourself.  Like I said, I will be back after my term papers are finished to continue this discussion.

We are agreed in that AA needs to set itself firm goals in specific time frames in order to prove its efficiency (this is not a necessary condition, but a preferred one).  We are also agreed that socioeconomic factors should be the overriding concern in practice. 

The tangible effects are being felt, but they could (and should) be a lot more drastic.  As such, AA is working, but is defective in certain key areas.  Most importantly, it does not accurately address socioeconomic concerns, nor does it work at a macrolevel to correct the sociopolitical structures that promote the self-protective class divisions that keep select groups at a disadvantage.

(And, before you jump on the McCarthy train again, this does not absolve such groups of their agency, their responsibility in their own class construction.  In many ways, it can be black people's fault for not climbing out of the ghetto, as most African-Americans will attest.  But if this is to be so, at least let people start on an equal footing, not in this imbalanced genesis that they currently face.)
Title: Re: Affirmative action = bullsh*t
Post by: FossilJ on December 06, 2005, 03:37:55 AM
One last thing.

Are you going to read my first post addressing you or not?  If you did, have you just given up on it? 

Title: Re: Affirmative action = bullsh*t
Post by: wallaby on December 06, 2005, 09:50:11 AM
Quote
I think you see blacks as different, otherwise I doubt you could support this position that they need special consideration simply because they are black.

Not his argument.  Red herring.

His argument is based on blacks adding valuable opinions and viewpoints to law school discussions merely based on the fact that they are black. This can only lead me to conclude that he associates some special quality with blackness that he does not also associate with whiteness. I derived a conclusion from his premise, and made an observation about it. Its only a red herring because he really has no argument, he establishes an assumption and then proceeds to a conclusion, both of which are invalid.

Quote
The fact is, you support a policy whereby blacks are judged differently than everyone else. I would never support such a policy. As long as this country is working at integrating, I will go along, but I will not go along with a policy that preaches equality and then turns around and makes distinctions based on the very thing they state is against the law use as a basis for distinction. Even a child can understand this makes no sense.

There is a praxis to AA that justifies the reasons.  More on this later.

You have agreed that it is discriminatory and a child could understand that it is. This leaves us with the inevitable conclusion that the law is unconstitutional on its face and that the court ruled in its favor because of some other more important federal interest. I am not an absolutist for making this observation because I concede that a legitimate federal interest may be in play. But I am against AA because the goals of AA are not being realized sufficient to justify the effect. Four justices agree and probably now five.

Quote
By stating that AA is no longer justifiably employed as a tool to redress past injustices, then they must be keeping it around for some other reason. What other reason is that? If the past injustices no longer warrant the action, then the only alternative is to conclude that blacks are not capable of competing on an equal footing as whites, jews and asians and anything quantitative or measurable supports this view.



I'm not sure why you make the disingenous argument that its not that blacks are unqualified, its that we just need more of them at Harvard when you know full well this is not the case. Some URMs are qualified, but not enough to gain admission on their merit relative to other applicants. Therefore, AA must "artificially level the playing feild" not because not enough qualified blacks are applying, but because not enough blacks are qualified. I cannot see how you can dispute this fact. Now, people like 3peat would have us believe that blacks, simply because they are black, bring something to the table that whites, asians and jews do not bring..........but this could only be their blackness, because only a fool would attempt to argue that the races are inherently different in any way.


Quote
Low LSAT's by negros indicates they are less likely to do well in law school and therefore less likely to be good lawyers.

Based no my premise this is a perfectly fair and accurate statement. You have weakened my argument by stating that the LSAT is not a 100% predictor, but its the best we have at the moment and is certainly a more accurate predictor than someone's skin color. If we are going to use anything, law schools might as well use the best predictor currently in existence.

Quote
So, clearly, based on your own premises, this is false.  Even if your premises were true, the conclusion is false.  What were your words again?  "Stop being so extremist and absolutist."  Or something like that.

It is only a false conclusion if the premise has been completely refuted. You have merely weakened the premise by pointing out, truthfully, that it is not a 100% predictor, but it is still the best predictor. So, consider your refute mitigated. Result, data supports my view, but not conclusively.

Quote
The fact that you hold a selfish and stupid opinion that whites OWE some form of reparation to the negro because of slavery shows your inability to grasp future implication quite nicely. It leads me to conclude that if you were in charge, society would devolve into chaos quite rapidly.

That conclusion is a troll's flame, no doubt about it.  But I'll continue to play along.  Even if 3Peat is making the claim you're attributing to him/her (which is it, yo?), this misses the point of AA.  Again, more on this later.

How could it be expected to deal with the point of AA when 3peat clearly has no understanding of its purpose and no interest in its ramifications. He is only interested in being militant about past injustices and demanding some form of reparations from all white people.

Title: Re: Affirmative action = bullsh*t
Post by: wallaby on December 06, 2005, 09:50:42 AM
Quote
As for Harvard and other great American law schools, they were doing just fine, and arguable vastly better, before negros and mexicans were stuffed down their throats by the radicals and freeloaders of the 1960's.

Then argue it.  Without the pseudo-racist rhetoric.  I'd like to see some evidence.

Bah, I have no interest in making that argument, THIS was a flame. But, you know full well that the argument could be made, and probably countered ad infinitum. So, its an opinion not a fact, lets just disagree.

Quote
Now, this is what most white people actually think, although they are too civilized to let you know it. I suggest you think long and hard about it, whether they say it or not, you can bet they think it. Act accordingly and enjoy your free ride, it wont last much longer.

Nobody elected you as spokesperson.  Go @#!* up some other race.

Well, I'm embarrassed at having made this statement, but I do believe it to be true.

Quote
HERE IS A SPECIAL CASE, SAVED FOR LAST:

Compare:

The races are no different. What could a black man possibly add to a discussion MERELY because of his blackness? There is nothing special about being black just as there is nothing special about being white. You are actually the racist. I view races as entirely equal, but better off being separate.

and

And, while my views on race may not be agreeable to you, I can assure you that I have plenty of observable evidence that races and cultures are better off living separately. Go look up the word, Balkanize, and think about what it means and its implications for this country. AA in my eyes is a tacit admission that integration cannot succeed in the end, but can only be forced upon societies and people's who have a natural tendency and a natural inclination to associate with people of their own race and cultural background.

GASP! I do believe that races and ethnicities in the long term are better off separate. It is a political view not a personal one that I hold dear to my heart. It is an opinion based on observations I have made throughout my life, both personal and historical.

Quote
So give us some of this "observable evidence," then.  Oh, by the way, the Balkan situation erupted amongst people of the same race.  Different cultures, you say?  Yeah, but tell that to the black kid who lives down your street in Suburb, USA.  Or explain that to the Native American kid raised in Manhattan, whose only "cultural" experience was the time his teacher made him watch "Dances With Wolves".  Who gave you the f-ing right to homogenize "culture"?  How do you draw your distinct, arbitrary boundaries?

The people of the Balkans are not all the same race. There are Germanics, there are Slavs and there are Middle Eastern hybrids. I do not wish to homogenize culture, but you evidently do. I think cultures ought to be preserved, separate and distinct. This is a political view based on my life experience and knowledge of political history. How to draw the boundaries? It depends on who is running the government. If people like you are in goverment running the show, it will take a war.

Quote
Furthermore, your country has none of the specific ethnic tensions of the Balkans.  But let's say we grant you that point, and pretend that it does.  Lastly, then, you should probably go check up on your own example, since separation made no f-ing difference.  That's right.  Owen's proposal did nothing.  They still blew each other apart, this time specifically because of the separation.  But, like I said, the situation in the US arises from an entirely different historical depth, which makes this comparison null and void.   

None of the ethnic tensions of the Balkans? Wow, bold statement.

Quote
You know, I grew up in apartheid-era South Africa, and even then I couldn't believe people could utter such drivel.  Yeah, go look up the word "apartheid".  Then study a bit of its murky history.  For the uninitiated, the word means "separateness".  That's right: segregation.  In all its full constitutional glory, that is. 

What drivel is that? I have nowhere stated that I think blacks should be oppressed or that they are inferior. You simply dont know how to deal with someone who takes the position that ideally, the races and cultures would be separate and distinct. I have not spewed anti jew rhetoric or made a statement that blacks are inferior in any way. I have not attempted to connect lower LSAT scores with lower IQ's or referenced The Bell Curve. I have not said no blacks deserve to be at Harvard Law, I have just taken a position that is politically unfavored at the moment and you assume that I am some white supremacist. I run into this fairly often. People aren't quite sure how to deal with the arguments on their merit, they usually make appeals to emotion (your reference to S. Africa).

Quote
But hey, you'll argue, I said races are "equal", and apartheid didn't allow for that.  Sure, sure, but your polemic is couched in the same sort of diversionary rhetoric the National Party used from the start; they, too, claimed that this was merely beneficial for all parties involved.  However, they, too, probably felt that "Coloreds," blacks and Indians were being stuffed down their throats (considering they had to deal with it as a 1/5 minority), just as you feel that "blacks and mexicans [sic]" are being shoved down schools' throats today.  What I'm saying is that your argument is on a par with theirs.

Right, you are comparing me to the Nationalist Party. I dont know anything about them. My rhetoric is not diversionary simply because you cannot understand it. I have taken clear positions and you have shown yourself unable to refute them convincingly. And judging by the zealotry in your tone, you must sense that I am somehow a threat to your ideas and you have attacked me, called me names, but not really dealt with the basis of my position.

You have made ad hominems, made comparisons which you have subsequently discarded as non sequiturs and basically attempted to pigeon hole me as a racist. If being racist means that I believe the races would be politically, culturally and economically better off if they lived separate and distinct from one another then yeah, I guess I am a racist.

I will end this reply however, by stating that I do not believe that any one race is essentially different or superior or inferior to any other. I concede that in an ideal world and from the standpoint of principle, all races should in theory be able to proceed as if there were no such thing as race. But, I do not see that moment ever arriving and on that basis conclude that integration is much more trouble than any benefit that could possibly be manifest as a result.

I also concede that politically, this is an extremely controversial position to take, but because something is not polically correct does not mean it is not truth.




Title: Re: Affirmative action = bullsh*t
Post by: TrojanChispas on December 06, 2005, 09:56:59 AM
Eh guy, quit distorting my argument into a strawman: I never said blacks and whites are inherently different, and AA doesnt work like that.  YOu cant just say, hi Im black now let me in.  AA is about diversity of experience.  To the extent that a person has different experiences and viewpoints, that person is going to be benefited by AA.  Maybe minorities have more of those experiences and that is why they are perceived to benefit more from AA, but white people with those kinds of experiences will benefit too.
Title: Re: Affirmative action = bullsh*t
Post by: wallaby on December 06, 2005, 10:06:01 AM
Quote
If you read my previous post (which is clear, from my reading of your responses, that you didn't), then you would realize that I am here actually taking your side.  The parenthetic point addresses your lack of consistent logical application in the post I deconstructed.

