Law School Discussion

Nine Years of Discussion
;

Author Topic: AA -- Bad for Everyone, Except Unqualified URM's  (Read 11656 times)

meggo

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 603
    • View Profile
Re: AA -- Bad for Everyone, Except Unqualified URM's
« Reply #20 on: July 25, 2008, 06:29:30 PM »
My point is that it's not indirect though I understand the grammatical point you are getting at. I would say money determines where kids are more likely to go to school. Better public schools are located in wealthier suburbs. Better schools in an area, make the price of a home there go up. People who can afford it, live in wealthier suburbs with better schools. Even then, many people send their kids on to private school. It's very much a zipcode lottery in some places.

dsetterl

  • Guest
Re: AA -- Bad for Everyone, Except Unqualified URM's
« Reply #21 on: July 25, 2008, 06:48:15 PM »
Freak: Money is needed to finance education. How can you expect some one to succeed if the schools they attend cannot provide decent education. Good family or not, money is the "single largest success factor"  See this website. It was actually created by a relative of mine. Enjoy:

http://www.educationalneedsindex.com/

Kirk Lazarus

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 2042
  • I'm a lead farmer, mofo
    • View Profile
Re: AA -- Bad for Everyone, Except Unqualified URM's
« Reply #22 on: July 25, 2008, 07:43:04 PM »
I really agree with all the posts on this page. AA isn't about discrimination (otherwise quite frankly, the Arab-American population should be heavily admitted) it's about leveling opportunity. Yes, there are whites who come from disadvantaged socio-economic situations. There is absolutely no denying that. But looking at population as a whole (and history), when you have an entire community with lower income, higher rates of violence and incarceration and alcohol/drug abuse, and people who are able to overcome that, then yes, they should be rewarded.  For the groups that have been historically marginalized, the problems of that marginalization STILL exists to this day. Anyone who thinks otherwise is lying to themselves. I'm not just talking about African Americans, but look at the American Indian (and First Nations) communities. The problems that exist within those communities to this day are a direct result of events which took place over a 100 years ago.

Direct result and 100 years ago does not compute, sorry, or was that just hyperbole?

     At this point in history, the only real (indirect) relation to success and history is how your parents raised and provided for you. If they did a bad job (didn't ensure you received an education and nurturing), you have a serious disadvantage and it's up to you to raise your children so they have a better chance.

     Frankly, if your parents neglected you, odds are you won't succeed (financially/professionally) in American life. If you do succeed, then odds are you neglected your children in the process, unless you succeeded before having them, because you had to work so hard to get there.

     Look at a community's single parent family ratio and you'll see a close correlation to its children's' success rate.

     AA etcetera are waste of time, energy and resources, instead, spend it convincing and training families to raise and nurture their children.

     Family on public aid? Well guess what, you get to attend parenting classes which teach you how to budget among other things. Maybe learn to teach children that water is better for them than soda, that they do not need $50 shoes. Maybe parents will learn that they do not need painted nails, a Coach purse or a $5000 car, unless they can also afford health insurance, a mortgage, and time off work to spend with their children.

I think you make some good points and I know you're passionate about this issue, but I tend to have a different view. Look Freak, if you want to be realistic, I think it is absurd to say that the only real relation to success and history is how your family raises you. You have to acknowledge that the history of Jim Crow and discrimination really hindered African Americans from attaining upward mobility in this country. As a DIRECT consequence of governmental and private actions, many African Americans have no real hope to succeed. You wonder why there is drugs, poverty and disease among African Americans? Well, it is because of white flight and urban planning which intentionally set these areas up as "ghettos." You wonder why generation after generation, African American children are joining gangs and selling drugs? Well, it is because the schools are dismal. They aren't getting any real training. Predatory lending practices make it virtually impossible for Blacks to open up small businesses and create wealth and economic development in urban communities. The result is predictable, most of the Black population is struggling to get by in dead end jobs with no hope for advancement or mobility. A significant portion has opted out for a more lucrative drug life which has resulted in the deaths of many of the young black men and the imprisonment of many more. Jail doesn't exactly create opportunity so the individual cycle repeats itself.

There's two schools of thought. One is that African Americans are victims of past discriminatory policies and it is almost virually impossible to achieve success overcoming those odds. The second school of thought is that Blacks ought to take personal responsibility for their individual plight and black men ought to stop leaving their kids, work harder and acheive more success.