You most certainly are not taking my side. You have agreed with me on five points that I am aware of, but still support AA. I am unaware of any logical inconsistencies in my posts. But you have: your allusion to South Africa was clearly intended to paint me as a white supremacist, but you then backed off anticipating that I would deny it and realizing you had nothing I had said that supports the accusation.


Quote
I'm going to save this quote for later.  Also, you're still ignoring evidence provided by other posters suggesting the correlation between race and socioeconomic disparity.  But that's the convenient way to do things.


Wrong: I specifically concede not only a correlation between blacks and socioeconomic disadvantage, but also link it to institutional racism.
Quote
First, we'll never reconcile our differences on the absolute authority and inherent accuracy of the constitution, other than it provides, right now, a basic reading of the law (whether right or wrong, which, I claim, is debatable).  In any case, "select period" does not misrepresent.  Whether it gets tossed out or not (as I actually hope will occur once the need arises) is a moot point.  Perhaps O'Connor took the same stance.  I couldn't say.

Select period does misrespresent because there is no mention of any number anywhere in the doctrine which defines it.

Quote
Hey, you know what was unconstitutional?  Saying you believe in the rights of all men to equality, liberty, and prosperity, and then fostering a system that provides for the exact opposite of these values.  That's just my take. 

Right, we agree, but because it was done once does not mean it should be done again.

Quote
What new data do you require?  That which will fit your narrow frame of "truth"?  Or the tangible benefits of AA in the community, which are already being observed?  I will return after I'm done my term papers with a few sources for your perusal.  Here's a tidbit to start, taken from Wikipedia:

Another nice attempt at a smear. But, since you have asked for clarification, let me provide it. The data I need to see is data that first, indicates that AA is working as prescribed and that the "select period" is at a point where it can actually be defined in real terms and is reasonable.

Quote
"From 1960 to 1995, according to data in The Shape of the River by William G. Bowen and Derek Bok, the percentage of blacks aged 25–29 who had graduated from college rose from 5.4 to 15.4%, the percentage of blacks in law school grew from below 1 to 7.5%, and the percentage of blacks in medical school increased from 2.2 to 8.1%"


The objective of AA is not simply to get more blacks into school. If that were the objective it would NOT constitute a compelling federal interest to ignore constitutional guidelines in its case.

Quote
In any case, I was just expounding on the actual goals of affirmative action to provide a different side to the "historical redress" loop in which you and 3peat were caught, so I'm not going to spend more time defending a "belief" which does not necessarily represent my opinion.

Yes, your formal training is evident, and you obviously conclude, as I do, that reparations on a vast scale are polically and legally impossibilities. You did do an excellent job of elaborating as to why.


Title: Re: Affirmative action = bullsh*t
Post by: wallaby on December 06, 2005, 10:07:59 AM
Eh guy, quit distorting my argument into a strawman: I never said blacks and whites are inherently different, and AA doesnt work like that.  YOu cant just say, hi Im black now let me in.  AA is about diversity of experience.  To the extent that a person has different experiences and viewpoints, that person is going to be benefited by AA.  Maybe minorities have more of those experiences and that is why they are perceived to benefit more from AA, but white people with those kinds of experiences will benefit too.

the strawman is that AA has anything to do with diversity of experience. I'm done with you though, lightweight.
Title: Re: Affirmative action = bullsh*t
Post by: TrojanChispas on December 06, 2005, 10:28:18 AM
reread Grutter v Bollinger and tell me it isnt about diversity of experiences.

OWNED
Title: Re: Affirmative action = bullsh*t
Post by: wallaby on December 06, 2005, 10:34:24 AM
Quote
This line was a response to 3peat, so relax.

You respond to more AA advocates who spew this sort of nonsense more often.

Quote
Once again, you make up "facts".  Provide some evidence if you're going to make that claim.  I know a shitload of successful blacks who returned to their communities.  Even if they didn't, and they moved to "white areas," they make sure to stay involved in those communities.  That, at least, is anecdotal evidence.  Better than your zero evidence.

Common sense tells us that black inner cities and black neighborhoods have gotten worse since 1965.

Quote
"Tacit agreement that races pursue their own cultural or group interests."  So what?  This is irrelevant.  It's not an argument in support of racial segregation, nor does it prove some sort of evil cultural machination at work within distinct ethnicities.  Just because people tend towards groups of their own kind does not mean that they should be restricted to those groups, or that such groups represent all (or, for that matter, even a large majority) of these particular ethnicities.  So what's your point?

I do not see it as irrelevant. You MUST see it as irrelevant though in order to continue defending your PC views. I am not making an argument for racial segregation really either, just pointing out that in my view, the races and cultures would be better off separate. I am in no way advocating that this should happen. My effort here is mainly an attempt to discredit the assumption that diversity of race somehow strengthens institutions, when there is no quantifiable evidence that it does. In fact, most circumstancial and historical evidence indicates that the reverse is the case.

Quote
AA does no such thing.  AA addresses precisely the hegemonic power structures in place that historically have prevented minorities from entry into what used to be acknowledged as a "white man's club."  In short, AA was designed to attack that which has a vested interest in preventing integration from occurring in the first place.  As such, it is a tacit admission that integration is an absolute necessity, and an explicit system meant to address this necessity. 

yes, and subverts the constitution and undermines the credibility of each institution in the process. I am not saying that the ends are not admirable, simply that the means are unjustifiable.

Quote
Evidence also points to a correlation between race and "economic contingencies".  On the rest, though, we're agreed.  This is a major fault in AA that I think needs to be reformed.

You keep falling back onto this when I've already conceded it to be the case, in my very first post in this thread. I simply reject its being used as justification for discriminating based on race.

Quote
I'm glad you can identify my pseudo-socialist tendencies, although I'm disappointed you hedged your bets on Mao and Lenin when my arguments are barely relevant to the ideologies of either (even Marx, for that matter, although I won't summarily dismiss him, either, without at least attending to one or two of his points - but you don't feel like doing that?). 

Actually, Marx's theory of surplus value pretty much explains the plight of the black man in today's world. But, since communism is recognized as an unworkable theory I choose to attack it, especially considering I believe capitalism to be a superior economic form.

Quote
"You guys"?  Who said this is a sport?  I belong to no "team" or specific "group".  If you want to polarize for semiotic convenience, go do it somewhere else.

bah

Quote
Also, the debate is quite clearly occurring, despite your willfull ignorance.  This is reflected in that very same 5-4 vote, just as it is in this conversation.  There is absolutely no validity in this claim, so I'll put it down as a flame.

There is no debate, that I am aware of, that would lead me to believe that the federal government is considering not only maintaining and improving AA but also to target bottom up approaches for funding. If anything, the reverse is true, bottom up approaches have been discarded as unworkable and AA (top down approach) has come under withering assault and will likely be rolled.

Quote
And don't put words in my mouth.  It only adds to racial tension when hate mongers like yourself stoke up the fires of ethnic segregation.  I said "distinctions" because I meant "distinctions", in the sense that the constructed notion of "race" cannot disappear until any practices based on race are eliminated.  This does not mean there can't be positive value in such practices.

So, you have agreed with me on essentially everything except that AA is justifiable and your last resort is to call me a "hater." Nice try but it wont work. In my personal life I deal with people of all types respectfully and with courtesy. I have no interest in judging others on anything but the content of their character and their own merit. I do not attack positions from the standpoint of dogma or doctrine. Perhaps you classify me as a hater because of your programming, which is unfortunate. We disagree about the ideal racial and cultural arrangment for the world and automatically I'm a hater. Would it make any difference if I told you that I have a deep admiration for other cultures, religions and races? I suppose not. Its unfortunate that you cannot assess the validity of my position without calling me some stupid meaningless word like "hater." Screw you man for playing to the plebs again. You suck.

Quote
But, as I've allude to earlier in my post, and as my previous posts will verify, I am more in favor of a system that specifically addresses socioeconomic issues without recourse to race; this does not mean that race isn't involved, because, as I said, poverty and race are significantly correlated.  THIS is why I still support AA.

This is a nice misdirection play here: Discriminating based on race is unacceptable, but discriminating based on economic disadvantage is acceptable- because many races are economically disadvantaged makes it acceptable to discriminate based on race.

Its stupid man, its like an LSAT question.

What error of logic does the author make in making his conclusion?
answer: incorrectly assumes that because some of A=x and some of x=B then all of A = B.
Title: Re: Affirmative action = bullsh*t
Post by: ImVinny! on December 07, 2005, 06:19:53 PM
Well, I would bet that if you can write a decent PS you will have an edge.   And you should because I have never met someone like you and it would enrich my law school experience to have your opinions/experiences expressed in class where they differ from mine.


This applies to me too, you realize this, right?
Title: Re: Affirmative action = bullsh*t
Post by: ImVinny! on December 07, 2005, 06:27:01 PM
unconstitutional?  that is odd, since the SCOTUS found it constitutional; sorry if i take their opinion over yours on this one.  what about legacy admitance, is that unconstitutional too?

we can agree to disagree on this one:  minorities are not let in simply because they are minorities, but only if they have a different experience and are qualified other than a few points on the LSAT.

Maybe you think that diversity of opinion and experience are not necessary to a law school experience, but you have never been to law school and dont sit on an admissions committee which reads PS' all day long.

Considering that minorities didnt make up AA and dont implement AA, you sure are racist enough to blame all your problems on us.


PS

I PWN YOU

(http://img338.imageshack.us/img338/3844/1264ou.jpg)

First of all,. are you on an admissions commitee implementing AA? If not, I suggest you don't refute others with that argument. Next, what makes you think that minorities were NOT the ones to bring about AA? It was Republicans, but that doesn't mean it wasn't the Republican Minorities. Just a thought.
Title: Re: Affirmative action = bullsh*t
Post by: TrojanChispas on December 07, 2005, 10:31:20 PM
Well, I would bet that if you can write a decent PS you will have an edge.   And you should because I have never met someone like you and it would enrich my law school experience to have your opinions/experiences expressed in class where they differ from mine.


This applies to me too, you realize this, right?

Then you have nothing of which to complain.
Title: Re: Affirmative action = bullsh*t
Post by: TrojanChispas on December 07, 2005, 10:35:52 PM
unconstitutional?  that is odd, since the SCOTUS found it constitutional; sorry if i take their opinion over yours on this one.  what about legacy admitance, is that unconstitutional too?

we can agree to disagree on this one:  minorities are not let in simply because they are minorities, but only if they have a different experience and are qualified other than a few points on the LSAT.

Maybe you think that diversity of opinion and experience are not necessary to a law school experience, but you have never been to law school and dont sit on an admissions committee which reads PS' all day long.

Considering that minorities didnt make up AA and dont implement AA, you sure are racist enough to blame all your problems on us.


PS

I PWN YOU

(http://img338.imageshack.us/img338/3844/1264ou.jpg)

First of all,. are you on an admissions commitee implementing AA? If not, I suggest you don't refute others with that argument. Next, what makes you think that minorities were NOT the ones to bring about AA? It was Republicans, but that doesn't mean it wasn't the Republican Minorities. Just a thought.

Even if i wasnt, I know that the policy of which you complain is implemented by the admission committees; maybe you disagree with them but you cannot reasonably say they have no good arguments for doing what they do.

And, by definition, minorities are just that, so how could they effectuate a policy change in the government which is controlled by the majority without the consent of the majority?

I cannot believe you are going to be my competition in the work force, AA or not you have no chance.

nice try, better luck next time.
Title: Re: Affirmative action = bullsh*t
Post by: ImVinny! on December 07, 2005, 10:54:04 PM
I think the only reason why any adcomm would admit people with lower numbers and just call it "diversity" is to make their rankings higher. They could care less about these people. Because there are minorities lobbying congress so that they can be present in greater numbers than their percents is why they are even being recognized.
It must not be this way. AA is not helping anything, in fact, it is creating more problems. On a larger sense at that.
Title: Re: Affirmative action = bullsh*t
Post by: TrojanChispas on December 07, 2005, 11:09:29 PM


unconstitutional?  that is odd, since the SCOTUS found it constitutional; sorry if i take their opinion over yours on this one.  what about legacy admitance, is that unconstitutional too?

we can agree to disagree on this one:  minorities are not let in simply because they are minorities, but only if they have a different experience and are qualified other than a few points on the LSAT.

Maybe you think that diversity of opinion and experience are not necessary to a law school experience, but you have never been to law school and dont sit on an admissions committee which reads PS' all day long.

Considering that minorities didnt make up AA and dont implement AA, you sure are racist enough to blame all your problems on us.


PS

I PWN YOU

(http://img338.imageshack.us/img338/3844/1264ou.jpg)

First of all,. are you on an admissions commitee implementing AA? If not, I suggest you don't refute others with that argument. Next, what makes you think that minorities were NOT the ones to bring about AA? It was Republicans, but that doesn't mean it wasn't the Republican Minorities. Just a thought.

Even if i wasnt, I know that the policy of which you complain is implemented by the admission committees; maybe you disagree with them but you cannot reasonably say they have no good arguments for doing what they do.

And, by definition, minorities are just that, so how could they effectuate a policy change in the government which is controlled by the majority without the consent of the majority?

I cannot believe you are going to be my competition in the work force, AA or not you have no chance.

nice try, better luck next time.

I think the only reason why any adcomm would admit people with lower numbers and just call it "diversity" is to make their rankings higher. They could care less about these people. Because there are minorities lobbying congress so that they can be present in greater numbers than their percents is why they are even being recognized.
It must not be this way. AA is not helping anything, in fact, it is creating more problems. On a larger sense at that.


See, this is why i dont like you and it is a perfect example: instead of posting a well reasoned opinion you make up some absurd explanation(s).

1.  how does admitting people with lesser number cause their rankings to go up?  dont rankings depend on numbers?  wouldnt it only make their diversity ranking go up?  Why dont you just apply to a school with a low diversity ranking and you are assured to get in?

2.  You dont think that diversity of thought is valuable per se?  I mean, you would like it if we all thought alike?  Isnt diversity of thought essential and fundamental to innovation?

3. You think that minorities lobbied in congress and got one over on the whole of congress which is dominated by white people?  And now the law schools are conspiring to implement that policy to make thier rankings higher?
Title: Re: Affirmative action = bullsh*t
Post by: ImVinny! on December 07, 2005, 11:45:07 PM
Law schools only value diversity because other people tell them to, this is just the same as why Congress "values" diversity, well, why I believe they all value it.
Yes, there is truth to the value of diversity of opinion, but i don't think that AA is helping any anyways, poor whites have opinions too that are different. Rich blacks, well, you can draw your own conclusions. I just think that AA i inherently unjust in its practices.
Title: Re: Affirmative action = bullsh*t
Post by: misery on December 07, 2005, 11:51:34 PM


3. You think that minorities lobbied in congress and got one over on the whole of congress which is dominated by white people?  And now the law schools are conspiring to implement that policy to make thier rankings higher?

Ever heard of special interests?
Title: Re: Affirmative action = bullsh*t
Post by: TrojanChispas on December 08, 2005, 12:56:48 AM
Law schools only value diversity because other people tell them to, this is just the same as why Congress "values" diversity, well, why I believe they all value it.
Yes, there is truth to the value of diversity of opinion, but i don't think that AA is helping any anyways, poor whites have opinions too that are different. Rich blacks, well, you can draw your own conclusions. I just think that AA i inherently unjust in its practices.

congress has nothing to do with anything.  these are a bunch of law schools that INDEPENDENTLY decided on their own to include diversity as one of the factors that they value for admittance to their school.

Maybe poor whites have diverse opinions, but who says AA doesnt help them. I belive that if they would truly add somethign unique to a law school environment, that is what AA is for and those poor whites would be helped.
Title: Re: Affirmative action = bullsh*t
Post by: FossilJ on December 08, 2005, 12:59:39 AM
Here we go again.    ;D

Quote
I think you see blacks as different, otherwise I doubt you could support this position that they need special consideration simply because they are black.

Not his argument.  Red herring.

His argument is based on blacks adding valuable opinions and viewpoints to law school discussions merely based on the fact that they are black. This can only lead me to conclude that he associates some special quality with blackness that he does not also associate with whiteness. I derived a conclusion from his premise, and made an observation about it. Its only a red herring because he really has no argument, he establishes an assumption and then proceeds to a conclusion, both of which are invalid.

Fair enough.

Quote
Quote
The fact is, you support a policy whereby blacks are judged differently than everyone else. I would never support such a policy. As long as this country is working at integrating, I will go along, but I will not go along with a policy that preaches equality and then turns around and makes distinctions based on the very thing they state is against the law use as a basis for distinction. Even a child can understand this makes no sense.

There is a praxis to AA that justifies the reasons.  More on this later.

You have agreed that it is discriminatory and a child could understand that it is. This leaves us with the inevitable conclusion that the law is unconstitutional on its face and that the court ruled in its favor because of some other more important federal interest. I am not an absolutist for making this observation because I concede that a legitimate federal interest may be in play. But I am against AA because the goals of AA are not being realized sufficient to justify the effect. Four justices agree and probably now five.

But five justices agreed.  In any case, that's an irrelevant point.  What's relevant is what your evidence is that the goals of AA are not being realized sufficient to justify the effect.

By stating that AA is no longer justifiably employed as a tool to redress past injustices, then they must be keeping it around for some other reason. What other reason is that? If the past injustices no longer warrant the action, then the only alternative is to conclude that blacks are not capable of competing on an equal footing as whites, jews and asians and anything quantitative or measurable supports this view.


I'm not sure why you make the disingenous argument that its not that blacks are unqualified, its that we just need more of them at Harvard when you know full well this is not the case. Some URMs are qualified, but not enough to gain admission on their merit relative to other applicants. Therefore, AA must "artificially level the playing feild" not because not enough qualified blacks are applying, but because not enough blacks are qualified. I cannot see how you can dispute this fact.

First point: not sure what you're talking about.  I don't recall making this argument.

Second point: what are you saying?  That no URMs are qualified enough to gain admission on merit relative to others?  Or that not enough URMs are qualified to gain admission on merit relative to others?

Third point: correct.  A larger sample size should theoretically also provide a larger pool of qualified applicants.  And this still does not negate the possibility of qualified black applicants even in such a small pool of applicants.

Now, people like 3peat would have us believe that blacks, simply because they are black, bring something to the table that whites, asians and jews do not bring..........but this could only be their blackness, because only a fool would attempt to argue that the races are inherently different in any way.

And here we are definitely agreed.  This argument of 3peat's is vacuous.  But the part I highlighted is an issue on which you vacillate quite a lot.

Title: Re: Affirmative action = bullsh*t
Post by: FossilJ on December 08, 2005, 01:00:12 AM
Quote
Low LSAT's by negros indicates they are less likely to do well in law school and therefore less likely to be good lawyers.

Based no my premise this is a perfectly fair and accurate statement. You have weakened my argument by stating that the LSAT is not a 100% predictor, but its the best we have at the moment and is certainly a more accurate predictor than someone's skin color. If we are going to use anything, law schools might as well use the best predictor currently in existence.

Granted.

But even AA as it's practiced in law school doesn't consider "skin color" an admissions predictor.  Rather, it's considered a major soft factor boost, or, at the most, a very minor hard factor boost. 

Nobody predicts someone's success in law based on their race.  This is not where the issue with AA lies.  I had to point out this non-sequitur.

 
Quote
So, clearly, based on your own premises, this is false.  Even if your premises were true, the conclusion is false.  What were your words again?  "Stop being so extremist and absolutist."  Or something like that.

It is only a false conclusion if the premise has been completely refuted. You have merely weakened the premise by pointing out, truthfully, that it is not a 100% predictor, but it is still the best predictor. So, consider your refute mitigated. Result, data supports my view, but not conclusively.

No.  Data supports the view that both the LSAT and GPA are generally inadequate predictors of law school performance.  Just because the one is slightly better than the other does not mean either of them is particularly useful or accurate.

Quote
The fact that you hold a selfish and stupid opinion that whites OWE some form of reparation to the negro because of slavery shows your inability to grasp future implication quite nicely. It leads me to conclude that if you were in charge, society would devolve into chaos quite rapidly.

That conclusion is a troll's flame, no doubt about it.  But I'll continue to play along.  Even if 3Peat is making the claim you're attributing to him/her (which is it, yo?), this misses the point of AA.  Again, more on this later.

How could it be expected to deal with the point of AA when 3peat clearly has no understanding of its purpose and no interest in its ramifications. He is only interested in being militant about past injustices and demanding some form of reparations from all white people.

Which is another point you and I agree on.  The terms for the "historical redress" argument are tenuous at best, exploitative at worst.  You can't make the innocent guilty of the past, or hold them accountable for it.  This is not to say that injustices did not occur.  It just means those whose fault it was are long gone.

And, often, misunderstood, as well.  For instance, people often like to conveniently ignore the varied and potent impact of Islamic traders in Africa.  But this is a subject for another thread.

Quote
As for Harvard and other great American law schools, they were doing just fine, and arguable vastly better, before negros and mexicans were stuffed down their throats by the radicals and freeloaders of the 1960's.