I actually think both schools of thought are on point. Blacks need to take personal responsibility for their lives, but they need help. In torts we learn that if a defendant injures another plaintiff, then it is on the defendant to make the plaintiff whole again. Well, Slavery and Jim Crow is the largest tort in our history and American society is the defendant. If each one of us has to sacrifice just a little to help rectify that legacy, then I think it is worth doing. At the same time, Blacks have got to take responsibility for their lives and mitigate damages (continuing the tort theme) and try to get ahead by playing by the rules.

Basically, it is going to take people like you, Freak, and people like 008 to come to the table and realize that you both have important and correct points of view. You both are going to have to sacrifice a little on your points of view and when we're able to do more, (in the form of eliminating predatory lending; increasing job training; eliminating environmental discrimination; have adequate school - they don't have to be perfect, but damnit it, be adequate; tax credits to business that locate in urban and poorer areas; requiring gang members who are convicted of petty offenses to have their record expaunged if they do a year of an Americorps type program) then progress will ultimately be decided on the personal responsibility of our communities and not the spectre of the past.
YLS c/o 2009

008

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 258
    • View Profile
Re: AA -- Bad for Everyone, Except Unqualified URM's
« Reply #23 on: July 26, 2008, 12:54:45 AM »
I don't know why 'direct result' and '100 years ago' doesn't compute. In the case of First Nations people, 100 years ago - force them into residential schooling where they are made to speak english only, dress and act in a western manner, and any expressions of their heritage is expressly forbidden. Add on top of that consistent sexual and physical abuse. Today - a group which is still in great poverty, marginalized, with large substance abuse problems, and a youth population many who understandably feel no connection to 'white' society and lack linguistic links to their First Nations history.

I think there are quite a few examples of parents not raising their kids, and their kids go on to be successful and vice versa. The biggest indicator of economic success is level of education, imo.

First - you apparently do not know the difference between the words "direct" and "indirect." I hit you and as a direct result you have a bloody nose. Indirectly, you contracted a deadly disease and died from the blood transfusion you received because of the blood running down your face. In between the face strike and the transfusion, something else could have happened to prevent your death. E.g. you could have gone to a different place for the transfusion.

Who do you think most influences a child's choice to obtain a good education? Parents, good thing too, because they have the responsibility. I know exceptions happen and even a 10% exception rate does equal millions of success stories, so yes, quite a few people do succeed despite parental neglect.

It's still the single largest success factor and thus where communities should focus.

 

Directness can always be disputed.  You getting a bloody nose is a direct result of your tissues being too weak, so really, it's your own fault.

how about the but for cause, does that work?
When a candidate faces the voters he does not face men of sense [but] a mob of men whose chief distinguishing mark is the fact that they are quite incapable of weighing ideas men whose whole thinking is done in terms of emotion. As democracy is perfected the White House will be adorned with a moron.

Freak

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 4899
  • What's your agenda?!
    • AOL Instant Messenger - smileyill4663
    • Yahoo Instant Messenger - smileyill
    • View Profile
Re: AA -- Bad for Everyone, Except Unqualified URM's
« Reply #24 on: July 30, 2008, 08:55:41 PM »
     Meggo & dsetterl,

     I would refine your points a little - resources determine education, not just money, but time. I believe parental time plays a more vital role. If parents spend the time to attend PTA meetings, hours nightly helping with homework and attention, their students will succeed barring some mental disorder. I know two teachers well and many others a little. They all tell me that the children whose parent(s) attend PTA meetings do better - much better. Of course not all children whose parents skip do poorly, but you get the point.

    Privates schools seem to do better for two reasons I've seen. First, they operate with less overhead and second they expel rebellious students. I attended one (2 years out of 4 because my folks couldn't afford it each year) which spent about 1/2 per student what the local public high school spent and it produced students with an average ACT score at least 5 points higher. Education is a privilege and should be treated that way by students.

     As for people moving, well good for them, it shows that they have priorities - their children. Of course those communities will do better - and should. In fact I would fault any parent, with the means, who did not remove children from a poor school. Frankly, children have one shot at an education and they do not have the time to wait for school improvement. It's not that expensive. The cost of living is much less in rural areas and the schools are better. I've seen rural 3bdr apartments for under $400/mth.
   