Then argue it.  Without the pseudo-racist rhetoric.  I'd like to see some evidence.

Bah, I have no interest in making that argument, THIS was a flame. But, you know full well that the argument could be made, and probably countered ad infinitum. So, its an opinion not a fact, lets just disagree.

I just don't think it could be justified on any terms, especially not those "cold hard facts" that are so important to you.  So yeah, we'll disagree, but it's a moot point anyway.

Quote
Now, this is what most white people actually think, although they are too civilized to let you know it. I suggest you think long and hard about it, whether they say it or not, you can bet they think it. Act accordingly and enjoy your free ride, it wont last much longer.

Nobody elected you as spokesperson.  Go @#!* up some other race.

Well, I'm embarrassed at having made this statement, but I do believe it to be true.

Fine.
Title: Re: Affirmative action = bullsh*t
Post by: FossilJ on December 08, 2005, 01:01:44 AM
Quote
HERE IS A SPECIAL CASE, SAVED FOR LAST:

Compare:

The races are no different. What could a black man possibly add to a discussion MERELY because of his blackness? There is nothing special about being black just as there is nothing special about being white. You are actually the racist. I view races as entirely equal, but better off being separate.

and

And, while my views on race may not be agreeable to you, I can assure you that I have plenty of observable evidence that races and cultures are better off living separately. Go look up the word, Balkanize, and think about what it means and its implications for this country. AA in my eyes is a tacit admission that integration cannot succeed in the end, but can only be forced upon societies and people's who have a natural tendency and a natural inclination to associate with people of their own race and cultural background.

GASP! I do believe that races and ethnicities in the long term are better off separate. It is a political view not a personal one that I hold dear to my heart. It is an opinion based on observations I have made throughout my life, both personal and historical.

First, permanent segregation is impossible.  Second, you yourself stated that race is a misnomer.  Then how are races and ethnicities better off separate, when race doesn't exist?

In any case, I'm more interested in hearing some more of these "historical observations".

Quote
So give us some of this "observable evidence," then.  Oh, by the way, the Balkan situation erupted amongst people of the same race.  Different cultures, you say?  Yeah, but tell that to the black kid who lives down your street in Suburb, USA.  Or explain that to the Native American kid raised in Manhattan, whose only "cultural" experience was the time his teacher made him watch "Dances With Wolves".  Who gave you the f-ing right to homogenize "culture"?  How do you draw your distinct, arbitrary boundaries?

The people of the Balkans are not all the same race. There are Germanics, there are Slavs and there are Middle Eastern hybrids. I do not wish to homogenize culture, but you evidently do. I think cultures ought to be preserved, separate and distinct. This is a political view based on my life experience and knowledge of political history. How to draw the boundaries? It depends on who is running the government. If people like you are in goverment running the show, it will take a war.

Cultures can be distinct without addressing race or ethnicity.  Hence the black kid in suburbia, or the white kid in the ghetto.  Even if race is part of this cultural identification, this ignores the reality of our post-diasporic world.

In any case, we are going to continue to disagree on this point.  Just one question: why would the government that you wish would stop involving itself in the racial affairs of its citizens (AA) now be permitted to do exactly that?  Or am I missing one of your points?

I'll grant you the point on the Balkans here, even though I still think you need more evidence to support your theory. 

And the last line is a senseless cheap shot.  Weak.

Quote
Furthermore, your country has none of the specific ethnic tensions of the Balkans.  But let's say we grant you that point, and pretend that it does.  Lastly, then, you should probably go check up on your own example, since separation made no f-ing difference.  That's right.  Owen's proposal did nothing.  They still blew each other apart, this time specifically because of the separation.  But, like I said, the situation in the US arises from an entirely different historical depth, which makes this comparison null and void.   

None of the ethnic tensions of the Balkans? Wow, bold statement.

None of the specific ethnic tensions.  It may have tensions all its own, but the situations are not analogous.

Also, address the rest of the statement.

Quote
You know, I grew up in apartheid-era South Africa, and even then I couldn't believe people could utter such drivel.  Yeah, go look up the word "apartheid".  Then study a bit of its murky history.  For the uninitiated, the word means "separateness".  That's right: segregation.  In all its full constitutional glory, that is. 

What drivel is that? I have nowhere stated that I think blacks should be oppressed or that they are inferior.

You do think they are incapable of getting into law school on merit, but I'll let that slide and grant you the point.

You simply dont know how to deal with someone who takes the position that ideally, the races and cultures would be separate and distinct. I have not spewed anti jew rhetoric or made a statement that blacks are inferior in any way.

You definitely implied the latter.  But again, I'll skip over this and let you continue your argument.

I have not attempted to connect lower LSAT scores with lower IQ's or referenced The Bell Curve.

Irrelevant. 

I have not said no blacks deserve to be at Harvard Law, I have just taken a position that is politically unfavored at the moment and you assume that I am some white supremacist.

I didn't call you that at all.  I implied that you're a racist, and I have plenty of evidence on this thread, but even then, I'll be willing to grant you that this might just be a misperception on my part.

I run into this fairly often. People aren't quite sure how to deal with the arguments on their merit, they usually make appeals to emotion (your reference to S. Africa).

No, actually, my reference to South Africa was addressed at your argument, but perhaps I was following an incorrect line of thought.  I retract this specific line of argument.

Title: Re: Affirmative action = bullsh*t
Post by: FossilJ on December 08, 2005, 01:02:06 AM
Quote
But hey, you'll argue, I said races are "equal", and apartheid didn't allow for that.  Sure, sure, but your polemic is couched in the same sort of diversionary rhetoric the National Party used from the start; they, too, claimed that this was merely beneficial for all parties involved.  However, they, too, probably felt that "Coloreds," blacks and Indians were being stuffed down their throats (considering they had to deal with it as a 1/5 minority), just as you feel that "blacks and mexicans [sic]" are being shoved down schools' throats today.  What I'm saying is that your argument is on a par with theirs.

Right, you are comparing me to the Nationalist Party.

No, the National Party.  Different idea.

I dont know anything about them. My rhetoric is not diversionary simply because you cannot understand it. I have taken clear positions and you have shown yourself unable to refute them convincingly.

I haven't begun to address this issue with you yet.  But, yes, the arguments in that post were made in haste, and as such are not all that strong.  In any case, as I said, we'll have to agree to disagree on this matter, unless you really wish to pursue it.

And judging by the zealotry in your tone, you must sense that I am somehow a threat to your ideas and you have attacked me, called me names, but not really dealt with the basis of my position.

I did not call you names.  I definitely disputed the terms of your argument (and explicitly mentioned that I was doing that, and only that). 

I'll grant you that some of my assumptions were probably premature.

You have made ad hominems, made comparisons which you have subsequently discarded as non sequiturs and basically attempted to pigeon hole me as a racist.

The first point: maybe, but nothing overt.  I could say I'm just giving you some of your own medicine, but there's no point to it, so I do apologize. 

The second point: no, I did exactly what you keep asking me to do, which is address your points (and which I've done all along, in any case).  I pointed out that your use of the Balkan situation is irrelevant to the particularities of your own situation.  If you think this is a non-sequitur on my part, please explain.

Third point: not my intention in this post.  Elsewhere, yes, but I have sufficient fodder elsewhere.  And, like I said, even then I'm open to the possibility that I may just be misinterpreting you.

If being racist means that I believe the races would be politically, culturally and economically better off if they lived separate and distinct from one another then yeah, I guess I am a racist.

Well, this is problematic, but that's not why you're being called a racist in this thread.  At least, that's not why I'm calling you a racist.

I will end this reply however, by stating that I do not believe that any one race is essentially different or superior or inferior to any other. I concede that in an ideal world and from the standpoint of principle, all races should in theory be able to proceed as if there were no such thing as race. But, I do not see that moment ever arriving and on that basis conclude that integration is much more trouble than any benefit that could possibly be manifest as a result.

Integration is impossible to prevent, unless you invoke the same political and judicial policies against which you are so opposed (constitutional discrimination to enforce segregation). 

Also, what is your evidence for the trouble of integration versus the benefit of segregation in the United States?  Besides one European example involving pre-existing political tensions.

I also concede that politically, this is an extremely controversial position to take, but because something is not polically correct does not mean it is not truth.

Agreed.  But it doesn't mean it is truth, either.  PC should have nothing to do with it.

Quote
This line was a response to 3peat, so relax.

You respond to more AA advocates who spew this sort of nonsense more often.

I don't understand what this is supposed to mean.

Quote
Once again, you make up "facts".  Provide some evidence if you're going to make that claim.  I know a shitload of successful blacks who returned to their communities.  Even if they didn't, and they moved to "white areas," they make sure to stay involved in those communities.  That, at least, is anecdotal evidence.  Better than your zero evidence.

Common sense tells us that black inner cities and black neighborhoods have gotten worse since 1965.

Common sense.  Right, that's a "cold, hard fact."  I'll still my anecdote versus your unsupported ephemeral pseudotruth, thanks.

Quote
"Tacit agreement that races pursue their own cultural or group interests."  So what?  This is irrelevant.  It's not an argument in support of racial segregation, nor does it prove some sort of evil cultural machination at work within distinct ethnicities.  Just because people tend towards groups of their own kind does not mean that they should be restricted to those groups, or that such groups represent all (or, for that matter, even a large majority) of these particular ethnicities.  So what's your point?

I do not see it as irrelevant. You MUST see it as irrelevant though in order to continue defending your PC views. I am not making an argument for racial segregation really either, just pointing out that in my view, the races and cultures would be better off separate.

Which is fine, but then you should probably qualify that it's "your view" more openly in the first place.

And I still don't see how you get off calling me PC.  More on this later.
Title: Re: Affirmative action = bullsh*t
Post by: FossilJ on December 08, 2005, 01:02:39 AM
I am in no way advocating that this should happen. My effort here is mainly an attempt to discredit the assumption that diversity of race somehow strengthens institutions, when there is no quantifiable evidence that it does. In fact, most circumstancial and historical evidence indicates that the reverse is the case.

Quote
AA does no such thing.  AA addresses precisely the hegemonic power structures in place that historically have prevented minorities from entry into what used to be acknowledged as a "white man's club."  In short, AA was designed to attack that which has a vested interest in preventing integration from occurring in the first place.  As such, it is a tacit admission that integration is an absolute necessity, and an explicit system meant to address this necessity. 

yes, and subverts the constitution and undermines the credibility of each institution in the process. I am not saying that the ends are not admirable, simply that the means are unjustifiable.

Except you said that you're willing to grant the bending of the constitution to serve these purposes, if I'm not mistaken.

So then are the means justifiable or not justifiable?

Quote
Evidence also points to a correlation between race and "economic contingencies".  On the rest, though, we're agreed.  This is a major fault in AA that I think needs to be reformed.

You keep falling back onto this when I've already conceded it to be the case, in my very first post in this thread. I simply reject its being used as justification for discriminating based on race.

But you accept that discrimination should be justified on socioeconomic terms, right?  Because you said that AA would be valid if it addressed this issue, did you not?  Correct me if I'm wrong.

Because if you did, then a strong correlation between race and "economic contingencies" should advocate acceptable use of AA to discriminate based on race, and you would be implicitly agreed, am I not correct? 

Quote
I'm glad you can identify my pseudo-socialist tendencies, although I'm disappointed you hedged your bets on Mao and Lenin when my arguments are barely relevant to the ideologies of either (even Marx, for that matter, although I won't summarily dismiss him, either, without at least attending to one or two of his points - but you don't feel like doing that?). 

Actually, Marx's theory of surplus value pretty much explains the plight of the black man in today's world. But, since communism is recognized as an unworkable theory I choose to attack it, especially considering I believe capitalism to be a superior economic form.

I wouldn't say that communism is recognized as an unworkable theory, but I'm not going to argue in favor of it.  Nor do I think capitalism is entirely adequate as an economic form.  And I definitely don't think socialism, as a discourse, successfully addresses the faults of either. 

I consider myself apolitical in this sense, and abstain from voting for precisely the reasons I mentioned above, that none of the systems being represented are viable, that I cannot find a viable alternative that could be agreed upon by all parties, and that the democratic system itself fails as a representative system (not that I'd prefer anything over it, either).

But if you had to categorize my social and political beliefs, I think the term "pseudo-socialist" would probably suffice, although it's ridiculously simplistic.

Quote
Also, the debate is quite clearly occurring, despite your willfull ignorance.  This is reflected in that very same 5-4 vote, just as it is in this conversation.  There is absolutely no validity in this claim, so I'll put it down as a flame.

There is no debate, that I am aware of, that would lead me to believe that the federal government is considering not only maintaining and improving AA but also to target bottom up approaches for funding. If anything, the reverse is true, bottom up approaches have been discarded as unworkable and AA (top down approach) has come under withering assault and will likely be rolled.

Agreed.  I was talking about the AA debate more generally.  Specifically, I was referring to the fact that the debate rages whether it's addressed in the Supreme Court or not.

Quote
And don't put words in my mouth.  It only adds to racial tension when hate mongers like yourself stoke up the fires of ethnic segregation.  I said "distinctions" because I meant "distinctions", in the sense that the constructed notion of "race" cannot disappear until any practices based on race are eliminated.  This does not mean there can't be positive value in such practices.

So, you have agreed with me on essentially everything except that AA is justifiable and your last resort is to call me a "hater." Nice try but it wont work.

I have agreed on certain terms of the debate.  I have criticized (and will continue to criticize) some of the racist statements you've made.  This is the point of calling you a "hate monger."

But I'll retract the statement.  It caricatures you unfairly.
Title: Re: Affirmative action = bullsh*t
Post by: FossilJ on December 08, 2005, 01:03:01 AM
In my personal life I deal with people of all types respectfully and with courtesy. I have no interest in judging others on anything but the content of their character and their own merit. I do not attack positions from the standpoint of dogma or doctrine.

This is not true.  To be addressed.

Perhaps you classify me as a hater because of your programming, which is unfortunate.

I definitely have an agenda, but I have not been programmed.  My intellectual decisions are entirely my own - for the most part, I am an autodidact.  I'll offer as (admittedly, fairly weak) evidence the fact that I was raised in apartheid South Africa as an Afrikaner and do not share the indoctrination that is common amongst my peers and my parents' generation.  Also, I support AA.  Quotas are one of the reasons my family left South Africa. 

We disagree about the ideal racial and cultural arrangment for the world and automatically I'm a hater.

You're a hater for other reasons.  You're right - this is not a good reason.

Would it make any difference if I told you that I have a deep admiration for other cultures, religions and races? I suppose not.

Unnecessary.  The statement was retracted in this context.

Its unfortunate that you cannot assess the validity of my position without calling me some stupid meaningless word like "hater." Screw you man for playing to the plebs again. You suck.

"Playing to the plebs"?  What is this, the Globe Theater?  You should be fairly familiar with ad hominems already, since you employ them quite often.  BUT, my statement (in this context) is retracted.

Quote
But, as I've allude to earlier in my post, and as my previous posts will verify, I am more in favor of a system that specifically addresses socioeconomic issues without recourse to race; this does not mean that race isn't involved, because, as I said, poverty and race are significantly correlated.  THIS is why I still support AA.

This is a nice misdirection play here: Discriminating based on race is unacceptable, but discriminating based on economic disadvantage is acceptable- because many races are economically disadvantaged makes it acceptable to discriminate based on race.

Its stupid man, its like an LSAT question.

What error of logic does the author make in making his conclusion?
answer: incorrectly assumes that because some of A=x and some of x=B then all of A = B.

I did not draw an absolute syllogism, so I don't see why you make use of one.

My argument is entirely willing to admit (and, in fact, does admit) that such "discrimination" must work towards specific socioeconomic goals.  This is not just some absolute discrimination.  It is qualified discrimination for the benefit of society as a whole.  Those are, also, the terms upon which you agreed "constitutional bending" could be acceptable, correct?  As long as the results of this constitutional manipulation are measurable and tangible.

My statement is that if race and socioeconomic disadvantages are strongly correlated, then discrimination by race can be a justifiable factor in AA.  And, of course, such discrimination is contingent upon a variety of qualifiers.  It's not a simple matter of any racial discrimination goes.  The purpose, the program, and the economic particulars of the situation must also be taken into account. 
Title: Re: Affirmative action = bullsh*t
Post by: TrojanChispas on December 08, 2005, 01:05:49 AM
AA = boost for those which add to the diversity of the school in opinion and experience

nothing more nothing less; the only thing it may have to do with skin color is that minorities may tend to have a different outlook on the US than may majorities.
Title: Re: Affirmative action = bullsh*t
Post by: FossilJ on December 08, 2005, 01:08:26 AM
dtraywi:

I promised you a response, and there you have it.

Feel free to counter.  I will not be addressing any more of your posts on this thread.  This is not because I think your arguments are completely without merit, nor is it because I presuppose myself to be so beyond error that debate isn't required.

Simply, this is eating too much of my time.  We could argue these terms indefinitely. 

Like I said, feel free to get your say out, but don't expect me to respond.

Last, but not least, those topics that "are to be addressed" will be attended to tomorrow.  This is an entirely different subject, however, so consider it irrelevant for tonight.

Title: Re: Affirmative action = bullsh*t
Post by: ImVinny! on December 08, 2005, 04:36:57 PM
AA = boost for those which add to the diversity of the school in opinion and experience

nothing more nothing less; the only thing it may have to do with skin color is that minorities may tend to have a different outlook on the US than may majorities.

I suppose we can just agree to disagree then. We are never going to change each others thoughts, not that I would try to change yours, but really.
I just don't agree with the use of AA. It has nothing to do with the people, it's the process.
Title: Re: Affirmative action = bullsh*t
Post by: wallaby on December 08, 2005, 07:20:46 PM
Quote
But five justices agreed.  In any case, that's an irrelevant point.  What's relevant is what your evidence is that the goals of AA are not being realized sufficient to justify the effect.

I understand that five justices agreed not to overturn. But the net effect of the case was to throw out previous injustice as a foundation for further justification. The debate has therefore been narrowed to an analysis of the benefit of diversity vs the risk of institutional immunity from equal protection. I will also point out that the supreme court is extremely reluctant to throw out one of its previous decisions, and this, moreso than a convincing argument by its supporters, most likely pushed O'Connor to hold for UM. Read her opinion, there isn't a lot of conviction, and definitely not compared to the vehemene exhibited by the dissenters.



Quote
First point: not sure what you're talking about.  I don't recall making this argument.

That doesn't suprise me, but if you look back, you did.

Quote
Second point: what are you saying?  That no URMs are qualified enough to gain admission on merit relative to others?  Or that not enough URMs are qualified to gain admission on merit relative to others?

The latter, and this is born out by statistics.

Quote
Third point: correct.  A larger sample size should theoretically also provide a larger pool of qualified applicants.  And this still does not negate the possibility of qualified black applicants even in such a small pool of applicants.

My point is correct, but your application of theory is simply not borne out by facts. LSAT as a measure of qualification (as well as gpa) must essentially be thrown out in order to find enough qualified URMs. You have called into question the reliability of LSATs but they are still the best predictor we have, they are emphasized by every single school in the country, even for black applicants.

Quote
And here we are definitely agreed.  This argument of 3peat's is vacuous.  But the part I highlighted is an issue on which you vacillate quite a lot.

And this is what disturbs me about you. I do not vacillate on that issue whatsoever. I feel that each individual should succeed of fail on his own merit. I do not see color in my personal life. You simply have a perception that I think blacks and browns and yellows and god knows what else as inferior- I dont.
Title: Re: Affirmative action = bullsh*t
Post by: guylafleur on December 25, 2005, 11:48:33 PM
     To DMG, the "Canadian" who posted at the start of this thread:

       Go f@#k yourself!

    DMG IS NOT A CANADIAN. He merely hijacked his "nationality" for the purposes of launching his vitriol.

       How do I know, DMG?
 
       Canada doesn't even HAVE a constitution - we have a Charter (of Human Rights). No university grad in Canada would make such a silly error.

      Also, Canadian Law Schools DO practice their own special form of "AA", only they are far less subtle about it. For example, one school even posts the LSAT percentile aboriginal students need to be considered for admission under a "special" admits category (about 40% less than white males). Now, how would THAT go over at American schools?

     So, my apologies to those American posters offended by DMG. Whether or not I agree with AA is irrelevant. I just take issue with an a#$hole talking trash and wrapping himself in the Maple Leaf.

                       Guy L.
 

   
Title: Re: Affirmative action = bullsh*t
Post by: coquita on March 06, 2006, 01:11:03 AM
AA = boost for those which add to the diversity of the school in opinion and experience

nothing more nothing less; the only thing it may have to do with skin color is that minorities may tend to have a different outlook on the US than may majorities.