Galt,

     I agree, a huge tort (crime?) occurred, but you named the wrong defendant. The only entity is Government, State or Federal. Unfortunately, they have immunity. I recently wrote a letter to a client explaining that although an ambulance very negligently side-swiped her car as she was pulled over to let it pass, she had no claim because it was an ambulance on official business with immunity. In other words, she had a broken back and no recourse.

     The only other tortfeasors were slaveholders and they're all dead. They owe slaves money for the work they did, but the slaves are all dead too! The law is that only people alive when a tort occurs may collect (so the very next generation could collect against slaveholders' estates). After that, any claim ends. You know why? Because the law likes finality and that's why the Rule against Perpetuities and Statutes of Limitation exist.

     Get this, the US government even negotiated away the rights of POWs forced to serve as slaves in Japan during WWII, for corporations which still exist! Corporations which became wealthy, in part, because of that labor! Further, some of those POWs still live! (last time I checked)

     I'm trying to explain that the tort analogy fails to justify AA. Morally, of course, you still have an argument, but only against people whose ancestors didn't fight for the North in the Civil War, didn't immigrate after Jim Crow laws, and didn't support discrimination. Unless of course, you feel that former US POW slaves in Japan and their ancestors, have a moral right against you.  Unless you feel that you owe the British because you're an American and we stole the 13 colonies from them. After all, they did pay for Manhattan Island and had clear title. (you think our lending practices are bad...)

     Society is made of individuals and blaming them all for the torts/crimes of some ancestors is exactly the same thing as stereotyping blacks.

    Now, you make the point that some blacks need help succeeding. The reasons really do not matter to me. The fact of the matter is that they do. Now, if people do not obtain an education and do not support themselves, it hurts everybody who does. They are more likely to cause problems (you name it - disease, crime, negligence etc.).

    The solution is tricky, very tricky. On the one hand, they clearly need help and self-supporting people can help. On the other hand, the goal is for them to eventually help themselves. Give a man a meal and feed for a day, give him a fishing pole and feed him for a lifetime. Unfortunately, people do not generally like work. The trick is providing tools to those who will work and not motivating them to avoid work. That's why I advocate mandatory training and education (with tests for crying out loud) with any government aid.

     In addition, I would require mandatory budgets...luxuries go bye bye. Just in case you wonder what luxuries are - modern convenience people didn't have 25 years ago - cell phones, laptops, ipods, DVD players, xboxes...mainly entertainment - go play outside, read or learn to read, sell luxuries and do not buy more (how much do painted nails with those special designs cost? I see people at Aldi using food stamps with those nails)... find work and pay taxes so the next child receives a better education.

   
Freak is the best, Freak is the best!  Thank you! Thank you! Thank you!
I don't like calling you Freak, I'd rather call you  Normal Nice Guy.

dsetterl

  • Guest
Re: AA -- Bad for Everyone, Except Unqualified URM's
« Reply #25 on: July 30, 2008, 11:18:51 PM »
 Your argument about rural education being better is ridiculous. So rural West Virginia is the place to be. Where are these people supposed to work once they move there?  Also, it is ridiculous to assume because you know two teachers you have some large grip on the reality of public education. My father is a high school principal, my mom, brother, and sister and sister-in-law  are teachers (all taught at some point in inner-city schools), and my brother-in-law works in College administration. Does that mean that my thoughts are more valid than your's since I know obviously more teachers than you? (Of course not) Obviously, parents have to spend time with children but you don't seem to understand the full picture. People have to work. Additionally, did you know that child that grows up in the ghetto of a place like Memphis, Detroit , or Baltimore can suffer from Post-Traumatic stress syndrome like a returning U.S. soldier from Iraq or Afghanistan?  I didn't make this up, see for yourself:

http://panicdisorder.about.com/od/ptsdbeyond/a/innercityptsd.htm

PTS happens and the fact that some people succeed under these circumstances is amazing. These people grew up in rough environments because (this will blow your mind) lack of money and opportunity to make money. AA is not a waste of time.
 