I suppose we can just agree to disagree then. We are never going to change each others thoughts, not that I would try to change yours, but really.
I just don't agree with the use of AA. It has nothing to do with the people, it's the process.

how about the process that kept minorities out of law schools for centuries? i think people exaggerate AA and make it seem like whites are being forced out of the law field. Hello out of 95,800 applicants this year only 18,640 would be considered a URM. I see it more as a supply/demand issue.I don't know if that makes sense but that just how I see it. Since minority applicants # are so low it puts schools in competition to get them for diversity. so they are willing to bend the rules. I don't think its fair. but neither was Jim Crow etc. History is a swinging pendulum...it's just swinging the other way now in terms of admissions and AA. Deal with it.
Title: Re: Affirmative action = bullsh*t
Post by: FossilJ on March 06, 2006, 01:37:55 AM
Again, like I've told so many people, I would recommend you read through most of this thread before you post.  That points been made several times.  Idiots don't listen to advice - ImVinny's not likely to take your advice as a result.
Title: Re: Affirmative action = bullsh*t
Post by: coquita on March 06, 2006, 02:18:31 AM
oh i'm sorry my opinion is similar to someone else's ::) but i don't have time to read the 1823833 posts on this thread. if anti AA people are allowed to repeat the same opinion over and over again so can I. but frankly the AA horse is dead..why are we still beating it? arguing won't do anything about it. that's why i think the AA board is a waste of space. People rarely change their opinions on race, politics, and religion. so it just becomes an debate that goes nowhere.*leaves so I'm Vinny and I am J can debate for an eternity*
Title: Re: Affirmative action = bullsh*t
Post by: FossilJ on March 06, 2006, 02:28:51 AM
Then why did you post here?

Thanks for making my point.
Title: Re: Affirmative action = bullsh*t
Post by: coquita on March 06, 2006, 02:31:53 AM
^because it's 1:30 and i'm an insomniac

you're very welcome ::)
Title: Re: Affirmative action = bullsh*t
Post by: FossilJ on March 06, 2006, 02:35:45 AM
See ya later!


(PS:  You may have noticed this thread died months ago.)


Title: Re: Affirmative action = bullsh*t
Post by: coquita on March 06, 2006, 03:01:08 AM
nope i didn't notice!! my bad!! small print and insomnia don't mix
Title: Re: Affirmative action = bullsh*t
Post by: FossilJ on March 06, 2006, 03:06:23 AM
No worries!   ;D

Title: Re: Affirmative action = bullsh*t
Post by: ImVinny! on April 21, 2006, 02:38:05 PM
But the AA debate will NEVER die, unless people realize that it is a stupid one, and that we should abolish AA across the board.
Title: Re: Affirmative action = bullsh*t
Post by: John Galt on April 22, 2006, 10:40:51 PM
But the AA debate will NEVER die, unless people realize that it is a stupid one, and that we should abolish AA across the board.

I'm sorry for posting here, but this is hilarious. Its a stupid debate thus we should just take your point of view and be done with it. I missed ya, Vin. :-*
Title: Re: Affirmative action = bullsh*t
Post by: 2Lacoste on April 23, 2006, 03:40:56 PM
Oh and while we're at it, the debate regarding wealth redistribution will NEVER end.  So, the best solution is to just take all of Vinny's future profits and redistribute it to me -- cuz I'm broke.  And be done with it.   ;)
Title: Re: Affirmative action = bullsh*t
Post by: Dunson II on April 23, 2006, 03:42:44 PM
Final word:  AA is cool with Dunson.  AA should be cool with you. 

Title: Re: Affirmative action = bullsh*t
Post by: Nemesis on April 23, 2006, 07:41:28 PM
I <3 Vinny.




Why should Dunson get the final *word?

Title: Re: Affirmative action = bullsh*t
Post by: Dunson II on April 24, 2006, 12:18:14 AM
I <3 Vinny.




Why should Dunson get the final *word?



Just cause.
Title: Re: Affirmative action = bullsh*t
Post by: Nemesis on April 24, 2006, 12:25:09 AM
I <3 Vinny.




Why should Dunson get the final *word?



Just cause.


'Cuz what?
Title: Re: Affirmative action = bullsh*t
Post by: Dunson II on April 24, 2006, 10:10:46 AM
I <3 Vinny.




Why should Dunson get the final *word?



Just cause.


'Cuz what?

Cause I'm credited and awesome like that.
Title: Re: Affirmative action = bullsh*t
Post by: stc34 on April 24, 2006, 10:14:35 AM
Nope you're wrong.  AA is stupid and unfair.
Title: Re: Affirmative action = bullsh*t
Post by: Dunson II on April 24, 2006, 10:15:10 AM
Nope you're wrong.  AA is stupid and unfair.

Shutup cracka!
Title: Re: Affirmative action = bullsh*t
Post by: Nemesis on April 24, 2006, 01:40:59 PM
The end  ;D
Title: Re: Affirmative action = bullsh*t
Post by: stc34 on April 24, 2006, 01:47:36 PM
Ever heard of "closing the door behind you"? At least don't be one of those who later on says that AA had nothing to do with helping you get where you are.
Title: Re: Affirmative action = bullsh*t
Post by: Dunson II on April 24, 2006, 01:48:05 PM
Ever heard of "closing the door behind you"? At least don't be one of those who later on says that AA had nothing to do with helping you get where you are.

WTF are you talking about cracker?
Title: Re: Affirmative action = bullsh*t
Post by: stc34 on April 24, 2006, 01:53:21 PM
Wow. Why are you using racist language?
Title: Re: Affirmative action = bullsh*t
Post by: Nemesis on April 24, 2006, 01:54:33 PM
Ever heard of "closing the door behind you"? At least don't be one of those who later on says that AA had nothing to do with helping you get where you are.

Pardon me, but, are you referring to me?
Title: Re: Affirmative action = bullsh*t
Post by: Dunson II on April 24, 2006, 01:56:04 PM
Wow. Why are you using racist language?

Crackerlogicc.
Title: Re: Affirmative action = bullsh*t
Post by: stc34 on April 24, 2006, 01:56:47 PM
I'm sorry, I can't understand anything you say.
Title: Re: Affirmative action = bullsh*t
Post by: Nemesis on April 24, 2006, 01:59:24 PM
Dunson, is this "stc34" character some phony account you've created to sabotage our tit for tat?
Title: Re: Affirmative action = bullsh*t
Post by: Dunson II on April 24, 2006, 02:00:27 PM
Dunson, is this "stc34" character some phony account you've created to sabotage our tit for tat?

I have never done that.  I'm not a loserfucker. 
Title: Re: Affirmative action = bullsh*t
Post by: Nemesis on April 24, 2006, 02:08:27 PM
Dunson, is this "stc34" character some phony account you've created to sabotage our tit for tat?

I have never done that.  I'm not a loserfucker. 


Ah well, he/she spoiled my fun. Boo  :(
Title: Re: Affirmative action = bullsh*t
Post by: Dunson II on April 24, 2006, 02:18:45 PM
Dunson, is this "stc34" character some phony account you've created to sabotage our tit for tat?

I have never done that.  I'm not a loserfucker. 


Ah well, he/she spoiled my fun. Boo  :(

Sorry, that ain't me.  I'd have a clever name at the least.
Title: Re: Affirmative action = bullsh*t
Post by: Nemesis on April 24, 2006, 02:21:21 PM
Sorry, that ain't me.  I'd have a clever name at the least.


I'll have the last word yet Dunson!
Title: Re: Affirmative action = bullsh*t
Post by: Dunson II on April 24, 2006, 02:23:33 PM
Sorry, that ain't me.  I'd have a clever name at the least.


I'll have the last word yet Dunson!

You really don't know me huh?
Title: Re: Affirmative action = bullsh*t
Post by: Nemesis on April 24, 2006, 03:34:52 PM
You really don't know me huh?


Well it is an anonymous message board...
Title: Re: Affirmative action = bullsh*t
Post by: Dunson II on April 24, 2006, 03:37:09 PM
You really don't know me huh?


Well it is an anonymous message board...

But I'm not anonymous and I never lose.
Title: Re: Affirmative action = bullsh*t
Post by: Nemesis on April 24, 2006, 03:38:03 PM
But I'm not anonymous and I never lose.


Are you compensating for something?
Title: Re: Affirmative action = bullsh*t
Post by: Dunson II on April 24, 2006, 03:38:29 PM
But I'm not anonymous and I never lose.


Are you compensating for something?

Huge penis.

Also, I'm always on.
Title: Re: Affirmative action = bullsh*t
Post by: Nemesis on April 24, 2006, 03:40:06 PM
Huge penis.

Also, I'm always on.


Interesting...
Title: Re: Affirmative action = bullsh*t
Post by: Dunson II on April 24, 2006, 03:44:03 PM
Huge penis.

Also, I'm always on.


Interesting...

Yup, I'll be posting in this thread til you give up and go to Yale.
Title: Re: Affirmative action = bullsh*t
Post by: Nemesis on April 24, 2006, 03:47:32 PM

Yup, I'll be posting in this thread til you give up and go to Yale.


Might be a great way to get to know you better.
Title: Re: Affirmative action = bullsh*t
Post by: Dunson II on April 24, 2006, 03:49:44 PM

Yup, I'll be posting in this thread til you give up and go to Yale.


Might be a great way to get to know you better.

Yeah, I remember they bashed u on XOXO.  We share that in common.
Title: Re: Affirmative action = bullsh*t
Post by: Nemesis on April 24, 2006, 03:53:47 PM
Yeah, I remember they bashed u on XOXO.  We share that in common.


Don't they bash everything on XOXO?

How's the girlfriend hunt coming along?
Title: Re: Affirmative action = bullsh*t
Post by: Dunson II on April 24, 2006, 03:55:35 PM
Yeah, I remember they bashed u on XOXO.  We share that in common.


Don't they bash everything on XOXO?

How's the girlfriend hunt coming along?

I'm going to be on the prowl at the library tonight.  I will give live updates of all the hotties. 

I do intend to talk to this nice girl tomorrow again, maybe ask for a number.  She is different from most girls I'd usually go for.  People are gonna give me *&^% about it.
Title: Re: Affirmative action = bullsh*t
Post by: Nemesis on April 24, 2006, 03:59:05 PM
I'm going to be on the prowl at the library tonight.  I will give live updates of all the hotties. 

I do intend to talk to this nice girl tomorrow again, maybe ask for a number.  She is different from most girls I'd usually go for.  People are gonna give me sh*t about it.


Who cares what people think?


EDIT: Good luck with the hunt. I need a power nap. See you later!
Title: Re: Affirmative action = bullsh*t
Post by: Dunson II on April 24, 2006, 04:04:47 PM
I'm going to be on the prowl at the library tonight.  I will give live updates of all the hotties. 

I do intend to talk to this nice girl tomorrow again, maybe ask for a number.  She is different from most girls I'd usually go for.  People are gonna give me sh*t about it.


Who cares what people think?


EDIT: Good luck with the hunt. I need a power nap. See you later!

I definitely care.  People telling me I could get a better looking girl all the time bothers me eventually.

I will win because you need naps.  I just recalibrate the universe to get rested.
Title: Re: Affirmative action = bullsh*t
Post by: Nemesis on April 24, 2006, 09:23:21 PM
Hey Dunson!
Title: Re: Affirmative action = bullsh*t
Post by: Dunson II on April 24, 2006, 09:24:05 PM
HEY!
Title: Re: Affirmative action = bullsh*t
Post by: Nemesis on April 24, 2006, 09:28:35 PM
About people telling you that you could get a better looking girl...it's a cliche but, looks aren't everything. What if she's dumb as a rock? Or has the personality of one? Don't those things matter as well?


Besides, your friends are probably jealous.
Title: Re: Affirmative action = bullsh*t
Post by: Dunson II on April 24, 2006, 09:32:54 PM
It's never my guy friends.  It is other girls.  I know some are just trying to get with me or thinking like why is he with her, I'm prettier.  I've always had this happen.  Some are pretty forceful.

Things besides looks do matter.  But not as much to be quite honest.  I can find vapidness charming in a really hot girl.

That said, I've begun to see some things wrong with the way I go about that.  It messed up my last relationship cause I was always worrying about how I could be with the hotter chick.
Title: Re: Affirmative action = bullsh*t
Post by: Nemesis on April 24, 2006, 09:39:18 PM
Hmmm. With friends like that...  :-\


Well, I'm glad you're open to a different perspective. Honestly, I hate it when guys judge me based on my looks. Just all too shallow for me and a little boring.
Title: Re: Affirmative action = bullsh*t
Post by: Dunson II on April 24, 2006, 09:43:17 PM
It is hard to want to get to know someone well as a possible prospect unless you are phsyically attracted though.
Title: Re: Affirmative action = bullsh*t
Post by: Nemesis on April 24, 2006, 09:48:24 PM
Yeah, I guess you have a point. But there are guys who are obviously more interested in your cleavage than whether or not you can spell your name. Big turn-off.
Title: Re: Affirmative action = bullsh*t
Post by: Dunson II on April 24, 2006, 09:50:44 PM
Cleavage is seriously distracting though.  I can't help but look. 

Title: Re: Affirmative action = bullsh*t
Post by: Nemesis on April 24, 2006, 10:02:37 PM
Well, some women may not mind but that's a big turn off for me. Don't get me wrong -- it can be really flattering when a guy appreciates your beauty. But it's even more attractive when he can't wait to get to know you...how your mind works and what makes you tick. And someone who can just be himself, kick back and have fun! Looks are a nice bonus but personality wins everytime.
Title: Re: Affirmative action = bullsh*t
Post by: Dunson II on April 24, 2006, 10:15:45 PM
I realized that I didn't really know my ex that well after 3 years...

I realized I have to work on the self absorbed Dunson.

I also realized I don't even listen to people when they talk to me 98% of the time.
Title: Re: Affirmative action = bullsh*t
Post by: Nemesis on April 24, 2006, 10:16:46 PM
You sound like you're bored.
Title: Re: Affirmative action = bullsh*t
Post by: Dunson II on April 24, 2006, 10:17:28 PM
Bored like now?  Yeah.

Bored with life?  Hm.  Not really.
Title: Re: Affirmative action = bullsh*t
Post by: Nemesis on April 24, 2006, 10:19:36 PM
Bored with the people you hang out with.


You must be bored now. Why else would you be having this conversation? :)
Title: Re: Affirmative action = bullsh*t
Post by: Dunson II on April 24, 2006, 11:08:20 PM
I am procrastinating right now.


I'm extremely bored with my friends.  Have been for years.  Made some stupid choices and I'm stuck at home with them.
Title: Re: Affirmative action = bullsh*t
Post by: Nemesis on April 24, 2006, 11:15:34 PM
Maybe you should make an effort to meet some new people. It might be good for you.


Anyway, it's been a pleasure Dunson. I should be getting to bed (still working on recalibrating the universe). We shall resume this battle at a later time. G'nite!
Title: Re: Affirmative action = bullsh*t
Post by: Dunson II on April 24, 2006, 11:19:05 PM
Goodnight.

I always end up meeting and getting along with people with the same bad habits. 
Title: Re: Affirmative action = bullsh*t
Post by: Nemesis on April 25, 2006, 01:09:50 AM
It must be true -- you never sleep...
Title: Re: Affirmative action = bullsh*t
Post by: Nemesis on April 25, 2006, 01:17:17 AM
Or maybe you do  :)
Title: Re: Affirmative action = bullsh*t
Post by: Nemesis on April 25, 2006, 03:43:18 PM
I WIN!!!!
Title: Re: Affirmative action = bullsh*t
Post by: Dunson II on April 25, 2006, 03:44:06 PM
Nope.
Title: Re: Affirmative action = bullsh*t
Post by: Nemesis on April 25, 2006, 03:46:30 PM
Damn  >:(
Title: Re: Affirmative action = bullsh*t
Post by: Dunson II on April 25, 2006, 03:47:11 PM
 :D
Title: Re: Affirmative action = bullsh*t
Post by: Nemesis on April 25, 2006, 03:58:36 PM
Ah well, how are you today Dunson? Did you have a restful night??  :D
Title: Re: Affirmative action = bullsh*t
Post by: Dunson II on April 25, 2006, 04:00:10 PM
Ah well, how are you today Dunson? Did you have a restful night??  :D

I'm doing alright.  I had a great sleep, for four hours or so.

Got IHAVEABOYFRIENDPWNED today.  Oh well.  Next, please.

Um, but right now I get to go eat some granma food and get out of this damned office.  Well, as soon as I feel like leaving.

How are you?
Title: Re: Affirmative action = bullsh*t
Post by: Nemesis on April 25, 2006, 04:06:50 PM
Awww, sorry to hear that. I guess the hunt continues!  ;)

I'm doing great. One more final to go and I am D O N E. Can't wait  ;D
Title: Re: Affirmative action = bullsh*t
Post by: Dunson II on April 25, 2006, 04:07:48 PM
The hunt does continue.  Suggestions from the female side of things? 
Title: Re: Affirmative action = bullsh*t
Post by: Nemesis on April 25, 2006, 04:16:35 PM
Just be yourself. Strike up conversation.




And don't stare at her cleavage  ;D

I'm out. Enjoy lunch/dinner!






















I win
Title: Re: Affirmative action = bullsh*t
Post by: Dunson II on April 27, 2006, 12:52:09 PM
Staring at cleavage is unavoidable I just try my hardest not to grab, poke, grope, rub, lick etc
Title: Re: Affirmative action = bullsh*t
Post by: Horsley54 on April 27, 2006, 01:48:44 PM
BOOBS now that's how they should determine AA forget all this skin tone sh!t, where are the law school chicks with big unmentionables!!!!  ;D
Title: Re: Affirmative action = bullsh*t
Post by: Dunson II on April 27, 2006, 01:49:29 PM
BOOBS now that's how they should determine AA forget all this skin tone sh!t, where are the law school chicks with big unmentionables!!!!  ;D

I can't believe an Ole Miss OL has made a valid point. 

I will have to reevaluate the South.
Title: Re: Affirmative action = bullsh*t
Post by: Horsley54 on April 27, 2006, 01:51:27 PM
Are VD free chicks, that would be a good criteria.  Hey you're hot, but oh wait you have a VD, you can't come in.  Hey you're hot, but no VD, you are in.  HOT CHICKS WITH NO VD'S
Title: Re: Affirmative action = bullsh*t
Post by: Dunson II on April 27, 2006, 01:51:59 PM
Are VD free chicks, that would be a good criteria.  Hey you're hot, but oh wait you have a VD, you can't come in.  Hey you're hot, but no VD, you are in.  HOT CHICKS WITH NO VD'S

I only @#!* virgins.
Title: Re: Affirmative action = bullsh*t
Post by: Horsley54 on April 27, 2006, 01:55:43 PM
Alright well you can have your admissions guidelines.  Hey your hot, not a virgin, sorry you're not in.  Hey you are hot, and a virgin, you are in.  Oh wait you're hot but not a virgin, well hell you are Jessica Simpson, dumb as a log, but you are in, because i want to do you  ;D
Title: Re: Affirmative action = bullsh*t
Post by: Dunson II on April 27, 2006, 01:56:45 PM
Alright well you can have your admissions guidelines.  Hey your hot, not a virgin, sorry you're not in.  Hey you are hot, and a virgin, you are in.  Oh wait you're hot but not a virgin, well hell you are Jessica Simpson, dumb as a log, but you are in, because i want to do you  ;D

I would probably still bang Jessica Simpson, despite her lack of virginity.
Title: Re: Affirmative action = bullsh*t
Post by: Horsley54 on April 27, 2006, 01:58:12 PM
I don't think i would think twice about banging Jessica Simpson.  So what have we learned from this discussion, change the AA policy to allow more chicks with big unmentionables into law school.  Hugh Hefner for Pres 08
Title: Re: Affirmative action = bullsh*t
Post by: Dunson II on April 27, 2006, 02:00:12 PM
I don't think i would think twice about banging Jessica Simpson.  So what have we learned from this discussion, change the AA policy to allow more chicks with big unmentionables into law school.  Hugh Hefner for Pres 08

I like you.
Title: Re: Affirmative action = bullsh*t
Post by: Horsley54 on April 27, 2006, 02:01:42 PM
Hey i think outside the box, i would make the world's worst politician because i would break all the rules, but hey everyone would love me, especially the hot girls with big unmentionables, they would get the best jobs and the highest pay
Title: Re: Affirmative action = bullsh*t
Post by: Dunson II on April 27, 2006, 02:14:14 PM
Tig ole bitty bump!
Title: Re: Affirmative action = bullsh*t
Post by: Horsley54 on April 27, 2006, 02:18:29 PM
AMEN BROTHA!!!!!!
Title: Re: Affirmative action = bullsh*t
Post by: Nemesis on April 27, 2006, 03:38:49 PM
I WIN!!!
Title: Re: Affirmative action = bullsh*t
Post by: jasonj on April 27, 2006, 03:48:29 PM
You don't need to know anything about american history to know that determining an individuals admission status based on their race, whether they are a minority or they came over on the Mayflower, is inherently racist. These institutions, many of the PUBLIC, treat individuals differently based on their race. Affirmative Action is, at best, a necessary evil; but it's evil, nonetheless. American History my ass. Anyway, who the @#!* picks an attorney based on their race. I'd love to see some a-hole say I want a black/white/hispanic/asian attorney. You want the BEST attorney, not the one who was the most "disadvantaged" growing up.
It's a crock of *&^% and it doesn't help anyone, especially minorities.  American history. Go cry about it. That'll help the world. :'( :'( :'( :'( :'( :'( :'( :'( :'(

What's with all this affirmative action BS I see on American University's websites? I live in liberal Canada and it is not this bad. How can anyone possibly support judging applicant's based upon their skin tone, and not be a racist? ???