Also the bit about private schools being cheaper than public and more effective is worthless. Of course public schools are more expensive, private schools don't have to have provide free lunches or busing for students. Did you know that some people don't have time to drive and pick their child up from school, not can they afford to pay for their lunch? Craziness. Also, public schools do expel people from the public school system and then they HAVE to enroll in (Guess what?) a private school or secondary school. I would like to take you seriously about your opinions, but you are seriously misinformed and have made a bunch of incorrect assumptions. I think it is your points that need refining good sir.

Freak

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 4899
  • What's your agenda?!
    • AOL Instant Messenger - smileyill4663
    • Yahoo Instant Messenger - smileyill
    • View Profile
Re: AA -- Bad for Everyone, Except Unqualified URM's
« Reply #26 on: July 31, 2008, 06:15:09 PM »
You're essentially arguing that because some people royally blew it and had children when they lacked the time or money to support those children, other children should suffer the same. Other children with responsible parents, should not have to suffer because those with irresponsible parents do - those who lack the money to buy lunch for their children.

Ask your teacher relatives how students whose parents attend PTA meetings perform. That's the only issue I raised from the teachers I know. If they say the opposite, I will redact my statement.

You ask where people should work.......look at the unemployment rate in rural areas and that in the ghetto...

Freak is the best, Freak is the best!  Thank you! Thank you! Thank you!
I don't like calling you Freak, I'd rather call you  Normal Nice Guy.

dsetterl

  • Guest
Re: AA -- Bad for Everyone, Except Unqualified URM's
« Reply #27 on: July 31, 2008, 08:30:19 PM »
Essentially, it seems like you have a real inability for practicing empathy. Essentially, you are saying that because the parents of these children were irresponsible they don't deserve help to succeed (Am I wrong?).You say that 100 years does not compute and that you are not your great-great grandfather. These children are not necessarily their parents either and should they be held accountable for their parents mistake and should they suffer? Those kids didn't ask to be born into that situation; they just were and it sucks for them.

 And COME ON- In what way did you or your parents really suffer? ::) Does helping other succeed really cause you to suffer soooo much. I don't suffer. In fact, I feel like I could sacrifice a lot more to help others.


What I think should be done:

 I believe all you can really do is take these disadvantaged kids out of those neighborhoods and completely remove the negative environment. That will never happen because it costs too much money and people generally don't give a damn about funding public education.

Back on the PTA meetings:


If those kids parents started going to PTA meetings, I highly doubt that their performance would drastically change. We can both agree that PTA meetings alone are not the answer. We could probably conduct a poll and those parents who attend PTA meetings have a higher household salary and more-than-likely a higher education level as well in the family. Who knows though right?

AS far as rural employment compared to that of the ghetto, it's because no one lives there.  You can't make blanket statements about all rural areas and tote it around like the saving answer. Rural unemployment is rising and highest in the south. I will grant that employment is rising someplace due to an increase of old folks homes and vacation places. I want to know where you are getting these statistics by the way? I looked for them and couldn't find them. I also thought education level was lowest in rural areas with most citizens only having high school educations. Did you even look at that link I sent you? It's based upon census data and is used by many states legislators to write education-based grants and bills.
 

Pattycake

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 7
    • View Profile
Re: AA -- Bad for Everyone, Except Unqualified URM's
« Reply #28 on: August 13, 2008, 01:43:54 AM »
008: Is there such as thing a black perspective? If so, what are they? How are you sure that such perspectives are unique to blacks? Moreover, non of us, black I mean, can be compensated for wrongs done to our ancestors because you and/or I can't be compensated for wrong done to another. If you can prove you've been racially discriminated against, then we can discuss whether you ought to be compensated for said immoral act. However, compensating you for wrong done to another, is asking for a free ride for something you don't deserve. Unfortunately, there is no free ride here. By the way, I'm black.

Pattycake

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 7
    • View Profile
Re: AA -- Bad for Everyone, Except Unqualified URM's
« Reply #29 on: August 13, 2008, 12:23:57 PM »
Why do you end every statement with, "By the way, I'm Black?" That is lame.

I don't want people to think I'm a white, or Asian racist. Personal advice: do not attack me, attack the statements I make; attacking the person in an argument is not an effective strategy in argument, it's a fallacy. Next time, make claims for or against my arguments, not for or against me. Got that? By the way, I'm black.