How much do you know about American history? Maybe that might give you some insight into the matter.
Title: Re: Affirmative action = bullsh*t
Post by: Nemesis on April 27, 2006, 03:53:11 PM
You don't need to know anything about american history to know that determining an individuals admission status based on their race, whether they are a minority or they came over on the Mayflower, is inherently racist. These institutions, many of the PUBLIC, treat individuals differently based on their race. Affirmative Action is, at best, a necessary evil; but it's evil, nonetheless. American History my ass. Anyway, who the @#!* picks an attorney based on their race. I'd love to see some a-hole say I want a black/white/hispanic/asian attorney. You want the BEST attorney, not the one who was the most "disadvantaged" growing up.
It's a crock of sh*t and it doesn't help anyone, especially minorities.  American history. Go cry about it. That'll help the world. :'( :'( :'( :'( :'( :'( :'( :'( :'(

*sigh*

Listen newbie, I would love to give you the time of day but I really can't waste my time with such poorly structured (and inflammatory) arguments. Look it over and try again.

Catch yah later!  :-*
Title: Re: Affirmative action = bullsh*t
Post by: Horsley54 on April 27, 2006, 04:40:58 PM
Hey Annabel Lee, kick his @ss, especially if you are a hot chick with big unmentionables, because according to our AA, you are top of the class if you fit that.
Title: Re: Affirmative action = bullsh*t
Post by: TrojanChispas on April 28, 2006, 12:42:27 AM
People fail to recognize the effect racism has had on our society in the US. 


When you tell a people that they are nothing more that property, an asset, chattel, and when you desrtoy their culture, you have permanently damaged their line of kin.  Why?  It all comes to parenting or lackthereof.  How can a parent teach a child respect for others when that parent is being beaten silly by his/her master?  Slavery had a nasty effect on the black culture and community with effects lasting up to this day.  see the drop out rates, prison populations, and lack of fathers. 
Title: Re: Affirmative action = bullsh*t
Post by: ivywhore on April 28, 2006, 12:45:02 AM
YES
Title: Re: Affirmative action = bullsh*t
Post by: FossilJ on April 28, 2006, 01:58:37 AM
No.  Both your arguments are propaganda.  Let's drop this damn thread already.

Title: Re: Affirmative action = bullsh*t
Post by: ivywhore on April 28, 2006, 01:59:09 AM
who will catch it?
Title: Re: Affirmative action = bullsh*t
Post by: Nemesis on April 28, 2006, 04:39:41 PM
Annabel Lee is awesome! I love her feisty attitude. She is deffinitely the girl I'd go for. Too bad she doesnt live in NY, or else she'd get a personal invitation to our NYC LSD get-together from me.

P.S. Annabel, you will end up marrying me. I just wanted you to know that ahead of time!  :-* ;D


 :D

Greatest post EVER  ;D
Title: Re: Affirmative action = bullsh*t
Post by: FossilJ on April 28, 2006, 05:51:35 PM
Annabel Lee is awesome! I love her feisty attitude. She is deffinitely the girl I'd go for. Too bad she doesnt live in NY, or else she'd get a personal invitation to our NYC LSD get-together from me.

P.S. Annabel, you will end up marrying me. I just wanted you to know that ahead of time!  :-* ;D


Gold digger!

 :D
Title: Re: Affirmative action = bullsh*t
Post by: TrojanChispas on April 28, 2006, 05:59:39 PM
No.  Both your arguments are propaganda.  Let's drop this damn thread already.



Are you talking about me? 
Title: Re: Affirmative action = bullsh*t
Post by: FossilJ on April 28, 2006, 06:20:03 PM
Yes.

Title: Re: Affirmative action = bullsh*t
Post by: TrojanChispas on April 28, 2006, 06:53:06 PM
not propaganda, the truth. 
Title: Re: Affirmative action = bullsh*t
Post by: ivywhore on April 28, 2006, 06:55:40 PM
the truth shall set you free
Title: Re: Affirmative action = bullsh*t
Post by: FossilJ on April 28, 2006, 06:58:00 PM
not propaganda, the truth. 

I'm not even going to bother explaining it to you, dude.

Title: Re: Affirmative action = bullsh*t
Post by: norcaldude on April 29, 2006, 01:41:50 AM
AA helps middle class blacks... the ones already out of poverty and low educational attainment and all that other great stuff it's meant for. 

not that bad though, just don't think of those spots as being available at all if it makes you feel bad.  better than a quota maximum on the # of whites or asians or whatnot.
Title: Re: Affirmative action = bullsh*t
Post by: dbgirl on April 29, 2006, 02:04:39 AM
In case anyone's worried about black people taking all the spots in law school, I just heard today that the enrollment of blacks in law school is at it's lowest point in 16 years.
Title: Re: Affirmative action = bullsh*t
Post by: TrojanChispas on April 29, 2006, 02:56:14 AM
not propaganda, the truth. 

I'm not even going to bother explaining it to you, dude.



all im saying is taht slavery is a disease that stripped a people of their culture, self esteem, and family structure.  Think about that for the next 200 years.
Title: Re: Affirmative action = bullsh*t
Post by: ImVinny! on May 01, 2006, 05:42:37 PM
Well, while you are dwelling on that for the next 200 years even MORE people will pass you up because they are busy actually getting an education instead of constantly whining.
Title: Re: Affirmative action = bullsh*t
Post by: FossilJ on May 01, 2006, 07:02:58 PM
How does anyone troll for more than 2000 posts for over a year?  Give it up already, you useless troll!

Title: Re: Affirmative action = bullsh*t
Post by: J D on May 01, 2006, 08:16:32 PM
Well, while you are dwelling on that for the next 200 years even MORE people will pass you up because they are busy actually getting an education instead of constantly whining.

This thread was lying quite peacefully, very much deceased, before a certain someone revived it to start "whining" about how affirmative action policies are so unfair.  ;)
Title: Re: Affirmative action = bullsh*t
Post by: TrojanChispas on May 01, 2006, 10:55:41 PM
Well, while you are dwelling on that for the next 200 years even MORE people will pass you up because they are busy actually getting an education instead of constantly whining.

This thread was lying quite peacefully, very much deceased, before a certain someone revived it to start "whining" about how affirmative action policies are so unfair.  ;)

TITCR
Title: Re: Affirmative action = bullsh*t
Post by: TrojanChispas on May 01, 2006, 10:57:22 PM
Well, while you are dwelling on that for the next 200 years even MORE people will pass you up because they are busy actually getting an education instead of constantly whining.

All Im saying is that the US created a disease and has a duty to mitigate its effects. AA is one recourse among many
Title: Re: Affirmative action = bullsh*t
Post by: ImVinny! on May 02, 2006, 04:51:34 PM
What does TITCR mean?
And I am NOT a troll, I don't even know what the internet lingo on that means.
Title: Re: Affirmative action = bullsh*t
Post by: dukenukem on May 02, 2006, 04:57:09 PM
this is the credited response

troll=dunson
Title: Re: Affirmative action = bullsh*t
Post by: ImVinny! on May 02, 2006, 05:05:08 PM
Thanks for expanding that for me.
Title: Re: Affirmative action = bullsh*t
Post by: FossilJ on May 02, 2006, 08:10:52 PM
Dear Vinny:

That was dunson, you useless troll.

pwn3d!!!


- J
Title: Re: Affirmative action = bullsh*t
Post by: ImVinny! on May 03, 2006, 08:47:57 PM
I am not a troll. I am here just like everyone else, interested in good intelligent conversation and to learn about others' opinions and let people read mine as well.
Title: Re: Affirmative action = bullsh*t
Post by: FossilJ on May 03, 2006, 10:28:30 PM
I am not a troll.

Yes, you are.

I am here just like everyone else,

Sadly, this is true.

interested in good intelligent conversation

No, you're not.  You don't debate, you merely babble.  You're repetitive and provocative.  You're a troll.

and to learn about others' opinions and let people read mine as well.

No, you're not here to learn about others' opinions.  You're here to preach your own delusional gospel, and that's it.  You're like a broken record on this site -- hence, a troll.

Title: Re: Affirmative action = bullsh*t
Post by: jasonj on May 04, 2006, 07:39:58 AM
You don't need to know anything about american history to know that determining an individuals admission status based on their race, whether they are a minority or they came over on the Mayflower, is inherently racist. These institutions, many of the PUBLIC, treat individuals differently based on their race. Affirmative Action is, at best, a necessary evil; but it's evil, nonetheless. American History my ass. Anyway, who the @#!* picks an attorney based on their race. I'd love to see some a-hole say I want a black/white/hispanic/asian attorney. You want the BEST attorney, not the one who was the most "disadvantaged" growing up.
It's a crock of sh*t and it doesn't help anyone, especially minorities.  American history. Go cry about it. That'll help the world. :'( :'( :'( :'( :'( :'( :'( :'( :'(

*sigh*

Listen newbie, I would love to give you the time of day but I really can't waste my time with such poorly structured (and inflammatory) arguments. Look it over and try again.

Catch yah later!  :-*

Seriously, you're a f-ing dork.
Title: Re: Affirmative action = bullsh*t
Post by: redemption on May 04, 2006, 07:46:51 AM
Seriously, you're a f-ing dork.

Listen, noob.

You're 4 posts into your LSD career. Don't waste your time on this. There isn't a single thing that you can think of or say about this issue that hasn't already been said and responded to. You'd be better off concentrating on your own application, and making the best of an imperfect world.



Title: Re: Affirmative action = bullsh*t
Post by: finally on May 04, 2006, 05:43:47 PM
Wow, this whole thread is incredibly offensive.  >:(  Where do you people come from? Do any of you know any black people personally or do you just see them on tv?  Read a book, educate yourselves or try to see this from a black person's POV.  I think if you walked that proverbial 'mile in the shoes' of a black person, you may feel differently. 

I am an educated black woman (not another "angry black woman", if that's what you were thinking)   and I have never personally benefitted from Afirmative Action.  Some of your comments on this thread could be considered racist. 
Title: Re: Affirmative action = bullsh*t
Post by: FossilJ on May 04, 2006, 05:46:05 PM
Wow, this whole thread is incredibly offensive.  >:(  Where do you people come from? Do any of you know any black people personally or do you just see them on tv?  Read a book, educate yourselves or try to see this from a black person's POV.  I think if you walked that proverbial 'mile in the shoes' of a black person, you may feel differently. 

I am an educated black woman (not another "angry black woman", if that's what you were thinking)   and I have never personally benefitted from Afirmative Action.  Some of your comments on this thread could be considered racist. 



No *&^%!   :D ;)